 |
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, June 11, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Valparaiso, Indiana. Those members present were Kevin Breitzke, Richard Burns, Tim Cole, Robert Detert, Todd Hutson, Herb Read, Rita Stevenson and Commissioner Robert Harper, President. Those members absent were Elizabeth Marshall. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Attorney Scott McClure, Raymond S. Joseph Jr. and Patricia S. Gibson. Mr. Detert moved to waive the reading of the May 28, 2008 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote. New Business: Case 08-Z-6. Petition of Caribbean Pools, Inc., 36 E. U.S. Hwy 30, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from I-1, Light Industrial District to CM, Moderate Intensity Commercial District to be located at 3806 Murvihill Road and 3906 Murvihill Road in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. Curtis Joiner, 777 W. 38 S. I am presently one of the owners of the business in Schererville, Caribbean Pools, and I wish to build an inground swimming pool establishment on this piece of property. I am here to change the zoning as an initial effort to get cooperation with potential development plans. What I am understanding this is in a large overlay and that I don’t know enough about what needs to be addressed as to what I can do with this piece of property. At this time, Mr. Joiner submitted a preliminary set of plans for his business. No one spoke against in opposition to this petition. Jeffrey Daxe, stated I am the owner of the property that Mr. Joiner is looking to put his business on. I have owned it for about 50-years. I would like to comment on the drainage. I asked one of the L.I.Combs boys if he could pull up a drawing and tell me what kind of soil is on this ground. He pulled the books out and said it doesn’t get any better than this. In all the years that we have owned this I have never see standing water on that property. I have had several tenants over the years that included Clary Builders that had an office on the corner of 3806. They stored building trusses for airplane hangers and pole barns. They were there for at least six years and did very will. After them came AT&T laying underground cable for TV reception. They stayed as long as their contract worked out for. Beyond that we had a business on the property called Garden Depot. They elected not to pay the rent over the winter months. They thought that was fair and I said let’s rethink that and come up with the back rent or leave. They elected to leave. It lends itself so well that it is deserving of being utilized in the best manner possible and in your infinite wisdom to be able to help this gentleman to make an effort to be successful with it. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns stated I don’t have any major issues with it. The only question that I have will this fall under the new landscaping plan if it is approved or will this fall under the old landscaping plan. Attorney McClure stated the new plan because they haven’t made development application. Mr. Burns asked why from I-1 to CM. Is that because of outside storage? Mr. Joiner stated correct. Mr. Burns stated I think that this is the right location for this business. I am just concerned on how much outside storage and how you are going to screen it. Mr. Joiner stated whatever I need to do I would be glad to cooperate. Mr. Detert stated that is my only issue. You have a big open space here on the west end. I have visions of that getting cluttered up and looking bad. Mr. Joiner stated I don’t know if you have seen our store in Schererville but we keep it very tidy and very well. What my visions are on this piece of property are I need a turn-around to be able to move semis and vehicles around. I thought about taking that loading dock clean out and having an outside loading dock somewhere and put flowers around and something that I could dress up. Mr. Detert asked is that metal building going to be demolished. Mr. Joiner stated that is a good issue. The building has a lot of value just because it has all utilities. Mr. Detert stated it is okay, I was just asking. Mr. Joiner stated I thought about using it as a construction office to keep people out of the retail center. Mr. Detert stated my only concern is that I don’t want this open area to be a catch all for old swimming pools that you tore out. Mr. Joiner stated I do 120 inground swimming pools a year and we are one of the top 50 builders in the country and I just don’t have a desire to do that myself. You would never see this cluttered. Mr. Hutson stated you are actually going to be selling pools out there and building them. Do you do the landscaping around the pools? Is that part of your business? Mr. Joiner stated we do pavers and retention walls because the yards may be off level. I would like people to drive through there and say what type of stone they want or what kind of rock or mulch that they want. This is kind of what I am thinking on the east end there. Mr. Hutson asked the west end with the concrete pad is that for the mulch and so forth. Mr. Joiner stated that concrete pad is just existing from old development sites or whatever. That would be a green space and I would probably fence that to keep people from coming in there. Mrs. Stevenson stated I have no questions. Mr. Cole stated the metal building out there I guess I assumed that metal building was for utility service, perhaps a lift station or wells. Mr. Joiner stated that was an old gas station. Mr. Cole stated is this on city water and city sewer. Mr. Joiner stated it is available. The city is just across the street. Mr. Cole stated I am concerned about the entrance off of Rt. 30. It is very close to that intersection. It would be nice to have all of your buildings facing Rt. 30 for your own benefit and your own advertisement but to have them come off of Murvihill Road is certainly something we should be thinking about. Many of the discussions have already been made about possible landscaping and the open area and to keep it attractive. Mr. Joiner stated concerning the entrance. The owner has had that intact for years and it has a deeded document stating that it is intact. I can encourage my customers and put signs out to let them know to use the Murvihill exit. Mr. Cole stated actually I was thinking if you only had the entrance West bound Rt. 30 and not the exit they would then have to exit on Murvihill and then go down to the light. It might be better. Commissioner Harper stated tonight we are here on a rezone. We are not here to approve or disapprove or discuss this plan tonight. The issue of that entrance will have to be dealt with at the Plan Commission when you bring in your plan and it is also going to have to be dealt with at the State level. Mr. Cole stated concurrent with that my problem is sometimes you may go ahead with the rezoning and then later find out that certain restrictions may apply that would not be valuable to you and you would feel that your whole plan really wasn’t worth the entire process. Mr. Read asked didn’t your engineer or consultant tell you that any material that you want to present to the Plan Commission has to be presented ten days in advance delivered directly to each member of the Plan Commission. Mr. Joiner stated no. Mr. Read stated if you go through with this I would suggest that your consultant read our ordinance. Would someone explain to me the for sale sign that is out there? Keith Nielson stated I am a commercial real estate broker with Inland Real Estate Sales. I am the listing broker on the site. The question was what does the for-sale sign have to do with this. The owner of the property is here and the purchase of the property is before you. Mr. Read stated I just wanted to clarify that. Now getting back to the matter of the drainage. Of course, you don’t have any problem now because it is mostly in grass. But the drawing that I see in front of us there is a huge increase in hard surfaces. Irrespective, the water was going into the ground in the past it is not going to go into the ground now. If this proceeds, your engineer will have to present a plan which shows all the storm water from off site where it is coming from off site and onto this particular property. If there is storm water leaving this property, where does it go? After your consultant does the best he can in following our storm water ordinance then we usually have our consultant, DLZ, check the figures. Drainage is a potential problem. Mr. Read stated I am totally opposed to the entrance off of Rt. 30. I would like to know what happens to the property if you find that the market isn’t there or our restrictions make you do something that you don’t want to do and you back out. What would be the plans if this particular plan falls through? Mr. Joiner stated the only belief I have to make this fall through would be to loose that entrance. Mr. Read stated this is State and none of us know what the State will say at this point. Commissioner Harper stated if this rezone gets the okay and it comes back again the State will have say in that entrance but probably there will also be some say here as we look over his new plans. I don’t think we should tell him that we wouldn’t have any say in that because we may. Mr. Read stated this is really too small for some kind of large industrial. It seems to me some kind of commercial is more logical. It is no longer suitable for residential either. I have no problem with the rezoning aspect. Mr. Breitzke stated I think you have approached the City of Valparaiso about this, haven’t you? Mr. Joiner stated yes. Mr. Breitzke stated you will have to address the State and prepare yourself for probably substantially different plans. Back to the actual issue at hand, the zoning. I think this is a much better use for this. We want every effort made to improve the gateway into Valparaiso and across our community. You are really at the heart of Porter County here and we want this as attractive as possible. The Landscaping Ordinance is relatively new and you will adhere to that. You just said that you want to keep the metal building in the corner. We could have some issues with that too. You are an existing nonconforming use but when you put the existing building over the road right-of-way you want to be aware that there is some potential for some issues there. Likewise, the building setback line on Murvihill. You may have to be looking at some variances along the way. So you want to start thinking and addressing these issues because we are not here giving zoning variances. We are talking about a change in zoning itself. Mr. Joiner stated I am well aware that there is a line of variances that I have to get through. Commissioner Harper stated you have said several times tonight that you do not know what our ordinance requires. I tell you that if you are serious about this project that you are going to have to deal with the landscaping ordinance, with the drainage ordinance which will go through several reviews. You need somebody with you to walk through that. I am suggesting to you that if you are serious about this plan and you are investing a lot of money in it you are going to need somebody here that does understand our ordinances. Mr. Breitzke asked do we have a U.S. 30 Overlay Ordinance. Mr. Thompson stated please refer to the staff report because it does fall into our arterial overlay so there is going to be architectural standards on the buildings. There is going to be sign standards, landscaping standards and a number of things. Even with the parking and where it is situated on the lot. This is going to be a difficult lot for you to develop. Commissioner Harper stated what I am trying to explain to you is this Commission is not going to write your plan for you. You are going to need someone to walk through this with you and attend these meetings with you who understands all of these things. Mr. Cole stated I just wanted to alert everyone to the fact that should his business fail or he gets old enough to retire and no one wants to continue that type of business we will have this commercial moderate district and that we need to be aware of what else could go in there succeeding him and that we would not have anything to say about it. It looks like it is very low in density. I don’t see anything that might interfere with the overlay as I understand it. Mr. Breitzke moved to forward Case 08-Z-6 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation to rezone the property to CM, Moderate Intensity Commercial. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Breitzke - Yes Burns - Yes Cole - Yes This case will be heard by the County Commissioner’s at their July 1, 2008 meeting. Case 08-M-4. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 311, Valparaiso for a Tree Preservation Ordinance to Chapter 5, Zoning District Development Standards. Mr. Thompson asked for this case to be continued until the end of the meeting. Judy Disher concerns about neighbors garage in Ridge Meadow Estates Subdivision. Judy Disher, 232 Laurel Drive, Valparaiso. I am here representing my elderly parents who reside at 186 Blackthorne Drive, Valparaiso, lot 23. My concerns are the appropriateness and physical improvements to this property. Apparently, Mr. George Stahl provided untruthful, false and inaccurate information regarding the construction of another shed and garage on his property. I have exhibits one through nine that can indicate this. This is in regards to my meeting with Mr. Thompson back in November of 2007. I have an application for a permit. All of this information was obtained from Porter County. Commissioner Harper asked Mr. Thompson to give us a report on what you have in the files. Mr. Thompson stated what I have in the file is that there was an accessory structure permit that was issued to Mr. George Stahl at 186 Blackthorne Drive. It was reviewed by staff in the office and a permit was issued to Mr. Stahl. I have met with Mrs. Disher and I have spoken to her on this and in these situations Mr. Haller has gone out there twice and from my office, the Code Enforcement, Tracy Burrell, has gone out there twice. I don’t believe Mr. Stahl has built the building yet. Mrs. Disher stated the foundation is in. Mr. Thompson stated he does have a permit on this and staff reviewed this as far as the setbacks and what he has in place and it met our codes. Mrs. Disher stated with the application the permit I discussed this with Mr. Thompson and my concerns were quite a few. No. 1 was the garage size. I was concerned about the size because as I looked into the codes I understand that there is a certain percentage that has to be met. Mr. Read stated are you saying that it exceeds the allowable size. Mrs. Disher stated yes. Mr. Read stated let’s get this point settle. Mr. Thompson does it exceed the allowable size. Mr. Thompson stated our opinion is no, it does not. Mrs. Disher stated that is your opinion. Let me go down the list. No. 2 is actually the application for a permit to cut into a county road. The fee was waived on this and I was wondering if they waived the fee for everybody or was this something special for this person. Commissioner Harper asked what is the situation with this. Mr. Thompson stated as far as waiving the fee I can’t explain that because that is with the Highway Engineering Department. Yes, they did waive the fee and I am looking at the actual permit. It says, “Construct new garage with existing drive.” That is an issue where if he does put in a new drive and it accesses a county road then yes we will have to turn him in to the County Engineer office to enforce the fact that he put in a new drive. Commissioner Harper stated so what he is telling you is what he believes is that he has a permit to use the existing drive. Mr. Thompson stated the drawing that he submitted does not show any driveway coming out of the garage. Mrs. Disher stated on this drawing Mr. Stahl doesn’t even show the existing shed that he has on his property. On this sketch of Mr. Stahl obviously he does not know what an easement is and what it means and so forth. Mr. Read asked what kind of an easement is it. Is it a drainage easement? Mrs. Disher stated it is an electrical easement. Another thing is we have well and septic in that area and he does not show his existing shed but he does show his proposed garage. I was wondering if anyone has taken into consideration the overall picture before they issue building codes and such and just approve these things. Mr. Read asked where is your house. Mrs. Disher stated on Laurel Drive. Mr. Read stated there are flags out there. Do you know what those flags represent? Mrs. Disher stated I don’t know. At this time, there was a discussion concerning where Mr. Stahl is building his garage. Commissioner Harper stated I think what we need to do is listen to what she has to say and decide if we have any concerns about the staffs action in this matter. Mr. Burns, would you be willing with Mr. Read to sit down with her and staff and go over the file and gives us a report back on what you think. Drainage situation in Mallard’s Landing Subdivision. Commissioner Harper stated I asked that this be put on the agenda because this is one of our subdivisions that we have had some real problems with. I think that sometimes it is good to hear what some of the problems are so we know what to watch for in the future and maybe we will not make the same mistake. Attorney Visvaldis Kupsis, 334 W. 806 N., Valparaiso. I am here on Sophie Rapo who is also present. Her address is 151 DeCoy Drive, Lot 23 in Mallards Landing Phase 2 Subdivision. Patrick McEuen, Milbranth & Bush, 2601 Chicago St., Suite B. I represent the adjacent land owners Robert and Lynn Rau on Lot 24 and Michelle and Al Rau on Lot 25 to the west of Mrs. Rapo. This involves lots 25, 24, and 23 directly. South of lots 25 and 24 there exists approximately 30 acres of farm land. The farm land drains directly between lots 25 and 24. Approximately 80% of the drainage comes directly on their property. At that point, the remaining 20% of the drainage comes directly onto the corner of lot 23 and 24 where they meet. This is a long term problem. When this lot was originally developed and approved there was no provision provided for outside drainage coming from that farm field across lots 25, 24 and 23. I heard that from the engineer last month when he testified to that fact under oath. When the individuals all began to build back in 1994 there became immediate water problems of a substantial nature. The builder on these particular lots, a gentleman by the name of Robert Doll, who is now deceased, came out and attempted a solution. He dug a ditch along what is marked as a utility easement along the boundary’s of lots 23 and 24. Basically, the ditch ran on the southern portion of lot 24 all the way up to the eastern portion of lot 23 where it veered off and essentially drains into wetlands, which is back in this area. Over the years that ditch has become a point of contention regarding the neighbors but essentially over the years also, the neighbors each attempting to resolve the situation on their own have functionally rendered the ditch useless at this point in time. Three engineers have indicated at this point in time that ditch may handle approximately a one year rainfall. Again, there has been another pipe placed along lot 24 attempting to remove water that is running across lot 23. These people have suffered for the past 14-years with substantial amounts of water that flow across all three properties. What we are essentially seeking is possibly some relief from the County or some assistance to try to remedy the situation. Gary Torrenga an engineer has an office in Valparaiso and an engineer by the name of Keller out of South Bend and also, a third engineer, James Meier, the engineer for the developer have all agreed that if in fact this ditch were dug properly, graded properly with the dimensions that Mr. Torrenga had set forth in his design it could in fact handle up to an 80-year rainfall based upon that drainage coming off the property. Not the most idyllic solutions as far as having an open ditch it would handle the rainfall. The cost that we have been quoted is in approximation of $18000 to do that. The optimum solution that has been suggested would be to have a covered pipe and catch basin to run along that same easement. The approximate cost of that is about $50,000. Commissioner Harper asked how much water gets on these properties. Mr. McEuen stated what happens is the engineers have termed it over banks. At the western end of the commencement of the ditch it flows across all three properties and obviously finds its lowest level putting about 8-inches of water up into the foundations on lots 24 and 25 and then flowing across in a trenched river across lot 23 and ultimately exiting the subdivision to some wetlands to the east.
Commissioner Harper asked Kevin tell me what your take on this. Mr. Breitzke stated what had happened was the drainage way was just a little west of the common core of 25 and 24 and went diagonally through the middle of the lots. That was one of the drainage ways. Mr. Doll the developer one of his solutions was to dig across the middle of lot 23 during construction of Mr. Rapo’s house. That really didn’t cut it and a recommendation at that time was to take a swale around the outside perimeter. I think Mr. Doll made a half-hearted effort. Late today I got a copy from Mr. Banschbach of Torrenga’s office of one foot contours to kind of give me an idea of how this ended up today. I can see if they can dig an open ditch around the outside perimeters if the parties were willing that should get the water around. At least a 75-year rain and possibly 100 depending on the depth we take. Commissioner Harper asked Kevin can you tell me what was supposed to happen according to the drainage plan that came in front of the Plan Commission on this project. Mr. Breitzke stated I can’t tell you because I wasn’t on the Plan Commission at that time. From the notes that I saw and reviewed…back in 2001 or so this came up again after 1995 when it was over banking for the first time since 1995 or 1996…in answering your question they had not considered how to manage the water at that time coming across the corner. Commissioner Harper stated so a plan was passed here in 1993 where… Mr. Breitzke stated where the water ways were not protected by easements leaving the homes susceptible. Commissioner Harper stated I believe there are other drainage problems in this subdivision. Mr. Breitzke stated I believe there are one or two others. Mr. Burns stated it would be interesting to find out if the developer followed the original plan. Mr. McEuen stated the engineer who designed this stated that he did not calculate the offsite drainage because he was not required to do so. Mr. Breitzke stated he was required to it because in 1983 the ordinance was passed and he was required to do that. The problem was that even if he had calculated it he had not predicted where the water would go, which goes diagonally right through the middle of lots 24 and 23 and that is the biggest issue without a set aside for an easement. At this time, there was a discussion concerning the drainage. Mr. Burns stated this problem can be corrected. The question is who is going to pay for it. Commissioner Harper stated here is what I would like to do. Have Dave Burrus take a look at this. He is the President of the Drainage Board. Ask him if he would make a report back to the Plan Commission. Jesse Cruz concerns about drainage from Tower Meadows pond onto his property. J. Cruz, 243 W. 550 N., Valparaiso. This is just right across the northwest section of Tower Meadows and where they are putting their pond. The natural flow of water onto my property, which was a natural runoff for the county was down 250 headed north onto my place and then to a creek and then on north. Well, the southwest section of my property is wetland, about 2-acres. The water would drain down 250 and onto my place. When Tower Meadows put the pond in they stopped working on it in January. There has been no work done since the end of January. I feel that for sure the pond is too small. It is supposed to be larger, plus the amount of water that is running from the pond onto my place is supposed to be at least two acres of wetland that is going to turn into four or five acres of wetland the way the pond is built and the way that they have the overflow. I didn’t know who to turn to at one time, so I went to the Soil Conservation people and Mr. Harvey Nix came out and looked at it and he felt that the pond should be bigger than what it is right now and the flow was in excess of what it should be. I don’t know what you people could do to enforce Tower Meadows to correct the situation there. Commissioner Harper stated I would like to ask Mr. Thompson a question. First, it is my understanding from the attorney that it is going to come up in front of the Commissioners to pull the bond to get the money to complete the work on that. In your opinion completing the work on the pond will that help him in the amount of runoff that he has on his property. Mr. Thompson stated it is definitely going to increase the storage amount. From the drawing the Kevin submitted to me the top of the pond, Kevin said that the pond might be 40% complete, if that. Obviously, there is quite a bit more storage that is necessary in this pond. Commissioner Harper asked if this was a DLZ approved plan. Mr. Thompson stated I would have to go back and check that.
At this time, the Commission had a discussion on whether this was DLZ approved. Attorney McClure stated we believe at this time there is. The only thing that we would be doing is erosion control and drainage. Mr. Thompson stated I believe the bond is under S & W Development and by their initials this is two people. Commissioner Harper stated we want to get this on the next Commissioner’s meeting. Attorney McClure asked is the pond going to be bigger than what it is now. Mr. Thompson stated Attorney McClure asked me to clarify that. The pond needs to be 60% larger than what it is presently. Mr. Burns asked will that take care of this problem. Mr. Breitzke stated it should. Mr. Burns asked is the flow coming over the banks onto the wetlands or through the pipe. Mr. Cruz stated it is coming through the pipe onto my property. Mr. Burns asked why would the size of the pond change... Attorney McClure stated because the capacity of it is smaller and so therefore the overflow has to be sooner. So it is always overflowing and the capacity is not large enough to hold the water.
Mr. Breitzke stated there is more energy to it built-in overflow. It goes over and over flows the road occasionally too. Commissioner Harper stated we should have taken action on this a year ago. The problem here is that there is a tendency that I think we have to quit, to accept peoples words that tomorrow it will be fixed and tomorrows never come on this. We must take action on these things sooner in my opinion. Mr. Breitzke asked do we take action by doing a moratorium more frequently or how do you suggest we take action. Commissioner Harper stated first I suggest that we get real mad because that is what I do. Then we do whatever we can do and we don’t play this game of “Oh, he is trying to do it or he is doing a pretty good job.” We just do whatever in our legal power we can to say “stop right now and this is not right.” Mr. Thompson stated this will be on next Commissioners meeting which is Tuesday, June 17 at 6:00 p.m. Case 08-M-4. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 311, Valparaiso for a Tree Preservation Ordinance to Chapter 5, Zoning District Development Standards. Ray Joseph stated we are here to discuss the Tree Preservation Standards. The only change that was made from the original document was a suggestion from Mr. Breitzke to add on D, page 2, Administration, 1.e, it states public utilities and government agencies may remove trees that interfere or potentially will interfere with power lines, telephone lines, sewer lines, water lines, storm water tiles and ditches or other essential public utility infrastructure. Mr. Burns stated we canceled our meeting but we talked via the phone but we would like to have another meeting. I did talk to Ray and Kevin about this issue, the government agency issue. We would like to discuss this. There are still some concerns on this. Commissioner Harper asked is the committee suggesting that we don’t vote on this tonight. Mr. Joseph stated that is correct.
Mr. Joseph stated that also on the agenda there was an addendum that was mailed out for discussion about creating a guide to the Porter County Landscaping Ordinance. What I have done is created a request for qualifications to be sent out. Mr. Burns stated our biggest concern was how much this was going to cost. Commissioner Harper stated so your feeling is we should have a professional work on our landscaping ordinance. Mr. Burns stated absolutely. At this time, the Commission had a discussion on the RFQ’s. Mr. Breitzke moved to approve the request by staff to go ahead and put out RFQ’s. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Attest: Robert W. Thompson Jr., Executive Director/County Planner |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
June 11, 2008