 |
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, August 8, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana. Those members present were Rick Burns, Commissioner Bob Harper, Todd Hutson, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read, Rita Stevenson and Kevin Breitzke, President. Those members absent were Tim Cole and Robert Detert. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Raymond Joseph, Attorney Scott McClure and Patricia S. Gibson. Mr. Burns moved to waive the minutes of the July 24, 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 that Case 07-P-14, petition of Maureen and Donald Harris for primary plat approval for Mace Subdivision is continued until the August 22, 2007 meeting. Old Business: Case 00-P-16. Petition of David Riley, 39 S. 400 E., Valparaiso, Indiana to reinstate the primary plat of Riley Ridge Subdivision located on the East side of CR 400 E., approximately ¼ mile South of Division Road, between Division Road and CR 100 S. in Morgan Township. Donald Bengel is representing the petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Riley. Riley Ridge was composed of three phases. Two phases are complete and this is the last phase. Due to the septic conditions we have reduced the number of lots. The primary plat has expired and we are asking that you reinstate the primary plat. Mr. Burns asked why did it expire. Mr. Bengel stated we didn’t know it expired. Mr. Burns are all the lots RR. Mr. Bengel stated yes. Mr. Hutson asked how long ago did it expire. Mr. Thompson stated November 12, 2006. Mr. Hutson asked what are the reasons why you made changes to your plat. Mr. Bengel stated primarily due to the septic conditions. Mrs. Stevenson stated I have no questions. Mr. Read stated I would like to ask our counsel here what is meant by reinstatement. Does this meet our current code? Mr. Bengel stated yes, in my opinion it does. Mr. Read stated I feel that I can’t vote on this because I don’t have any drawings on this so how can I review them. Mrs. Marshall asked when was the original plat approved. Mr. Thompson stated November 8, 2000. Mrs. Marshall stated you are reducing the numbers of lots. I don’t have drawings either and maybe this should be a replat. Mr. Breitzke stated a replat would be downsizing or upsizing of the final plat. On a preliminary plat it is up to the Board to decide if it is a significant change. Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions. Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 00-P-16 to the August 22, 2007 meeting with all the documents sent to the Plan Commission members and post marked by this weekend. Mr. Read seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote. New Business: At this time, Mr. Breitzke read the rules of conduct for a public hearing. Case 07-Z-11. Petition of Mary Madeline Rhoda-Brush, 245 E. 1200 N., Chesterton, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from R-1, Single Family Residential to IN, Institutional for a proposed County Highway garage and office for the Northern District to be located at 1196 N. 250 E. in Westchester Township. Robert Thompson stated with him tonight is John Evans, North County Commissioner, Al Hoagland, Superintendent for the County Highway Department and Mary Madeline Rhoda-Brush who is the owner of this parcel. What we are requesting is to rezone this parcel from Residential to IN, Institutional in order to be able to build a new North County Highway garage. Over on the east side of CR 250 E. is the existing county garage. The old garage is small and they cannot fit all of their equipment in it. What they would like to do is be able to build a new facility like they did recently down on SR 8 for the South County garage. This new building would contain all of the trucks, the plow equipment so that in the winter all of the equipment would be inside instead of outside. Within the Institutional District there are some things that we are going to have to do. There cannot be any parking within the front building setback line and the right-of-way line. So this has been pushed back in. There is a 40-foot right-of-way, which they are going to be dedicating with the Development Plan plus there is a 50-foot additional building set back line. You cannot have any parking in that area so this area is going to be left green. The fence is also going to be pushed back. The drive here is meeting the size requirements for the Institutional District with a maximum of 40-feet and we are going to have it in line with the existing drive. They are going to continue to keep this site here for storage of materials. They are going to continue to use yard for stock pile. This is mainly to house their equipment and to have an office and training facility. With the purchase agreement that they do have they must put up a privacy fence here and as part of Mrs. Brush’s agreement for purchasing it. There must also be a screen in here so we have provided that. It is going to be for the employees there for the North County Highway garage. Currently, if they have trucks that need to be serviced they cannot do it at this garage facility that is existing on the east side of the road. They must drive it down to the Valparaiso facility for any kind of servicing. Commissioner Evans, North County Commissioner, would like to express his thanks and gratitude to Mrs. Rhoda-Brush for entering into the contract with the County. No one spoke in favor of this petition. Rachel Howell, 1189 N. 250 E. Mrs. Howell thinks this is a great idea. She is concerned about the fence in the front. Mr. Wolf from the Post Tribune asked how many acres there were. Mr. Thompson stated the acreage is for 4.42 acres. As far as the privacy fence, I know it was on the south side and the west side but if you want her to cross the front I guess we would have to ask Commissioner Evans on what he would like to do. Commissioner Evans asked what kind of trees would you like. Mrs. Howell stated there is a black walnut tree that we would like to save. She is concerned about the value of her land and what this garage would do to its value. Commissioner Evans stated we will try our best to save that but we can do some privacy screening in the front. Mr. Thompson stated the walnut tree is not on this property. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns stated I think this is a good idea. The only concern that I have is safety. Hopefully, we looked at that. It appears that when we have equipment and maybe personnel going back and forth between two facility’s and it is right by a curve so we need to take precautions with speed reduction. Commissioner Evans stated there is also a railroad immediately to the north and it is an area that transfers very slowly because of the curve and because of the railroad. Mr. Hutson stated I have some concerns about screening on the old site. Is it maintained? Mr. Thompson stated I would have to say that there is probably very little screening on the old site. The old site has been there for years. Mr. Hutson asked is there outside storage there. Al Hoagland stated that there is some. This area here has another pole barn. This is the actual only salvageable building on this property. This area in here should actually be taken down and it is not usable not even for cold storage. Mr. Hutson asked the 4.42 acres the reason you have the rest of the acreage the western part of it is because maybe for future expansion or is that just to maintained some green buffer to the west. Mr. Thompson stated for green buffer plus the drainage for the particular parcel will go into that back northwest corner and will more than likely empty into the railroad ditch and flow to the west. So that area is going to be reserved for drainage in which we will be having DLZ design to the drainage for this site. Mr. Breitzke asked are we going to bid out the development plan.
Mrs. Stevenson stated I would just like to thank Mrs. Rhoda for allowing the County to purchase this property. Mr. Read is concerned about the traffic but he thinks that it can be solved. He suggested that maybe we should start thinking about doing something with the narrow road there and maybe taking out the curve. Eventually, that cornfield is going to be developed and traffic is going to increase. Mrs. Marshall asked how many employees are there at this time. Mr. Hoagland stated right now I believe there are twelve. If the facility goes, my intentions are to bring a partial bridge crew in there so there would be another eight employees. Mrs. Marshall asked do you store any equipment outside? Mr. Hoagland stated at the present location we do because we can’t get them inside. Mrs. Marshall asked does the Institution zoning allow for outside storage. Mr. Thompson stated that is why the majority of outside storage is going to be left over at the old existing site. The new Institution zoning district does not allow for outside storage. If they do want to do any kind of stock pile of stone or anything like that they would have to come in and ask for a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Commissioner Evans and Superintendent Hoagland told me that they want a facility to be able to put their trucks and equipment inside. Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions. Mr. Breitzke asked where are you going to be fueling trucks. Do you currently fuel at the old site.
Mr. Hoagland stated we currently do but there again we are talking about underground storage tank that in all reality is going to have to be removed. Mr. Burns moved to forward Case 07-Z-11 with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Burns - Yes Harper - Yes Hutson - Yes This case will be heard by the County Commissioners on September 4, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. Case 07-P-15. Petition of James D. Williams, 394 W. 300 S., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Windy Oaks Subdivision, Phase C, to be located on the North side of CR 250 S. between CR 675 W. and CR 600 W. in Porter Township. (To contain 2 lots on 3.88 acres. Property is zoned RR.) Don Bengel is representing Jim Williams the developer of Windy Oaks Subdivision. This is the final part of Windy Oaks Subdivision which is located on the north side of CR 250 S. a quarter mile east of CR 600 W. In the original plat Lot 1 was part of the original subdivision. The rest was Lot 45 in the original primary plat. This was the old homestead. The house, pole building and the garage was sold off. Parcel Lot 1 A is guaranteed by Mr. Williams to be sold to whoever buys Lot 1. Lot 45 has the existing tool shed on it and Lot 46 is vacant. There was a question on the swale on the north side of the road and it has a good profile to it and it doesn’t cause a problem. Open space has been accounted. Septic has been approved by the County Health Department. They have been to the Drainage Board and there will be assessments on the existing drain in the subdivision. No one spoke in favor of this petition. No one spoke in opposition to this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns stated I have no questions. Mr. Hutson stated I have no questions. Mrs. Stevenson stated I have no questions. Mr. Read has no problem with two houses going in here but he does have some problem with the open space. At this time, there was a discussion concerning the open space. Mr. Read questioned how the ownership of the open space is handled. Mr. Bengel stated whoever owns Lot 46 will own the open space on his lot and whoever owns Lot 45 will own the open space on his lot. At this time, Mr. Read read from the Open Space Ordinance. Mr. Read’s concern was that there is no specific mention of an easement here of where the ownership of the open space remains in fee as part of the lot. Mr. Read asked Attorney McClure if we were going to get stuck with a situation where we have a 100 lot subdivision and all the subdivider does draws a dash line across the back yard of each lot and calls that open space. Attorney McClure stated no. The way the ordinance is currently written the Plan Commission has ultimate authority to approve or disapprove on an individual case by case basis and each case stands on its own. We are not building precedence. We are not a judicial body building precedence. One petitioner can’t come in and build upon a prior petitioner’s approval or disapproval. The way that ordinance is written we can accept this or not accept this. It is explicit within the ordinance it is limited to. It is included but not limited to the listed ways of ownership. In other words if a separate subdivision comes in with a separate set of circumstances, different amount of lots etc. that subdivision will be looked at on its basis and the Plan Commission as a whole will approve or disapprove the proposed ownership of the open space. Mr. Breitzke stated one of our concerns on these is that if you have small developments like this and you have outlots for open space there is a propensity for them to appear on tax sale, five years hence, ten years hence. Depending on the disposition of the person who acquires them through the tax sale it could be really detrimental to the maintenance and the upkeep of those lots not only to the property owners themselves and the homeowners but the surrounding areas. It is very unlikely to happen in large developments. Mr. Read stated if you get approval on this, I want to see something in place that like covenants that requires the homeowners to put money into a pot according to our regulations, our ordinances, to maintain this area so it doesn’t become unsightly. On surface drainage, the houses to the north are up on a little bit higher land. The proposed houses are up on a little bit higher land toward the south. There is some runoff to the northwest. How are you planning on handling that and who owns the land that would be affected by this runoff to the northwest. Mr. Bengel stated the amount of water that might come off of there will be very small. Mr. Read stated we still have an ordinance that says adjacent landowners have a stake in this and permission should be granted. This is not seriously and if you do plant prairie grass that will run the surface runoff into the ground. Mrs. Marshall stated again we have a right-of-way that has been dedicated. Who is it dedicated to? Mr. Bengel stated to the County. At this time, there was a discussion on the dedication of right-of-way to the County. Mrs. Marshall stated that this will be part of a regulated drain. Mr. Bengel stated yes. Commissioner Harper asked does some of this water drain onto someone else’s property? Mr. Breitzke stated some does, yes. Commissioner Harper stated this is not allowed by our ordinance. Mr. Thompson stated it goes there now. Mr. Breitzke stated it is allowed because it is called sheet runoff. If it was channeled and where the water is flowing to the south and along the road that is allowable in the roadside ditch on the south side. At this time, there was a discussion concerning sheet runoff and the ordinance. Mr. Thompson stated you can ask them to put a swale in there to capture the water and send it to the roadside ditch. Mr. Breitzke stated I want all of you on this Board to remember that the petitioner can bring to us whatever they want to bring to us at their risk, whether Mr. Thompson brings it up or whatever issue it is. It is up to the petitioner to bring in and satisfy all of the requirements. What we often get here is a matter of telling them let’s have an easement on this open space, draw it along there that there is water that runs off to the east and to the easterly side of Lot 45 and that should have been attended to by the petitioners engineer. Commissioner Harper stated there should be something on this report to us so we know that it exists. Mr. Breitzke stated you do need an easement or some kind of rear yard drainage. Also, I have a real problem with this existing tool shed being a non-conforming use on this Lot 45. Mr. Burns asked in the original plans for the subdivision were the outlots part of the drainage plan. Mr. Bengle stated at that time it was Lot 45 in the original plan. Mr. Burns stated so that was part of the drainage plan. Mr. Bengel stated yes. Mr. Burns asked what are you doing now when you add these lots. Mr. Bengel stated this drainage is going to go where it goes now and it ends up in the ditch. Mr. Burns asked will this affect the existing subdivision. Mr. Bengel stated no. Mr. Burns stated I think that this should be continued so that the issues on rear yard drainage could be addressed, removing the shed on lot 45 and issues on the drainage. I think that this should be addressed now.
Mr. Bengel stated all of this could be done on the final plat. We will do all of that as far as the drainage. Mr. Bengel stated it is in fairly good shape. If someone wants it they can use it for a garage. Mr. Read stated it is bigger than what is allowed for an accessory structure. Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 07-P-15. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Other Business: Report on Sub-Committee regarding Falling Water Subdivision. Mr. Burns stated Don Plumb and I met this afternoon and we went over several issues. Don is one of the residents that was selected by the other residents to be one of their representatives. There is progress being made and I was impressed to here that there is going to be committees set up. At this time, Mr. Plumb reported on the meeting that was held at Boone Grove High School. The meeting was pretty much taken up on the conservancy district and they really didn’t have much time to discuss in detail the rest of the items that were on Mr. Floramo’s agenda. Committee’s were formed at this meeting and residents in the subdivision will be on these committee’s. The front gate is working fine. The exit gate is working. The north end is still under construction. The residents will work with Mr. Floramo on solving some of the problems. I have been told that the financial people are working on the solution with the conservancy district and a way to keep it at taxed so that it is deductible but yet be limited to a certain amount. Mr. Burns stated the lights are in except the back 40. A resident is responsible to close the rear gate at night. Street signs are up. The two homes without brick are being worked on and that there is some agreement to add more brick to them. Mr. Plumb stated there is an issue where a pool was built and it encroaches on an easement and that is also being addressed with the owner and the owner seems to be willing to cooperate to remedy the situation. Mr. Breitzke asked do they have a schedule for charging that back lighting.
Mr. Burns stated at the last meeting they were supposed to put a spread sheet together. I asked for target dates on when these were going to get done. There is one issue of concern with the residents and that is the roads and the curb repairs. The developer has offered to repair the curbs and put the final pavement on. There was some resistance to that from the residents for good reasons. A lot of the construction isn’t completed yet and I understand that. One way around that and there is not enough bond money to cover that. Another way to do it is for the developer to repair the curb and the sunken areas and repave it. From that point on, any new construction there is an assessment that is put on each lot for the builder. If there is not damage to the roads then after the house is completed the builder gets his money back. If there is damage, he doesn’t get it back. Joan Kenevan, 87 Lavano Dr. Mrs. Kevevan is cautiously optimistic but she thinks that they are on the right track. She was concerned about the Home Owners meeting and that the reporters should have been there. She was upset about the story that was put out the day after the Home Owners meeting which was worse than anything that she has ever seen because it was the worse case scenario of this whole tax thing. She is hopeful that this Capita Charge per lot that it might be more fair and equitable if it works out. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
PORTER COUNTY
S/ Kevin Breitzke, President Attest: Robert W. Thompson Jr., Executive Director/County Planner |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
August 8, 2007