 |
PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION
Special Meeting M I N U T E S A special meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on March 8, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana. Those members present were Rick Burns, Tim Cole, Robert Detert, Commissioner Bob Harper, Todd Hutson, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read, Rita Stevenson and Kevin Breitzke, President. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Attorney Scott McClure, Patricia S. Gibson and Fred Siminski. Old Business: Case 04-MP-1. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 311, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed Unified Development Ordinance. At this time, Mr. Thompson presented a power point presentation of the changes in Draft D. Alan Hewitt, 62 E. 950 N., Chesterton. I appreciate your consideration for my request for agricultural zoning. I submitted some pictures of my residence and my neighbor up the road and he hasn’t requested AG zoning. If you look at the photos carefully you will see that he is definitely agriculture and if you look closely you will see that he has some outdoor storage. That is one issue that I still have in RR and R-1. You need to have some provision. Farmers are going to have some outdoor storage. Also, with fences. I think that woven wire fence should be in too. Mr. Hewitt commented that you are required by law that to install a fence if your neighbor installs half the fence. Stephanie Wicke, 171 W. 700 N. Under Erosion control on the plan. You use the word shall make a plan in the General Plan. Under the temporary you use the term should and may. It is the temporary that is the problem. Specifically, on page 725, 7, F. 1-c. It requires sediment control devices put be implemented prior to beginning of construction. But it doesn’t put in the same specific requirement prior for the runoff control. Possibly you could add that to Section 2 B. Another issue is that you are recommending that all new development should probably be done in R-2 not in the RR or the R-1. She asked is that correct? She would also like to remain A-1. She agrees that working equipment can stay outdoors. Concerning accessory structures limited to three in RR, if a person has ten acres or more that is kind of restrictive. She likes the percentage of the total space but you should also look at percentage for the property as well. She has a problem with the 40% max. If there are environmentally protected areas that actually incorporate more than 40% max of a developers land, you are basically saying under this ordinance that it is okay to destroy it even though they have to protect the 100%. If you are saying if it exceeds 40% you don’t have to, that worries her. Next concern is Park Areas. There are two Girl Scout camps in her area. There are subdivisions very likely to come up around them. She asked is there protection there to protect the Girl Scout camps. Finally, you recommend the reason that you are doing this is to protect our area. She recommends that the Plan Commission consider that for those of us that have larger lots of land that meet the requirement of A-1 and A-2 standards that you allow them a short period of time if you can get two contiguous property owners to agree to rezone to A-1. Barney Michaels, 919 N. 150 W. Mr. Michaels would like to have his 65 acres zoned agricultural. Valerie Drummond, 138 W. 150 N. She commends the changes. She has one concern and that is with broad RR and R-1. Her interpretation of that is that there won’t be as many requests for zoning changes. She is wondering how control will be kept for subdivisions and just like a blank check for subdivisions. J.F. Schrader, 978 Meridian Rd. He turned in a request for agricultural rezoning. Mr. Schrader believes that all the land around him should be agricultural too. He is concerned about page 714 Chapter C. He believes that if it is a regulated drain the setbacks have already been established and the less easement that you have under the regulated drain is 25-feet. In the UDO it says 20-feet. Don Tracy, 163 W. 850 N. Mr. Tracy wished the County luck on the new UDO. Jan Mise, 332 S. 300 W. She is concerned about horses and building of agricultural buildings to house the horses and to use for riding arena’s. Neil Landgrebe, 160 Joliet Rd. His concerns are policing the county. He is concerned on the roads and the new subdivisions that are coming in and the traffic on the county roads. He is also concerned about the schools. Tim Chesna, 550 E. 150 N. He is concerned about the open space ordinance that is already in place. He is concerned that now you are going to take the retention areas and the water areas and only count them as 50%. He feels that this should be taken out. He also feels that if you live in a subdivision you should be able to complain about a farmer. He feels you should have the right to remonstrate whether it is a farmer. Katherine Hale, 849 N. Calumet Ave. She stated she just noticed that her property that used to be rural residential is now R-1. She feels that leaving this property as R-1 you are opening the door for a denser development, which is going to change the entire complex of this area. It should go back to RR. Dean Bucher, 179 Buckskin Lane. There are two things that he would like the Commission to consider. One is on the R-1 District. He appreciates being able to do the septic systems, but he thinks going to a 100-foot width is a little extreme. He suggests going to the one acre, but the 100-foot width is kind of limiting that area. The other concern is on the rural residential. He still thinks that the maximum impervious surface coverage of 15% is possibly a little light. He thinks that it should be 20% or 25%. Lewis Haas, 260 W. 875 N. He asked how long does a person have to change his zoning. When is the deadline? Gary Green, 250 Whitethorne. Mr. Green feels that it would be a mistake to take out the PUD ordinance. Neil Mellengraft, 322 N. 250 W. He is concerned on the fence and wall standards. Under G, fence permit, the part about the farming exemption is not there. He is also concerned about some of the zoning on Tower Road. Some of the property on Tower Road just south of SR 130 there is R-1 now and the new map is showing R-2. Just above to the right of the railroad tracks Hunter’s Point is now R-2 instead of R-1. Melinda Hawkins, 161 W. 700 N. Her family owns a farm on CR 1000 N. On the new maps it is zoned RR and R-1. Her father wants that zoned agricultural. She also disagrees with limiting the accessory structures to only three. She also disagrees with the outdoor storage of equipment because sometimes it is necessary to do. Ned Kovachevich, 259 Danica Dr. He asked are you going to make the individuals in subdivisions that were already approved on septics hire a licensed engineer to tell you that they are not within so many feet of a sewer. Mr. Thompson stated as far as outdoor storage, this will have to go to the Plan Commission for their decision on whether or not they want. As far as fences, woven wire, four-foot, that can be easily placed in if the Plan Commission so decides. State Statute on line where both parties must share the cost. That is a State Statute and I don’t know if we get into quoting a number of State Statute’s and our attorney is shaking his head “no.” On the height of the fence, I guess I will agree with Mr. Hewitt it should stay four-feet for the fence. I will ask the Plan Commission to give consideration for to that along with the woven wire. I would like the erosion control numbers and items from Stephanie Wicke. My interpretation of the R-2 zoning is that we do have R-2 zoning out there now. Don’t get this confused that this is a Two-Family Residential District. It is not. It is a Single Family Residential District but it has requirements for municipal services. I guess the area that we placed it at goes up along the Salt Creek Corridor. We were looking at the idea of following our Comprehensive Plan, our long range planning. Our Comprehensive Plan does talk about trying to focus the development next to the existing towns and cities for the purposes of using the municipal services. That is what that R-2 zoning is there for. The number of accessory structures on the parcel. He stated right now I think that this is going equivalent to what we have right now. If not it is probably easier than what we have because the maximum number is 1300 square feet for subdivisions. In the rural areas it might be one, two or three acres and this goes up to 1300 square feet or it even has a formula in there to allow for a percentage of the lots. As the lot size increases so does the accessory structure. Here again, I will ask the Plan Commission on what their opinion is on that. If it comes up under State Statute there is always the provision under the 900 Series of the 3674 Code Chapter in there, which is the Planning and Zoning section that does allow a citizen to come in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals and request a variance from these standards if there is truly a hardship or a need. This document does provide for that and State Statute does provide for that. In regards to the Open Space 40% max, we are allowing someone to go in and take out environmental features. We had a committee on this and this is what came out of that committee. We want to encourage 100% preservation of the environmental features but recognizing that someone does have rights to the land and rights to develop that we capped it at 40%. The Girl Scout Camps needing protection, we did zone it P-1 or P-2. If anything comes in next to that everybody will now be well aware of that zoning designation and what is there. I think it does offer protection in the fact that we are offering notification right up front on the zoning maps showing those locations. Mr. Michaels is requesting his 65 acres A-1 in Liberty Township. I do now have that up on the map for the Plan Commission members consideration. Mr. Schrader requesting for agriculture and he pointed those two parcels out. I do have those now on the maps. As far as Mr. Schrader’s comment that any parcel of land that is being used for agriculture should be zoned agricultural. I am going to disagree with that. There are a number of people in the areas that are agricultural zoning that want residential zoning. If those people who want the agricultural zoning they need to notify me to at least put it up on the map so that way the Plan Commission can take consideration and if this is adopted as is there are provisions within this code that allows a citizen to come in and make application to do a zoning map amendment. Mrs. Mise had a question on horses. One of the Plan Commission meetings that we had the Plan Commission instructed me to not regulate private ownership of horses, however, we are regulating the commercial part of it. If someone has a boarding industry where they are boarding horses for commercial purposes we do still have that and we have that regulation in today and it is being proposed in this new code. There were a couple of provisions with the private ownership and it was just mainly that the people had to have at least two acres in which a certain amount of square footage is at least left for the yard to protect the well and the septic field. Mr. Landgrebe spoke about man power in enforcement. That is an issue that would have to be taken up with County Council and the County Commissioners. Mr. Chesna had comments on the retention and detention areas. That I have to ask the Plan Commission to give consideration. In regards to people not being able to complain about the farmer, asking to allow the right to remonstrate against the farmer, here again I think that is something that needs to be taken up by the Plan Commission. The whole idea about the agricultural disclosure was for new residential that is coming in next the agricultural areas and it is more a notification that the farmer was there first and notifying these people that they are coming into this area. Mrs. Hale was requesting that her side of Calumet was zoned RR previously and it is now R-1 and she wants it zoned back to RR. I would have to look at that. I am looking at the 1983 Master Plan. Mrs. Hale do you live on the East side or West side of Calumet. Mrs. Hale stated East side. Mr. Thompson stated I will look at that because the 1983 does show it as RR. I will ask the Plan Commission to give consideration to that. Mr. Bucher requested you to look at the idea of going from the lot width on R-1 for septic from 160 down to 100 feet. Currently in the R-1 district as we have now if you do have septics it is 100 feet. In the RR, he thought 15% was still a little too light and he requested to go to 20%. This is something I have to ask the Plan Commission members to give consideration. The current for RR I do believe is 20%. Mr. Haas requested his parcel of land from R-1 to A-1 District. I would have to find out from Mr. Haas where that parcel of land is. Mr. Green requested consideration for the PUD and that goes to the Plan Commission for consideration. Mr. Molengraft requested that agricultural permit for fencing be exempted. I would give consideration to it. Right now we don’t require permits but we have had problems in the past where agricultural fences have all of a sudden popped up within a couple of feet of the road. It is an argument with our Engineering Department to try to get those fences backed off a little bit. So one of the things we were talking about was the possibility of having this as a permit so we can at least review where these are going. The R-2 on CR 250 W. for Hunter’s Point I would have to look at that. If that is zoned R-2 then it was a mistake. I would have to get with Ms. Hawkins to find out where her father’s property is at. She disagrees with the number of structures and with outdoor storage. That I would have to ask the Plan Commission to give consideration to. Mr. Kovachevich asked about the existing subdivisions approved for the use of septic fields and wells and septics. If they are already recorded showing soil borings or if are recorded in place and they had the approval by the Plan Commission for septic fields they will continue to be approved for septic fields. This is just applied for new future developments coming on. The existing subdivisions that were approved for septics would stay for septics as long as they have the proper documentation from the Health Department showing that they can put a septic field on that parcel of land. Mr. Hewlett stated I noticed in R-1 there is no storage in agricultural products. I don’t know if that was an oversight. If there is a farmer in R-1 and they need to put up a corn crib or whatever they need that provision put in there. Valerie Drummond stated I have asked earlier, the BZA has the function of approving and disapproving zone changes etc. and approving and disapproving subdivisions. My questions was for all of that R-1 all of the RR then how will control be held if it is already R-1. Mr. Chesna stated a lot of questions have been raised tonight to the Board and I really think that we need to go back and look at this a little bit further. The open space ordinance when it was enacted they said that it wasn’t perfect but they had time to go back and look at it and I guarantee it hasn’t been looked at once. I think we do need time to go back and look at this. I think that we need more study sessions for the public to look at this. Mrs. Wicke stated I think what I have read is great and I actually applaud that open space and I wish it was more. With the changes that you have brought in tonight I like what you are proposing and I think it is time to get it in. Mr. Kovachevich stated am I to understand that these proposes and amendments that Bob went over tonight are going to be incorporated into the new draft and sent to the Board of Commissioners. Mr. Breitzke stated the answer to that question is yes. We are allowing the public comment and are trying to bring everything to daylight. That is our intent. Mr. Mullengraft thanked everyone for being here and showing an interest in your government in action. I would also like to acknowledge the amount of work that Mr. Thompson has done on this project. He has been very dedicated and practically saintly in his efforts. He stated it is all a matter of education. I am hoping that the newspapers here and I wish that there were regular T.V. here would somehow or another get the message across to all the people in the county that you have got to take an interest in your government. Mr. Schrader stated there were three pieces of land included that we were asking to be rezoned to agricultural. I would like to have Mr. Thompson include them. Mr. Breitzke stated we will be taking a break and I would like anyone who is interested in that to meet with Mr. Thompson concerning this. Commissioner Harper stated if the Board would approve tonight that we approve rezoning any area that wants to back to agricultural and give him a week for people to contact him we could do something like that, couldn’t we? Then he would have it ready to present to the Commissioners. Mr. Breitzke stated that is my intent and if the paper would carry that message. Mr. Thompson stated my only question is would be to Scott and that is if anyone does come up here I would like to get it on the map as a matter of record for tonight. Commissioner Harper stated okay, but if they don’t get it tonight they would have a week to get a hold of you before it came to the Commissioners. We could make the motion that way. Mr. Thompson stated R-1, storage of agricultural products, that very well could be an oversight. I would ask that consideration be given towards that. The minimum acreage on that in one sense I was looking at definitions of farms and I asked Mr. Mullengraft to look into some definitions and I even got some definitions. I don’t know if I want to include an acreage with a farm mainly because somebody brought to the attention a hobby farm could also be just a couple of acres where they just have one acre or a little orchard or vineyard. I don’t know if I want to get involved with the idea of tagging an acreage amount to a farm. I think it is a great idea of providing screening and it is probably something that could be worked out. I want to explain Draft D and I want to throw in the comments that Tim Chesna brought on this. I am just going to give a brief history on this. In June 2001 we approved the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and immediately we started in with the committee to start looking at the idea of going forward with the codes. At that time it was Commissioner Burrus who was spearheading that and I had a couple other Plan Commission members sit with us on that. In October or November of 2001 everybody knows what happen with the bankruptcy of Bethlehem Steel. All of this got put on the back burner. Finally, we got around with some money where we were able to go forward with this. In 2004 we finally signed a contract with Ground Rules. We have been working at this for better than two and a half years. We had a number of public hearings trying to reach out and I know people are saying that they didn’t know about this. Well, we tried to use the media and I apologize if it didn’t get out but I do use the media extensively to try to get the word out. Everyone says to put notices in tax statements but the problem with that is, I will give an example of myself. My tax bills are paid by my mortgage company through the escrow account. So that doesn’t necessarily get out to everybody. We have had numerous meetings in this two and a half years on this topic. Draft D has been on the website and again I have tried to use the media to notify people that this Draft D was on and it has been on since before Thanksgiving for people to view and look at. We have also had copies in the office. The reason why Draft D is coming up is because these changes that we are going over and that I put up on the screen the Plan Commission members instructed me to go back and put these in. Ground Rules Inc., from Indianapolis, who was hired to do this work for us took these changes and were going to show them but instead saying Draft D and lets consider these changes they went ahead and started doing Draft E for us. So that is where the Draft E comes about. If these changes are approved, then yes it will be considered Draft E by Ground Rules with these changes on it if the Plan Commission votes on it. If the Plan Commission decides not to vote on these changes, we are still on Draft D. A lot of these changes came from public suggestions. Mrs. Drummond’s comment as far as the BZA, the BZA reviews special exceptions, use variances and variances. It is the Plan Commission that does look at the approval of subdivisions. She asked how do we have control. This whole document is full of controls for subdivisions. Mr. Mullengraft I appreciate those kind words and it is people such as yourself that I do remember and I really appreciate hearing those words. Mr. Breitzke stated I would also like to emphasis that we have had Draft D on the website. It is on the porterco.org website. You have to go to “Departments” and then to “Plan Commission” and to the Plan Commission’s website. I would also like to thank Fred Siminski and Jim from my office. Bob and I worked with them to draft and recreate the original zoning maps, figure out how zoning got to what it actually is, redefine the lines and that was about a two year process because we kept finding problems here and there. The representation of the zoning reflects the zoning from 1983 and before. What you saw as rural residential in Jackson Township for whatever reason was all rural residential and no agriculture. In spite of the use, that is the way it was zoned. Mr. Thompson stated this area in here was displayed as being R-1 and by the 1983 map it was RR. That was a mistake on our part. The intention was to keep the existing RR and R-1 areas the same. I sketched this area out along in here maybe to RR. This area would still would have been R-1 and I was just thinking to go ahead and extend it over to the 49 ByPass since the 49 ByPass does present kind of a barrier in that sense. This area here was a request for A-1 zoning in here. Another parcel of land came in here as A-1 as a request. Mr. Mullengraft, I do see Hunter’s Point as R-1 and Cherry Hill is R-2 because they are putting in municipal services and they are proposing the 11,000 square feet lots. Mr. Burns stated I just want to address a couple of issues. First of all was the storage tanks in AG from 500 gallon to 1000 gallon. I don’t have a problem with that. Farm equipment stored outside, equipment for parts. We need to come up with some kind of a happy medium, maybe equipment that sits over six months to get parts. Dean Bucher mentioned the house coverage on one acre at 15%. I do agree with that. That should be increased and I think maybe 20% is a good number. Mr. Detert stated I went over this today and I didn’t see anything that I didn’t like. I guess one of the problems that I have is I am getting very frustrated because Bob and I were talking today and we have been fooling around with this change for many years. We have been talking about doing something with our ordinance. I think know matter how many public hearings we have we are always going to have additional thoughts and additional people coming in who weren’t here before. At this point, I am ready to send what we have to the Commissioners with the changes. I might suggest that the Plan Commission set up a committee with two or three people to go over some of the things that were spoken to tonight for a possible amendment. Mr. Hutson stated I would like to thank Bob Thompson for his work. We have been to three Farm Bureau meetings. I appreciate the agricultural community coming out and really putting in a lot of input to this plan. I just want to make sure that we address some of Mr. Hewitt’s changes with the woven fences and so forth and to increase the height to four feet. If we get this committee set up, maybe we can explore the outdoor storage some screening and so forth. I have looked at some of Stephanie’s erosion control additions. Maybe someone else will comment on that. They seem like logical additions to the erosion control practices that we have. She may be correct. Maybe we don’t necessarily have to have a maximum on the green space. Maybe we could leave that open. I love the agricultural disclosure that we have in there. Mrs. Stevenson stated I am kind of the new kid on the block here. I don’t know…I am not as well versed as everybody on the Plan Commission. So a lot of it I have to depend on studying and reading everything, talking and listening to all the input on the Plan Commission and listening to the audience. A lot of it is common sense. I just want to thank everybody that has put their knowledge and their information together and their concerns together. I am ready for this and I want to move on and make some changes. Mr. Cole stated I am in complete agreement with all the changes that we have agreed to through Bob tonight. I think we do need to move ahead with this. There is one thing I do have a question on is cemetery’s to institutional. Does that include all cemetery’s including the little two and three plot ones. There really aren’t protected historic cemetery’s in many cases and at least putting them under an institutional zoning or an exclusive zoning gives them at least notoriety. Cemetery’s are in danger throughout the State of Indiana. Many of them have been uprooted and some have become parking lots. I would hate to think that any of the historic cemeteries in Porter County would ever enter into that. The PUD is something that we will have to discuss in the future. I have no intention of holding up this ordinance for the benefit of developers who want to go back to a PUD that has essentially caused us problems in the past. We do have traditional neighborhood development and we do have special exceptions and variances that are all provisionary for any development could enter into the original intention of the PUD but that is for a future discussion. We discussed the 15% pervious area at another meeting and I think we pretty much agreed on that 15% at that time. I think 15% is sufficient. Mr. Read stated with regard to the areas in red that have been proposed for amendments I have trouble with only one of them and that is the utility standards on page 7-63, which would permit septic tanks and wells on large subdivision because it doesn’t restrict it. Now this was a proposal by the developers and I can understand their reason why they want it. We sit here twice a month with a proposal for a 50 or 100 house subdivision and there are people out there citizens who live around that area who say “no” that they don’t want this big subdivision on septic tank and well two or three or four miles from the city. We have to listen to them too. Since 2001 our Master Plan has recommended against big subdivisions far out and encourages ones closer in. This would reverse that. It would encourage far out subdivisions on septic tank because it is always cheaper to put a subdivision on septic tank and well than it is to run sewers to or three miles out from Valparaiso or wherever. So I am opposed to this. Mrs. Marshall stated I would like to thank everybody who worked so hard on this and also the people that have participated from Porter County. They have brought a lot of valuable information and concerns and it is nice to see a big crowd. I think that the PUD is still to be discussed even though I know it has been taken out. The ordinance may not be perfect but it is a big step in the right direction. We should encourage that everybody be treated the same. We cannot have selective enforcement. I think that this is important that everybody has to follow the rules and if we lay down rules here at the Plan Commission we need to follow those things to have them in place so we have all the information to make an informed decision of what we do. I am very pleased with what has been done. Commissioner Harper stated I just have a few quick things. I hope that what we do tonight if we pass this that we do make provision that those people who have not yet contacted Bob that want to have their land down zoned from RR or R-1 to Agriculture that they be given a time window to get a hold of him and do that. The other thing I want to say is this will be a great step forward and I think it has also been holding us back and the sooner it gets done the better. Once we pass this that is not the end of the story. We have made major changes in our zoning ordinance while working on this ordinance. Those changes have been the green space ordinance, the drainage ordinance, the storm sewer ordinance, having DLZ review or some engineer review drainage plans that came up and we have rezoned a lot of pieces of property. Once you pass an ordinance you can do a lot of other things and we have done these. I want to see us get something in place and we can continue to work on it. Mr. Breitzke stated this is a dynamic document. This is constantly changing. In spite of the fact that a lot of people have invested a lot of time in it I hope that we are in agreement that we are not going to take it so personally that we can’t change it. Sometimes it needs to be changed to reflect the changes of the needs of our citizens. Also, these ordinances are subject to variances. If somebody has a reasonable request that is a possibility in most cases with these ordinances. Attorney McClure stated what we will be doing is taking the proposed additions that Bob went over and vote on whether to include them in this draft or not to include them. Then we will vote on the draft, which will be a ballot vote. Mr. Thompson stated in Chapter 2 add all of the items for farm production that were highlighted in red in your copies and only item that would be in question was the 15% or the 20%. Mr. Detert moved to accept 20%. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - No Detert - Yes Mr. Thompson stated in R-1 we would add all of the agricultural crop production as mentioned and there was one item that was not on this and that is the storage of agricultural produce. Mr. Detert moved to include the changes with the addition of the storage of produce. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Mr. Thompson stated going to Chapter 3, Arterial Roadway Standards and that request was for the signage on materials on page 3-13, materials for sign shall be materials such as brick, stone or decorative block for the base of the sign. Mr. Burns moved to approve the changes Mr. Thompson went over in Chapter 3, page 3-13 for the signage materials. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Mr. Thompson stated next is the Scenic Roadway Overlay District. There were two changes in that. One would be the setback with the State Highway being 100 feet and all county roads or all other roads would be 50 feet. Then there was the sign standards for ground signs the architectural requirement to compliment the building and also the use of decorative block, stone or brick. Mr. Burns moved to approve the changes in the Scenic Roadway Overlay District. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Mr. Thompson stated next is Accessory Structure Standards. This one is to the agricultural exemptions, which is under Chapter 5, 5.06, Maximum Number, number 4, Accessory structures used strictly for agricultural purposes are exempt form this regulation. Also the Appearance section of this, Accessory structures used strictly for agricultural purposes are exempt from this regulation. Mrs. Marshall asked will they require a building permit for agricultural? Mr. Thompson stated yes. Mr. Burns asked is there a restriction on height? Mr. Thompson stated grain elevators are exempt. That is in the general description in the very front. The height of the accessory structure is a good point. It is more towards the residential side so you might want to consider the idea of accessory structures height in the agricultural area. The accessory structure height in the A-2 district is at 60 feet and the A-1 district is at 60 feet. Accessory structure height in R-1 is 20 feet and the accessory structure height in RR is 20 feet. If you want to add a statement onto the RR and R-1 for agricultural building height, it will be your decision. Mr. Burns stated you could leave it up to the committee. Mrs. Marshall asked why is that a question? Have we had a problem with that? Mr. Thompson stated in the residential and the R-1 districts I can’t think of a problem where that has come up with someone coming in wanting a pole building with the height of a structure. Mrs. Marshall stated in a subdivision the covenants would restrict even having an accessory building. Mr. Burns stated there is one that I can think of in Union Township the large horse arena that they had to take down. Mr. Burns moved to approve the changes but to have the committee look into the height of accessory structures excluding silos. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Mr. Burns moved to change this from five-hundred (500) gallon to one-thousand (1000) gallons. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion. Mrs. Marshall stated I don’t see anything in this chapter for the removal of the tanks. If you have any kind of container or any kind of hazardous material on your property at one time you had to register here in Porter County. Is that still the same. Mr. Thompson stated I want to say yes and that is with HazMat. I can double check on that. Mr. Breitzke stated we could have the committee work on the verbiage of this. Mr. Burns made the motion, do you agree? Mr. Burns stated yes I would include in my motion to have the committee work on the verbiage. Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Mr. Thompson stated next is Fence and Wall Standards within Chapter 5. Under Acceptable materials, Mr. Hewitt is asking for us to give consideration of woven wire as permitted for agricultural only. Also, under Prohibitions, to add barbed wire and electrified wire except for agricultural and livestock purposes. Also, it was mentioned that if the primary structure was not on the parcel of land the requirement was for a three foot fence and the standard was four foot fence. Our standard right now is four foot fence. Mrs. Marshall asked could they go for a variance if four feet is not good enough. Mr. Thompson stated yes. Mr. Burns moved to approve woven wire fencing for agricultural uses only and to add barbed wire and electrified wire fences for agricultural and livestock purposes. Also, where no primary structure exists on the lot, the fence or wall shall not exceed four feet in height. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Mr. Thompson stated next is Setback Standards. With the Waterside Setback with the request to add item c, so the structures do not impede the view of the lake from adjacent lakefront lots. Mr. Detert stated that language is actually in our ordinance now. Commissioner Harper moved to approve the change in the Waterside Setback, item c. Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Mr. Thompson stated next is Sexually Oriented Business Standards with the Sexually Oriented Media. The change is removal of the commercial zoning districts and leaving it as just I-1, I-2 and I-3. Mr. Cole moved to approve. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Mr. Thompson stated next is Utility Standards zoning districts that do not require sewers on-site waste treatment systems shall only be considered for development if the base zoning district allows on-site waste treatment systems and the cumulative cost to install sanitary sewers to each lot in the two times (2X) figuration to prove it is unfeasible to bring sanitary sewers in. Mr. Burns moved to approve. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Mr. Thompson stated next is the Open Space Standards. The request is that Man-made Water Features be only counted towards fifty percent (50%) of the minimum open space requirements. The depths shall be delineated on plans and maintained for man-made water feature and detention facilities as constructed according to the open space ordinance shall only count for fifty percent (50%) also. Commissioner Harper moved to approve. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Mr. Thompson stated next is Perimeter Landscaping Standards. The minimum depth of the perimeter landscaping shall be twenty-five (25) feet and it can count towards twenty-five percent (25%) of the minimum open space. Commissioner Harper moved to approve. Mr. Read seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Mr. Thompson stated next is the Conservation Subdivision. The request came in that the minimum right-of-way for all streets be sixty (60) feet, minimum pavement widths be twenty-four (24) feet with no curbs and twenty-eight (28) feet with ribbon curbs. Mr. Burns moved to approve. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Commissioner Harper moved to approve. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Mr. Detert moved to approve. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Mr. Thompson stated under Chapter 10, Subdivision Control, General, to allow the use of agricultural use disclosure statement on plats and deeds and also to allow for the subdivision exemption of land in the A-1 zoning district as written. Commissioner Harper moved to approve. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Mr. Thompson stated I skipped one in Chapter 5, which is the Temporary Use and Structure Standards for residential area for the provisions of temporary use for the inflatable projection screens. Mr. Burns moved to approve. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Discussion: Mr. Read stated I have one more request. The Isaak Walton League owns a portion of ten acres along County Line Road, which I would like to see as P-1. How do I go about that? Mr. Thompson asked could you request the motion to consider that and give me the legal description so we can get it on the map. Mr. Burns stated I would like to make that part of the motion too. Motion also includes a request to change the zoning for the Isaak Walton League on County Line Road to P-1. Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Mr. Detert moved to approve the overlay maps as presented. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Mr. Detert moved to approve the UDO Ordinance with the items presented individually and that those items be incorporated into the submission to the Commissioners. Further, I would propose that items that may be in error be corrected by our Director prior to submittal to the Commissioners. Additionally, our Director is authorized to make adjustments to anyone desiring to downgrade their properties to a lower zoning classification. This is a living document which, I hope, will be updated periodically and included in this motion is that the Plan Commission set up a three (3) person committee to review items brought to our attention and provide their recommendations to the Plan Commission for possible amendment. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes This will be heard by the County Commissioners on April 17, 2007 at approximately 6:30 p.m. It was determined that the three person committee will be Rick Burns, Bob Detert and Kevin Breitzke. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
PORTER COUNTY S/ Kevin D. Breitzke, President Attest: Robert W. Thompson Jr. AICP, Executive Director/County Planner |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
March 8, 2007