PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes August 24, 2016

Transcription

1 PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes August 24, 2016 The regular meeting of the was held at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 24, 2016 in the Porter County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana. Bob Poparad presided. Members present were: Rick Burns, Kevin Breitzke, Luther Williams, Kyle Yelton, Laura Blaney, Mitch Peters, and Bob Poparad. Also present were Robert Thompson, Attorney Scott McClure, Kristy Marasco, Helene Pierce, citizens, and representatives of the press. MINUTES: Mitch Peters made a motion to approve the July 27, 2016 meeting minutes as submitted. Kevin Breitzke seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and unanimously carried 7-0. COORESPONDENCE: None. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: DW Petition filed by Samuel Barney, 164 North 350 West, in Union Township, in the R1, Low Density Single-family Residential District. The petitioner is seeking Design Waiver approval for a proposed four (4) lot Minor Subdivision to vary from Section 10.34(a) Subdivision Control; Minor Plats to allow the following: o Private wells o Reduction of road frontage and lot width from the required 150 feet to 100 feet o Reduction of front setback from the required 60 feet to 40 feet Mr. Samuel Barney, Mr. Rich Hudson, and Attorney Bill Ferngren presented. This is a 2.4 acre parcel on 350 West on the east side of Shorewood Forest south of U.S. Highway 30. Private wells Indiana American quoted a cost of $110,000 to bring water to the front of this site. Since that amount is prohibitive to the project we are requesting the use of private wells. Road frontage and lot width We would like to reduce the frontage along 350 West from 150 feet to 100 feet. The proposed minor subdivision will have four lots. The north 90 feet of lot 4 is a separate tax parcel accessed off a private drive. Lot 4 will have 100 feet of frontage and lot 1 will have 101 feet. Front setback By survey, the east line of the parcel is the actual edge of the pavement at 350 West. If the building is setback from the center of the pavement, then it will only be a 10-foot difference. Page 1 of 6

2 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. Chris Mahlmann, 184 N 350 W, states this has been an undeveloped property for a long time and he encourages development and this will be an addition to the community. He is in support of this petition. The public hearing was closed and questions/comments were heard from the Members. Q: Do you have a letter from Shorewood Utility indicating that Mr. Barney may provide lots with sanitary sewer? A: Shorewood Utility is providing the necessary utilities. C: Development Review Committee had a few items of discussion. One being that the 30-foot easement along the south side of the property having a very large incline. R: We have agreed to work to cut the slope back. Q: Will the private drive have covenants? A: Yes, and we will get those distributed to the Planning Staff. Q: Does the vegetation requirement need to be addressed? A: Not at this level. Development Review will handle that. Q: Can you clarify the lot frontage issue? A: Any lot with frontage along a county road requires 150 feet of frontage. Lots 1 and 4 will not have that amount, but any lot that is internally accessed can have 100 feet of frontage. Q: Shorewood is okay with you not having city water and on wells? A: They are okay with it. The homes already on 350 West are the same way. Q: Who will be living in this subdivision? A: Mr. Barney and friend s of Mr. Barney s. Motion: Mitch Peters made a motion to approve Case DW for the three (3) design waivers as presented. Kevin Breitzke seconded the motion. A ballot vote was taken and unanimously carried 7-0. ZO Petition filed by Maryann M. Jones, M.D, c/o Todd A. Leeth, northwest side intersection of Calumet Road and 600 North, in Liberty Township, in the R1, Low Density Single-family Residential District. The petitioner is seeking an Amendment to Zoning Map (Rezoning); from R1, Low Density Single-family Residential District to OT, Office & Technology District, to allow for a proposed physicians office/medical clinic. Attorney Todd Leeth presented. Dr. Maryann Jones was also present. We are requesting a zoning map amendment for the purpose of a Women s Health Clinic to be located on 4.05 acres at the northwest corner of Calumet and County Road 600 North. The property is zoned R1 currently and we are requesting a change to OT. There are significant woods and trees on three sides of the property creating a buffer from the residential area. There are clear lines of sight to the north and south. There are residential, agricultural, and wetlands around the area. The question tonight is if this is an appropriate use for the area. If approved a Developmental Plan approval will be required and there will be much more detail at that stage. Proposed currently is a Page 2 of 6

3 Women s Center housing one doctor and four midwives. Dr. Jones would be relocating her existing office to this site in a new building. There is also a proposed birthing center in the future years from now. A Landscape Plan is provided to show that we will comply with the landscaping requirements per the Ordinance. Residential development is clustered around the existing lakes. The subject parcel is more affected by Calumet Avenue and not the lakes. There are other non-residential uses along Calumet Avenue and the City of Valparaiso has a heavily commercial area to the north with a number of uses. Calumet Avenue is the chief factor in this case. The 4-acre parcel is 377 feet deep and fronts on Calumet Avenue. Calumet Avenue is an arterial route which is the highest classification route. There is 445 feet of frontage on Calumet Avenue. The OT development plan of the UDO requires us to meet a number of requirements including entryway, perimeter, storm water, and utilities. Sanitary sewer services are begin sought. If we don t meet the requirements then we will have to request a variance. We are not anticipating any variances; we plan to comply with the UDO requirements. We will make good use of the existing tree lines and will fill in any gaps. 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. Ms. Sandra Johnson, 132 Johnson Drive, resident and editor of the Woodfill Foundation Newsletter. The Woodfill Foundation gives a voice to the residents enjoying their quality of life in Liberty Township. The entrance to our subdivision is highest point of Calumet. There are many accidents in this area. We are very concerned with another entranceway in this area. Most of us moved here to live a country rural lifestyle and we don t want that taken away. Respect the residents. There is also a government owned grave site at northwest corner of the property in question and can t be rolled over or removed. Those sites must be protected. OT is not an appropriate adjacent district for our R1 zone. She is opposed to this petition. Ms. Nancy Califati, 134 Phillip Lane, states this property is in Liberty Township and not in Center Township. We do not want any more loss of the agricultural areas that brought us here in the first place. Drainage is bad here. Ms. Califatti states she has contacted a realtor to purchase this same parcel and build two homes for her sons. This will be a much better use. She is opposed to this petition. Mr. Arthur Flynn, 147 Phillip Lane, states he is opposed to this project because he does not want to be annexed into Valparaiso in the future. There is a lot of wildlife here that will be displaced. We want to stay Liberty Township and rural. He is opposed to this petition. Ms. Suzanne Pheanis, 150 Curtis Drive, states she purchased here because it s a beautiful rural setting and very quiet and we want it to remain that way. The tree line that the petitioner is referring to falls in the winter and is then very open to Calumet Avenue. She is opposed to this petition. Page 3 of 6

4 Mr. Aryl Aldred, 280 Turnberry Drive, states he developed Wildrose Subdivision and questions where is the run off going to go. Right now it goes to Wildrose Lake and a heavy rain changes the character of the lake due to there being so much run off, so that is a concern. Mr. Aldred also states that the type of development that is being proposed should be a PUD or something of that nature. He is opposed to this petition. Mr. Vinay Tumuluri, 1917 Garland Circle Drive, states an appropriate use should be determined by the people around it. The grade on Calumet is higher than it seems and this is a big risk. There are other already commercially zoned properties closer to the City that would be appropriate for this use. This property is a residential property and should remain as such. If allowed property values, noise, and quality of life will be affected. He is opposed to this petition. Mr. Ed Guth, 165 E. US Highway 6, states the proposed property shows about parking spaces in the preliminary design. This poses a great traffic concern. The other businesses in this area are grandfathered in. There are a number of parcels with proper zoning available for this use. He is opposed to this petition. Mr. Tim Cole, 845 N. Calumet Avenue, states that the lines of sight are not as clear as Attorney Leeth wants us to believe. The curve of the road also causes issues. OT is not a compatible zone with R1 and the UDO states as much. What are the drainage standards for OT vs R1? The residential areas are not clustered around the lakes. The fence line is overgrown from neglect and cannot be used as a buffer because it is mostly scrub trees. The cemetery Ms. Johnson referred to has about 30 children buried there from the flu epidemic of There are only about four stones so people often think it s smaller than it really is. We don t want it fenced off in someone s parking lot. He is opposed to this petition. Mr. Rajeshnirmal Shunmugam, 1911 Garland Circle Drive, states there is mainly residential in this area and Calumet Avenue is narrow here. Mr. Richard Shuster began a petition opposing this project. Mr. Shunmugam submitted that petition with 93 signatures for the record. He is opposed to this petition. Mr. Richard Smith, 61 N. Calumet Avenue, states there have been multiple accidents in this area. There is a lot of traffic, vehicles driving fast, very narrow road, and deer crossing. We do not want this. He is opposed to this petition. Attorney Leeth s rebuttal: We understand that people often do not want any kind of development in their backyard, but it is an unrealistic sentiment to think that this property will not be developed. It will be developed in some way at some time. To stop a project because of a don t want attitude is unrealistic and illegal. Reason needs to be shown as to how this project harms them. Anything on this parcel will affect traffic and some more than others. A doctor s office belongs on an arterial route and this is an arterial route. We took photos of the lines of sight from where we believe the entrance to the development will be placed. There is a good line of sight from that location. Page 4 of 6

5 The Development Plan has many standards that will have to be met. Excel and decel will be part of that. The cemetery referred to is not actually on this property. It s a 25x25 east/west parcel that has an easement to access. We will continue to provide and maintain that access. We are aware that it is there. What we are proposing is not a commercial development. We are not asking to be annexed to the City of Valparaiso. We are asking to be annexed to the Valparaiso Lake Area Conservancy for sanitary sewer utilities, but that is it. With regards to the existing tree line not being usable, we will have to do a tree study and meet the requirements of the code. Where will the run off go? We don t know. The Development Review Committee told us we need to redirect the flow to the east and maintain on our own property. We have to comply with the storm water management requirements and those requirements are very strict in Porter County. We showed the maximum number of parking spaces the Ordinance allows on our site plan. It may very well be less with what we want to build, but we will build what is required of us. The public hearing was closed and questions/comments were heard from the Members. Q: Do you plan to build a retention pond? A: Yes, on site and within our development. Q: Was there any consideration for a PUD? A: We don t qualify for a PUD due to 5 acres being required for a PUD. Typically PUD s are mixed uses and larger parcels. Q: Where is the proposed entrance? A: 230 feet north of County Road 600 North. The parcel is 445 feet wide so it s about half way. Q: Will County Road 600 North always be open to Highway 49? A: There are many debates on that and we don t know what will happen in the future. Q: If approved can it be for this project only? A: Yes. Q: Are intersection concerns, etc. handled at some point? A: Traffic is part of the rezone process. If the road can or cannot handle, this project is how it will be determined. C: A future birthing center was discussed, and that will a 24-hour operation. This will affect the neighbors and will have numerous vehicles. This type of development is out of character with the surrounding area. Q: Does the petitioner have to show a hardship? A: No, not for this process but rather need to show a compelling reason to rezone. Q: What are the proposed days and hours of operation of the Women s Center? A: Monday through Friday; 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Page 5 of 6

6 Motion: Mitch Peters made a motion to favorably recommend ZO to the County Commissioners specifically for this proposed project and the OT zone. If this project is not approved then the property reverts back to R1, and with the condition that the petitioner will provide for traffic and line of sight concerns and provide excel and decel measures. Luther Williams seconded the motion. A ballot vote was taken and failed 3-4 (Burns, Yelton, Blaney, Poparad). This petition is automatically continued to the September 2016 regular meeting. STAFF ITEMS: None. ADJOURNMENT: The August 24, 2016 meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Bob Poparad, President Attest: Robert W. Thompson, Jr. AICP Director Page 6 of 6