PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
October 8, 2008

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Kevin Breitzke, Richard Burns, Tim Cole, Herb Read and Robert Detert, Vice-President.  Those members absent were Elizabeth Marshall, Rita Stevenson, Commissioner Robert Harper.  Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Attorney Scott McClure, Raymond D. Joseph Jr. and Patricia S. Gibson.

Mr. Burns moved to waive the reading of the August 27, 2008 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Breitzke seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Old Business:

Case 08-DP-7.  Petition of The Courts of Northwest Indiana, LLC, 127 E. U.S. Hwy 6, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking a Development Review for a 12000 square foot recreational building to be located at 127 E. U.S. Hwy 6 in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana. (Property is zoned CH.)

Don Bengel, 73 E. Division Road, Valparaiso.  This is a second building located at the Courts of Indiana, which is at the Northeast corner of SR 49 and Hwy 6 in Liberty Township. The first building was built a few years ago. This is the second building that is planned. This will be basically for parties for kids.  There will be catered food and not prepared on site.  There will be a little more parking than what we need. Variances were granted by the BZA. An agreement was made on landscaping.  There will be a berm built along the south property line, which abuts Liberty Bible Church property and along SR 49 up to where the trees begin. You get to the site by coming off of a driveway off of U.S. 6 by the tower that has been there for a long time.  DAC has reviewed this project. An agreement was made that a larger pond will be put in than is required.

Mr. Breitzke stated Tim had gone out there during some of the storms because he had the ability to get close to it during worse of the storms and apparently it worked fairly well.  Some of the concerns that were addressed at DAC as far as the septic system being common for the two buildings and water supply and those issues but I think that he has addressed them.

Mr. Detert stated are you guys satisfied with the landscaping and would you comment on that.

Mr. Burns stated we had several meetings on landscaping and Bob Thompson was involved with us.  We came to an agreement.  The only question I have and I want to be sure, are you going to do this in phases.

Mr. Bengel stated we are going to try to do it all at once.

Mr. Burns asked what is the approximate date that the berm will be completed.

Mr. Bengel stated hopefully we will have the berm built this year (2008) and that depends on the weather.

Mr. Burns asked are you going to do that before construction of the new building.

Mr. Bengel stated we will take the dirt from where the new building goes and that will help build the berm and then we hope to start on the building.

Mr. Breitzke stated I am hearing Mr. Bengel say “probably”  and “our intent is.” We need a commitment as part of the motion that this is going to be done and a date certain.

Mr. Bengel stated I will have to say April 1.  If we get shut down by the weather in a month, what are we going to do?

Mr. Detert stated I think the idea is that we want it done as soon as possible. 

Mr. Burns stated let’s say April 1, 2009.

Mr. Read stated you have gone to the BZA and have gotten variances for a number of things. Is the BZA in this case the final word? Is there any use for us to discuss these variances?

Attorney McClure stated the BZA’s granting the variances would be the final word.

Mr. Read stated of the three categories that you asked for variances one being the architectural one relief from the existing UDO out there to the northeast on the same site you have the ultimate box.  Anything you would do on the new construction would be an improvement. Concerning the landscaping, is the final drawing the one that we have here.

Mr. Bengel stated look at sheet #3.

Mr. Read stated I am concerned with this berm looking like a railroad embankment and lining up the trees like they were dominoes is not exactly good planning.  I don’t think it would be a lot more expensive for your client to have some variation to the berm both in plan and in variation in height. 

Mr. Burns stated the complaints that we have heard were on this big box building.  You are not going to cover the big building but with these threes and the berm you can soften it.  That was the thought behind this whole berm and putting the trees in line to soften the view especially from Rt. 6.  Also, when the landscaping plan was developed I mentioned that there should be some tweaking to it.  We discovered that with a large development like the Courts, the hospital that is possibly coming is excessive. For example, the hospital it is required to have 453 bushes in the parking lot.  It is excessive and we are looking at that to adjust that.  It was really tailored towards a smaller business.  You will be seeing some changes coming before us hopefully within a month.  We looked at this and the largest complaint was the unsightliness of the large box.  So we are trying to soften it from Rt. 6.

Mr. Read stated have you talked about a more natural looking berm than a railroad embankment.

Mr. Burns stated he is going to cluster right at the point where you see it from the Rt. 6 intersection up on the overpass. There is a cluster here.

Mr. Bengel stated we are clustering the trees right in that corner.

Mr. Burns stated they will be 15-feet apart in that corner.

Mr. Bengel stated that is what we agreed on. The dark marks on the bottom of the drawing are existing trees in there now.

Mr. Burns stated another issue that we found out on the berm if you make them like a pyramid the trees are going to die.  You have to make a tall berm like this it has to be flat like a plateau for the trees.

Mr. Read stated can we have some variation in the height of this berm.

Mr. Bengel stated this is the agreement that we made. We plan to fill this in as much as possible. We are anxious to get the foliage in there and have the trees grow.

Mr. Burns stated he did raise the berm in the center at that point.  How much did you raise it by?

Mr. Bengel stated it is going to be pretty level, 80-feet almost.  You get around the corner about 200-feet and it is 780 then it starts to drop down.  Then the next 300-feet it drops about three feet and that is where the other trees are.

Mr. Detert stated you do understand that the BZA did not give them a total variance. They negotiated with him to put a partial landscaping plan in and not necessarily all of what the ordinance calls for.  They did not void the thing in total either.  I think what is done and the lawyer can correct me if I am wrong and at this point it is a done deal unless he would agree to do something you would ask him to do.

Mr. Burns stated on this plan here I don’t see a cluster.  Can you show me?

Mr. Bengel stated the trees are 25-feet apart and at the corner we are essentially going to double them up.

Mr. Burns stated but they will be staggered.

Mr. Bengel stated yes.

Mr. Burns stated it shows the dark trees here in a line. I am thinking those are bushes but they are trees.

Mr. Bengel stated those are pine trees.

Mr. Burns stated because those are supposed to be clustered. I just want to make sure that is clear. This point we are talking about right here is supposed to be clustered 15-feet apart.

Mr. Bengel stated if they are 25-feet apart and we put a row behind it staggering them it is 12.5-feet apart.

Mr. Read stated as I understand, at least for the moment, this will be on a septic system.

Mr. Bengel stated yes.  The State Board of Health sets the standard for it.

Mr. Read stated what concerns me is that you got a variance from the UDO with regard to the storm water portion of the UDO.  We are talking about a very large increase in hard surfaces between roofs and parking areas, not only for the first phase but ultimately your future phases.  From what I understand this all goes west underneath the 49 Bypass onto the hospital site, which makes it somewhat of a very critical situation. Did the BZA expressly prohibit if the Board wants a review by DLZ?

Attorney McClure stated the BZA did not expressly prohibit them going through DLZ review.  My question would be what would be the outcome of any DLZ review since they’ve gotten the variances from the storm water portion of the UDO.

Mr. Read stated one thing that they can do is to verify the figures that were submitted.

Attorney McClure stated meaning whether or not the numbers submitted were correct.

Mr. Read stated that the assumptions made on these are reasonable within normal engineering standards.

Mr. Bengel stated we did not get a “bye” on the drainage.  We are still putting in a large pond and we are still going to control the water. We are not going to cause a big mess at the hospital. We cut our release rate down. What we had approved with the “Courts” our first building I think we had a 46% runoff factor total and it looks like we are going to be able to stick close to that. We are still putting in a lot of drainage and we agreed to put in a forebay.  Both the pond and the forebay will be increased as development occurs to the north.

Mr. Read stated in the BZA minutes that was submitted with the staff report it states in the discussion on the drainage calculations that “the drainage calculations for these conditions were submitted and approved.”  Who approved them?

Mr. Bengel stated the Plan Commission and DAC.

Mr. Read stated DAC doesn’t approve.

Mr. Detert stated DAC did not disagree with them. They don’t really vote on it but they did not disagree on it.

Mr. Burns stated they made some suggestions for the forebay and a larger pond and that is what we took into consideration.

Mr. Breitzke stated they also reduced the outlet rate.

Mr. Burns stated we took the recommendation from the County Engineer and they were changed and we were pleased with that.

Mr. Read stated due to the importance of this site particularly relative to the hospital site I think that there should be some double checking on these figures.

Mr. Cole asked why is this not a public hearing. I was anticipating a public hearing on this.  Granted there was a public hearing for BZA. Nevertheless, those were different credentials, different purpose and different commitment. We are here for a different purpose tonight.  I wonder why this isn’t up for a public hearing.

Mr. Thompson stated it is because of the fact that they were in for the variances and our code specifically states for development plans that they don’t have to go through new business or a public hearing if it is in a lot within an approved industrial or commercial subdivision or if they were in front of the BZA for a variances.

Mr. Detert stated you have the right as a Board member to call on anyone that you want.

Mr. Cole asked is there anyone who came prepared for a public hearing that wishes to speak.

There was no one in the audience to speak in favor or against this petition.

Mr. Cole stated in listening to Herb I fully agree with Herb.  The importance of the drainage on this…and let’s realize that our decisions in this area concerning the hospital, concerning rezoning has been brought into questions and I think that it is important that we understand that the drainage coming off of this area is calculated correctly and that it will not cause future problems. I really would like to insist that DLZ review these calculations. Yet nothing else, regardless of the fact that they can get off from this because they have the variance and it was granted by the BZA. Nevertheless, we must be prepared for future problems.  I really request that the developer hire DLZ to look at this and review these calculations and to review the whole drainage off-site as well as onsite.

Mr. Bengel stated we already agreed with Bob to have DLZ look at our…I guess I would hope for a motion to pass contingent on DLZ’s review. We will agree to do that.

Mr. Cole stated I know it was brought up at DAC but I think it needs to be on the record tonight that you agree to this.

Mr. Thompson stated I have sent information overall right into DLZ and it was mainly to check the water quality calculations that were done and the size of the forebays for the water quality issues but I can call them up and ask them if they would look over the full calculations for the site and off-site to see whether or not the estimates that were provided within the calculations are reasonable.

Mr. Cole stated okay.  One thing that I did bring up at the DAC meeting was the five-foot concrete sidewalk also being the berm for the parking lot.  People have a habit of backing in and using pick-up trucks with long overhangs that could take up a lot of that five-foot concrete sidewalk making it pretty much useless.  I ask that it simply be moved from the parking lot about two feet leaving a little grassy area so that the parking lot can be fully used.  I don’t see that as an expensive or a very contentious change from the plans.

Mr. Bengel stated we discussed that during the meeting and later on.  Right now we have a five-foot sidewalk and sidewalks around the existing Courts building and there is no problem.  It is a five-foot sidewalk. There is plenty of room.  There are some parking that doesn’t butt up to the sidewalk. If someone has a long vehicle generally that is where they park.  When you have that two-foot strip between parking and a sidewalk it becomes just a mud-hole with people walking across it when they get out of their car.  So we are not willing to do that.  It has worked well for us and we have the proof of the pudding.  This has been here for two years and everything is working well.

Mr. Cole stated I disagree. I don’t necessarily think that they become mud-holes.  I have seen country clubs with the same design with mulch in the area and I don’t see mud-holes there.  I really think that it is an easy thing to do. I am not going to make it a requirement but I am going to say that when we look for quality development in Porter County quality means going past the standards, exceeding the standards by so much.  With the granting of variances at BZA we have already have found ourselves sub-standard and that is my point and maybe that is my opinion but that is how I really look at it. I think we really need to consider increasing our standards in some areas where we can where it hasn’t already been decimated. We have already talked about the landscaping.  When this was first rezoned I looked at the plat books in the Recorder’s Office and there was one parcel, one parcel described, one parcel already ascribed to the owners of the property already with “I Courts” on it.  Now when I look in there I see two parcels, one for “I Courts” and one for Mark Bengel. Has this been divided into two parcels.

Mr. Bengel stated this is not a subdivision.  Building will be on leased land.

Mr. Cole asked why are there two parcels described now.

Mr. Bengel stated the only reason we need any kind of a description for the “Pump It Up.”

Mr. Cole stated not for “Pump It Up” for the entire site, the 30-acres.

Mr. Bengel stated there is a description.

Mr. Cole stated there are two descriptions.  The reason I bring this up is I do not want in the future is to find out that we approved some items for one parcel and not for the second parcel.  Anything we approve tonight, anything we talk about, anything we’ve talked about in the past applies for the whole 30 acres as it was rezoned.

Mr. Bengel stated yes.  Mark owns it all. It’s just that he has the first building financed and that takes a separate description. He owns everything. He also owns that one acre in front of the tower.

Mr. Cole stated we have also talked about the excluded uses on the rezoning that was done some time ago.  One of those was outside storage among other things.  The idea was that we were going to keep this as a quality area in Liberty Township in this particular area.  I was really dismayed when I saw trucks with crushed concrete rubble being deposited on the north half, in fact the second parcel I just finished talking about.  It remains there today.  In preparation for that, I took some pictures of that area.  You said at DAC that there was maybe one possibly two piles of concrete.  I see a lot more than that in these pictures.  I don’t think that this area was ever meant to be nor was the intent of the rezoning or the intent of the exclusions from uses that we would have piles of concrete, rebar and crushing of stone on the site.  This was to be a nicely developed athletic area.

Mr. Bengel stated all the material that is in there is what we are going to use on the site.  Mark made a deal with Superior or Walsh, whoever did SR 49, to take their concrete and asphalt and to leave it there.  He crushed it up and that is what we are using now on the site.

Mr. Cole stated I find that a little distasteful and I think it is circumventing the intent of the rezoning.  I think it is circumventing what people were told at the rezoning hearing and I really think it should not have been.  One of the conditions for passage of this I would like to make is that all rubble on that north parcel be removed within a reasonable amount of days and not to exceed 60 days.

Mr. Bengel stated we are not going to move it because we are going to use it on the site.

Mr. Cole stated then spread it out and use it. The truck trailers should not be there.

Mr. Bengel stated those truck trailers have been there…

Mr. Cole stated they have been there since Liberty Center.

Mr. Bengel stated before that.

Mr. Detert stated what he is telling you Don is that he wants the property cleaned up.

Mr. Bengel stated personally, I don’t think it is a mess now. This site doesn’t offend anyone else because we are completely excluded.  The church has no complaints. The only person that could see anything would be Mr. Rhoda and between him and this site there is an orchard.

Mr. Cole stated anybody that goes to this site for the public use of the buildings sees it. Anybody sees it.

Mr. Bengel stated we never had a complaint except from you.

Mr. Cole stated am I not supposed to complaint too.

Mr. Bengel stated you don’t have any right being there if you don’t use the “Courts.” People who come to the “Courts” are always praising the site.  They like the building they like the use of it and they are waiting for more things to happen there. We have never had anyone complain that there is some stone out there or rebar out there.

Mr. Detert stated I want you to understand that I can’t screen my backyard and start a junkyard. You have an obligation to keep the property clean.

Mr. Bengel stated everything there is going to be used on the site.

Mr. Detert asked how long.

Mr. Bengel stated I’m sure he would like to build all the buildings he could at one time.

Mr. Cole stated that is not acceptable.  It should never have been there in the first place.  The material should have been taken someplace else that was zoned properly for it and it not have gone into this area. It was a complaint from the beginning and yes there are other people who have complained and have asked the question why the material was there. Most of them are not aware of the excluded uses.  They are not aware of the conversation that went on at the rezoning hearing. It has been a factor in all of our discussions and I think you must have known that it was going to come up.  It is a poor use of land.  It is a terrible site to look at and in my mind we are given this land to take care, to be nurtured, to be stewards of it and this is what was done to it.  This was a former nursery.  There are still trees back there that can’t be moved now because they are much too old. I am not happy at all.  Yes, I’m sure everybody would like “The Courts” and this facility and I have no objection to the “Courts” as it is although it would be nice to see some windows in the place.  As far as I know this “Pump It Up” facility is probably going to work out well in the area and everybody comments that they have no other place to go play basketball and tennis inside.  It is a marvelous facility even though there aren’t any locker rooms, showering facilities and I do find that strange but nevertheless the facility itself as it is is good and there is no objection to it.  It is what you have done to the property and the process that you used in accomplishing it.

Mr. Detert stated you’re not going to get his vote unless you clean up the property.  Is that true?

Mr. Cole stated yes, that is true.

Mr. Burns stated on this clean up can you commit to a date certain.

Mr. Bengel stated the problem is we will have to get a crusher and crush what is left.

Mr. Burns asked how much time do you think you need.

Mr. Bengel stated that part wouldn’t be used until spring.  There is no way we could meet 60 days.

Mr. Breitzke asked could make it April 1?

Mr. Burns asked Tim could you live for June 1 if he grinds it up and spreads it.

Mr. Cole stated I could live for June 1 but it must be clean.

Mr. Burns asked Don could you live with June 1.

Mr. Bengel stated yes.

Mr. Cole stated I would like to see progress in the meantime.

Mr. Burns stated I agree. I’ve seen some of the debris out there. If you could start picking up the debris out there and tidy up the piles.

Mr. Bengel stated if there is any stuff we can’t use we will get rid of it.

Mr. Burns stated there are some hoses out there.

Mr. Bengel stated the hoses are for irrigation.

Mr. Cole stated there is a gas tank out there and that has to get out of there.

Mr. Bengel stated if it is there someone dumped it there.

Mr. Breitzke asked when do you plan to move into this building.

Mr. Bengel stated that depends on the whether. I think they would like to move in the spring if possible.

Mr. Breitzke stated it should be tied in with the C of O.  The only enforcement we have in the end that is clear that these things be taken care of before you move in.

Mr. Detert asked what would you want to see happen if he is supposed to clean up the property by June 1 and he is not there June 1. Then what will happen? He has to stop work and is red tagged?

Mr. Cole stated yes.

Mr. Burns stated why don’t we do this. Whatever comes first. If the CO or June 1 comes first it has to be cleaned up.

Mr. Breitzke moved to approve Case 08-DP-7 for the Courts of Northwest Indiana for a 12,000 square-foot recreation building subject to 1) the site clean-up, the removal of the trailers, the rubble, the propane tank on or before June 1, 2009, the Certificate of Occupancy will be subject to that and if it is not complete by that time we will have a “stop work” issue ordered.

2) The landscaping berm will be completed by April 1, 2009. The trees may not go in until the Fall but the petitioner is encourage to go ahead and take care of those as soon as possible with the latest being the Fall of 2009. 3) The requirement for visiting this issue with DLZ and examining the impacts down stream as well as the off-site issues.  Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

New Business:

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

Case 08-Z-8.  Petition of Lannert Group, 215 Fulton Street, Geneva, Illinois for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from R-1, Single Family Residential to CM, Moderate Intensity Commercial District to be located at 1022 Old State Rd. 49 in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana.

J. Christopher Lannert, 215 Fulton Street, Geneva, Illinois.  I am the landscape architect and planner for the project.  At this time, Mr. Lannert presented drawings of the site. The subject site is located along SR 49 and CR 100 E. The size is three-quarters of an acre. The property is surrounded along the eastern side by the corporate limits of Chesterton. The property to the south is zoned High Intensity Commercial, to the west is zoned farming. This piece of property as well as to the homes to the north are zoned R-1.  Intention of this petition is to rezone it for commercial use. There will be a single building on the lot with a 50-foot setback off of the corner, rear yard setback with a berm and planting.  There will be a double access to the building so there will be parking in the south end and parking on the north end.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Gwen Genovese, 1032 N. Old SR 49. Mrs. Genovese is concerned on whether this is a rental property and what type of business will be going in here.

Betty Smith, 1038 N. Old SR 49.  Mrs. Smith is concerned on what is being rezoned. Is it the whole neighborhood?  She also would like to know if there will be two cuts into the road. She is concerned about the traffic in this location and the drainage in this area.

Mr. Lannert stated this is early in the process and the drainage will have to be addressed at a later time. This will be some kind of mixed use retail business and it probably will not be office. There will be an 8400 square-foot building with 42 parking spaces.  The building will have to be adjusted to meet the parking when we actually get to the point of doing a building plan.  It will be an attractive building.  We are showing two tenants in this area and one larger tenant in this area.  There will be two curb cuts along the frontage road and along the State Road in this location. The high point of the site is here and everything from this corner back down to this location does start to flood the other way. There is a signalization plan for this area coming in.

Mr. Detert asked are you receptive to putting limitations on what could go in there because in a CM zone it could be a lot of things.

Mr. Lannert stated yes.

Attorney McClure stated this is a first step of a rezone process. What happens is they come here tonight the Plan Commission hears them and they will eventually have a motion and the motion is nothing more than a recommendation, favorable, against or no recommendation to the County Commissioners. At that level, the County Commissioners will either rezone it or not rezone it. Assume that it is rezone. The petitioner will have to return back to the Plan Commission and give notice to all of the neighbors and follow every ordinance that we have relating to the building including landscaping, storm water etc.  At this early stage it is not ultimately required to have it completely nailed down to what it would be.

Ken Genovese, 1038 N. Old SR 49.  Mr. Genovese is concerned about how the drainage will be handled and if they will be connected to Chesterton utilities.

At this time, Mr. Detert explained the procedure for a rezone.

Mr. Thompson stated as Mr. McClure our attorney has stated they must meet our code and there are a number of meetings that they will be going to.  Also, this particular district that they are requesting requires water and sewer hookups from the utility service.  That is one of the requirements.  Just to let you know they can ask for variances on certain things but you would be notified if things like this happens.

The public hearing was then close.

Mr. Breitzke stated the drainage will be taken care of at a later date.  They will also have to go through DLZ review.  For

Mr. Lannert’s sake when we are looking at these buildings to help form this is the parking down at the south side is going to be an issue with traffic design.  You are going to have certain restrictions. Water and sewer are a requirement here. As you are looking at this it is a fairly large use in tenant. You have three tenants.  Do you have any kind of idea what kind of tenants that you want here?

Mr. Lannert stated at this time we really don’t know.  The people that we have been talking to are really not back in the picture due to the uncertainties of the time. 

Mr. Breitzke stated the County Commissioners who make the decision on this will want a little bit more assurance.  We need a better feeling for what might go in there.

Mr. Detert stated I would say that you better look at the CM and all the things that are allowed in there and narrow it down to things that you think you would like to do. 

At this time, Mr. Thompson went over all the business’s that can be put in a CM zone.

Mr. Read stated there is a parking area which would be paved with either concrete or blacktop with an entrance here and an entrance here. There is a rather severe slope downward from here and coming this way and in fact going this way to a bad sight line.  We are talking about 85% of that site is going to be hard surface.  In addition to that we have required certain areas for planting.  But that takes up the back area.  You can’t put a retention pond in any of this area here that is built up.  You can’t put a retention pond where the landscaping is required. You might be able to squeeze in a retention pond in here but there are some utility poles in there.  My gut feeling is even without DLZ that there isn’t enough room for keeping the water on that site. The water runs to the north and actually to the west there are some wetlands.  You heard the long list of potential uses and I would advise every one of you to look at those uses. On other rezonings we have required certain things to be presented to the Plan Commission on the matter of water service and waste water.  According to the staff report it says that Indiana American Water and Chesterton utilities is in proximity of the site.  It doesn’t say it is going to go there.  What we have required on other rezonings is some kind of a letter from these utilities stating that they have the capacity to take the sewage. We don’t have that here.  Is one of the tenants to be an auto detailing facility?

Mr. Lannert stated we have had general conversations with them.  They are a custom van shop that would do van customization at this location.

Mr. Read stated that would probably explain why this drawing shows a driveway here going into this building which I would assume they would drive in there to get inside the building for whatever work they are doing, which would include painting and so forth.  What are the State regulations on painting?  There is going to be some kind of overspray of some kind.  There is no light at the intersection now and it is up to the State to determine whether a light goes there.  We don’t know what the State is going to say about that. In other instances they have required traffic studies from the petitioner. I feel that I can’t go along with any kind of a rezoning at this point without having more information. 

Mr. Cole stated I am a big proponent of minimum parking. In fact our ordinance essentially addresses that by using a maximum number of parking spaces rather than a minimum.  The whole idea is to essentially utilize the value of land in its proper respect rather than for free parking for probably unknown customers and clients.  Studies have been made in parking lots that show anywhere from ten to seventy-five percent parking lot may be totally unused throughout an entire year.  We would advocate using a minimum number of parking spaces, which I would calculate as six but that is not enough for three business’s in this area.  Naturally, the question of possible automobile detailing business there raises some other obstacles such as hazardous materials, incendiary, toxic how they are handle and especially when you are on septic and well.  We have to look at what traffic it will generate and what traffic it will generate on your side of the road.  Looking at traffic, this could be a real problem if it is a popular business. We have said tonight what uses that we don’t want in the CM for this site and this will be addressed at the Commissioners meeting. Am I confident with that?

Mr. Detert stated you can ask for them here.

Mr. Cole stated I think we should ask for them here.

Mr. Detert stated you can make a motion for approval or disapproval or continue it for additional information.

Mr. Cole stated I don’t know that it needs to be continued.  We could at least go through the list.  Are you prepared to do this or would you prefer to do that later?  For my part I really don’t think this is the place for a commercial rezone unless it is vastly changed from the concept that we see here. Perhaps, one or two business’s and three might be too much unless they are office in nature and wouldn’t require much in the way of visiting clients.

Mr. Burns stated my concern is traffic.  If you look at this parcel it is “V” shaped and CR 100 E. on one side and a service road on another side and a curve across the street for buses to come out. Plus you also have SR 49.  This is going to be a nightmare if this is a high traffic business venture. I don’t think this is going to be safe and I have a problem with that. This should be a very low volume institution like a medical office or something that is low volume in traffic.  I am really concerned about the buses.  I cannot support this.

Mr. Detert stated we have plenty of properties zoned in Porter County that are commercial.  I think this is a poor choice.  I think the traffic is horrendous there and I don’t think this is a good corner for this to be rezoned to commercial.

Mr. Breitzke moved to forward Case 08-Z-8 to the Board of Commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation.  Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Breitzke    -   Yes   Burns    -   Yes    Cole   -   Yes
Read        -   Yes   Detert   -   Yes
Mr. Thompson stated this will be heard on November 18, 2008 at 6:30 p.m.

Mr. Detert stated if there is anyone here for the Bobruk case it has been continued.

Recommendation from the Landscape Committee for a landscaping consultant.

Mr. Thompson stated tonight we were to give a recommendation from the Landscaping Committee for the consultant.

Mr. Burns stated Herb, Tim and myself were on the committee and we came up to the conclusion that Wolf is going to be the recommendation.

Mr. Read stated they directly addressed our concerns, which I won’t go into.  I think that they understand our concept our Master Plan vision.  I would have to say that all of the people were qualified but it was just a matter of picking the best one. I just felt that they just best fit the analysis of our own vision. 

Mr. Cole stated when it came down to the last two groups that essentially they were both very fine groups and gave a very fine presentation. Our final decision was probably based on experience.

Mr. Burns stated I think they understood our needs especially with the storm water and the open space.  I was really impressed with that. 

Mr. Thompson stated do we have a vote on that as far as recommendation so that way staff or whoever can start sitting down and working out a scope and contract to present to the Commissioners.  Also, we did recently receive from the Department of Natural Resources a coastal grant for this particular manual for $20,000 on this.  That was a nice addition to this project.  I also have an application for a possible $10,000 from the DNR for a non-point grant in fact of using this as also a storm water quality type landscaping.

Mr. Burns moved to develop a contract and scope with Wolf as the landscaping consultant.  Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Thompson stated Mrs. Marshall could not be here tonight and she has requested that anything about the CR 500 W. rezoning on U.S. 30 be continued to the next meeting when she can make it.

Mr. Burns stated Mr. Harper gave me a project to look at and it was Judy Disher in Ridge Meadow Estates in Morgan Township who was concerned about the neighbor building a garage next to her house.  He asked me to look to see if everything was proper and legal the way staff did it and the building inspector.  I inspected the record’s several times and met with Judy Disher and I met with the home owner.  Everything is proper to the tee. The only think I found was a misprint with the Building Inspector. He has a document for the building permit explaining the requirements for the building permit. There was a misunderstanding.  It states in there “no hand sketches allowed.”  Mike meant no prints because he didn’t want anyone bringing in a blue print in for a house sketch.  A detached garage or a shed can be sketched if it is properly labeled and the proper measurements and to scale.  The only thing that was an issue was the hand sketches. Everything else was done properly.  I called her and she is aware of that and had no comment.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION

S/Robert Detert, Vice-President

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