PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
July 11, 2007

M I N U T E S

    The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, July 11, 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, Rita Stevenson and Kevin Breitzke, President. Those members absent were Herb Read. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson, Attorney Scott McClure, Patricia S. Gibson and Raymond Joseph.

    Mr. Burns moved to continue the reading of the June 13, 2007 minutes.  Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

    Mr. Cole moved to continue the reading of the June 27, 2007 minutes.  Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

    Mr. Breitzke stated we do have a couple of cases here that were on the agenda that we do have some letters for.

    At this time, Mr. Thompson read a letter from Michael and Annette Bobruk asking for a continuance to the August 22, 2007 meeting.

    Commissioner Harper asked what about notice.

    Mr. Thompson stated we will do notice by first class mail out of our office for the date of August 22.

    Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 07-P-11 to the August 22, 2007 meeting.  Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

    At this time, Mr. Thompson read a letter from Dean Bucher asking for a continuance to the August 22, 2007 meeting.

    Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 07-P-12 to the August 22, 2007 meeting.  Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.


Old Business:

    Case 07-FP-5.   Petition of Shirley A. Rainford Revocable Living Trust, 645 W. 450 N., Hobart, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Rainford Subdivision to be located at 645 W. 450 N., in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 4 lots on 20 acres. Property is zone RR.)

    John Hannon from Great Lakes Engineering is representing Shirley Rainford for secondary plat approval for Rainford Subdivision.  Primary plat approval was received in April. Since the approval in April they have been to DAC twice and they have worked out the details. They have provided an easement across lot 4 for the perimeter drain swale, which is required by the Health Department for the septic fields that will be installed on the 2 lots at the north end of the property. They have also provided a general drainage easement over lot 3.  There is drainage that comes onto the property from the east and the south and exits to the west.  This is an existing drainage pattern and they have provided an entire drainage pattern over all of lot 3.  Building lines have been shown on lot 3. They have provided landscaping specifications for the subdivision. The first specification is for the perimeter drain swale. They have provided for a combination of species that are designed specifically for an enhanced swale. The second item is a mixture of wildflowers that require infrequent mowing. This would be the mix that would be applied to Outlot 1 the two -acre open space.

    Mr. Burns stated I have no questions.

    Mr. Detert stated I have no questions.

    Mr. Hutson stated I have nothing.

    Mrs. Stevenson stated I have no questions.

    Mr. Cole stated I have nothing.

    Mrs. Marshall stated you are asking for an easement, does that require an NPDES permit?

    Mr. Hannon stated no.

    Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions.

    Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 07-FP-5.  Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

    Case 07-Z-10.  Petition of Michigan City Area Schools, 408 South Carroll Avenue, Michigan City, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from I-2, General Industry to IN, Institutional to be located at the Southwest corner of CR 1675 N. and LaPorte/Porter County Line Road in Pine Township, Porter County, Indiana. (Con’t from the 6-27-07 meeting.)

    Case 07-DP-5.  Petition of Michigan City Area Schools, 408 South Carroll Avenue, Michigan City, Indiana seeking a Development Review for Pine Township Elementary School to be located at the Southwest corner of CR 1675 N. and LaPorte/Porter County Line Road in Pine Township, Porter County, Indiana. (Con’t from the 6-27-07 meeting.)

    Carl Baxmeyer with the firm of Fanning Howey and Associates representing Michigan City Area Schools.  With him tonight are Michael Harding, Superintendent of Schools for Michigan City Area Schools, Doug Wickstrom, Principle with Fanning Howey and Associates, Brian Catt with the firm Williams Creek Consultant. Also, Jeff Oltmanns, Landscape Designer, Theopolous Boone, Chief Financial Officer for the School District, Bruce Satterly, Corporation Counsel, Dave Williamson, Facilities Director for the schools, Jim Lusk and Cory Lusk, the construction managers on the project, and Ken Krause, from the firm of Haas and Associates. Mr. Baxmeyer stated they took the comments received at the last meeting and tried to present a short synopsis of the key elements that they heard. Four key items that were heard were land use and rezoning, drainage, traffic impact, wetlands and how they were delineated, the permit status.  The land use and rezoning were pretty straight forward. They are seeking to rezone this to Institutional. It was zoned industrial.  With the new UDO and new zoning maps this area is now residential and a school is much more compatible with residential zoning than with industrial zoning.  They submitted a letter to the Development Review Committee addressing all 19 points except for one.  This was provided to the Plan Commission members. One issue that was not resolved was prior to the meeting and that was the percolation test that was done and the information was given at that meeting.

    At this time, Mr. Ken Krause from Haas and Associates presented the drainage plans for the project.  There are five different drainage sheds.  In the first drainage shed would be were the service road runs in.  This drainage shed drains part of that driveway.  Whatever area that is on the slopes that drains down to the bottom of that hill that happens to be picked up with one inlet on the east side of that driveway and pipe it over to the west where there is a natural depression. That depression holds approximately 1.5 acre feet all by itself. For water to get down to it there are vegetative swales on each side of the driveway and check dams along the way and there is sump in the inlet at the bottom of that hill.  In order to meet the bottom line of the county code they had to design that basin for two 100 year storms that you might have consecutively.  This particular basin will hold .8 acre-feet of storage and it is only required to hold .7.  The next basin drains just a corner of the building and the play area and whatever slopes that come down to it and end up in that basin. That is about a 5.4 acre shed area.  Most of that is where the basin is itself.  The way it gets to that place is a roof drain that drains a part of the rood and the rest is over land flow that goes into a vegetated swale with check dams to get some pretreatment before it ends in the retention basin. That basin is also sized for two consecutive 100-year storms.  The next basin is basically to serve the small parking area and half of the proposed soccer field.  This basin is over nine acres in size.  The way the water gets to that basin is over land flow exclusively. It runs down the slope from the parking lot to a vegetated swale so it will receive some pretreatment before it ends up in that natural depressed area. The next basin receives water from this parking over here. The water in this parking lot drains to a center rain garden that will hold that water for as much as possible. That rain garden will be planted with wetland plants. After it gets into the rain garden it has to build up to spill out into a storm sewer where it then will go to a forebay.  From there it will be piped to a rock shoot which will parallel this driveway until it enters the natural depression at the bottom of the hill. The last basin will serve the majority of the building all except for the southwest corner of the building and the south parking area.  All the water from the building will be captured in a storm sewer. The storm sewer has been sized for a 100-year storm with a ten-year time of concentration.  There are only two areas that have to be picked up by storm drains and that would be the two seeding areas and the front entrance. Everything else runs over the top of the ground to the rain garden. It will then overflow through a pipe underneath this driveway to a rock shoot and run down to a forebay on the south end of the detention basin. The storm sewers that come in from the north will go into another forebay before they have to seep through a weep wall into the detention basin where it will be held there and then released into the wetland to the southeast.

    Mr. Baxmeyer stated the other concern that the Board had was traffic impact.  At present, the school has just under 300 students. The plan is to increase that enrollment to 600. There are presently five buses and at full capacity that would increase to 11 buses. There are roughly 64 cars each day delivering students, which increase to an estimate of 128. There are presently 43 faculty and staff, which will increase some what to 65. Traffic counts from the Highway Department was 1886 vehicles per day on County Line Road. The count was taken right at 1675 N. North of U.S. 20 on County Line Road the count is 1322. At County Line Road south of I-94 is 2251 vehicles.  At this time, Mr. Baxmeyer presented a line graft of the traffic in this area at different times of the day.

    Brian Catt from Williams Creek Consulting.  The report that they did was performed in accordance with the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual.  They identified seven wetlands on the site.  At this time, Mr. Catt pointed to the map to show where these wetlands are located on the site.  The site impact has been minimized to one wetland.  Estimated size is less than one-tenth of an acre. They did a survey of the wetland boundaries.  Following that they would submit a report to the Army Corps of Engineers for verification in which case they will review the report. If they deem it necessary they will decide and look at the wetland locations.  Following that they would submit a permit for the small wetland that is located in the practice field. As far as the permit goes, Army Corps and IDEM they are the two entities that regulate it and their jurisdiction is involved within the boundary’s identified. As long as there are no impacts occurring to the wetlands they have no jurisdiction.

    Mr. Baxmeyer stated we do believe the land use is compatible with the adjacent property uses and the new zoning.  The traffic impact will again have some impact on County Line Road. They have avoided all but one small wetland. The wetlands were delineated by a specialist that was certified by the Corps of Engineers. The permit is waiting on some degree to this approval.

    Doug Wickstrom explained to the Board members how they will incorporate and use the natural features on the site in the educational program.

    Mr. Breitzke stated the public hearing is closed but I will leave it up to the Board if they want to make a motion to open it back up so if there is any one who wants to speak can.

    Mr. Cole moved to open the public hearing for those who want to speak.  Mrs. Marshall seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

    Carolyn Weinberg, 10 S. Crate Water Ave., Beverly Shores. Ms. Weinberg is concerned about the septic, the wetlands and why is this going to be built in Porter County.

    Nancy Kolasa, 334 E. 1500 N., Chesterton.  Mrs. Kolasa asked how many of the students that go to Pine School actually live in Pine Township; how many of those students are on reduced or free lunches; what is the actual tax dollars that Pine Township sends to Michigan City Schools; what is the annual amount that is sent. She had a question on whether the community can use the school for public meetings or community meetings and whether it will be free. She is concerned on the cost of cleaning up the current site.

    Mr. Baxmeyer stated yes, some of the students come out of LaPorte County. This will be connected to the Michigan City Sanitary District and they will be sanitary sewer and water. There is no septic. I don’t know about the taxes. As far as the site and cleaning it up, most of it is refuse and not hazardous materials.

    Mrs. Kolasa asked how much tax dollars do we send to Michigan City Area Schools and how many actual Pine Township students will be attending the elementary school.

    Mr. Boone stated I will provide that information on the tax dollars and the head count of the students.

    Mr. Breitzke asked what is going to happen to the old school. Will it become available to the Pine Township community?

    Mr. Boone stated that determination has not been made yet. We are not going to demolish that school; however, we have policies set by the Board on rental facilities.

    The public hearing was then closed.

    Mr. Burns stated I have no questions at this time.

    Mr. Detert stated I have no questions at this time.

    Mr. Hutson asked how many acres of green space do you have there and how will it be maintained.

    Mr. Baxmeyer stated the plans for that haven’t been fully realized only because we are waiting for approval.  On the other schools that we have done we have used the natural features on the site for walking trails. The whole storm water detention area is a great opportunity to talk about storm water management.

    Mr. Wickstrom stated with regards to the wetlands plants that are being provided in order to work in the rain garden and so forth.  We have talked to the facilities people, Dave Williamson, about the fact that normal grass cutting operations are not going work for this and they are going to have to show us some special specs for those areas. Those won’t work without proper maintenance.

    Mr. Hutson asked how many students are from Pine Township.

   
    Mr. Baxmeyer stated there are 14 students that are south of U.S. 20 who attend Pine School.

    Mr. Hutson asked of the 400 some students that you have what percentage.

    Mr. Baxmeyer stated we have 287 students is the actual count. 

    Mr. Hutson asked have the wetlands been delineation been reviewed or is it in the process of being reviewed. It has been submitted.

    Mr. Catt stated not to the Army Corp. We will submit that once the survey is complete.

    Mr. Hutson asked what survey is that.

    Mr. Catt stated the wetland boundaries.

    Mrs. Stevenson stated 1675 N. to County Line Road are our roads.  Would you be willing to put up a bond on this during construction for those roads with the Commissioners and also with the Highway Department because during construction the trucks are going to tear up the roads somewhat.

    Mr. Baxmeyer stated that is a question that I can’t answer on behalf of the Board. 

    Mrs. Stevenson asked who is going to be responsible for the road if it breaks down through the construction. She asked Mr. Harper am I right for saying anything about this.

    Commissioner Harper stated I think that we can ask that.

    Mr. Baxmeyer stated I don’t. I know what you are asking. I am just not sure if any of us can answer that without taking it to the Board. It wasn’t in the budget when we presented it.

    Mr. Cole stated I have no objection to the rezoning. As far as the traffic issue, I see it as a serious but resolvable issue. The use of the building for the public is historic in Indiana and it is traditional in Indiana.  The wetlands are a different issue.  If you work in the wetlands at all, clean the wetland, removing dead trees and so forth, it is my understanding that you have to go to the Army Corps for a permit.  We would like to see that approval before we go ahead.  IDEM is involved but IDEM also goes to the Army Corps.  I still have some reservations, but not on the rezoning.  I agree with the actual concept of the school and its design.


    Mrs. Marshall asked what is the square footage of the building.

    Mr. Baxmeyer stated around 85,000 square feet.

    Mrs. Marshall stated concerning the access road off of County Line Road.  Are you planning on having decel and accel lanes on both sides of the road here.

    Mr. Baxmeyer stated I am not sure that was really answered at DAC.

    Mr. Thompson stated there is an ordinance that covers the fact that you have to have accel and decel lanes and also passing blisters. It is located in the Engineering Standards.

    Mr. Baxmeyer stated we will comply to that.

    Mrs. Marshall stated the bottom wetlands there it seems that some of the drainage is going on an adjoining property. Is that true?

    Mr. Wickstrom stated yes.

    Mrs. Marshall asked do you have an agreement or easement from that property owner for any water that you have going onto that adjoining property.

    Mr. Wickstrom stated that detention basin actually discharges on the schools property and runs its natural course to that wetland.

    Mr. Breitzke stated that qualifies as a natural water body and watercourse that is pre-existing. That is where the water is running already.

    Mrs. Marshall stated so we don’t have any issues with water going onto an adjoining property.

    Mr. Breitzke stated in this case it is already going onto it and it needs to nurse the wetland.

    Mrs. Marshall asked has the calculations indicated that there is not an increase in the water that goes onto the adjoining property.

    Mr. Wickstrom stated the detention basin was designed on the existing at that particular point and the basin was sized to release .13 cfs per acre as required by your ordinance.

   

Mrs. Marshall asked were the drainage calculations reviewed by the Drainage Board here in Porter County.

Mr. Wickstrom stated the calculations were part of the package that was submitted and I believe Mr. Kenning from DLZ is reviewing it.

        Mrs. Marshall stated I am very concerned about the amount of traffic at U.S. 20 and County Line Road. I don’t think we are being told the whole story of why this school is being located in Pine Township.  I am concerned that you haven’t come up with the figures of how many kids are from Pine Township and how many are from LaPorte County.

        At this time, Mr. Boone addressed the issue about School District versus County.

        Mrs. Marshall asked if there was an accident could that maintenance road be used to get out off that site.

        Mr. Wickstrom stated currently for the main parking area there is one access onto County Line Road.  The roads do not connect so that there are two exits. There is one on CR 1675 and one on County Line. 

        Mrs. Marshall asked is there any other way that this road could be connected or have a gate across it if you don’t want it to be used. You are not providing a second access to the property.

        Mr. Wickstrom stated the maximum number of cars that would be there at any one time would be 150 to 200.

        Commissioner Harper asked how many students are there in Pine Township.

        Mr. Baxmeyer stated I will get on the computer for the information.

    Commissioner Harper stated on this develop map is there any commitment on green space.

    Mr. Breitzke stated no not yet.

    Commissioner Harper stated if we approve the plan they are not going to come back before us to commit to green space.

    Mr. Thompson stated if you want a commitment on the green space and preserve a certain percentage then you can ask that during the rezoning portion of it that they record this along with the ordinance showing the building footprint or ask for a certain percentage of this area to be left in green space.

    Commissioner Harper asked when was the material submitted back to DLZ.

    Mr. Wickstrom  stated it was after the second DAC review.

    Mr. Thompson stated I do receive e-mail correspondence back and forth on comments between the petitioner’s engineer and DLZ.  There was just one that was not cleared up and answered until Friday or Monday of this week.

    Commissioner Harper asked has DLZ approved these plans as we sit here.

    Mr. Thompson stated no. There is still those outstanding 19 items that Tony Kenning with DLZ will need to check to see if they met with this latest submittal.

    Commissioner Harper asked when did DLZ receive the answers to these questions.

    Mr. Thompson stated I am going to say Monday of this week.  They still have two questions that are not answered.

    Mr. Wickstrom stated when we sent the second submittal when we answered those 19 questions we had a question of the DAC Board whether or not we could use the infiltration rates that we received to help size the detention basins to reduce the footprint of the basin.  When I told Tony I received the okay to do that he said he would wait until we create those revised calculations and drawings to him before he started his review.  It turned out that we were so far along in the bidding process that we decided not to change that at this time.  So we kept the original drawings which were exceeding the volumes that were going to be required for the detention basins.  We didn’t get the message that we were not to resubmit it.  So he did not start his review until last Thursday. The information has been in his hands for the past three weeks.

    Commissioner Harper asked what was submitted Monday.

    Mr. Thompson stated their reply that they were not changing certain items.  Tony couldn’t start reviewing until he had that answer and he got that.

    Commissioner Harper asked is there something about your plans that might change. If the DLZ review doesn’t come up right what happens then.

   
    Mr. Wickstrom stated if Mr. Kenning has some concerns we will certainly address them.

    Commissioner Harper asked what if they decide to put up a bus barn.

    Mr. Thompson stated they will have to come back here for development review.

    Commissioner Harper asked how much do you project the schools to cost.

    Jim Lusk stated about $18.3 million.

    Mr. Baxmeyer stated 68 students is the rough answer.

    Mrs. Marshall asked did you hold public hearings on the new school.

    Mr. Baxmeyer stated yes.

    Mike Harding, Superintendent of Michigan City Area Schools. At this time, Mr. Harding passed out two documents that explained to the Commission members how they got to this point.

    Commissioner Harper stated I am inclined to vote for this tonight but I want to help your confusion.  You’re wanting to build a school along a piece of property in Porter County.  I do think that where the kids come from is immaterial. You want to build on a piece of property that we are really concerned about.  We have been fighting the waste transfer station north of this and I am very familiar with the land there. There are a lot of wetlands and we as a Plan Commission are very concerned with the environment.  I am a little confused because you haven’t gone to the Army Corps of Engineers or IDEM or have your applications in. A lot of things that we are talking about today you are not committed to. However, I understand. We do need the school and you have the bids out.  I don’t think that this plan for a Plan Commission is put together as well as it maybe should be and we have to have that DLZ approval.  You have your roll and we have ours and ours is to protect the environment and to protect the community.  Your roll is to provide services to the students.  They don't always mesh completely. Hopefully, this one will.

    Mr. Burns move to forward Case 07-Z-10 to the County Commissioners contingent upon the open space dedication or commitment that we currently have three pods with additional plans for the fourth pod with no additional building at this point and therefore the resulting remaining property is dedicated to open space; further the motion is contingent upon all governmental approval along with our own DLZ independent review; that any other commitments made by the petitioner that are contained in the official minutes will be held to you; if the governmental approval is not forthcoming or the DLZ review is not satisfactory then the motion would revert and the zoning would return to RR, the current zoning.  Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote.

    Burns     -    Yes   Cole     -   Yes   Detert    -   Yes
    Harper    -    Yes   Hutson   -   Yes   Marshall  -   Yes
    Stevenson -    No    Breitzke -   Yes

    This will be heard by the County Commissioners on August 7, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.

    Case 07-DP-5. Petition of Michigan City Area School, 408 South Carroll Avenue, Michigan City, Indiana seeking a Development Review for Pine Township Elementary School to be located at the Southwest corner of CR 1675 N. and LaPorte/Porter County Line Road in Pine Township, Porter County, Indiana.

    Mr. Burns asked is there a commitment on the roadways that Rita brought up on the maintenance bond. Can we do that.

    Mr. Breitzke stated I think that is something that the Commissioners need to do.

    Mr. Thompson stated in the past there have been situations where the engineering department has worked with the development in video taping the road working out a construction traffic pattern and working with the people with the development on damage that could be caused by construction traffic during construction.

    Mr. Breitzke asked would the petitioner be willing to agree to that.

    Mr. Harding stated yes.

    Commissioner Harper stated they are coming up in front of us on the zoning.  How many weeks would it be before they came to us.

    Mr. Thompson stated we would probably be scheduling it your first meeting in August which would be August 7.

    Commissioner Harper stated the Superintendent said they would agree to that and they will be coming with the rezoning and hopefully by that time we will have it in place.

    Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 07-DP-5 contingent upon the bond commitment for the maintenance of the roadway, the DLZ report, also all governmental permit approvals.  Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

    Burns     -   Yes    Cole     -   Yes    Detert     -   Yes
    Harper    -   Yes    Hutson   -   Yes    Marshall   -   Yes
    Stevenson -   No     Breitzke -   Yes

    Mr. Breitzke stated we will be verifying those prior to the issuance of your building permit. When you come to us with your State release have those permits in hand or send them to our office in advance, please.

    Mr. Thompson stated I would suggest that you speak with Attorney Satterly and have their office contact my office for the starting of working out the written commitments that need to be proposed and presented at the Commissioners meeting. Also, so I can forward them to Attorney McClure for his approval of them prior to going to the Commissioners meeting.

    Case 07-P-1.  Petition of Cherry Hill Development, LLC, 356 N. 250 W., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Cherry Hill Subdivision to be located at 356 N. 250 W. in Union and Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 232 lots on 161.28 acres. Property is zoned R-2, Medium Density, Single Family Residential.)

    William Ferngren stated I am here representing the Staab’s, the developer of this subdivision. There are actually 238 lots not 232.  This is primary plat for Cherry Hill Subdivision and we have renotified of this hearing on June 28, 2007. At the time we had our last public hearing at the end of the discussion this was referred to DLZ for the comprehensive drainage review of the site.  DLZ has issued their review memorandum and we received that yesterday indicating that the plans that have been submitted for Cherry Hill do comply with the Porter County Drainage Ordinances, requirements and standards. It was a very detailed drainage analysis. There were five drainage reports issued. This fifth and final one is the one that gave us our clearance from DLZ with respect to the drainage.  Also, to bring you up to speed with the Drainage Board matter, which was part of the discussion at the last meeting. This past Monday morning, July 9, the Porter County Drainage Board took its final action on the subdivision and approved all of the easements and construction and the piping with respect to our storm water management system.  We believe that we have satisfied all conditions necessary for primary plat approval in addition to the DLZ requirement. We would ask that you approve the primary plat.

    Mr. Burns stated I have no questions.  I was impressed with the elevations on the residence and also back yard and side yard drainage. These were two large concerns that we had.

    Mr. Detert stated I feel the same way. The latest plats were very complete.

    Mr. Hutson stated I agree. The only concern that I still have is traffic safety.

    Mrs. Stevenson stated I have nothing.

    Mr. Cole stated I am impressed.  As Mr. Burns and everyone down the line have said I also reiterate that this is probably the finest set of plans that I have seen that doesn’t resolve in my mind the issue of density in a rural environment.  If this is going to happen, this is probably the way it should happen. I do have reservations but I still think that this is a very fine plan.

    Mrs. Marshall asked have you applied to IDEM and the Army Corps.

    Gary Radtke stated yes.

    Mrs. Marshall asked have you had any response.

    Mr. Radtke stated no we haven’t.

    Mrs. Marshall stated since the project is not contiguous with the city limits have you applied for annexation to the city.

    Mr. Ferngren stated no we have not.  Actually, in order to be permitted to extend the city utilities we have to provide a waiver of annexation.

    At this time, Mrs. Marshall read a policy put out by the City of Valparaiso concerning city utilities and annexation.

    There was a brief discussion concerning this policy.

    At this time, there was a discussion concerning letters from the City of Valparaiso concerning the extension of city utilities to the subdivision.

    Mrs. Marshall stated the wetlands were delineated by Soil Solutions and in the northeast corner there is a regulated drain and it says that you are going to change the regulated drain. If that regulated drain describes arms, Arm 1, 2, 3 and 4, I believe it is Arm 2 that services the NIPSCO drainage.  Was that the reason for the regulated drain in the first place is to provide drainage for NIPSCO.

    Mr. Breitzke stated that regulated drain was created in the early 1900’s.  It was an agricultural drain very small and in very bad condition. One of the issues was the Drainage Board was reluctant to vacate the drain until we had commitment of acceptable easements and drainage ways that also took care of NIPSCO.
   
    Mrs. Marshall asked does NIPSCO still enjoy drainage of their property.

    Mr. Breitzke stated yes.

    Mrs. Marshall asked will there be a POA.

    Mr. Ferngren stated yes. We have not organized the entity at this time until we have subdivision approval.

    Mrs. Marshall asked who are the principals in the Cherry Hill development.

    Mr. Ferngren stated the Mr. and Mrs. Staab.

    Mrs. Marshall stated it says that all open space is dedicated to the residents of this subdivision. Is the ownership of the open space still in the limited liability.

    Mr. Ferngren stated it is until secondary plat is recorded and then at that time it is all part of your standard open space dedication on a secondary plat.

    Mrs. Marshall stated on page 11 it says that there is a 16.5-foot existing easement on the south border. What is that easement?

    Mr. Radtke stated that is for the drive for the two properties to the west.

    Mrs. Marshall stated there is a dead end road called Cherry Hill Street. Are you going to have a “T” turnaround?

    Mr. Ferngren stated yes and the “T” turnaround is shown.

    Mrs. Marshall asked how are you going to keep people from going down that.

    Mr. Ferngren stated we will install some form of a barricade.


    Mrs. Marshall stated you talked about screening and you identified the screening as White Pine, Douglas Birch and Colorado Spruce.  At this time, it is not that.  Are you going to remove all the existing screening and put in these new trees?  It is around the NIPSCO property.

    Mr. Radtke stated if there is none there now we are going to install them.

    Mrs. Marshall stated the sanitary and the water main the low pressure connection is at 400 N. and 150 W.  Is that going to require easements across people’s property to get to the water main and the sanitary sewer to that area?

    Mr. Radtke stated all of the water and sewer is on 400 N. or 250 W.  There is an existing wetland on CR 250 on the west side and we are going across and we are getting an easement from the parcel on the southwest corner of Rt. 130 and 250 W.

    Mrs. Marshall stated I am concerned about the road. Mr. Schelling in his letter indicated that the road does not line up at the railroad tracks and he was concerned about that. He indicated that he wanted to have a meeting about that. Did you have that meeting?

    Mr. Radtke stated we did and we resubmitted the plans.  We had 150-foot tapers and Mr. Schelling felt that it was too short so we extended it up to a 300-foot taper from the north entrance to the railroad right-of-way.

    Commissioner Harper asked explain to me a little bit about this open space between now and final plat approval.

    Mr. Ferngren stated there isn’t anything created until we actually record the plat. That is what physically creates the property lines when you record the secondary plat.

    Commissioner Harper asked have you submitted anything that shows how this construction is going to proceed.

    Mr. Radtke stated the study that was done addressed some of the phasing of the work.  This was discussed with DLZ, Tony, on the idea of what we were going to do.

    Mr. Breitzke stated they have Rule 5 application in place too.

    Commissioner Harper stated what I am asking if we have something in place here that assures us as to the steps that are going to take place.

   
    Mr. Breitzke stated verbally they make commitments but I would suggest with the motion tonight that this is a commitment or we just stop work.

    Commissioner Harper stated we need a plan as to how you plan your construction because we got in that problem and we do not want to get into that problem again.

    Mr. Burns stated I thought that we talked about the pond and the streets had to be in before they sell any parcels.

    Commissioner Harper stated I think that they are going to have to give us a plan of what they are going to do first to insure that the drainage plan gets in affect before they start tearing up all that land.  If we make a motion tonight, what terminology would we use for that?

    Mr. Breitzke stated construction phasing plan.

    Mrs. Marshall stated I would like to recognize Mr. Molengraft to speak.

    Neal Molengraft, 322 N. 250 W.  I did have an opportunity to look at the plans and those plans are just absolutely dynamite. Those are the greatest set of plans that I have seen in my life.  I still am concerned about the density.

    Polly Miller, 324 N. 250 W.  She is concerned about the cell tower that is on the property and the kids walking to the store.

    Mr. Detert asked have you considered on how you were going to do this. Are you going to do it in phases?

    Mr. Radtke stated yes. The southern area is going to be Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be more to the north.

    Mr. Burns asked you are talking about putting the whole drainage system in for the whole property or are you going to do it in phases.

    Mr. Radtke stated because Phase 1 affects everything we will have to do all of the ponds.

    Commissioner Harper stated when this got rezoned I was against it. What we have done has completely changed this neighborhood and the people will be annexed. It may be a matter of years but that is what is going to happen. Are you involved with Pepper Creek Subdivision?

    Mr. Radtke stated yes.

    Commissioner Harper stated I try to take people up there to show them the erosion control. It could almost be a classroom and I want to compliment you on that.  The erosion control that you do is unbelievable. You are above and beyond the best erosion control in Porter County and I hope you do it on this one.

    Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 07-P-1 contingent upon receiving a schedule of construction, obtaining all of the government permitting, 38% open space and a POA.  Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

    Mr. Burns stated I do want to go on record that I travel that area every day.  I do think that this is a little bit too much, too dense.

    Mr. Detert stated I am still concerned about the traffic.

    Motion carried on the following ballot vote:

    Burns     -    Yes   Cole     -    Yes   Detert   -   Yes
    Harper    -    Yes   Hutson   -    Yes   Marshall -   Yes
    Stevenson -    Yes   Breitzke -    Yes

New Business:

    At this time, Mr. Breitzke read the rules of conduct for a public hearing.

    Case 07-DP-6.  Petition of Dan Keller, 5705 E. Murvihill Road, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking a development review for a proposed storage building for machine parts, locker room and office to be located at 5705 E. Murvihill Road in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. (Property is zoned I-1.)

    William Ferngren stated I am here with Don Bengel and the property owner, Dan Keller.

    Mr. Bengel stated this is industrial zoned and south of this parcel is Schwan’s Food facility. I am not sure what they do in the building next to that. East of here is Surtec. North of this is the airport.  Right now the existing building, “D”, is there and there is another existing building.  The proposal is remove that building and build building “A” to give them more room for production and storage. “C” is a locker room for the employees with no shower and “D” will be an office.  The septic tank will be revised. There are no new employees and we will not do anything with the septic system itself.  This land is pretty much all sand.  We are going to put this detention pond in.  There is an access to Murvihill Road. The main access is over to the west and when they bring in semis to unload equipment that semi can keep going right around.  Mr. Keller owns a strip of ground about 30-feet wide that lies on the west side of Surtec and that will provide access for that. There are no concerns with the airport.

    No one spoke in favor of this petition.

    No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

    The public hearing was then closed.

    Mr. Burns asked where is the septic system located.

    Mr. Bengel stated it is east of the building and south of the driveway.

    Mr. Burns asked how far is the septic system from the new building.

    Mr. Bengel stated about 15-feet from the building.

    Mr. Burns stated I would have liked to seen the septic on the plans.  Do you have a letter from the Health Department?

    Mr. Bengel stated when we go for the building permit the first step is a letter from the Health Department. It is a called a septic location report.

    Mr. Detert stated I don’t have any problems with expanding the business.

    Mr. Hutson stated I have no questions.

    Mrs. Stevenson stated I have no questions.

    Mr. Cole stated on page 2 of our staff report it says minimum front building setback is 40-feet and provided is 6-feet. Please explain that and the one for the maximum of primary structure height.

    Mr. Bengel stated if we add on building “B” for office space that will be 11-feet off and “C” will be 15-feet. 

    Mr. Ferngren stated it is not encroaching any further than what it exists at this time.

    Mrs. Marshall stated I don’t have any questions.  I never received the plat.

    Mr. Bengel stated I have receipts that I mailed them out.

    Commissioner Harper stated there is residential on the south side of this.

    Mr. Bengel stated not on this but the south side of Murvihill.

    Mr. Thompson stated there is an old sand mine on the south side of Murvihill.  There are a couple of residences out there.

    Mr. Breitzke stated this is I-1 and there should be no outdoor storage and you need to get that place cleaned up. The other thing is that pond needs to be constructed before you start construction. Be very careful as Mr. Burns alluded to, you need to know where those laterals are and locate them. You need to mark that out so you don’t have workmen storing materials on top of it, driving over it and those kinds of issues.

    Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 07-DP-6 with the following contingencies: no outside storage, construction of the pond before construction of the building, a septic plan submitted to the staff so we know where the location is and for the septic system to be barricaded or roped off so there is no construction being performed on top of the septic. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

    Burns     -   Yes    Cole     -    Yes    Detert    -   Yes
    Harper    -   Yes    Hutson   -    Yes    Marshal   -   Yes
    Stevenson -   Yes    Breitzke -    Yes

    Discussion on Falling Waters.

    Mr. Detert stated Friday I found out that only three street lights are working and that is less than what was working before. The equipment to fix the street lights are gone and it looks like the electrician was pulled off the job.

    Mr. Burns moved to have the developer of Falling Waters to appear at the next meeting, which is July 25.  Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

    Commissioner Harper stated I would like to give the people a chance to talk.  I will give them a three-minute time limit.

    Joan Kenevan, 708 Levano Dr. The first time we met here which was April 11 he said he was going to replace the street lights because half of them weren’t working. He does the work that needs to be done just in time for each meeting.  There were 12 that worked and now we are down to 3.  He has been promising the gates to work, street lights for three years. There are depressions in the road. I haven’t seen the handyman in two weeks. 

    Commissioner Harper asked have the lakes been treated.

    Mrs. Kenevan stated they have been from what I understand. The aerators are not working.

    Commissioner Harper asked have you figured out what you are going to have to pay in the next couple years on your property in addition to your property taxes on the conservancy district.

    Mrs. Kenevan stated it depends on the valuation on the whole thing. 

    Commissioner Harper asked do you expect to get a bill around $3000.

    Mrs. Kenevan stated yes, in addition to what I pay in Porter County.

    Mr. Detert stated we are getting off the point here.  We know what the problems are here in Falling Waters and now what we need to do is to make sure they are corrected. There are 213 items on that list and we need Mr. Floramo here.

    Cheryl Ivetic, 66 Marina Terrace. Safety is her first concern. She is very concerned about the lakes. They are unsafe and full of weeds. There have been burglaries, fires and they have dark streets.  There are a lot of safety issues here. She spoke with Mr. MacNamara who was treating the lakes. He told Mr. Floramo that he could make the lakes swimming pool material. He also to her that he hadn’t been paid for his services.

    Jackie Gutierrez, 729 Cirque Crt. She is concerned about the lakes too. If you stand on her deck you can see the weeds in the lake. The aerators were taken out on the small pond.

    Dave Colum, 63 Marina Terrace.  Spoke with Tony today and he said the gates could work tomorrow.  The reason why the lights don’t work is because they are working on them. Tony sent him an e-mail and told him that the gates would work by July 5. 

    Mr. Breitzke asked has there been a community meeting this month.

    Mr. Colum stated no not this month.

    Mrs. Kenevan stated from what I understand there is one planned for July 26 but he has not sent out a notice.

    Commissioner Harper stated the only way to get this fixed is to shut him down and keep him shut down for a substantial period of time or it is not going to get done.

    At this time, there was a discussion concerning the covenants and the enforcement of them.

    Attorney McClure stated until the POA takes over he has the ability as the person in charge out there at this point to modify those covenants at will.

    At this time, there was a discussion on the wording from when they list the homes.

    Attorney McClure stated as far as the language is concerned I received a phone call today from Attorney Bower saying they are still working on it and that was in a voice mail.

    Commissioner Harper stated that was a very complicated situation.  That was after Scott worked on it and I worked on it and we spent all kinds of hours on it trying to come up…because it is not per lot it is per assessed value.  Those first 100 homes have to pay that $800,000 per year based on their valuation.  Right now what they are paying is probably twice or three times what they may be paying if the thing builds out. 

    Mr. Breitzke stated he will have to be here in two weeks.

    Discussion on Pheasant Hills Subdivision.

    John Worstell, 76 Shore Drive, Ogden Dunes.

    Mr. Breitzke asked did you receive this letter dated June 26.

    Mr. Worstell stated yes.

    Mr. Thompson stated Don Bengel did get the pipe calculations and the drawing to staff and also to the Highway Engineering as requested.  I have the drawing here of that intersection and the pipe.

    Mr. Breitzke asked should we go through this item by item.

    Mr. Thompson stated there is a second phase that has a performance guarantee that is in place.  The maintenance guarantee is for the very first phase that is up by CR 600 W. which has been approved and is being maintained by County Highway. At this time, Mr. Thompson read the letter from Mr. Riddell and the items that needed to be completed.

    Mr. Worstell stated I want to get all of the work that needs to be done, done. I want to get these roads accepted as soon as possible.

    Mr. Burns moved to lift the restriction contingent on the as-built plans being submitted to the office by noon of Friday of next week.  Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

    At this time, Mr. Cole submitted pictures of the Gaither property and what has been done as of today.  He stated you see the front yard and the side yard have been drained. They have been filled somewhat and have been seeded and graded.  There is a drain in place that will permanently take care of their problem. It goes across Meridian to a pump. The pump pumps the water into a forebay, which lets it filter through to the wetland. They are just waiting to hook the electricity up to the pump.

    There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION


S/ Kevin D. Breitzke, President

Attest: Robert W. Thompson Jr. AICP, Executive Director/County Planner