 |
PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting M I N U T E S The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on May 14, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana. Those members present were Kevin Breitzke, Richard Burns, Tim Cole, Robert Detert, Todd Hutson, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read and President Robert Harper. Staff members present were Raymond Joseph, Robert W. Thompson Jr., Attorney Scott McClure and Patricia S. Gibson. At this time, Commissioner Harper stated that there was a hearing set tonight for a petition for Timberland Farms, Case 08-P-3, which has been taken off the agenda as the application was not complete. The petitioner will mail notice to everyone when the new hearing date is set. Also, Case 08-M-3, petition of Porter County Plan Commission, an amendment to the tree and landscaping ordinance, will not be heard tonight as it didn’t get published; it will probably be heard in two weeks. Mr. Burns moved to waive reading of the minutes for the April 9, 2008 Plan Commission and to accept them as received in the mail. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on an 8-0 voice vote. New Business: At this time, Commissioner Harper read the rules of order for public hearings. Case 08-Z-4. Petition of Inspiration Wood, Inc., c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans, LLP, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, for an amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from RR, Rural Residential, to P2, Parks and Recreation, for a proposed retreat center, to be located at 1162 N. 650 E., in Pine Township. Attorney Todd A. Leeth stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter. He stated that he is representing and accompanied by the petitioners, Ron and Kim Van Sessen and their children. They passed out a packet of materials prior to the beginning of the meeting, and there is also an aerial photograph of the area on an easel. The property is 60 acres in size and irregularly shaped in this location and is in the Northeast part of the County, at the Southwest corner of 1200 N. (Burdick Road) and 650 E. The petitioners are proposing a rezoning from its current RR to a P2, Parks and Recreation District, to allow for a proposal to create a retreat center, which would allow for companies and church gatherings to come to the property and enjoy the natural setting and have time for fellowship and learning there. It would also provide the opportunity to come and visit and stay for family gatherings, romantic retreats, honeymoons and that kind of thing. It’s not a hotel. It’s a retreat very much in tune with the natural settings. This is a very unique, secluded and wooded property, which is very conducive to what they are looking to do. The 60 acres allows for this type of environment. In the booklet that was passed out, the first page, after the cover sheet, is kind of a business description of what they are trying to accomplish with the gathering space and so forth. There is an introduction letter for the neighbors. They visited as many of the neighbors as they could contact and gave them some of the materials in that letter. At the end of the packet, the bulk is a series of sample drawings of the different buildings that are going to be on the property. They are 15 cottages. There is a business office called the Greeting Barn. There is a gathering place where the actual, formal activities for the groups would most likely take place – that or out in the gardens and the nature. The design of the buildings are by Yankee Barn Homes, a New Hampshire organization. There is very much of a New England style feel to the architecture of the buildings that is consistent amongst all the buildings and that carries through to the theme throughout. Each of the cabins will have a specific theme throughout the style of the cottage, the décor and the amenities that are associated with each of the cabins. Looking at the site plan, the overall property, again, is 60 acres. The curve of Burdick Road is in the Northeast corner and the intersection of 650. Currently the property has a single-family home in this area right here and a small, somewhat dilapidated, pole barn. The home will remain and be the caretakers for the project. Phil and Michelle Pendergrass are present. They are the family friends of the petitioners and will most likely be the caretakers. The Greeting Barn and the Gathering Place will be up front and the cabins are set back in the wooded areas. There are significant wetlands throughout the property and they are platted on the site plan, based on the national wetlands inventory map. John McQuestion has been hired by the petitioners to perform a wetland delineation to make sure the inventory map is consistent with the science of the topography and the conditions of the property. This is a conceptual plan, what they anticipate happening, but, if one wetland is larger or smaller, they will probably adjust the site plan accordingly. They have significant uplands that they know exist and the mapping suggests that, as well. The delineation that Mr. McQuestion prepares will be submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers and they will pass judgment and confirm that the delineation is as he believes before they go on. The cottages in the rear of the property are in the most sensitive areas; that’s intentional. They are trying to provide for a secluded, serene setting. They are originally planning seven cottages, but the site plan shows a maximum of 15 cottages if this project takes hold. The cottages are different sizes: There is a family cottage that can sleep as many as 8. There are smaller cottages for honeymoons and romantic one-bedroom cottages for the smaller guests, as well. The Greeting Barn in the front is the front desk, the check-in location. It has laundry facilities for the guests to use. The Gathering Place, a larger, barn-type structure, they are still looking for that type of feel. Everything is going to have the same architectural feel of a working farm, if you will. The Gathering Place will have a catering kitchen, a 12-seat movie theater, open space for gatherings and sessions for all the gatherings. That same area can be used for dining, as well. Midway back is a pool for the guests and a small pool house for that. Throughout the balance of the property, the petitioners are proposing significant improvements to the nature setting, in the form of enhancements to the wetlands and the wetlands boundaries. If possible, there will be creations of new wetlands, walking paths, some natural settings and garden areas, fountains and so forth, so as to invite the guests to venture to the nature and give them physical access to enjoy the nature areas on the property. The setting is very important for this venture. Every destination has to have something to draw someone there. In many places, that’s shopping or an amusement park or some draw. What’s important here is nature – the seclusion, the quiet and the nature, and that’s what Inspiration Wood is about. It’s the petitioners’ business to know that and to enhance that. They also have a very vested interest, as well, because they recently purchased this property, and that will be their future home. The site plan that is seen here was prepared by Aaron Taylor of Duneland Group. If they move forward it’s his job to engineer this. Mr. McQuestion is here to visit about the wetlands issues. Jim Gorski, 1107 N. 650 E., stated that he’s the only other home on 650 E. and he is not opposed. He just wonders how the treatment plant is going to handle all the homes and septics. He would also like to know what a “working farm” is. If they do not decide to do this, but get it rezoned, can they put all the other possible uses there that a P-2 zoning would allow? Frank Sona, 614 E. 1100 N, stated that he owns the property to the South and adjacent to this and it’s all wetlands and there is a creek running through there and this is all, probably, lowlands and wetlands. He would like to know how changing the area would affect all that. Delores Gorski, 1107 N. 650 E., stated that if they rezone it to Park and they do not go through with that, can there be a stipulation made that they can only do that with the land? Mr. Leeth stated that the wetlands are identified on the map based on what the federal government believes where they are based on aerial mapping. Mr. McQuestion has been hired to survey the property to determine where those wetlands are and, if they are different from what the map shows, then they will have to adjust the site plan, but they know that there are significant wetlands where they said they are, back in the Western part of the property. John McQuestion, Soil Solutions, 308 E. 316 N., stated that this is real preliminary on the delineation. They knew wastewater was going to be an issue from the very beginning, so they did some preliminary evaluations. He’s not sure they are going to be able to do a whole lot with wastewater in the back of the property, so, one of the things they’ve discussed is that there are some sandy soils up in the central portion of the property. One ideal that they kicked around was to have a large collection system – a pre-treatment system – and then one cluster disposal system that could be managed as one field for the entire development, which is what the state really likes to see, too. There are some higher quality wetlands in the back. Ms. Van Sessen has told him that she really doesn’t want to impact any wetlands with the project, so they are in the midst of doing this determination and delineation. There are also some real low-quality wetlands on the property because some of this was pasture and farm and has some drain tile in it, and some of this will be enhanced with removal of the drain tiles with additional plantings. They are talking about prairie restoration in the central portion of the property and some restoration of some other wetlands on the property. Mr. Leeth stated that one of the other questions that was raised by Mr. Gorski was the definition of a working farm. This is not going to be a farm that’s going to create a cash crop, but this is going to be the opportunity, again, on the property for aesthetic purposes for the guests to provide some interest in nature and the opportunity to have a small garden, with corn and pumpkins and those type of crops, rather than a 30-acre tillable field on the 60 acres. They are not going to have that kind of large farm, but it’s going to have something that provides some interest for the guests. Working farm is, perhaps, an overstatement. Regarding the P-2 zoning classification, prior to last June, when the Unified Development Ordinance was adopted, they have a limited number of zoning classifications. They had to pick what they wanted out of a limited list and if he wanted to have a client have a business like this, they would be asking for a Commercial 1 zoning classification and when if they went to permitted uses, they would find something like the Van Sessens wanted, but they would also find a gasoline station, and that doesn’t work. They can’t do a rezoning where, if the Van Sessens were to ever sell the property in 5 or 50 years, a gasoline station could pop up on this corner, because that’s not what the community would want or allow. Now, with the UDO, the number of zoning classifications has increased significantly, and they now have a Parks and Recreation zoning classification, P-2. It’s very limited. The current zoning classification is RR, Rural Residential, which allows for homesites 1 acre in size. The rule of thumb is, if someone has 60 acres and they want to do a residential subdivision, 25 percent of that land is set aside for roads and detention ponds, and the other 75 percent is homes. So, if you use that rule of thumb, you come up with 45 homes on 60 acres. They could never do that, because they have a significant number of natural features, forested areas and wetlands. If you use the rule of thumb of half of that, you’d have 22 homes on here, and the Rural Residential zoning classification lists other uses that are allowed. In the P-2 zoning classification, what they are asking for is very limited. It’s agriculture, farms, plant nurseries, sale of agricultural products, campgrounds, country clubs, golf courses, paintball facilities, scouting camp, sports club, swimming pool, conservancy, nature, ballfield, fishing pond, hiking trail, historical structure, lakes, libraries, government buildings, musical events, police and fire stations, playgrounds, recreational facilities, skate parks, sports fields, swimming pools, tennis courts – those kinds of parks and recreation types uses. He thinks that the P-2 zoning classification is limited enough, and that’s why they are asking for it without suggesting all sorts of restrictions. He thinks the ordinance is well done and provides those natural restrictions. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns stated that he has no major problems with this, but he has a couple questions. What determines if this is a permanent residence versus a temporary residence? In other words, can they turn this into a home? Mr. Leeth stated that he doesn’t believe they can under the ordinance. Mr. Burns stated that he would like to make sure that’s covered, because you would have 15 homes on one parcel. Mr. Leeth stated that that’s not the intent. A single-family dwelling requires a Special Exception, so they would have to ask the BZA for permission if they wanted to have a permanent home on there. Mr. Burns stated that he was questioning that in case they resell it. If this does not go through, would this revert back to the original zoning? Mr. Leeth stated that it wouldn’t revert back; it would just stay the RR. Mr. Burns asked if the petitioner would decide to convert back if they decide not to go through with the plans. Mr. Leeth stated that he would say yes. Mr. Detert stated that that was his question, too, was if they could revert it back to its original zoning if they fail to go through. Mr. Leeth asked for clarification: If they don’t open the project, or if the project is opened and closed in five years? Mr. Burns stated, either. Mr. Leeth stated that he thinks the answer is still yes. Mr. Detert stated that they are going to be raising crops in the area. Are they going to have farmstands there selling the crops? Mr. Leeth stated, no. It would fit, because it’s an agricultural use, but he doesn’t know that…. Kim Van Sessen, 1401 Nelson Drive, stated that they have just purchased property at 1158 N. 650 E., and they would like to have hayrides at Halloween and possibly have children come and pick out a pumpkin. They would come as guests, and this would be something that they would get as part of their entertainment. Mr. Detert stated that he thinks it’s a good idea and he has no objections to it at this time. Mr. Hutson asked if this is going to be a year-round operation. Mr. Leeth stated, yes. Mr. Hutson asked what the hours of operation would be. Mr. Leeth stated that it would be 24/7. Mr. Hutson asked if there would be anything like a gift shop. Is this kind of a combination of kind of like a County Line Orchard-type of effect where you have an agriculture experience and you have people out there for fellowship? Mr. Leeth stated that he doesn’t know. He doesn’t think that’s the case. It’s not an agricultural experience. It’s a nature retreat center where you come and enjoy the setting. Part of that setting will be a large garden – that’s just part of the experience. There’s the pool for the kids to swim during the summertime and the wooded trails and the benches. The setting is what draws folks. Some local folks, if they go there, are going to go there because the church is having a gathering there or the family is having a reunion there. But there will be others who want to come there for that overnight experience, just to get away from things, decompress. That’s the experience. Mr. Hutson asked what the maximum number of people that they could house would be. Mr. Leeth stated that that would be between 70 and 90 people for 15 cottages down the road. Mr. Hutson asked if they are going to have ATV trails or anything like that. The one thing he’s a little bit concerned about would be having large numbers of people there late at night and having some hell-raising going on. Mr. Leeth stated that that’s why they have a full-time, live-on caretaker to make sure that that doesn’t happen. Mr. Van Sessen stated that they also live right next door. Mr. Cole stated that he, too, also had the question about late-night festivities and the possibility of fireworks. He was out there with Mr. Read the previous day, and he had a lot of misgivings, fraught with the danger of rezoning an area that is really in a very sensitive wetland area and seeing it fail for the purpose for which it was intended and getting something in there that would be much less desirable. In addition, there is no safety zone law regarding hunting on adjacent properties in Indiana, and we need to think about that and who may own the property to the West and see if some arrangements could be made with the neighbors to have some control over that so that people aren’t shooting guns over children’s heads. Having a dedicated place like this is really ideal for retreats, but the cost could be significant. It would be nice to have something that’s affordable for churches, as well. He is curious as to the cost. Would they be considering their own enterprise in catering, or would it be someone else’s? Mr. Van Sessen stated that it would be someone else. Mr. Cole stated that he wonders how many other areas exist like this. Mr. Leeth stated that the Van Sessens have researched this very well and have visited other businesses outside the area because nothing like it exists out here. Mr. Cole stated that he would like to discuss the possibility of reverting to previous zoning if this wouldn’t work and what uses they could possibly eliminate from this particular property by exceptions just to keep it in the same realm that they are talking about. There are wetlands on surrounding properties and preserving them would take cooperation with the neighbors now and in the future. Mr. Leeth stated that Mr. Cole was suggesting a restriction to take out some of the offending P-2 uses and, if this use terminates in the future, that it should revert back. He thinks those two comments are exclusive of one another. If they did one, but not the other, he thinks they would be okay, and you could almost kind of take your pick which one to do. If they did a good job of excluding uses, then it could continue in perpetuity. If they didn’t’ do any written commitments at all, then it ought to terminate upon ending this use, but he doesn’t think they need to do both. Mr. Cole stated that he’s right. Mr. Read stated that Mr. Leeth should know about the 10-day rule. He has just seen some of this for the first time tonight, so, if he were going to be mean, he would say he objects to this and come back two weeks from now, but he’ll pass that by and not raise an objection. But there’s another difference between what the members have and what he shows, and that is the Western boundary on the latest map is considerably farther to the West than what was given to them 10 days ago, which means that it pushes farther into the wetlands. Looking at the inventory map, the Western boundary is almost twice as far to the West into the wetlands than what’s shown on here. Mr. Leeth stated that the map that Mr. Read has that he says is shorter to the West, he didn’t’ prepare. He believes that’s the staff report from the Plan Commission office. What they presented tonight in the booklet that he has has a site plan in it, which is the same site plan that they show on the board tonight and that’s attached to the petition that they filed March 11th with the Plan Commission office. Mr. Read stated that the dimensioning on one is shorter than on the other. Commissioner Harper stated that that was staff, not the petitioner. Mr. Read stated that his point is that it pushes into the wetlands. The wetlands flow Northward and are headlands to the Little Calumet River, and, specifically, the great blue heron unit of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, so he views the wetlands as more than just a puddle of water in the ground. What happens here can affect the water in the National Lakeshore, as well. His national wetlands inventory map shows a watercourse going from South to North and it goes right past the cabins, if he’s reading this correctly, and it doesn’t show on the large map. Mr. McQuestion stated that there is an intermittent drainageway there that runs in this area here. The road was placed where it’s placed because of a culvert there. He thinks if they get the drain tiles out of there, this soil acts like a sponge and he thinks they can greatly reduce the amount of runoff coming off this property and do a lot for water quality in this watershed. They are in the infancy of the delineation. There are some real high quality wetlands and some real low quality wetlands that they want to enhance. They will get it verified by the Army Corps of Engineers. They don’t want to impact the wetlands. These are the amenities they want to design around. They are looking at protecting the wetlands. Mr. Read stated that with the onsite treatment of waste, they undoubtedly will have a high water table in there; have they done some tests? Mr. McQuestion stated that they have done some preliminary stuff and this will all go downstate to be reviewed by the state engineers. They know there are some higher seasonal water table soils in the back. There is also some well-drained stuff in the back that doesn’t show up in the soil survey. There is some well-drained stuff that they can also put cabins with basements. They don’t’ want a bunch of individual septics. Because they have some better drained soils – this is also the area where they want to do some prairie grasses and wildflower plantings, and that’s ideal to put over the top of septic systems. The idea is to have one large system and have septic tanks at each homesite or one at each homesite; a collection system – they probably would pump that wastewater up to one disposal area. Mr. Read stated that he has been an advocate of consolidated waste treatment systems for some time, rather than individuals, where it is feasible. Mr. McQuestion stated that then the whole system is managed by the Van Sessens. Mr. Read stated that one other thing that was brought up was what happens if the project fails, what happens to the rezoning. He thinks it should remain a P-2. He thinks a P-2 offers better protection for the wetlands that are there than reverting back to RR. Mr. Leeth stated that he agrees. They can take out a few of the things that smell and feel more like a commercial enterprise, like a paintball facility. Ms. Marshall stated that she would like to ask the petitioners what experience they have in retreats. Mr. Leeth stated that they have no experience in running a retreat. Ms. Van Sessen stated that her parents own a hotel and she has not experienced running one herself, but she does have some experience in working in a service industry and her husband and she have visited some retreats to do some research, so she has a backup plan. If her parents can give them advice on things they need help with, then that can be their backup plan. Ms. Marshall asked where they plan to market this retreat. Mr. Van Sessen stated that there are different target clients they are going after. One is the corporate retreat. First of all, they’d like to get as much free publicity as they can – invite the newspapers out, Lake Magazine and other similar magazines that highlight tourist information in the area. They are going to be working in conjunction with the Tourism Bureau. They will also be marketing this to different churches. For the churches they want to make it very affordable by making it part of their tithing to their church, so it should be good for everybody. Their primary focus is corporate retreats, family reunions. That, again, will be focused on through the Tourism Bureau and Lake Magazine and things of that nature, website search engines. Ms. Marshall stated that each of the cabins has a full kitchen and linens will be provided. Does that mean that people can bring their own groceries and make it a home away from home? Mr. Van Sessen stated, yes. Ms. Marshall stated that it also invites people to have extended stays and use it as living space, so she’s concerned about that. It was also said that they would invite weddings, is that correct? Mr. Van Sessen stated that they’ve not excluded the possibility of weddings. The Gathering Space they have is a small facility that can hold a maximum of about 75 people, so you’re not going to see 200, 300 people weddings. Ms. Marshall stated that it also says that they are going to have catering from the outside, so are there caterers in the area that they have had contact with about catering events there? Mr. Van Sessen stated that he owns his own business aside from this and he’s had the opportunity to work with different caterers in the community and being on other community boards that he’s been a part of they’ve had events where he’s worked with other caterers. Ms. Marshall stated that they are going to get rent when they have people come to this woods. What would be the rent for this? How is that determined? Mr. Van Sessen stated that the rents…someone could come in for a day conference and not rent a cabin at all, so they would just be renting the Gathering Space. The Gathering Space, by itself, would be around $300 a day. If they wanted it a half a day, it would be around $200. Depending on if they need a particular setup – audiovisual equipment – these types of things, that can be added on and charged accordingly. As far as the cottages, there are three different styles: A one bedroom, a two bedroom and a two bedroom with a loft. The smallest cottage can sleep two people. A family of four or five would be in the medium-sized cottage. Larger groups of 6 to 8 would be in the two-bedroom cottages with loft. There will be a base price set for each cottage, which would be up to a certain occupancy. If you need to get an extra person in – say, you have small children or something like that – they would probably have a charge, too. Ms. Marshall stated that it says they are going to have staff members – what does that include? Ms. Van Sessen stated that she has a friend who has had experience in construction and hotel cleaning and she will be the head of cleaning staff and they will hire the necessary people to help her. Ms. Marshall asked what they are going to do in the winter. Ms. Van Sessen stated that they could have a writers’ retreat. They have gone to a marriage encounter. She could name a hundred different things. Ms. Marshall asked if they are going to phase out the work. Mr. Leeth stated that it will be phased. The Gathering Space and the Greeting Barn are essential from Day One, and Phase One will also include seven cottages. The other cottages will be added as business grows. Mr. Breitzke stated that the goal of this Commission is to find the highest and best use for a piece of land. He believes that this just might be. They do have concerns about what happens with this land if things do fall through. He would suggest that the business description and what they have prepared here be part of the written commitments to the County Commissioners. Sometimes he gets concerned with some of the other alternative uses for P-2 and what somebody else might interpret that to be. The other concern he has is with the possibility of having temporary workers housed at the site for a month, three months, for construction, utility projects. Ms. Van Sessen stated that Yankee Barn Home Company provides a timber frame construction with a panelized system that attaches to the outside of the building and they have a family friend who works from Nappanee. It should take about a week to get the exterior of the building put up and then all the rest of the work would be on the interior, and that’s for the smallest cottage. Yankee Barn Home suggests that you can get most buildings up within about two weeks, even the larger ones. They don’t want this to be a long-term construction project. As soon as they have cottages, they won’t want to disturb the cottages by having more construction going on. Mr. Breitzke stated that his concern is more the type of workforce that they would have come into the area that’s more itinerant. Some companies are looking for places to house workers temporarily, and he doesn’t want to see this used for that type of facility. He doesn’t want to see single-room occupancy, for example. He would like to see a commitment that it’s not used for something like that. Regarding security, he thinks they need to talk to the Porter County Sheriff and be working with him and the fire department on the plans and routes. They will have to come back to the Plan Commission for a development plan and then they will address a lot more of the technical issues. He is happy to hear that they are planning to go with a cluster system, which he thinks would be the best way to approach waste management. Commissioner Harper asked if Mr. Leeth thinks they have to come back for a development plan. Mr. Leeth stated that he would think not. Under the ordinance, development plan isnt’ required under the P-2 classification. Commissioner Harper stated that tonight he thinks they should maybe take a look at that. Mr. Breitzke stated that he thinks that would be a good idea. Also, they still have to go before the Development Advisory Committee. Mr. Leeth stated that he would agree, for a building permit, they would have to go to DAC. Commissioner Harper stated that this is not a plan at all. This is a concept. If they came here tonight and they had everything done – all the delineations, all the absolute plans for the buildings and the landscape plan – what would you be talking about in money? Mr. Leeth stated, tens of thousands of dollars. It would be close to $100,000. Commissioner Harper stated that he assumes that’s the reason that they are running feelers here to see if they can get the zoning, because you don’t’ spend that kind of money if you can’t get the zoning, is that right? Mr. Leeth stated that that’s exactly right. Commissioner Harper stated that what concerns him, he thinks the Commission can handle the development review because he thinks they could agree to come back for that. Mr. Leeth stated that he thinks they can agree to do that. Commissioner Harper stated, if you sit here and think about Shellbourne and about the orchards right outside of Hobart and you think about a parking lot all along one side of the property and cars parked up and down the road, then that’s not great for the neighborhood. This would be great for the neighborhood if they were going to have buffers all the way around it; as long as they have some lighting requirements; if they had some sound requirements. He thinks they need a little more guarantee than just a few written commitments to make sure this thing looks good. Good idea, but if it’s not thought through, it could be a bad idea. Mr. Burns stated that he agrees. It makes a lot of sense and if they would agree to a development plan, that would help resolve the problems. Commissioner Harper stated that he’s not sure that would resolve it all. If we rezone today and they come in with a development plan and they’ve got a parking lot along the roadway and we want a buffer there, are we going to be able to get that buffer? Mr. Burns stated that they could make their recommendation contingent on the plan being approved. Mr. Leeth stated that he thinks if they agree to submit to a development plan, that’s part and parcel that that has to be approved. Mr. Burns stated that it’s contingent on the Plan Commission approving the plan. Commissioner Harper stated that he thinks we need some protection in the way of a development plan review. Mr. Burns stated that they talked about a possible 70 to 75 people…. Mr. Leeth stated that they are going to have to have parking for that and lighting for that, but they can do lighting that’s low-level, doesn’t spill off – no fugitive lighting that would leave the property. Mr. Read asked about fugitive sound. What passes for concert music these days travels a long, long way. Mr. Leeth stated that he anticipated noise might be an issue tonight and he did some research and a push lawn mower has the same decibel as a live rock band. Mr. Read stated that he can’t convince him of that. Mr. Leeth stated that they know sound is an issue and they have every intention of controlling that. The success of the cottages depends on the fact that they don’t, in the Gathering Place, blow them out with music at 11:00 at night. So, they will have their own internal rules to make sure that doesn’t happen. Mr. Read used Coffee Creek as an example of how such concerts and the like can be done tastefully and without disturbance, but we have to have some controls over it. Mr. Leeth stated that if they are going to invite small weddings and they want to have live entertainment or a deejay for dancing, then a wedding reception isn’t going to end at 7:00 at night. Many things control sound travel, and they have the ability onsite to control some of that with landscaping, etc. He just wants to make sure the Plan Commission recognizes that if there is a wedding reception, he can’t promise that the music will end at 8:00. Commissioner Harper stated that if they are going to have this in a residential neighborhood, they have to have some sound requirements. He just wants to make sure we are covered here. He thinks whoever makes the motion tonight has to make it pretty specific and that when the petitioners come to the Commissioners they should have worked hard with their attorney to make sure everything is clear. Mr. Leeth stated that he has made notes and he thinks there is a consensus among this group and he will draft the written commitments and he will work with Attorney McClure between now and the meeting in hopes that they can resolve things. Commissioner Harper stated that he is concerned that if they are going to put something like this in a residential area, which is going to be good for that property if it’s done right, he thinks there should be some sort of buffer along the road. Mr. Breitzke moved to forward Case 08-Z-4 to the County Commissioners, with a favorable recommendation, subject to written commitments dealing with nuisance (fugitive sound and light), buffer, a development plan, commitment to the number of people participating onsite such as described in the business description of the report submitted to the Plan Commission members, parking; and for there to be a buffer. Mr. Detert seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Leeth stated that he will remove paintball facility and sports complex from the number of uses permitted in the district. Ms. Marshall stated that she doesn’t know if they want to allow campgrounds or to pull recreational vehicles in there. Mr. Leeth stated that he doesn’t think those other things are allowed, but he will specifically name them as not allowed. Mr. Cole asked about the possibility of a bed and breakfast here. Motion to forward Case 08-Z-4 to the County Commissioners with aw favorable recommendation carried on the following ballot vote:
Breitzke - Yes Marshall - Yes Read - Yes Mr. Joseph stated that this case will be heard at the June 17, 2008 meeting of the County Commissioners. Commissioner Harper stated that the petitioner is required to notify the neighbors of that. Case 08-Z-5. Petition of Timothy & Helen Chupp, 528 N. 400 W., Valparaiso, seeking an amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from RR, Rural Residential, to A-1, General Agriculture, to be located at the Northeast corner of CR 500 N. and CR 400 E., in Washington Township. Tim and Helen Chupp stated that they are the petitioners in this matter. They own an 80-acre parcel directly across the street from his present home, where he has lived for 11 years. It is presently zoned RR and they are looking to downzone it to A-1. He has a petition from a few of the neighbors. The idea is in the best interest of control, as the present zoning allows for 1-acre parcels. His interest is that he has some land and some of the other neighbors have some small parcels and some of the other neighbors have 10-acre parcels. The idea is, he could develop the land under the current ordinance right now to 1-acre parcels. But his interest right now is that nothing more than 10-acre parcels, as a minimum, would ever be allowed. It is presently farmground. The thought is to downzone to A-1 in order to control what happens in his neighborhood. He thinks everyone in the area would be happy with less density. Jason Fliege, 891 S. Babcock Road, stated that he is one of the border neighbors right to the North of the parcel. He did some research, knowing that Mr. Chupp has developed parcels in the past. He speculates that in splitting this into 10-acre parcels Mr. Chupp is thinking of putting four or five houses on each, with a lane. He would like to know what Mr. Chupp’s intentions are with this. Mr. McClure stated that each 10-acre parcel can only have 1 house on it. Alan Hewitt, 61 E. 950 N., stated that he had a piece of property in Liberty Township that he had rezoned to AG. He thinks it’s a much better use for the property than RR. There is no advantage to developing property under AG, that he can see. If it’s rezoned AG, that only allows you to go down to 10 acres, which cannot be reduced without rezoning it again. Rezoning would make for a much less dense development, and he would encourage the Plan Commission to approve this petition. Tim Chesna, 550 E. 150 N., stated that he talked with Mr. Chupp today and there are some advantages in going to AG, one being that you lose total control. You have no retention requirements. There is a water taken into Turtle Run, which he owns, from this parcel. He would like to see some covenants if it is rezoned and some type of retention to slow down the water that comes under 500. Bill Griechen, 454 E. 525 N., stated that water is his concern, too. Mr. Thompson stated that there is no subdivision control in the Agricultural zoning district. All that would have to be done would be to record the plat, record some legal descriptions. It would come in for a staff review to make sure it meets code requirements regarding setbacks, lot widths, acreage and putting other possible limiting conditions on it. If it stays RR, it would have to go through the subdivision control process, even if they wanted to split it up into 10-acre parcels. Mr. Chupp stated that if he goes to 10-acre parcels nothing can ever be done other than 10-acre parcels. If he were looking strictly for dollars, the best advantage for him would be to develop the whole thing. Right now it’s a big open field that gets farmed. The hope is that if it’s grassland that would considerably reduce the amount of water that comes through.
Mr. Chesna stated the 10 acres is okay with him, but when you rezone to AG, he wants the board to understand that you lose control. When you change it, you take different water and this is where the Commission has control over it. There are 43 people that live in Turtle Run who are all going to take that water. Mr. Chupp stated that when Mr. Chesna came for approval for Turtle Run there was never a question about water coming across from higher ground. If he was concerned about the water coming through his development, then why did he put his development there. There was already an easement coming through Pivotal Pointe onto there. In the minutes from that meeting, he brought up the idea about his development. The approach, from his perspective is, he has his development now and he wasn’t concerned about the water before, but now he is. He thinks they are actually cutting down the water if they do it. He has a small section on the corner that…other water comes from an approval previous to his that happened on the Northwest side of 500 N. and 400 E., which was a development that wasn’t part of his property that does funnel through his. The hope is that some of this may slow down anyway, just on its own. The public hearing was then closed. Commissioner Harper stated that he’s assuming that Mr. Chupp would not want to go through the storm water ordinance. Mr. Chupp stated that if he’s going through the Agriculture process, which allows the 10-acre minimum parcels, if he’s going to do that, then he would be interested in the dollars. At this point, the focus isn’t the dollars. The focus right now is that he lives in this neighborhood and the way for him to secure this property, under the guidelines that are here, is to downzone it to A-1. Mr. Breitzke stated that basically what happens when you are converting farmland to this type of use, you will see a reduction in the rate of flow, a substantial one, at that. Furthermore, these will turn out to be estate-type lots, he believes. He would expect that people will buy these with the idea of putting a pond on their property. He thinks this would probably serve the neighborhood the best and have the best look to it. He gets concerned on the petitioner’s sake to make sure there is some kind of control over the future housing stock, and that’s where covenants come in. All in all, he doesn’t see a major problem with this. Ms. Marshall asked if he is going to put any roads in. Mr. Chupp stated, no. There is access from all directions. Ms. Marshall asked if he is going to allow outside builders to build the houses. Mr. Chupp stated that he’s a builder, himself. He does upscale homes and he is a small, custom home builder. His goal isn’t strictly just dollars. Ms. Marshall asked if he is afraid of the subdivision ordinance. In the future, if somebody buys a 10-acre lot, as they get older, often they want to build another house on here to have someone there to take care of them. Mr. Chupp stated that thinking about who would purchase this type of lot…he has had some interest in them already. They are going to be estate type lots. He will have the final say on the houses that are designed. Mr. Read stated that he went along with the 10-acre exception for the UDO because it was, supposedly, an aid to farmers. But he doesn’t see any benefit to farmers here, except as a way to develop their land for subdivisions. This is merely a way of getting a way of getting around subdivision control – no open space, no water control, none of the things that are in the subdivision ordinance would apply here. It’s not fair to other subdividers and if this is approved, we are going to get hit with a flood of 10-acre exceptions. He has no objection to a single house in the middle of 10 acres. But the purpose here is to avoid any of the subdivision ordinance controls and review by the Plan Commission, so he can’t go along with this. Mr. Chupp asked if he is saying that he is giving him his blessing to do a full-blown development. Mr. Read stated that he thinks he is better off with that. This is just a way to avoid subdivision controls. Mr. Cole stated that he’s looking at this from a very different viewpoint. He’s known Mr. Chupp for a number of years and he knows he has a love for the land. When he heard of this, he thought, Mr. Chupp is taking an area of Washington Township and keeping it from dense development. It should help the drainage off that land. Is Mr. Chupp only asking for two 10-acre plots, in that it? Mr. Chupp stated, no, the downzoning would just allow that the max that he could do is eight 10-acre parcels. Mr. Cole asked if they are going to be long, narrow lots. Mr. Chupp stated, no, he thinks Mr. Fliege stated that one would parallel exactly right next to his, the same dimensions. One would be directly opposite his house and then there will be another that will border along 400 E. and then five will go down along 500 N. Each parcel would have a 10-foot easement on each side of it for access. He is trying to make it as interesting as he can and to accommodate everyone there. Mr. Cole asked if most or all of these will have a driveway to the public road. Will there be homes behind homes. Mr. Chupp stated that they could. They could be in the front. They may want to build smack in the middle. He was one of the first ones out there and lived in the middle of 80 acres. Development is occurring all around this. This is just the best way he knows that he can control what’s there. Mr. Cole stated that there is no doubt in his mind that anybody who buys a 10-acre piece of ground with no hope of further developing it has intentions of some livestock, some gardens or horses. The alternative to this would be a house per acre, complete with the asphalts, all the roofs, and, then, a drainage problem – impervious surfaces, in contract to water-absorbing surfaces. He thinks this is a better idea. We need to talk more about how we can control something like this, even in minimal degrees, sometime in the future. Mr. Hutson stated that he likes the idea of the 10-acre plots. Couldn’t they just keep it RR and still have the 10-acre plots in there? Mr. Chupp stated that he guesses a person could. Mr. Hutson asked he then would choose to downzone. Mr. Chupp stated that if he keeps it RR then what does he do? Does he put a major road down through the middle of it, and then it starts to become a cost issue. If he started doing that, then he would want to do 1-acre parcels. Mr. Hutson stated that he thinks this is something that we may have an issue with. He thinks some folks may use this as a way to get around some of the subdivision ordinances to save money. He thinks that is a concern with this. We would have no control over what happens here. Mr. Detert stated that he has the same concerns. The concept is good and when he first looked at it, he thought this is the way to go, but he’s had second thoughts about it. Once we give away control, we’re lost. Mr. Burns stated that he doesn’t’ have a problem with the 10-acre parcels, but he does with the drainage, and we have testimony that there is a drainage problem out there. He sees this as Autumn Oaks all over again. He doesn’t think this is a good idea. Commissioner Harper stated that he likes the idea of the 10-acre parcels, but, if you have a drainage problem, he thinks to get this passed Mr. Chupp is going to have to address the drainage problem. He’s not saying he has to do all the subdivision things, but he thinks he has to address the drainage problem. Mr. Burns asked the petitioner if he would go back and take a look at this with some consideration to doing something with the drainage and work with the staff regarding this. He can’t support this unless the drainage issue is resolved. Mr. Breitzke stated that he suggested from the beginning that there would probably be ponds out here. He suggests that Mr. Chupp hire an engineer and do some design for detention that he can bring to a development review committee and we can go from there. He thinks this is going to reduce the rate of runoff from the field, but this could also protect the County roads better. Mr. Read stated that there is no permanently dedicated open space that runs with the land under the circumstances. He has no objection to somebody who wants to build a house on 10 acres, but, with zero controls…he would like to see permanently dedicated open space that runs with the land and water runoff management – without that he can’t go along with this. Mr. Chupp asked, on the greenspace issue, if a person has 10 acres, that can’t all be put under roof. Where is the line drawn on the greenspace? Isn’t that an idea that if you have high density, a separate area becomes green? They have 10-acre parcels that have a house and maybe a pole barn on it. You are not putting 9 acres under roof. Mr. Read stated that he should read the wording of the open space ordinance. “Dedicated in perpetuity” and “running with the land” are the two main things. That hopefully protects it from some future change in the subdivision ordinance, and that has to go on the plat that we approve. Mr. Burns asked if Mr. Read is asking that he not further subdivide the 10 acres; would that satisfy the definition of open space? Mr. Read stated that the law could change 20 years from now to permit it, except that if you have a percentage dedicated in perpetuity, running with the land, no matter who owns it, that’s the best way that we have to save open space. Just the 10 acres alone doesn’t do that. Commissioner Harper stated that the other thing they could do is pass it on, one way or the other, and he’d have a chance to decide before the Commissioners’ meeting if he would address the drainage issue.
Mr. Breitzke moved to forward Case 08-Z-5 to the County Commissioners, with a favorable recommendation, with the petitioner to consider, and have engineered drainage appropriate for the site to not only retain, but to also detain, so that there is some kind of control at the outlets to the subdivision, and that that be brought to the Development Advisory Committee. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Marshall stated that she doesn’t think in Porter County, with the development happening here, that we have people like this person. He’s going to get less money for a 10-acre parcel than he would get for 10 1-acre parcels. Motion to forward Case 08-Z-5 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation, subject to the aforementioned conditions, carried on the following ballot vote:
Breitzke - Yes Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Mr. Thompson stated that this Case will be heard at the June 3, 2008 County Commissioners’ meeting. At this time, Commissioner Harper stated that they have continued Case 08-M-3 concerning landscaping standards due to the advertising. That will be taken up in two weeks. At this time, Mr. Thompson stated that there will be a workshop held this Thursday night at 6:00 at Washington Township School for the corridor plan. During the day, they will be holding key group interviews, including elected officials from the County, cities and towns; emergency services; builders, developers and economic development; and natural resources and environmental groups. Plan Commission members are welcome to attend any one of these groups. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Attest:S\ Robert W. Thompson, AICP, Executive Director/County Planner |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
May 14, 2008