 |
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, April 9, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. in the County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana. Those members present were Kevin Breitzke, Richard Burns, Tim Cole, Robert Detert, Todd Hutson, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read, Rita Stevenson and Commissioner Robert Harper. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Attorney Scott McClure, Raymond S. Joseph Jr. and Patricia S. Gibson. Mr. Cole stated I had made some comments to Mr. Maro Allen that are not in the minutes. Those comments were relevant to my vote. I think that they should be in there. First that the Corridor Plan needs to be studied and that there was an intent in the first meeting in 1986 that was more or less, I would say betrayed to the land owners, to the Plan Commission. In regards to that probably comments left out of that particular meeting that really confused us. I think that perhaps the minutes of 1986 should have contained more detail as these minutes should. Mr. Breitzke moved to waive the minutes of the March 12, 2008 meeting and approve them with the recommended change. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Old Business: Case 08-DP-3. Petition of North Porter County Highway Garage, 1202 N. 250 E., seeking Development Review for a new county garage building to be located at 1202 N. 250 E. in Westchester Township. (Property is zoned IN, Institutional.) Bob Thompson, Executive Director of the Planning Commission, Al Hoagland, County Highway Superintendent, and Commissioner John Evans are here this evening to present this case. Also, Great Lakes Engineering who was contracted by the County Commissioners to do the development plan. Mr. Thompson stated this is for the North County Highway Garage. There is an existing facility there on the east side. This is on a proposed parcel of land on the west side of the road directly across the street from the existing facility. This will
be a new facility so that they can house all of their equipment inside. This is very similar to what they did in South County. We were before the Plan Commission and also the Commissioners for the rezoning of this parcel from R-1 to Institutional District to allow this. It was approved by the Commissioners as an Institutional District with a commitment to do landscaping on the south boundary and also on the west boundary of the parcel. We were before the BZA to receive a special exception. The reason for the special exception is Institutional District requires water and municipal services there. There are no municipal services there at this time but there will be soon. As soon as they are out there with development that might be coming out in that direction with the Town of Chesterton the Highway Department and the Commissioners will give consideration to hooking up to these utilities. But at this time, we have a special exception to allow for a septic system and also a well out there. We also received a variance for a couple of items from the BZA, mainly from the Storm Water Ordinance. We are unable to detain the necessary slopes within the detention facility which requires a 1% slope and also the ditch that we will be flowing water to from the storm water from the site to Sand Creek. This ditch has to be a 2% slope and the detention facility has to be a 1% slope. Mr. Breitzke stated it is a long time coming for this garage and I think things are shaping up very well. Mrs. Marshall stated I see from the Highway Department that Mr. Riddell said that the road is only 22-feet wide posted with a 35mph speed limit and a collector’s road should be 24-feet with additional feet for a shoulder on each side. My estimation the road is now already substandard. The question that I have is the fact that some people are getting permission to run construction trucks on frost law roads here in the county. In one of the Development Committee meetings it said that they might work 70
Al Hoagland stated we try and limit the construction. Our roads are checked during frost law. It is virtually impossible to shut down every business that has deliveries. There are agricultural commodities, there are bulk deliveries. We try and limit things as much as we can. Roads that are permitted are pretty much inspected. I am not sure how anybody else manages to keep the trucks off the roads. Mrs. Marshall stated I think that even the Highway Department here in your development you said at the Development Committee that you might work 70 trucks. Do they work them in the frost law, period, when they are posted. Mr. Hoagland stated it depends on the road conditions and what we are hauling. More than likely there will never be 70 trucks during frost law on the roads. Let’s say that a road washes out and a culvert go and the frost law was posted, we are still obligated to get out there and make a repair. Typically, day to day, my comment on the 70 trucks was during construction season, particularly chip and seal roads, it is feasible that we could run as many as 70 truck in a day. Mrs. Marshall stated the road at this time is already substandard because it is not wide enough and so forth. The other thing is you made an interesting comment at the Development Committee meeting you said that they originally envisioned buying the whole 79-acres. What portion did you buy and why would you envision 79-acres? What were you planning to put there at 70-acre for the County Highway garage? Mr. Hoagland stated the property was originally listed as a 79-acre parcel. With other departments in the county always looking for property we envisioned possibly teaming with someone else. We weren’t able to acquire the land that we needed and we were satisfied to get anything as far as having enough property to start the building. Mrs. Marshall asked how many acres do you have? Mr. Hoagland stated 4.4 acres. Mr. Read stated with regard to the slope problem out there I read your comments on it but would you summarize how you think you are going to avoid a water runoff problem without the required slope.
Mr. Thompson stated that whole western half of this parcel is almost dedicated to the detention facility. One of the items, since it is almost 300-feet long, the 1% slope would have meant that the detention pond…we are taking it to the north end of the parcel. Starting from the south end to the north end it would’ve had to been about three feet deep. If we would’ve went the three feet deep then we would have even been less of a slope going to the ditch. Mr. Read stated then you would’ve had to use a pump. Mr. Thompson stated correct. We are limited. We do have a positive outlet and we do have a ditch that we are able to get to and it is eventually flowing to Sand Creek but we just don’t have the slopes to get there. Especially, with the ditch we will be coming out and going toward Sand Creek. If we were going to go at that percent slope we would be well below the ditch bed for Sand Creek. Mr. Hannon stated but we would be saving up the slopes…we are using open swales going to the detention pond and we have basically an open ditch coming out of the detention pond going to Sand Creek. Both the swales and the outlet swale, inlet swale and outlet swale, are of sufficient slope to carry the water. We have the capacity to carry the water. Carrying capacity is not an issue. It is just a matter of the ordinance is very particular about how certain things need to be. We have widened our swales so they have sufficient carrying capacity for the water that will be onsite. Mr. Read stated someone mentioned using vegetation to either slow the water or permit the water to be transferred to the ground by using deep rooted plants. Mr. Thompson stated I did say that. That is a very much of a possibility that we can do something like that. I would have to lean over to the County Commissioner to see what kind of funds that they have on that. Mr. Read asked are there going to be any floor drains in the garage. Mr. Hoagland stated yes. Mr. Read asked where do those floor drains go. Mr. Hoagland stated triple trap oil separators. Mr. Read stated in the Indiana Department of Health form
Mr. Thompson stated that is something we would work with Chester’s and Great Lakes Engineering. If you want something like that to go through the septic field and septic tank, we could do something like that. Mr. Read stated first of all would it go through the septic system. Mr. Thompson stated one of the things is that we do have the water quality basins also added onto it. If we did separate out those items through the triple trap separator and it went out it would still go through the water quality measurers that we do have on the storm water, if that is what you are wondering. Mr. Read stated when you run it through the septic system you have a problem. Mr. Thompson stated that is why we were going through the separator first. Mr. Hoagland stated the system that we have at the Hebron garage is a complete triple trap with an outside manhole attached to that and the overflow from that manhole. That puts it through four separate separators. That is piped to the detention area at the Hebron location. At the time that was built, it was following the codes. Mr. Read asked would it go to the detention area or would it go the septic system? Mr. Hoagland stated the one that we have at Hebron now goes to the detention system. Mr. Read stated I think that is probably better rather than clogging up the septic system. Mr. Read asked is this a mound system? Mr. Hannon stated yes it is. Mr. Read stated hopefully, at some point soon, you can tap into the Chesterton system so we won’t have to worry about the septic system anymore. I noticed on the drawing I have on the building it calls for a six-inch roof insulation. Could you go thicker than six-inches. Are you willing to do that? Mr. Hoagland stated we have been assured by Chester’s that this is the state of the art, the industry standards, of a new insulation. Mr. Read stated I am not interested in the industry standard. I am interested in the best standard that we can do in and around Chesterton and Porter County to save heating costs and energy. I will ask you again, can you put in better thicker more efficient insulation in the room. Mr. Thompson stated it is something that we would have to go back to Chester’s and work to see as far as the change order is how much the additional cost would be and we would have to go to the County Commissioners to determine whether their budget would allow for it. Mr. Read asked what about the windows? The drawing said something about one-inch. Is that double glazed? Mr. Thompson stated yes. Mr. Read stated on the matter of landscaping I am glad to see that there will be landscaping around the south and west side. Is this on the garages property or will it be on somebody else’s property. Mr. Thompson stated it will be on the county’s parcel. Mr. Read stated on the facility on the east side of the road will there be any landscaping there. Mr. Hoagland stated it would be my hope that when we could move in the new facility that we could put some on that side of the property until we could get the equipment and things moved out. We have already made arrangements to have the underground fuel tank changed out and things like that. It is a work in progress and we will do our best to upgrade that facility. Mr. Cole stated in terms of dust and outside materials storage a lot of that would probably be at the eastern site. Mr. Hoagland stated our intentions are is to have equipment only and to keep all the material products on the other side. Mr. Burns stated I have no problems with this. I think it is a good plan for what you have to work with out there. You guys did a lot of good work on this.
Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 08-DP-3 as presented. Mr. Breitzke seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Hutson stated as far as going from the east portion to the west portion is that traffic going to be pretty minimal. Do you feel that there is going to be plenty of clearance as far as seeing traffic coming from the north to south. Mr. Hoagland stated I feel so. We have accessed the other side for thirty years and there have been no problems that I am aware of. Mrs. Stevenson asked is this facility going to take care of your needs. Mr. Hoagland stated I believe it will for a number of years. It is going to allow us to move part of our bridge crew closer to their area of responsibility. Commissioner Harper stated I think we should look at landscaping at that old facility once we get out of there. It is a decrepit old facility and we do owe it to the neighbors. I think that could be done pretty cheaply and maybe we could do some trees along there. Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Case 08-DP-4. Petition of Michael Bates, 677 W. SR 130, Hobart, Indiana seeking Development Review for an addition to a commercial building, Colorcraft Auto Body, to be located at 677 W. SR 130 in Union Township. (Property is zoned I-1.) Don Bengel stated I am here with Don Bates who owns Colorcraft. This is a facility out on SR 130 on the north side west of Wheeler. Mr. Bates would like to put an addition onto his building. Presently he does body work on automobiles and painting. The cars that he has outside he would like to put inside. They are customer’s cars that need to be put inside for storage. He wants to put up a 3600 square foot building on the north end of what he has now. This is one lot of a four lot subdivision that was done several years ago. All the road work was done. There are taper lanes and passing lanes on SR 130. The drainage seems to work alright. In January and February when we
Mr. Burns asked are you going to do any additional painting in this addition or is it strictly for storage? Mr. Bates stated just for storage. Mr. Burns asked will there be additional parking? Mr. Bates stated I don’t think I really need any more. Mr. Detert stated I don’t have any problem as long as this is for storage. Mr. Hutson asked will there by any antifreeze or oil dripping away. How do you handle that? Mr. Bates stated there is not going to be a drain in there. Mrs. Stevenson asked for the landscape how many trees and shrubs will be planted? Mr. Bates stated there will be more shrubs than trees and I am not sure how many. Mr. Bengel stated we show about 12 to 15 shrubs in the front of the parking lot. Mr. Cole stated I have been out there and looked at the site and I must say your building is the best looking building out there. I guess that is my concern. There is one that is just not up to snuff and I do have to ask do you own your own parcel yourself. Mr. Bates stated yes. Mr. Cole stated I have no problem with this. I would encourage some landscaping. Mr. Read stated I echo Mr. Cole’s comments that you run a nice clean operation. Were you the original subdivider? Mr. Bates stated no.
Attorney McClure stated if it is changed and/or modified then enforcement identifies the issue and we proceed to the normal channels of enforcement to have it remedied. Mr. Read stated I am making that request, so Mr. Thompson can you follow up on that. Mr. Thompson stated we have had a Code Enforcement officer that has already been out there and I believe has been in contact with the particular parcel owner. Commissioner Harper asked what has the response been? Mr. Thompson stated I don’t know. I would have to ask Tracy. They had a number of vehicles parked in the easement and down the swale area that was a long narrow detention type facility. I do believe from what I have heard, I haven’t seen it and I would have to check with them, they are moving some of those vehicles out. Commissioner Harper stated Mr. Read was also talking about a swale that had been filled in. Mr. Read stated yes, the north/south swale. Mr. Thompson stated we have to have those cars out of there before we can actually see what is going on there. Mr. Read stated you also show shrubbery in front of lot 1 on your original drawings which seem to either have died after ten years or never put in. I would like to encourage the petitioner here to put in the proper landscaping here. Mrs. Marshall asked Mr. Bates were you once located in Hobart. Mr. Bates stated yes. Mrs. Marshall stated I don’t have any additional questions. Mr. Breitzke stated I don’t recall Mr. Bengel ever offering up landscaping in the past but he certainly said he was going to do it now with this. As far as the drainage we have to be under constant vigil. Commissioner Harper stated about two years ago I brought forward a question about a plan on the storage sheds south of Hwy 6 in South Haven for the drainage plan. Did we ever get that fixed? Mr. Breitzke stated yes. Mr. McClure and I visited the site. Commissioner Harper asked but did we get it fixed. Mr. Breitzke stated I had fixed it before because the outlet was plugged up. Commissioner Harper stated if we have a site here where someone has taken in this drainage area and if they don’t immediately fix it, I think we need to file suit. I think we need to enforce this. Some of these seem to go year after year after year and not get done. I hope with this situation as soon as the cars are out if for some reason it is not remedied it is turned over and we file a suit to take care of that. Mr. Breitzke moved to approve Case 08-DP-4 subject to the petitioner committing to staff the size and number of trees and bushes and where they will be located on the parcel, also, that they will be replaced if they die. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Case 07-DP-9. Petition of Jake’s Feed and Garden, c/o Douglas A. Wilks, 326 S. SR 49 seeking Development Review for a storage building to be located at 326 S. SR 49 in Morgan Township.
David Appel stated he is here on behalf of Jake’s Feed. This is for site plan approval to construct a 32’ x 48’ add on to their existing building. This is located on a 2.7 acre site on the southwest corner of SR 49 and CR 325 S. in Morgan Township. Jake’s Feed and Garden was a business started by the Blastick family in south Porter County in 1990. It started out as a 1.7 acre site with a 36’ x 72’ building. It has been in the same location during the entire duration of its life. During that period of time there were two additions to existing building expanding it from 36’ x 72’ to its current size of 36’ x 144’. In 2003 there was a further building extended on a storage building. The storage building is primarily a pole barn type construction used to store feed, hay, straw, grain etc. My clients business has grown and in order to compete with some of the larger chain type operations that are in the area they are requesting to make this 32’ x 48’ add on to the building. The building is detailed on the drawing that you have. DLZ did its initial site evaluation on this on December 6, 2007. They came back with eight items that they felt needed to be further addressed. Four of those items were directly addressed by Mr. Bengel who handled the site engineering and surveying. The remaining four items were addressed pursuant to an application for a variance that was filed with the Porter County Board of Zoning Appeals and dealt mainly with drainage. One of the issues on this is that we are dealing with essentially a flat site. There is less than two feet of fall over the entirety of the site. The owner could not meet the required fall for the drainage swales or the pond bottom for the drainage. If you would look at the subsequent DLZ evaluation you can see that DLZ went along with what we said and said that it would be impossible to do or to reach the grade specified under the Storm Water Management Ordinance without raising the evaluation of the site by two feet and/or installing a very expensive pump system. In considering the drainage issue one of the things that I would also like to point out to you is that the present configuration that has existed on this site has been there since 2003. In all of the years since 2003 and is noted by the letters of the adjoining property owners there has never been a problem with storm water migrating off of this site. There are regular drainage ditches along the front of the site which flow from east to west on the south side of CR 325 S. They in fact connect to a drainage ditch that flows north and south along the west side of SR 49. This is a site that is entirely granular soils, in other words a very sandy soil. One thing that DLZ has asked for is that a forebay be put in this area here and if you look at your drawing the forebay has been added. We at this point are making the best possible compliance with the Storm Water Management order that we can give the limits of this site we feel that the variances that were granted by the BZA were proper. The BZA
Mr. Burns stated as he stated this is a very difficult piece of property to work with. We requested the petitioner to work with DLZ to analyze this and he did. I think this is the best plan for this property. They added the forebay and that is what the BZA was after and we felt very comfortable with those changes. Mr. Detert stated I agree with those comments. There was one thing in here that bothered me a little bit. DLZ said that we have to provide proper maintenance mowing and cleaning on the swales and detention basins. What do we do if you fail to do that? I think that we should have some leverage on coming in there if you let the weeds and the grass grow up. Mr. Appel stated I think that this is a code enforcement issue and I think given the BZA variance was granted subject to the DLZ memorandum of March 11, 2008 that requirement is already listed in black and white as applying against this property and would be subject to code enforcement. Mr. Detert stated I would just like to have you commit here and have it reflected in the minutes. Will you commit to maintain it? Mr. Appel stated we will commit to maintaining it. Mr. Hutson asked is this going to be open for the general public or strictly for storage. Mr. Appel stated just for storage. Mr. Hutson asked what types of materials are you going to have in here. Mr. Wilkes stated livestock feed, hay, grain, grass seed, pasture seed, bedding for horses. Mr. Hutson asked will you have pesticides. Mr. Wilks stated we do sell some pesticides in consumer type but they are in the retail area. Mrs. Stevenson stated I am satisfied. Mr. Cole stated you agreed to close off that one drive entrance. Mr. Appel stated that is correct. Mr. Cole stated what about the one on SR 49. Are you using that? Mr. Wilks stated that is going to end up being our access to the small storage building that was there when we bought the property. At this point in time, we are keeping that. Mr. Read stated I had three drawings that were sent to me. I just want to clarify for the record which drawing we are talking about. I assume that the drawing of record here on what you plan to do is the one prepared by Mr. Bengel which has an original date of December 10, 2003 with the latest revision date of February 6, 2008. I ask Mr. Bengel is that your latest drawing? Mr. Appel stated the latest drawing according to Mr. Bengel is the revision date of March 20, 2008. Mr. Read stated the major difference is the size of the basin which has increased in size and the addition of the forebay. I did find some amusement in going over some of the previous discussions about putting in a berm and then taking it out again. Mr. Appel stated in the initial DLZ memorandum on this site DLZ indicated there needed to be a berm installed either on the south and the west side of the to ensure that there was no runoff onto adjoining property’s. In the March 11 memorandum they indicated that we should be required to show why the berm should not be removed because it was inhibiting drainage onto our property from adjoining properties. I am not quite sure what changed their mind on the berm but we were more than happy to take the berm out. Mr. Read stated if you remove the berm you are going to be taking some of the water from the property to the south. Mr. Appel stated first of all we haven’t put in the berm. It was just on a drawing. If we delete the berm from the drawing what we are affectively doing is leaving the condition of the ground as it exists right now. Probably, historically, there has been a little bit of runoff that has flowed onto their property from the adjoining field. This property has always been able to handle it and we don’t anticipate any problems. Mr. Read stated Mr. Bengel’s drawing shows here an existing pond, which is actually a low swale as it stands. Would the contours remain as they are? Mr. Bengel stated I think it will be filled in and everything graded toward the swale and the… Mr. Read stated toward the southern swale? Mr. Bengel stated yes. Mr. Read stated as far as the north side I think that the intersection of CR 325 S. and SR 49 may not be a problem now but it is marginal. As long as you don’t have extensive development to the north or around it it will probably be okay. I personally think that sometime in the future that corner will be a problem. Mrs. Marshall asked is everything trucked there to the business, the hay, the feed etc. Mr. Wilks stated yes. Mrs. Marshall stated there is an indication from the Highway Department that the road is a 20-foot collector road and it should be 24-foot. I agree with Mr. Read that intersection is going to become more important as we add more people there. Will you observe the frost law if that road is posted. Mr. Wilks stated we have to get deliveries. We would be out of business if we didn’t. The truck traffic that we get is an average of one truck a day and we are open six days a week. Mrs. Marshall asked is that a semi covered box truck. Mr. Wilks stated when I say one truck a day that is one semi a day. Mrs. Marshall asked who is going to build the addition. Mr. Wilks stated FBA. Mrs. Marshall stated they have plans that are filed with the State of Indiana as far as approval from the State. Mr. Wilks stated we already have our State Release. Mrs. Marshall asked there won’t be any need for any sprinklers in this new building? The public is not going to go into this building. Is that correct? Mr. Wilks stated correct. They would back up a vehicle to it. Mrs. Marshall asked is there a dock there. Mr. Wilks stated no it is ground level. Mrs. Marshall stated I spoke with several of your neighbors and they do support your business. Mr. Breitzke stated I have been watching this site for years because originally we had a couple of trailers where that building was and Dave Schelling and I have watched it very carefully to see what was happening with the drainage before we approved the new building going in. They actually were ponding the water behind their building but it wasn’t getting on to anybody else and if someone was going to suffer damage it was their own construction and property. I am glad that we have things worked out with the drainage as flat as this is. We tried to take the high road with our drainage ordinance to do it a little bit better with the expectation that there are some circumstances that a variance would be appropriate. Thank you for removing that driveway. Mr. Breitzke move to approve Case 07-DP-9. Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Case 08-FP-2. Petition of Cherry Hill Development, LLC, 196 W. U.S. Hwy 30, Valparaiso, seeking secondary plat approval for Cherry Hill Subdivision to be located at 356 N. 250 W. in Center Township. (To contain 117 lots on 48.18 acres. Property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Single Family Residential.) William Ferngren stated I have Gary Radtke and Bill Wiegand the project manager and Mr. Staab is the owner of the project. This is secondary plat for Phase I, Cherry Hill Subdivision. Primary plat was approved on July 11, 2007. Property is located on the west side of CR 250 W. between SR 130 and Joliet Road. The proposal is for Phase I consisting of approximately 48 acres and 117 lots. Plat that is before the Commission tonight is the same as presented and approved as part of the primary plat. They have been through two Development Advisory Committee meetings. The bond amount is set at $380,000 plus or minus a few dollars. Mr. Breitzke stated I have no questions. Mrs. Marshall stated I would like to say that this is the most complete plans that I have ever seen. The only question I have is at that the west end where the drainage is you are going to increase it on the adjoining property owners. How are you going to control that so that doesn’t happen? Gary Radtke stated at the northwest corner we are doing Holst Drain to the next door neighbor’s property. We are actually
Mrs. Marshall asked is that a regulated drain. Mr. Radtke stated yes it is. Mrs. Marshall asked so you have permission from the adjoining property owner where the water is going. Mr. Radtke stated yes. Mrs. Marshall stated in this regulated drain do you have an easement on each side so that work can be done on it and how much is that. Mr. Radtke stated I think it is 75-feet. Mr. Breitzke stated there are a number of widths depending on the depth of the pipe. Mr. Read stated again I have two layouts and there is significant difference between the two layouts and I want to get into the record what is the current one that we are talking about. On page 8 of one set has a revision 3 and it is date 9-25-06. That was what we reviewed at the time. The later set has revision 4 dated 1-12-07. Which one are we talking about? Mr. Radtke stated this was changed through the process of the primary plat revision that this does not connect here but it actually connects on to this street. This is the original that was submitted and was revised to what you now received on the construction plans. Mr. Read stated so what you have is page 8, revision 4. Mr. Radtke stated yes. Mr. Read stated I also see that this shows the proposed right-of-way for the extension of SR 49 and was that one of the reasons for the change. Mr. Radtke stated that was and there was some discussion by the big open space here we now removed the street to the north of
Mr. Read stated you also provided for some vacation of some drainage lines some of which either went into or drained NIPSCO’s property. You have rearranged somewhat what is the official drainage, part of which goes over NIPSCO’s right-of-way. Did NIPSCO agree to that? Mr. Radtke stated we actually didn’t do any vacating in the NIPSCO right-of-way whatsoever. We just kept the regulated drain intact as they have it. We did not touch their property and we are matching the regulated drain at the property line. Mr. Read asked how many lots total are there on your revised plan. Mr. Ferngren stated 238 lots. Mr. Read stated now I noticed in looking at the DAC minutes of March 28, 2008 Mr. Haller raised a question which had to do with IDEM. Mr. Radtke stated there was an IDEM inspection for erosion control fencing. This happened right after the spring rain. There were some problems that we didn’t get to. As soon as we received that letter, the contractor was out there putting up fence that was taken down at one time by somebody. We did receive a letter from the county addressing the same issue. We continued working with the county and also the State to address those issues. I believe at the last meeting Mr. Thompson agreed that we did meet the requirements and that issue is now eliminated. Mr. Read stated there was also concern about the re-elevation of CR 250 W. and when that is going to be done. Mr. Radtke stated in discussions with Mr. Wiegand and the county I believe it was decided to actually put the construction costs in the bond issues so it is bonded. For the south entrance it is not needed because we meet all the requirements of the site distances. It is a requirement for the north entrance. The county is protected by a bond saying that that road will be reconstructed when that north entrance goes in. Mr. Cole stated I would like to have some discussion on the pedestrian path that you intend to include.
Mr. Cole stated this is one subdivision that is being named for something that is onsite and is going to remain onsite. There are cherry trees there and they will stay there. Mr. Burns stated there are two items. One is the bond. The bond is set at $380,000. Who set that value and is that a correct value? Mr. Ferngren stated there is a lot of work that has been done out there. The ponds were actually put in first. Initially, the bond that was submitted included just work still within the property and that was around $170,000. After visiting with the Highway Department they wanted to include CR 250 W. repair and replacement as well. It came to an agreement of $210,000 for that part of the work. Adding the two together comes to $380,000. Mr. Burns stated so this value will cover any undone work. Mr. Thompson stated the originally submitted number was $170,974 for the remaining infrastructure. There were a few items that I wanted to see and I told the Engineering Department to continue to add on. That was some of the storm water issues just for maintenance purposes and also some money in there for erosion control. The county engineer wanted the bonding done for the improvements on CR 250 W. That is why it went up. Mr. Burns stated the last item I have is erosion control. I am really concerned that if we have problems now and you don’t even have secondary approval what is going to happen after we approve this. Mr. Ferngren stated the issue was over the construction that took place over the winter. There were some things that had to be done on some pretty severe grades but now we have a handle on those things that we were able to do construction. The ponds are installed and almost completed. Mr. Burns asked weren’t you suppose to have that in place originally. Those controls should’ve been in place. Mr. Ferngren stated those controls were in place but over the winter some of them because of the weather just deteriorated them. As soon as we learned of those issues we immediately went in and took care of the problem. Mr. Burns stated I know what you are saying but I am concerned about it. You could’ve have put straw down or done something. I am asking you if you could really police that continuously. Mr. Detert stated I have the same question on erosion control. Mr. Hutson stated I am significantly concerned about your erosion control practices. Was it vandalism or was it the weather. Mr. Staab stated it was both. Normal practices you can go out there and clean up some of that but it was so muddy you couldn’t get to it. We apologize for it. We weren’t trying to avoid it. We needed the weather to soften up a little bit so that we could get to it to fix it. Mr. Hutson stated I don’t understand why this wasn’t planned ahead of time. That slope has always been there. I know you can’t do much about vandalism. Is there any filter that is out there that is causing any gulley erosion and things like that out there? Mr. Wiegand stated everything that was eroded away we put straw bale damns across the slopes. We put in a double erosion control fence any place along the wetlands and along the pond. We seeded the embankments. Everything has been taken care of and is complete. Mrs. Stevenson stated thank you for the thorough plans. Commissioner Harper stated you told Mr. Read that you changed the drainage plan in this phase. Did you or did you not change the drainage plan. Mr. Radtke stated from the preliminary to the secondary it was changed. Commissioner Harper asked how was it changed. Mr. Radtke stated what we did was in the preliminary what was submitted in there was a 28-foot storm sewer running from pond three to pond five that stayed on Mr. Staab’s property. The
Commissioner Harper stated there is fill going in there by the railroad track. Have you seen the fill going in there north of your property by the railroad track, concrete brick fill. Does that have anything to do with your project? Mr. Radtke stated no, that has nothing to do with Cherry Hill.
Commissioner Harper asked who is doing that? Mr. Staab stated we are helping the County to fix that drainage problem and we are working with Kevin. Commissioner Harper stated I am not going to hold this up tonight but I will tell you this I think that we need something in our ordinance when there is a major change to a drainage plan and that DLZ reviews that again. Mr. Thompson stated I did not realize that they were doing this work for the Drainage Board. Commissioner Harper stated I am not talking about that. I am talking about that they changed the drainage plan on that property it sounds like to me. Mr. Burns stated DLZ didn’t check it. Mr. Thompson stated in our Storm Water Ordinance the fact that if they do make a change like that we can send it back and review it. I was not aware and I don’t know if anyone else on staff was aware that they were doing work through the Drainage Board to do this with putting in an additional pond on someone else’s property.
Mr. Breitzke stated they kept the outlet the same as far as the outflow or even a little bit less. They are just going through and improving the regulated drain to the west, also, abandoning a pipe that has the potential not being a good drainage pertinence plus a high ticket maintenance item. It had no impact on the overall drainage. Commissioner Harper stated the reason why we got DLZ is to have a third party opinion on drainage plans and if we start changing drainage plans from primary plat approval to secondary plat approval and have somebody else deciding whether it is a major change or not and we don’t put it up to DLZ we are going to run into the same problem we ran into before. I don’t think that we should hold these guys up tonight. I think that we need to get some way to maintain this so we have our independent drainage evaluation if there is a change made. Mr. Thompson stated I just told Ray to change the application packet and put it in there where the petitioner will stated whether or not they changed the drainage plan from primary. If they state yes then it goes to DLZ, if they state no they will be on there way here. Mr. Burns stated when that sewer pipe was installed to Cherry Hill you went through which appears is a wetland on the north side of the tracks. Is that correct?
Mr. Radtke stated they didn’t go through any wetlands. Mr. Wiegand stated it is outside of the wetland. There is a wetland there but it is outside of the wetland. The city water department came through there. Mr. Breitzke asked have you resolved your issues with Mr. Gusky. Mr. Radtke stated we met in my office about two weeks ago. What we did was added a sewer utility easement to get to his property off of one of the streets and that was the biggest concern of his was to having that easement so that if his sewer
Mr. Breitzke stated it is really between you but you did agree at primary plat and also the north entrance I am glad you put in bond, although it is for phase two. I also ask you to have some kind of written commitment from the neighbor to the east. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 08-FP-2 contingent on a bond of $380,000. Mr. Detert seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Harper stated that bond is supposed to cover the work left to be done. Is that right? Mr. Thompson stated right. Commissioner Harper asked how do we get in something like Falling Waters where we have millions of dollars for the infrastructure, the roads etc. Then we are told on a project of this size that $380,000 will finish the work in that subdivision including the roads. Mr. Thompson stated they submit the estimate based on what is left. A number of people go out there and view it. Commissioner Harper asked what kind of bonds do we have in Falling Waters. Do we have three, four or five million dollar bonds in Falling Waters. Mr. Thompson stated we did. Falling Waters bonded right at the beginning and he did not do much as far as infrastructure work where the petitioner here, Cherry Hill, did a tremendous amount of work prior to this. Commissioner Harper stated here is what my mind is telling me. You are bonding for $380,000. That $240,000 is for the road, is that what we are saying. Mr. Ferngren stated $210,000 is. Commissioner Harper stated these guys could finish all the work that they have to do out there. For what is left over, they are going to have one big celebration, I think. Mr. Ferngren stated if Mr. Staab would come in at the
Mr. Thompson stated also, this is not for the entire subdivision. This is for just this particular phase. Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. New Business: At this time, Commissioner Harper read the rules of conduct for a public hearing. Commissioner Harper stated if anyone is here on the petition of Robert and Helen Surman, 696 W. 350 S. I would like to announce that this case has been continued. Case 08-M-2. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 311, Valparaiso for an amendment to Ordinance No. 07-05, Porter County Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 5.69, Telecommunication Facility Standard. Mr. Thompson stated the County Commissioners actually forwarded this to the Plan Commission for their recommendation. It is something that they wanted as far as the amendment. It is to the Tower Ordinance in this particular case. Towers that are 200-feet and taller must be lighted and we do have that within our ordinance but the Commissioners asked for it to be a stronger ordinance with language in there…to explain it quickly the FAA requires 200-feet and taller that towers be lighted. The FAA does not put any specifications on what type of lighting is necessary other than it is lighted relying on FCC to do the lighting specifications and they give you a couple of ways to do it. One of the things that we are trying to do is get away from the white strobe light. White strobe light during the day but when it becomes dusk to dawn in that case the white strobe light must switch over to a red blinking light, which is one of the items that the FCC allows. So what we are saying is that this is the lighting that shall be done unless the FAA specifically comes out and says no that it has to be this and they must provide proof to that. Rosemary Green stated I am a homeowner on the north end of Long Lake. In mid November the dual lighting system on the top of the communication tower at 665 N. Calumet malfunctioned. As a result in my neighborhood and several other neighborhoods we have a high intensity white strobe light flashing into our homes every
Philip Doolittle stated I have lived on west Long Lake since 1999. I am affected by this strobe light also. In 1999 this light malfunctioned and was fixed in three days. In 2002 the light malfunctioned and was fixed in six days. In November of 2007 it malfunctioned and is still not fixed. It was out for ten days and that was an FAA violation supposedly with a fine of $8000 a day. This gives you a magnitude of how serious they feel about it. So their requirements are followed by County, by the State and all go along with those rules and they have said it is okay to do that except that when the last repair was no longer put into service and I even volunteered to do it as an electrical engineer and I told him I would fix it for nothing. No contact was made and I was totally ignored. The night light level and the day light level are two different levels by approximately a factor of ten. In day light your eyes are more adjusted to light so that night level has to be brighter so that a pilot can see this. At night when your eyes dilate more it used to go down by a factor of ten and not bother anybody in the neighborhood. There are five other towers right near by with lights on them including white strobe lights and red lights and they don’t bother anybody. Mainly because the light levels are not so intense. There are some towers that have a white strobe light that is not intense enough to bother anybody. No one spoke in opposition to this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns asked will this take care of existing towers or new towers or both. Attorney McClure stated both. Mr. Burns stated there was an issue on CR 700 when that NIPSCO tower went in. Will this take care of that problem too? Mr. Thompson stated in that situation and that neighbor did call I spoke with NISPCO and they responded within a couple of days of that. White strobes are directional on where they flash and they also have shield on them. In that particular case they corrected the directional flash and also the shield. Any time
Mr. Burns stated if we have an issue with that tower again this will take care of it. Attorney McClure stated yes. Mr. Burns moved to forward Case 08-M-2 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Breitzke seconded the motion. Discussion: Mrs. Green asked what will the penalty be if the owner of the tower doesn’t correct the situation if this ordinance is passed. Mr. Thompson stated we don’t know. Mrs. Green asked how is that determined. Mr. Thompson stated through the judge. Mrs. Green stated is it in the ordinance. Mr. Thompson stated we do have penalty’s that are in the ordinance. Attorney McClure stated we would be requesting the court to require it to be changed and if it would not be changed we would be asking the court in an extreme case allow us to change it and then seek reimbursement from the property owner. Mrs. Green stated in January the owner of the tower filed an amendment with the FCC to request that he be allowed to put red flashing light on top of the tower at night. However, the FCC granted him that back in January but FCC has not been able to give me any time line as to what the requirement is for him to follow this. Does he have three months, six months, a year? I don’t know. I don’t know how affective it is as a homeowner to complain to the FCC about this because he is within FCC regulation to light his tower the way he has been. Commissioner Harper stated we are not depending on the FCC to correct this problem. Mr. Breitzke stated I think that everyone here is going to be in support of this. Do we have an inventory on all the towers?
Commissioner Knoblock stated I spoke with the gentleman who owns the tower and he told me that he was working on it. Motion carried on the following ballot vote:
Breitzke - Yes Burns - Yes Cole - Yes This case will be heard by the County Commissioners on April 15, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. Case 08-Z-3. Petition of Arcadia Development, LLC, 10 Lincoln Avenue, Calumet City, Illinois for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from RR, Rural Residential to R-1, Low Density Single Family Residential to be located on the Southeast corner of U.S. Hwy 6 and CR 75 W. in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana. Todd Etzler with Burke, Costanza and Cuppy representing Arcadia Development. With me tonight are Pat Kleihege, a principal of Arcadia Development, Matt Keiser of Duneland Group and Robyn Pappenheim is our traffic analyst. This property is located immediately south of U.S. Hwy 6 and bounded on the west by CR 75 W. and on the south by an RR zoned residential subdivision that is also being developed by the same developer. We are seeking this evening a recommendation to the Commissioners for approval of a rezoning of 80 acres to an R-1 designation. Adjoining uses are to the south a planned residential development, along the immediate east is storage units and is zoned under your ordinance as CH, High Intensity Commercial. On the north is a mobile home park, zoned MHP. As you move to the west there are two residents here on large parcels and then you have a trucking company. Then you have rural residential and high intensity commercial leapfrogging all the way down U.S. Hwy 6 along the west. Along this side is vacant land right now and is also owned by the same owner that the developer is acquiring this land from. The one unique characteristic about this property in terms of development is that there is a pipeline running through here and there is a NIPSCO easement running through here. It splits up the parcel that we are asking to be rezoned. We have had communications with NIPSCO and in the past have had authority to have a road run through their easements so that we have connectivity between the parcels. At the top of the property is Outlot A. It doesn’t have any residential lots on
No one spoke in favor of this petition. Brenda Krause, 747 N. 50 W. Mrs. Krause concerns are changing the zoning to R-1. She would like to see it remain RR. It doesn’t fit into the neighborhood. She is concerned about the added traffic. She feels that the density is too much. Les Krause, 725 N. 50 W. Mr. Krause concerns are the density. He is against the rezoning. Deb Bodza, 721 N. 50 W. Mrs. Bodza concerns are the traffic and the zoning to R-1. She is also concerned about the drainage. Also, the lots are much bigger out there and this does not fit into the neighborhood. Chester Micinski, 758 N. 75 W. He is against this rezoning for the very same reason he was against of the southern property. He feels that this is rural property and it should stay rural. He is concerned about the drainage and the traffic. Kurt Krause, 747 N. 50 W. Mr. Krause concerns are the traffic, drainage and that there is a spring on that property. He would like to see it stay rural residential.
Dr. Marie Nowak, 751 N. 50 W. Dr. Nowak concerns are safety and the traffic. Dan Witkowski, 47 W. 700 N. Mr. Witkowski concerns are rezoning it to R-1. It should stay rural residential. He is also concerned about the density. He is not against the subdivision but he is against packing people in like sardines. He is also concerned about the drainage and the traffic. J.F. Schroader, 978 N. Meridian Rd. Mr. Schroeder’s concerns are the drainage and that it should be kept as rural residential. He is against this rezoning. Chris Krause, 747 N. 50 W. Mr. Krause is concerned about the drainage. At this time, Mr. Krause submitted pictures of flooding in the area. He is also concerned about his grandfathers’ farm and vandalism to the farm. Spencer Cortwright, 65 Tanglewood. Mr. Cortwright’s concerns are about drainage and traffic. Mr. Etzler stated I see three issues. One is the use of zoning and an R-1 designation in this area. The second one being traffic on Hwy 6 and the third being drainage. As for the uses, the bases of our zoning is based on a graduated scale and your new zoning ordinance is based on a graduated scale of zoning in the county. In terms of a graduation of zoning we have U.S. Hwy 6 a major thoroughfare. If you look at your zoning ordinance and your zoning map it does have a graduation of uses. That is why this parcel is so much different than this parcel. This parcel is immediately adjacent to Hwy 6. In terms of the traffic for the property, as I had indicated we had a traffic study done that envisions full build of both of these subdivisions. That traffic study takes into consideration site lines, the difference in elevations between intersection and several hundred feet east and west of that intersection. This traffic study recommends that there should be passing lanes in this location. Right now people are trying to make passing lanes at that location by simply going out on the edge of the road. Concerning the flooding situation, right now this entire property sheets to the service drains to the north. By topography it must come to this point somewhere over here and to this being the lowest location now uncontrollably flows onto Hwy 6. There is no doubt that this occurs. When this subdivision is put together, you will see there are three ponds that are not engineered at this time. All of this water that now runs without control to the north and to the northwest of this property and overflows onto U.S. Hwy 6 will be controlled in each of these ponds and released at a controlled
Mr. Schroeder stated his concerns were not addressed that being the southeast corner of Section 22 and Damon Run with Swanson Lamport Legal Drain. There is 320 acres on the west which is assessed to the Swanson Lamport Ditch. The 320 acres to the south is not paying anything although they want to drain the water into Damon Run and the Swanson Lamport Ditch. The county does not have legal drains that way so how are you going to get it that way. Mrs. Krause invited the Plan Commission members to stop by and they will show you some of the issues that are out there. They will show the spring that got dozed over and the high water signs every time it rains. Mr. Mincinski pointed out that this pond exists every time it rains. The pond that they are putting here is a pond that fills that area of the farmland and then drains out to Hwy 6. Saying that this is going to slow down the drainage and make drainage better is a little bit of an exaggeration. Also, the turn lanes that they propose to put in and they are putting a turn lane in here for this direction and this is an entire swamp.
Dr. Nowak’s concerns are erosion, the drainage and the topography of the land. Mr. Cortwright’s concern is the turning lanes that they are proposing to install. Mr. Krause still has concerns on the drainage. He wants this land to stay rural residential. Mr. Etzler stated I will have to defer to Kevin where the Swanson Lamport Ditch is located. All drainage in Porter County does not flow through legal drains. Most drainage runs through private swales and over people’s land. I have no idea right now in terms of assessments on maintenance of legal drains on Swanson Lamport Ditch. As far as the engineering…right now we have recommendation for certain improvements to be done on U.S. Hwy 6. No engineers have looked at what the design of those improvements are. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns stated on Rt. 6 that is probably one of the worst areas for a subdivision. You have the grade change and it is a high speed area and a high traffic area. I see that being a real problem. What I see if there is a subdivision there traffic will head south and put a burden on CR 750. I just can’t see it there. I cannot support this at this location. It is spot zoning. My biggest concern is the location there on Rt. 6. It is a safety hazard. Mr. Detert stated I am also concerned with the traffic situation. The area that they are proposing to be rezoned is surrounded almost exclusively by rural residential. There are some exceptions on Rt. 6 which are understandable with commercial and the mobile home park. I think it would be out of line and somewhat spot zoning to rezone this to R-1. Mr. Hutson stated traffic safety is definitely one of my concerns. Have you figured out what the traffic count to Hwy 6 for this subdivision would be? Ms. Pappenheim stated we have analyzed the worst two hours of the day, the morning peak hours and the p.m. peak hour. For the morning peak hour I have on Rt. 6 making a west bound left or a turn headed south, 15 and east bound right turn of 17 in the morning. In the afternoon, 45 made a left turn and 48 made a right turn. Mr. Hutson asked that is your predicted numbers?
Mr. Hutson asked how many lots in this subdivision. Ms. Pappenheim stated 115. This is for one hour at the worst time of the day. This report has been submitted to INDOT. Mr. Hutson asked do you have any letters of permission from NIPSCO or the pipeline easement folks since you are talking about putting a road over those easements. Mr. Etzler stated we haven’t gotten to that point yet. Mrs. Stevenson stated I also agree that this is spot zoning. I also agree with the traffic problem. Mr. Breitzke stated this provides an interesting issue in that I am really an advocate of getting sanitary sewer and water service to developments, for water quality reasons, for safety reasons, for insurance purposes. Whether they do rural residential or single family residential our expectation is that they do improvements to improve the safety and welfare of the surrounding community and also improve the drainage. These are things aren’t done if nobody does anything to the land other than farm it or build ten acre lots or something like that. Typically, we can look forward to these things being done. The traffic counts I know they sound low but by the way they calculate these it sounds consistent with those reports. Bare in mind that is the impact not the total count. As far as the drainage issues throughout the area, I can’t really address that now as Mr. Schroeder knows. We are in the Supreme Court right now over the issues. The local and appellate courts were 100% in favor of the Drainage Board and how it went about things. Right now the density of the area really concerns me too. This has a much less impact that the trailer park would ever have. Mrs. Marshall stated I have several issues with this. First of all, how wide is the NIPSCO easement? Is it 150-feet? Mr. Etzler stated I believe it is 150-feet through there. Mrs. Marshall stated it looks like you excluded it from the legal description so I would say that it is held in fee simple. Mr. Etzler stated correct. Mrs. Marshall stated that is an issue right there. Who is the pipeline company? Is it the Michigan? Mr. Etzler stated I believe it is Vector. Mrs. Marshall stated that looks like that might be an easement. Mr. Etzler stated yes. Mrs. Marshall asked do you know how wide that is. Mr. Etzler stated I believe it is 50-feet. Mrs. Marshall stated you identified 8 outlots. In the southern part in the corner why are those outlots. What are you going to do there? Mr. Etzler stated they are required to be open space by the open space ordinance. The entire perimeter must have a buffer around it. Our way of looking at it is let’s put those in outlots that are owned by the POA and maintained by the POA. Mrs. Marshall stated so you are going to have a POA. Mr. Etzler stated yes. Mrs. Marshall stated am concerned about the first outlot at the top. When I look at this I think it is a speculators dream concept. First of all, I don’t look at it as spot zoning because spot zoning is legal. This subdivision has all the earmarks of a speculator trying to get approval to perhaps zone it again. You apparently had a tough time getting the bottom RR and now you are pushing the envelope by asking for R-1, which is more houses and the only reason you have more houses is to make more money. I can’t support your petition and I don’t think this is the place for an R-1 zoning. Mr. Read stated when a subdivision comes in with sewer and water I look more favorably on something like that. As far as traffic is concerned it is a scary thing to make a left turn across opposing traffic on the bottom of that bowl and that whole intersection is at the bottom of a bowl. Even a passing lane does not solve that. A traffic count is not much of a comfort. On CR 75 W. south of U.S. Hwy 6 that little crook that shows on the map is a really bad turn. The whole intersection of U.S. Hwy 6 and CR 75 W. is in the bottom of a bowl and the water has to go somewhere. Maybe your plan hopefully will capture that water before it gets to the intersection. I don’t want a situation where I might approve a subdivision on the basis that it gets sewer and water and then for some reason or another the owner changes his mind and can’t get sewer and water but he has his rezoning. He may sell it to someone else.
Mr. Cole stated I don’t know what else I can say that hasn’t already been said. This is a rural area. A lot of the property’s around here are rural residential and I have to think that maybe we should remain in that context. Let’s go over a couple of other things. Let’s go back to the trailer courts. Liberty Township did not want those trailer courts. I think that there are plenty of public record substantial public record that says that we fought those trailer courts. In fact, we got it the point where there was a moratorium on any more trailer courts in Liberty Township. Secondly, there was some problem, I believe, the containment area to the east, which I think was a veal farm, is not longer that. There was some argument about that. The storage sheds immediately east of Arcadia, once again there was some remonstrance on that. But the previous Plan Commission for whatever reason felt that those were adequate for rural Liberty Township where people could probably do that kind of thing. There is an artesian spring along Hwy 6 about two-thirds of the way down the hill. People might tell you that it was a broken farm tile but I spoke with some of the oldest people, I have lived there all 69 years of my life and it is an artesian well. It has been piped several times so that it flows harmlessly under Rt. 6 probably to those little ponds on the north end. Traffic has increased out there as Mr. Read had said. Mr. Read and I go out together to look at these areas. One time when we went out we went down to that little white spot on the upper curve on CR 75 W. that is in the pipeline easement, we started to back out and we nearly got hit because we couldn’t see the car coming south bound on CR 75 W. A couple of days ago when we were out there we parked in that and I turned around this time so that I could head out and see better. We were met with a truck coming around that curve and he immediately stopped and got out and asked what we were doing there. It is a dangerous little curve. If anything I would require some kind of modification to that curve just to make it a little safer. Another modification that I had asked for is that the road that you show along the east edge if that were to be continued out to Hwy 6 it would probably be a better exit for the traffic going through this subdivision. I would probably expect that a lot of the people from the south would probably drive through this subdivision and out to Hwy 6 at that point. You have already accommodated for the corridor study by not planning the extreme northern end along Hwy 6. So what we are looking at is traffic issue, the intersection with U.S. 6 and I don’t know how we are going to resolve that. The corridor study, the sewer and water, I think that this is probably the best thing that has happened to Liberty Township is the Damon Run Conservancy District. I have a lot of disagreement on that with some of my friends but I do feel with the failing septics in Liberty Township the fact that one-third of Liberty Township at one time was under water. I suppose one issue we haven’t talked
Mr. Detert moved to forward Case 08-Z-3 to the County Commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation. Mrs. Marshall seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Breitzke - Yes Burns - Yes Cole - Yes
Mr. Burns stated in front of you is a copy of the first draft of the landscape ordinance. Ray is going to summarize what we did. At this time, Mr. Joseph went through the landscape ordinance and the new tree ordinance. At this time, the Commission had a discussion concerning the landscape ordinance and the new tree ordinance. Commissioner Harper stated we should vote on this at the next Plan Commission meeting. I think that what we should do is somehow we should do it so if you feel you want to change this at the next meeting we will have the plan in front of us and you will have your proposed amendment. We can talk about it and vote on your amendment and see how the Board feels. Mr. Burns stated please have any changes that you would like to see to Ray by April 18, 2008. Mr. Cole asked are we making a recommendation on the type of tree because some of the trees that people might want to plant you wouldn’t want to park under. Mr. Joseph stated he spoke with a couple of landscape architects about his and in this part of the country is unique and it would be pretty hard for us to blanket. Mr. Cole stated the best thing would be the undesirable trees.
Mr. Burns stated I will do it. Commissioner Harper stated the last thing is the subdivision on CR 250 W., Tower Meadows. Has anyone been out there? Mr. Thompson stated Mr. Haller has been out there and no permits are being issued. Commissioner Harper stated that wetland has been virtually destroyed by what is going on there. Mr. Hutson asked when do we fine them? Mr. Thompson stated the first time is a warning that they have to have it completed by the ordinance. The second time, I am not really sure because we were proposing to up that. Have we fined anybody? No, because it gets to a third level before we get the fine. Mr. Burns asked how much bond is left? Mr. Thompson stated $350,000. Mr. Burns asked can we pull the bond? Mr. Thompson stated sure, why not. We just have to give the recommendation to the Commissioners. Attorney McClure stated how about we look to see what is left to be done infrastructural wise and how much is in there for the erosion control portion of it. Once we start pulling the bond we have some issues. At this time, the Commission had a discussion concerning the bonds.
Mr. Burns asked in regards to Tower Meadows can we give the attorney the approval to research the bond and if it is feasible to do it to go ahead and do it. Mr. Breitzke moved to give Attorney McClure the direction to research the bond issue and if he feels that there is sufficient monies left in the bond to start the procedure. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Detert stated I would like to make a comment on the corridor study. I heard something today from somebody that is not here right now that the corridor study is not going to include anything but was State and Federal highways. I think that is wrong. If we are going to leave out important collector streets or through streets because I live down south CR 100 S. is going to become a major thoroughfare. County Line Road is already a major thoroughfare and if we stick to State and Federal highways I think that this would be a mistake. Commissioner Harper stated we will have to talk about that because we have gone through all the requests for proposals. If we expand, the study we will have to go back for more money. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
PORTER COUNTY
Attest: Robert W. Thompson Jr. AICP, Executive Director/County Planner |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
April 9, 2008