PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes April 26, 2017

Transcription

1 PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes April 26, 2017 The regular meeting of the was held at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 26, 2017 in the Porter County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana. Bob Poparad presided. Members present were: Rick Burns, Kevin Breitzke, Mike Jessen, Lindsay Ploehn, Ken Williams, Luther Williams, and Bob Poparad. Also present were Kristy Marasco, Attorney Scott McClure, Helene Pierce, citizens, and representatives of the press. MINUTES: Ken Williams made a motion to approve the February 22, 2017 regular meeting minutes as submitted. Kevin Breitzke seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and unanimously carried 7-0. (Note: There was no March 2017 meeting held.) COORESPONDENCE: None. OLD BUSINESS: MJ Grand Oaks, LLC c/o Radtke Engineering and Surveying, LLC West of State Road 2, between Division Road and 100 South, in Porter Township in the R1, Low Density Single-family Residential District. The petitioner is seeking an extension of the primary plat approval for Grand Oaks Subdivision. Attorney Todd Leeth presented. Rachel Vance and Karl Cender were also present. The primary plat was originally approved in This is a 228-acre development with 434 lots in the R1 zoning. Variances were received. No secondary plat approval was received and no construction was begun. Currently there is a pending sale of the land to a new owner that will develop the parcel primarily in the same manner but may be back with some modifications. At this time, we request an extension of the primary plat approval in order to complete the sale and give the new owners time to come before this Board. Q: Nature Works is available now and Valparaiso Water. Will the developer be hooking up to both utilities? A: We will hook up to Valparaiso Water. We have not researched everything with Nature Works. Originally we had a treatment plant for Grand Oaks and may have only a collection System, but we are not sure yet. We are 95% sure that it will happen as a collection system. Right now we are just asking for an extension of the primary plat approval. Q: Are you going to own the water or purchase? A: Purchase. Q: What will the surcharge amount be? A: We do not have new numbers on that. The last numbers calculated are from three years ago. We are aware of the concern with conservancy districts, but we do not have updated numbers. We are still working with the City of Valparaiso to know the cost of the connection. Page 1 of 5

2 Motion: Rick Burns made a motion to approve MJ for a three (3) year extension as presented. Mike Jessen seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and carried 5-2 (Breitzke, Poparad). 17-PC-02 Porter Business Park, U.S. Highway 6 between State Road 49 and Meridian Road, in Liberty Township in the CM, Moderate Intensity Commercial District; OT, Office and Technology District; IN, Institutional District; R4, Multiple-family Residential District. The petitioner is seeking an extension of the primary plat approval for three (3) years. Attorney Todd Leeth presented. Porter Business Park is a 109-acre development west of Porter Hospital on Highway 6. The Primary Plat approval was approved in September The parcel was subdivided in April 2013 and there are now two Primary Plat amendments since It was approved earlier this year and recorded April 15, We are requesting a three-year extension at this time. Motion: Kevin Breitzke made a motion to approve 17-PC-02 for three (3) years as presented. Ken Williams seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion: Mr. Don Trowbridge, neighbor, stated that when this was approved the petitioner said they would put in a buffer and they have not done that. Please do not approve anything else until the buffer is in. Mr. George Karch, 804 Tanner Trace Drive, states the light pollution is not right and needs to be resolved. Ms. Dee, 809 Tanner Trace, states there are so many lights coming from the development it is affecting the residents of Tanner Trace and something must be done. Attorney Scott McClure questioned if the petitioner is required to put in all required buffers when the development is done or now? Attorney Leeth states it is their understanding that when the lot that boarders the property line is developed is when we are required to install the buffer. There is a significant distance between Tanner Trace and our development and there is another property between the two. Q: How large is that lot? A: 1.5 acres. Q: Are you willing to buffer the 1.5 acres now? A: No. When we sell the property, we will buffer. There is also a detention area that is offering a buffer now. C: If the development is negatively affecting the adjacent property owners, then there is reason for the buffer. Page 2 of 5

3 R: We understand that, but if the buffer is up before the development with elevation changes, etc. that can affect the development. We don t want the buffer yard higher or lower than the development. Therefore, there is good cause for waiting until the property is developed. C: How and why is the light leaving the developed lot? It is not supposed to do so and the developer is required to make it as such. Staff can meter the sound and light if this is being a nuisance. Q: Does the developer own the property that the building in question is on? A: No, there is a comingle ownership but Attorney Leeth can control it. Q: When does the plat expire? A: We are not totally sure. R: The petitioner would like to request a continuance in order to return next month with some answers to the light pollution issue. C: Staff will look into this as well. Light should not be leaving the property. Kevin Breitzke and Ken Williams withdrew their original motion. Motion: Kevin Breitzke made a motion to continue 17-PC-02 to next month in order to further investigate the light pollution issue presented this evening. Mike Jessen seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and unanimously carried. NEW BUSINESS: ZO Constandino J. Vasos, West side of C.R. 450 East, south of 300 North, in Washington Township in the I2, General Industrial District. The petitioner is seeking an amendment to the Zoning Map (Rezoning); from I2, General Industrial District to RR, Rural Residential District, to allow for a proposed single family residence. Attorney Terry Hiestand presented. Mr. Vasos purchased 17.6 acres of land in Washington Township that was represented as and taxed as agricultural. When he applied for a building permit to build his home, he was notified that the property is actually zoned I2, General Industrial. We are here seeking a rezone from I2, General Industrial to RR, Rural Residential so Mr. Vasos may proceed with the building of his home. Public Hearing: Bob Poparad asked if any of the public would like to speak in favor of or in opposition of this case. Bob Poparad also asked that the public address their questions to the Plan Commission while at the same time the petitioner will take notes and respond at one time. Mr. Ed Wanzo, 448 E 300 N, questioned where the house was going to be positioned on the property, will there be a gravel driveway and where, where will accessory buildings be located, are there any other plans for the property, will there be any subdividing of the parcel, and when will all this take place? Attorney Terry Hiestand s rebuttal: The house will be located approximately 400 feet off the road. There will be a gravel driveway in the center of the parcel. The accessory building will be 80 feet north of the house. They plan is to have horses on the property in addition to their home. Page 3 of 5

4 They will not be any subdividing of the property. How soon they start depends on getting Board approval and subsequently the building permit. No variances are being requested so all development must adhere to the requirements of the Ordinance. The public hearing was closed and questions/comments were heard from the Members. Q: Attorney Scott McClure stated that the surrounding lots are also zoned I2 and I2 zoned parcels may have heavy industry developed on them with very little question if within the requirements of the Ordinance. It is important that the petitioner and the surrounding neighbors understand that. Attorney McClure also noted that as long as the code requirements are met, the petitioner may build where he wants on his property as long as it meets code requirements. Does the petitioner understand this and with this information does he wish to proceed? A: Yes. Q: Is this area within the Airport Study area, and doesn t that restrict homes being built here? A: There is no restriction on residential uses in the overlay area. That may apply closer to the airport but not here. Motion: Kevin Breitzke made a motion to favorably recommend ZO to the County Commissioners for a rezone from I2 to RR as presented. Rick Burns seconded the motion. A ballot vote was taken and unanimously carried. OTHER ITEMS: Tower Meadows Discussion: Mr. John Esola, a 9-year resident of Tower Meadows subdivision states he is before the Board this evening to discuss the conditions of the subdivision. The property is located at the corner of 550 North and 250 West. Bankruptcy has plagued this development leaving the residents with unfinished construction, unpaved roads, improper drainage, and unkempt vacant lots. Our understanding is that there is a bond on file and we are requesting that the County pull the bond to make repairs, pave roads, and hold someone accountable for the maintenance of the vacant lots. Attorney McClure advised that this subdivision is a problem that the County is aware of. We thought the last owner was going to help but now another bankruptcy has come forward. The bond was calculated on values from when the development was originally platted which was almost 10 years or more ago. This Board does not pull Bonds; the County Commissioners are the governing body for that. County Planner, Mr. Thompson and I (Attorney McClure) are exploring all options and one of them is the bond. Pulling the bond sounds like the fix-all but that is assuming there s enough money to do anything given the age of the development. If we have to have someone maintain the lots, then we have to put a lien on them which doesn t help matters in the end. The bankruptcies put a significant handcuff on everything. We are not unsympathetic; we are just trying to look at all possible options. We may have a plan to work toward soon and we can put this on the next agenda in order to give an update. Page 4 of 5

5 Ms. Danielle Esola, Tower Meadows resident, questioned if there is a way to dissolve Tower Meadows so potential purchasers may use whichever developer they choose? Attorney McClure stated not at this time because the infrastructure is still wrapped up in the original subdivision. Dissolving the subdivision would make things worse. We don t have control to allow individual lot sales, especially while in bankruptcy status. Mr. Nick Tokarz, Tower Meadows resident, questioned if any new developer would be made aware of the guidelines as to how many lots must be built, etc? Attorney McClure stated, yes. Any new developer would have to continue the bond and meet the requirements. Mr. Esola questioned how much of the development must be built out before it can be given to the County for road maintenance, etc.? We believe it is 90% but would need to verify that to be sure. Mr. Esola noted there are only about 20 lots left to develop in the subdivision. STAFF ITEMS: None. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the April 26, 2017 meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Bob Poparad, President Attest: Robert W. Thompson, Jr. AICP Director Page 5 of 5