Cedar Lake Plan Commission
Work Session Minutes

Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance

Mr. Kiepura called the Plan Commission Work Session to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Roll Call

Old Business

1. Case No. 2025-27 — M&L’s Adventure, LLC — Site Plan and Final Plat

Attorney Nathan Vis appeared on behalf of the petitioner and distributed the final plat. He reported that the final site plan was submitted on approximately February 18th, and that the engineering review appeared to be in good order. He requested confirmation that the item is ready for a public meeting vote in two weeks.

Mr. Sherry confirmed that outstanding engineering comments are minor and can be addressed before the next meeting. Mr. Kubiak had no additional concerns. Mr. Austgen confirmed procedurally that no public hearing is required for a site plan or final plat — only a public meeting action — and that the preliminary plat public hearing requirement has already been fulfilled.

Item continued to the March 18, 2026 public meeting for action on the site plan and final plat.

2. Case No. 2025-35 — Diamond Towers V — Site Plan Review

Jamie Lai of Diamond Communications appeared online on behalf of petitioner Katie Harms. The discussion centered on the proposed relocation of the transformer and fiber vault, which are currently located within the easement area. Mr. Kubiak explained that the Town requested these items be placed within the 60-by-100-foot lease space to avoid conflicts with future snow removal and access to a potential future building at the top of the hill. Lai agreed to relocate the transformer and fiber vault to the northwest corner of the easement — adjacent to the H-frame — which would keep them inside the lease space and improve the electrical run from the transformer to the meter bank.

Petitioner’s representative indicated the revised plan would be submitted before the end of the week.

Item continued to the March 18, 2026 public meeting pending submission of revised plans.

3. Case No. 2025-44 — Culler — Final Plat

Attorney Vis reported that this item involves a final plat amendment for the Winding Creek Subdivision, modifying four lots in the center of the development to absorb a previously undefined outlot. The only change from the preliminary to the final plat is the designation as a final plat on the Mylar filed with the building department. No other substantive changes were made. Mr. Sherry and Mr. Kubiak had no comments. Mr. Kubiak confirmed this is the final step in cleaning up the subdivision.

Item continued to the March 18, 2026 public meeting for final plat action.

4. Case No. 2025-46 — Storsafe of Cedar Lake — Driveway Connection to Osborne Street

Warren Gary, representing Storsafe of Cedar Lake, appeared and described the request. The facility currently operates a self-storage business at the Wicker Avenue property and is completing construction of two new buildings on the eastern half of the property. The petitioner seeks to open a gate connection at the dead end of Osborne Street to provide rear access to the new buildings. This would involve opening the fence and installing a gate — no new road construction is required. Discussion also clarified that a previously noted detention pond area was incorporated into the Lakeview Business Park stormwater system and is no longer required for this site; the petitioner will retain a small drainage area as shown on the plan.

Item continued to the March 18, 2026 public meeting for action.

5. Case No. 2026-02 — Municipal Complex Subdivision Plat — Cedar Lake Police and Fire Departments

Mr. Kubiak presented the item on behalf of the Town. The purpose of the plat is to formally establish the police and fire station properties as their own recorded lots. Mr. Sherry noted that a draft plat previously existed that included a third lot for a future town hall; that lot has been removed and correct addresses for both stations have been updated. All subdivision standards have been confirmed as met — sidewalks, stormwater, and other required improvements are in place — and no waivers are needed. The item has been published and is ready for a public hearing.

Item continued to the March 18, 2026 public meeting for public hearing and preliminary plat action.

New Business

1. Case No. 2026-03 — Leo’s Gardens — Site Plan (Greenhouse)

Rob Henn appeared with Steve Govert, owner of Leo’s Gardens, an established garden center business at the location. The proposal is to construct a 48-by-48-foot greenhouse on the rear, west side of the property, approximately 10 feet off the existing building and 10 feet off the north property line. The floor will be gravel (not a permanent foundation), consistent with the existing front greenhouse. The new structure will allow the business to move overflow plant inventory out of the parking lot, improving traffic flow and the customer experience without increasing overall parking demand.

Mr. Sherry reviewed the plan on-site and noted no engineering red flags. Mr. Austgen confirmed that a site plan waiver — not a full site plan submission — is the appropriate path for this request, and that action must occur at a public meeting rather than a work session. No additional submittals are required beyond what has already been provided. A building permit will be required.

Item continued to the March 18, 2026 public meeting for action on the site plan waiver.

2. Case No. 2026-04 — Fernandez & Bies — Concept Plans (“Ravine Estates”)

Lot 1 — Fernandez

Lot 2 — Bies

Marino Fernandez appeared to present the concept. The proposal involves constructing two single-family residences at the end of Morse Street, uphill from the Boys and Girls Club and adjacent to MacArthur School. Lot 1 (1.89 acres) would accommodate a 3,500 square foot footprint wood-frame residence; Lot 2 (5.00 acres) would accommodate a 1,900 square foot footprint wood-frame residence. Both lots have been granted combined ingress/egress and utility easements across the property to the south to provide private driveway access, since Morse Street does not extend to the parcels.

Commission discussion confirmed that: (1) a waiver from road frontage requirements will be needed since the lots cannot front a public road; (2) sidewalk waivers are not required since there is no adjacent public road; (3) a sewer extension through the private utility easement will be required to serve both homes; (4) the ingress/egress easement has been corrected to allow utility use, resolving a prior concern; and (5) Mr. Sherry is familiar with the property and expressed no concerns with a private drive for this location.

Concept acknowledged. Petitioners directed to proceed with a preliminary plat submission for the March 18, 2026 or subsequent meeting. Required waivers to be identified upon submission.

3. Case No. 2026-05 — Machalk — Concept Plan (Pole Barn/Accessory Building)

Douglas Machalk appeared to present the concept. He operates a vehicle detailing business (“Doug’s Details”) at the property under an existing use variance, and recently purchased an adjacent vacant lot (formerly occupied by condemned and demolished structures) to expand. He proposed constructing a 30-by-60-foot, 14-foot wall-height accessory building to provide additional covered workspace for his business, including space for a camper. His existing accessory structures include a 24-by-30-foot detached garage and an 8-by-14-foot shed.

Commission discussion identified several issues and provided the following guidance:

• Pole barn construction: The Commission expressed concern that approving a pole barn on a sub-acre lot would set a precedent for similar requests. Pole barns are permissible on properties over one acre under current ordinance; this property is approximately three-quarters of an acre. The Commission indicated it would not support a pole barn structure but would be open to a stick-built or block construction building with a footing and metal roof.
• Building size: The proposed 1,800 sq. ft. building would result in total accessory square footage of approximately 2,600–2,700 sq. ft. against an estimated allowance of 1,600 sq. ft., making the project approximately 1,000 sq. ft. over the maximum. A reduction to 30′ x 52′ was discussed as a possible approach. BZA variance approval will be required.
• Height: A 14-foot wall height with a 4:12 pitch was discussed, producing an approximate peak height of 20 feet. The Commission found this acceptable provided the door facing Morse Street is not 14 feet high; the larger door would face the driveway/interior side only.
• Setbacks: Setback variances will be required due to the corner lot configuration. These developmental variances go to the BZA.
• Lot status: Staff noted that for permitting purposes, the residential and B-lot parcels should be confirmed as a consolidated lot of record (effectively a one-lot subdivision). If treated as a separate B1 commercial lot, a commercial site plan and stormwater engineering would be required — a more complex process given the lot’s size. Petitioner confirmed all parcels are under his ownership.
• Grading and drainage: Significant fill will be required given the property sits low relative to the driveway grade. Mr. Sherry will need to review site grading and drainage once a more detailed plan is submitted.

The Commission expressed support for the improvement of what has been a long-vacant nuisance property and was willing to work with the petitioner, with the understanding that BZA approval is a necessary prerequisite and the applicant should develop detailed site and elevation plans before returning.

Concept acknowledged. Petitioner directed to: (1) seek BZA approval for required variances; (2) prepare a detailed site plan and building elevation drawing; and (3) return to Plan Commission for site plan review after BZA action. Staff will assist with guidance on the consolidation of lots of record as needed.

Letters of Credit

1. 141^st Partners — Performance Letter of Credit

Mr. Sherry noted this letter of credit has already been renewed once and no recent field inspections have been conducted. The development has had sporadic progress and significant work remains, including water main and road frontage improvements. Staff was directed to contact the developer prior to the March 18 meeting to determine the status of the work and the developer’s intentions regarding renewal or reduction. The April 15 public meeting falls one week before expiration, providing a seven-day window for a draw if needed.

Staff directed to contact 141^st Partners and report to the Commission at the March 18, 2026 meeting.

2. Rose Garden Estates — Phases 1–3 — Performance Letter of Credit Reduction

Tom McSharry (online) represented the developer. Mr. Sherry reported that CBBEL conducted inspections approximately six weeks prior and estimated approximately $300,000 in improvements remain. Per town policy, letters of credit may not be reduced below 125% of remaining work, meaning the minimum combined surety would be approximately $2.4 million across all three phases. The developer indicated an early winter delayed completion of the remaining items and that work will proceed as soon as weather permits. The existing deadline is six months from the approval of the Summer Winds bonds. Mr. McSharry confirmed approximately $9.9 million total in surety is currently posted with the Town across all projects.

Item continued to the March 18, 2026 public meeting for formal vote on the reduction.

3. Oakwood Subdivision — Phase 2 — Performance Letter of Credit Reduction

Mr. Sherry reported that the Oakwood Subdivision Phase 2 has approximately $461,000 in remaining improvements based on recent follow-up inspections. The maximum permissible reduction under town policy is $548,631.81 — the figure that would bring the letter to the 125% minimum. The original surety for this phase was approximately $2.1 million; the reduced amount would be $548,000.

Item continued to the March 18, 2026 public meeting for formal vote on the reduction.

Update Item — Friary Farms Planned Unit Development Review

Following the Town Council’s 4–3 vote on March 3, 2026 to remand Case No. 2025-11 (BSC Real Estate / Friary Farm PUD) back to the Plan Commission for further review, the Commission convened to receive an update from petitioner’s counsel and discuss next steps.

Attorney Nathan Vis presented red-lined revisions to the PUD agreement and ordinance that he indicated were submitted on the prior Friday. He summarized approximately four substantive changes resulting from Mr. Austgen’s legal review, including: clarification of language noting that the November 2025 Public Hearing left open substantive terms for completion; addition of language requiring any R2 residential homes developed to pay municipal park dedication and impact fees; specification of uses by mixed-use category (agricultural, R2, B1, B2, and resort) cross-referenced to Exhibit D; an emergency access easement for Town utility maintenance; and insertion of all exhibit labels, meeting dates, and minor typographic corrections.

Commission and staff discussion addressed the following:

• Mr. Austgen acknowledged he had not yet reviewed the most recent version submitted the prior Friday. He indicated he needed a few days to complete his review.
• Mr. Sherry stated his engineering review had been at the concept level and noted he had not yet received any formal engineering submittal for this project. He indicated he could review the document changes quickly and was conceptually comfortable with the project.
• Mr. Kubiak noted he had worked directly with petitioner’s counsel to resolve water and sewer questions, including confirmation that the existing well may serve non-sanitary uses in the educational outbuilding, but that any toilet systems would require metered connection.
• Mr. Kiepura directed that the final document — with Austgen’s review complete — must be submitted to staff by noon on the Friday before the March 18 meeting. He confirmed this item must return to the Plan Commission for a formal vote before going back to the Town Council agenda.
• Traffic and egress concerns raised at the March 3, 2026 Town Council public comment were addressed by Attorney Vis, who noted that the ingress/egress on Parish Avenue has been reviewed by engineers, that site visibility angles are favorable, that the driveway provides significant stacking capacity, and that vehicle departure at events is typically staggered rather than simultaneous.

Petitioner’s counsel agreed to update the town council date references (from March 3 to a future date), extend the IDEM submission window from September to October to account for the one-month delay, and resubmit the document the following morning.

Item to be formally voted on by the Plan Commission at the March 18, 2026 public meeting, contingent on Attorney Austgen’s completed legal review and resubmission of final documents by noon on Friday, March 13, 2026. A favorable recommendation from the Plan Commission will then return the item to the Town Council agenda.

Discussion — Short-Term Rental Ordinance

Mr. Eldridge introduced a draft Short-Term Rental Ordinance that he was asked to develop last summer in response to parking and nuisance concerns associated with short-term rentals (Airbnbs and VRBOs) in Cedar Lake. He noted approximately 24 active short-term rental listings in Cedar Lake with roughly 49% annual occupancy. The ordinance was developed with input from building staff, building inspectors, Mr. Kubiak, and in consultation with the Police Chief.

Key provisions of the draft ordinance include:

• Annual registration requirement for all short-term rental properties, with a color-coded placard displayed on the exterior of the building indicating the permitted number of vehicles.
• Application fee: $150 annually; consecutive renewal: $100 annually.
• Parking enforcement: each registered rental property would be assigned a parking limit based on a site inspection. Vehicle-specific placards or tags would allow law enforcement to identify permitted vehicles on-site.
• Violation fines: $100 plus $50 per day of continued violation (1st offense); $250 plus $50 per day (2nd offense); $500 plus $50 per day (3rd offense).

Mr. Wroe noted that Indiana Code IC 36-1-24 already addresses short-term rentals and lays out the guidelines a municipality must follow to pass such an ordinance; the local ordinance simply needs to be adopted for enforcement purposes, as violations constitute Class C infractions. He encouraged the Commission to review that chapter to familiarize itself with the state framework.

Commission discussion raised the following concerns and questions:

• Whether short-term rentals, as businesses operating from residential homes, would require BZA use variances. Mr. Kiepura noted that if classified as businesses, all approximately 24 existing operators could be required to seek use variances — a significant process.
• Equity concerns were raised regarding the fairness of targeting Airbnb owners for parking enforcement when similar gatherings at private residences cannot be equally regulated.
• Cedar Lake as a lake resort community is particularly affected given narrow roads — some as narrow as 14-foot easements — in older lakefront subdivisions such as Cedar Point Park, Woodland Shores, and Price Park, where parking overflow can block emergency vehicle access.
• Mr. Parker emphasized the need to research how similar lake communities (rather than urban municipalities like South Bend) have structured their ordinances. Mr. Eldridge agreed and indicated he would reach out directly to peer communities to discuss their experiences.

Audience members also addressed the Commission on this topic. Due to limited use of the available microphone during portions of this discussion, some comments were partially inaudible and are reflected only in summary:

• Corporal Machalk (Cedar Lake Police): Confirmed that parking complaints associated with short-term rentals do occur, though the frequency is moderate. Indicated that a registration and placard system would provide officers with a clear enforcement basis.
• Joyce Ivy, 13874 Hatteras Lane, Cedar Lake (Steering Committee member): Noted that Cedar Lake is a resort community and that without hotels, short-term rentals serve a real need for visitors. Raised questions about how the ordinance framework would compare to hotel regulation, and acknowledged parking near the lake is particularly challenging.

The Commission agreed the draft ordinance needs additional refinement and directed Mr. Eldridge to: (1) research comparable lake community ordinances and consult with peer municipalities; (2) review applicability of IC 36-1-24; and (3) return with a revised draft for review in approximately one month.

Tabled Items

• 2023-18 — Bay Bridge
• 2023-19 — Founders Creek
• 2023-20 — Red Cedars

Public Comment

None were had.

Adjournment

Mr. Kiepura adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:13 p.m.