 |
PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting M I N U T E S The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, March 14, 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, and Kevin D. Breitzke, President. Those members absent were Rita Stevenson. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Attorney Scott McClure and Patricia S. Gibson. Mr. Detert moved to waive the reading of the February 8, 2007 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Detert moved to waive the reading of the February 28, 2007 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Breitzke stated there are some cases that will be continued this evening. First Case 07-FP-3. At this time, Mr. Thompson read a letter from Attorney Todd Leeth who represents Yellowstone Development Corp. They are asking for a continuance. Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 07-FP-3 to the March 28, 2007 meeting. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Breitzke stated also Case 07-P-8, petition of Steven Pluta. Greg Babcock stated they are asking for a continuance because they just recently discovered that all of the members did not receive the primary plat drawing. Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 07-P-8 to the May 9, 2007 meeting. Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.
Case 07-DP-1. Petition of St. Iakovos Greek Orthodox Church, 38 W. 700 N., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking development review for a new church complex, to be located at 38 W. 700 N., in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana. (Property is zoned R-1. Con’t from 2-28-07 mtg.) John Christos stated I am the President of the Parish. Jim Perkins stated I hope everyone received their plans. We talked a little bit about what additionally may go on with the site. One additional building would go up in this area here, which is also going to be for the present time the septic area. We can’t do anything in that area until sewer and water is run to the site. Also, from a financial standpoint chances of using that area is probably nil for at least minimum five years. I would also like to mention that we have a bio-retention system working here, which has been promoted throughout the county. All of this area is in native grass and wildflowers. The water from this development over here is exited into this area to a channel and built up in this area and flows through a small wetland and then we are digging a pond in this area. It filters through here and into a pipe to another channel here and it goes into a pond that will go up slightly then down slightly and then exit out under CR 50 W. We are way over capacity for detention. As far as the area to the south, I showed on there the road extension in this area here and it will extend only at this point for the pipe easement. I really don’t know what is going to go on back there. The drainage easement alone in that southern area is almost five acres. That is excluding the setbacks all the way around the property. We are probably in the range of 45% to 50% of this will be green forever, even after we do some additional development. Mr. Burns asked what type of future development are you talking about. Mr. Perkins stated it is a multi purpose building. As far as the other area, we would still have to come back to the Commission for any other building. The Commission still has absolute control over anything else we would do in there. Mr. Burns stated I still have the same concern. I don’t have a problem with the church but I do have a concern with your future development because you have all residential in that area. You are talking about a large complex here with a lot of traffic. Mr. Perkins stated it will not be like a shopping center with a lot of traffic. Mr. Burns stated we envision a neighborhood church when we approved this at the BZA. We didn’t anticipate a large complex when we approved this. Mr. Detert stated I have the same concern because we had no idea at the BZA that you were planning a school. I am okay with the church. Mr. Burns stated this is much more than a church. Mr. Christos stated that churches are allowed in R-1. We are not asking for anymore than the church and an educational building. This future development may or may not happen depending on what the future needs of the community are. Mr. Detert stated we all realize that but we are uncomfortable with what we might be opening this up to. We didn’t realize that you had such a major holding on land when we were at the BZA but that had nothing to do with what we were doing at BZA. Now we are looking at something different. Mr. Christos stated it is still thirty acres and it is a big parcel and it is zoned R-1 at this point. We have spent probably three quarter of a million dollars out there already. Mr. Detert stated I think that the people here consider this a residential area and may not mind just a church but I don’t think they want to change this. It looks like your grandeur plans for the future may change this whole neighborhood. Mr. Breitzke asked how many people are here to support the church. There was a large show of hands from the audience. Mr. Breitzke asked are there people from the neighborhood here as well? There were none. Steve Paul asked what is the difference between our building and St. Paul or Emmanuel Lutheran who have a church and a gymnasium in that community. Mr. Hutson stated for your current proposal what is your maximum parking that you will have out there. Mr. Perkins stated 88 cars.
Mr. Hutson asked the services that you hold out there is this going to be a daily max parking and will there be cars going in and out during the day or during the week. Mr. Christos stated right now we are holding services on Sunday morning. During Lent and Holy Week the services are week nights and Saturday and Sundays. It is generally on Sundays and some after school night activities for the kids. Maybe some adult studies and maybe a Greek school, which will not be that big. Mr. Hutson asked will the building be behind the hill. Mr. Perkins stated we will be taking three or four feet off the hill. He stated the distance from the road to the church is about 150-feet to 180-feet. Mr. Cole stated you will have to come back here if you decide to do anything else. You are here for a church tonight. As far as future development here, you have no crystal ball. What about lighting? Mr. Christos stated whatever the requirement is. Mr. Read stated I have no objection to the church. The big area to the south and to the east we all agree that whatever you do down there you will be coming back to the Plan Commission in the future for whatever plans you have. We can either say yes or no or modify. Mr. Christos stated correct. Mr. Read stated the building to the west of the church overlaps some of your treatment plant. So that would only go in if you get sewer and water. Is that correct? Mr. Christos stated correct. Mr. Read asked you are not asking approval for the future building? Mr. Christos stated correct. Mr. Read stated the building to the south of the church, the administrative center are you asking for approval for that tonight? Mr. Christos stated yes. We are asking for approval for the church and the square building.
Mr. Read asked does the parking spaces include both the church and this second building. Mr. Perkins stated yes. Mr. Read stated that is 88 parking spaces for the church and this educational building. Mr. Perkins stated correct. Mr. Read stated as I recall from our last meeting you were ask to come back and clearly outline the green space area. I don’t see any reference to it on these drawings. Mr. Perkins stated the green space is all the area that is shown within our property lines that is not covered with parking, buildings, walks or anything of that nature. Mr. Read stated that is fine. I would assume that this would not include this future building where you now have green. Mr. Perkins stated yes, we have green there now. Mr. Read stated I want you to if you do get approval to go ahead, this has to be identified on the plat as permanent green space and there is certain wording that has to go with that. Mr. Breitzke stated there is a disconnect here. You have green areas that potentially may be built on. What I think Herb is asking for is a commitment of some permanence for the green space. That is not part of our open space ordinance since this is not a residential subdivision or development, but we can certainly ask for a commitment for an area to stay green. We want to make it clear on what we are asking. Mr. Read stated I am looking for the same type of commitment we have on residential areas. Mr. Breitzke stated that would be 20%. Mr. Read stated all I want to do is to make sure that the area you promising to the public and to the community will be green and will remain green. Mr. Breitzke stated one of the things I will be asking you to do is to commit your whole parcel to what is call “Institutional Zoning.” It is a new designation but it is meant more for cemetery’s, schools, for public buildings and for churches.
Mr. Christos stated there is almost five acres on the south side of the property that is a drainage easement already. We could never build in there. Mr. Read stated that is not part of our discussion. The stuff to the south and southeast is not part of the discussion. I am referring to the area that is shown on the map that is up before us. Mr. Breitzke asked would this help if Scott and Bob got together and it sounds like they are willing to commit to green space. It is the definition of green space. At this time, there was a discussion concerning the green space. Mrs. Marshall stated I think that you have done your research and so I think that realize that you have outgrown the church that you have here in the City. I have no problem with this. The only thing that I would like to ask is the drainage that goes out to the road from that little pond up there. Where does that go? Mr. Perkins stated it goes under CR 50. Mrs. Marshall asked have you done the calculations on that. Mr. Perkins stated yes. Mrs. Marshall stated I personally don’t have a problem with this church establishing at this location. Commissioner Harper asked what were you saying about Institutional zoning. Mr. Breitzke stated with our new UDO we created a zoning… Commissioner Harper stated I understand that but this isn’t zoned… Mr. Breitzke stated this is not zoned this way yet. What I am requesting is that they be willing to, if we past this…
Mr. Detert asked do you agree with keeping 20% of your total property green. If you come back to this Board at some future time you could make part of that the 20%. What we are voting on tonight would you agree to 20% open space if it was swappable at some future date on what you want to do with the rest of your property. Mr. Christos stated yes, definitely. Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 07-DP-1 with the condition that 20% of the property will remain open and green and it is swappable at some future date. Mrs. Marshall seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Burns asked explain the 20% again. Mr. Breitzke stated they are committing to a conservation easement in my mind that they can show Mr. Thompson, Mr. McClure or Mr. Elwood that there is a commitment for a green easement that would be of record. Mr. Burns asked so on this proposal will be 20% that is in front of us tonight. Mr. Breitzke stated right. Mr. Detert stated on this proposal is 20%. The only reason I added the others is that some day if they want to expand I want them to commit to continue the 20%. Mr. Christos stated I am very sure we are never going to go over 60% on this, so yes. Commissioner Harper stated Herb wants to make sure that it is on this front plat that they commit to the 20% now and forever and that is what they are doing. The motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.
Eric Banschbach stated with me tonight is Attorney Greg Babcock and I am representing John & Margie Judy. We were here on January 24, 2007 for a two lot major subdivision. We are proposing a lot on lot 2. When we were here last some of the members and the neighbors shared some concerns with water and where it is going. You asked us to revise our drainage plan and go back to DAC. We did do that and we did shoot additional topo on the east side of our property into what is identified as the Johnson’s property. We shot floor elevations for the garage and the house as well as the barn. Those are shown on there as well. We reconfigured the existing swales that we showed in the middle of the lots and on the east side of lot 2. We moved the swale to the west of the existing tree line and extended it farther south and all the way to almost the back of the property where it begins to go into the existing drain. We extended the middle drain farther south and extended that one all the way back to get enough fall for this swale and we added an addition swale on the west side. From your recommendations, we extended that all the way down to the existing culvert which drains basically the southeast corner of the intersection there and takes that water all the way back into the existing drain being Sand Creek. We also added a 16-foot drainage easement for that swale. We are planning for recourse vegetated or rock shoots on the north end of the swales to reduce the runoff velocity and prevent any erosion that may be going back into the existing drain. In addition, the original drainage plan was reviewed by DLZ based on your request and they only came back with some minor detail suggestions. The changes reflected here are above and beyond any requirements that you guys had. Mr. Burns stated you took care of my concerns, which were the neighbors being flooded and you did a very good job. Mr. Hutson stated thank you for making the changes that we requested. Mr. Cole stated I am happy with it. Mr. Read stated I am very happy that you did make the changes that we requested, however, again I would have to bring out the fact that this legal wording I have not found on the plat.
Mr. Banschbach stated it on the bottom portion of the Deed of Dedication where it explains easement and restrictions. Mrs. Marshall stated I have no questions. Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions. Mr. Detert stated I have no questions. Mr. Breitzke stated I have no questions. Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 07-P-4. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
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 14, 2007