Plan Commission 1.12.10 Meeting Minutes - the Town of Winfield

MINUTES
Plan Commission Public Meeting
January 12, 2010
The Winfield Plan Commission held their regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at the
Winfield Town Hall at approximately 7:30 p.m. Those present: Tony Clark, President; George Walton, Vice
President; Paulette Skinner, Secretary; Gerry Stiener, Al Leach and Michael DeNormandie. Michael Lambert
was absent. Also present, Bill Enslen, Town Attorney, Greg Lorig, DLZ, and Lance Ryskamp, Zoning
Administrator.
Organizational Matters: Election of President, Vice President and Secretary: Gerry Stiener made a
motion, seconded by Al Leach, to nominate the following as officers for 2010: Tony Clark, President; George
Walton, Vice President; and Paulette Skinner, Secretary. With no further nominations offered, Gerry Stiener
made a motion, seconded by Paulette Skinner, to close nominations and elect the above-mentioned to their
respective offices. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0.
Minutes: December 8, 2009
Paulette Skinner made a motion, seconded by George Walton, to approve the December 9, 2009 minutes, as
presented. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0.
Old Business:
Docket No. 2008-009
Owner: 109 th State Street LLC, 11057 State Street, Winfield 46307
Developer: Mitre Kutanovski, 11507 State, Winfield IN 46307
Vicinity: 109 th and State Street (south of 109 th and west of State Street)
Request: For primary approval of Falcon Manor Phase 2 with approximately 37 lots. This
development is Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District and contains
approximately 27 acres, more or less.
Al Leach made a motion to continue the public hearing until the February 9 th meeting. Michael
DeNormandie seconded the motion, which was approved 6-0 in a voice vote.
New Business:
Docket No. 2009-008
Owner: DBL Residential, L.P.
Developer: Doubletree Lakes Apartments, LLC
Vicinity: Northwest corner of County Line Road and 109 th Avenue
Request: Petition for Zone Change to modify current PDR zoning to develop a 268 unit
multi-family community development, with 244 apartment and 24 townhouse
units on approximately 30.12 acres, more or less.
Jeff Ban addressed the Commission on behalf of the petitioners, and introduced the other members of the
development team present. He provided an overview of the project, which was a petition to modify the existing
PDR zoning for Doubletree East along the northwest corner of 109 th and County Line Road. The modification
was to permit development of a 268 unit multi-family community on the site. Reviewing the history of the
project, Jeff Ban reported that the original development plan, containing 336 multi-family units, had been
approved by the county in 1996 and remained in place currently.
Jeff Ban then gave the Commission an overview of the proposed project, which would contain 244 apartment
and 24 townhouse units. He reviewed the utilities that would service the site, as well as discussing the
proposed drainage plan for the project. He noted that in addition to reducing the number of multi-family units,
other proposed changes to the original plan included removing access to the site from 109 th , in favor of County
Line Road. He also stated that the proposed project would not connect with the platted street existing on
Doubletree Drive South.

Jeff Ban indicated that future amenities to the project would include a clubhouse and a green space water
view. An overview of the types and styles of the various multi-family buildings were then reviewed, along with
the proposed construction phases of the project. He indicated that the proposal was a $26 million project and
the units were projected to rent at a $1 a square foot. Jeff Ban also stated that the developers were prepared
to provide additional right-of-way to create a dedicated 50 foot right-of-way on both 109 th Avenue and County
Line Road.
At the close of the presentation, Attorney Enslen indicated that petitioner’s legal notices were all in order.
Lance Ryskamp provided the Commission with his staff report, which included a review of the TAC meeting
held on the project. He indicated that his research of the old county files confirmed that the approved plans in
1996 were still current. He informed the Commission that petitions and correspondence had been filed prior to
the meeting, including a petition by the “No DBL Apartments Action Committee” and a letter of opposition from
the Community Manager of the Lake of Four Seasons, Rick Cleveland. In addition, there was a report filed by
Greg DeLor of the LOFS Fire Department on the project.
Attorney Enslen advised the Commission that both the petition, as well as the LOFS letter, should be admitted
as part of the record. He further advised that under current Indiana law, property owner associations and adhoc
committees have no legal status to remonstrate on a project, only individuals.
Tony Clark then opened up the meeting to questions from the audience to the petitioners on the project. He
asked audience members to sign in with their name and address for the record.
William Teach, 7446 Boardwalk, asked what amenities would be included in the first phase of construction.
The petitioner indicated that there would be no amenities in the first phase.
Frank Martinez, 9180 Doubletree Lane South, asked about whether there would be a fence around the
development. Jeff Ban answered that there would not be a fence.
Mike Villa, 7414 E. 109 th Avenue, asked if any of the rental units would be used as Section 8 housing. Michael
Sakich indicated no, and that the monthly rent of the units would be between $1000 and $1500 a month.
Tim Ormes, 8346 Doubletree Drive, asked who the petitioner was. He was informed that it was Doubletree
Lake Apartments, LLC. He further asked about the location of the proposed entrance on County Line Road.
Jeff Ban responded that the entrance is approximately 500 feet north of 109 th Avenue. He asked and Attorney
Enslen answered, questions related to the Planned Development (PD) process. He asked if a traffic study had
been done and he was told that one had not been done to date, but that would come later in the process. He
questioned the adequacy of the utilities to service the area. He asked if the petitioners were willing to stipulate
that none of the units would ever be used as Section 8 housing. Michael Sakich said that he was not sure he
could legally make that stipulation.
Frank Diehl, 29 South Ventura Blvd., asked whether the additional children who will live in the complex will put
an additional strain on the schools, fire and police protection.
Mark Gruenhagen, 8751 __________, asked whether the petitioners would be paying Doubletree Association
fees. Michael Sakich responded that they will not be part of Doubletree or their property association.
Bob Herm, 10317 Snead Street, asked who the property owner was. He was told it was DBL Residential, L.P.
Steve Mattimire, 8810 E. 109 th Avenue, asked who will improve County Line Road as part of this project. Jeff
Ban answered that it would be the petitioners who would make the improvements.
Tim Ormes, 8340 Doubletree Drive, asked who will be paying for the Randolph Street pump station upgrade.
Attorney Enslen indicated that it would be the current owners of Doubletree.
With no further questions presented, Tony Clark asked if there was anyone who wished to remonstrate in favor
of the project. Hearing none, he then asked if there was anyone who wished to remonstrate in opposition to the
proposal.

Rick Cleveland, 1048 N. Lake Shore Drive, as the LOFS Community Manager, read into the record the letter
provided to the Commission, dated January 11, 2010, in opposition of the project.
Dave Anderson, 10535 Erie Drive spoke in opposition on behalf of the No DBL Apartments Action Committee.
He indicated that over 300 residents were in opposition to the project. He felt that the proposed project would
be a long-term problem for the town.
Frank Diehl, 29 S. Ventura Blvd., asked who would pay for all of the improvements and stated that the project
would be a big mistake.
Lou Gorgos, 10290 Doubletree Drive South, said he was a Doubletree resident for the last 6 months and a
Risk Manager by profession. He was concerned as to who would ultimately pay for improvements.
Colleen Hatami, _______________, said she was very active in the school system. She was concerned with
the possible impact on the schools with having a lot of families renting for short periods of time.
Jeff Kolish, ___________________, works in the Valparaiso school system and has seen a negative impact in
his schools since there was an increase in Section 8 housing.
William Bobey, 7391 E. 109 th Avenue, cited Section 156.263 of the Winfield Town Code. He also discussed the
Park Dedication and Open Space ordinances and their application to this project.
Randy Hall, 8502 Doubletree Drive South, stated that he had been President of the original Doubletree holding
company who obtained approval for the development from the county in 1995 and 1996. He stated that the
approved proposal at that time contained multi-family buildings, but they were to be owned, not rentals.
Tammy Schiessle, 4197 Thornhill, said she was a resident of LOFS and she had experienced having a rental
home two doors away. She said that this proposed development will affect the neighbors.
Dawn Follmar, 8260 Doubletree Court, said that she had also had a bad experience with renters.
Sharon Bodkin, 8645 Doubletree Drive, said she is very proud of the Crown Point schools.
Steve Mattimire, 8810 E. 109 th Avenue, stated that he will live the closest to the development and it will
decrease property values.
Tim Ormes, 8340 Doubletree Drive, questioned how this development would actually benefit the Town of
Winfield.
Scott Foster, 8758 Mystic Circle, stated he was against the project.
John Holley, 83 S. County Line Road, said he lived on the Porter County side of County Line Road and he
believes in the concept of “government for the people, by the people”.
William Teach, 7446 Boardwalk, stated he was against the project and stated there would not be sufficient
sewer capacity to handle existing development in Doubletree, without an expensive upgrade to the town’s
sewer plant.
Hearing no further remonstrance, Tony Clark closed the public hearing. During rebuttal from the petitioner, Jeff
Ban indicated that the contract to purchase the land was contingent upon the necessary upgrades to the
sanitary sewers being made.
Tony Clark asked the Commission if anyone had any questions for the petitioner. There were none.
Gerry Stiener commented that as a lifelong resident, the town currently has a fine town council and good
people on its boards and commissions. He stated that he was proud to be a resident of Winfield and that some
of the comments made were uncalled for.

Gerry Stiener made a motion for the Plan Commission to make an Unfavorable Recommendation to the Town
Council for the following reasons:
1. The request does not conform to the Town of Winfield Master Plan, in that the Master Plan calls for this
area to be single-family, owner-occupied housing and not multi-family, rental housing;
2. The sanitary sewer infrastructure, in its present state, is inadequate to handle the sewage created by
this development;
3. The streets in the area of this development, namely County Line Road and 109 th Avenue, are
inadequate in size and condition to handle the increased traffic flow created by this development;
4. There is inadequate traffic control at the intersection of 109 th Avenue and County Line Road to handle
the increased traffic flow created by this development, considering the traffic coming in and out of Lake
of Four Seasons;
5. The fire and police resources of Winfield are inadequate to be able to provide the necessary and
required protection for the development, considering the number of residents who would be living in it;
6. The development will decrease the value of property in the surrounding area in that multi-family, rental
housing situated in the near vicinity of single-family housing decreases the desirability and therefore,
the value of nearby single-family housing;
7. The development is inconsistent with the overall development in the surrounding area in that the
present area is single-family, owner-occupied development and not multi-family rentals;
8. The development has failed to adequately address the necessary requirements for parks and open
space which would be necessary for use by the number of residents who would live in the proposed
development;
9. The development has failed to properly address the issue of security for the development and its
residents;
10. The development has failed to address the concerns of the Town that adequate recreational and other
amenities be included within the development from its inception.
The motion was seconded by George Walton and passed 6-0 on a roll call vote.
Bonds Set To Expire- DBL West, Phases 5 & 8- Greg Lorig of DLZ informed the Commission that
DLZ will have recommendations for new bond amounts for Doubletree Lake Estates West, Phases 5
and 8 at the February meeting.
With no further business before the Commission, Gerry Stiener made a motion, seconded by Michael
DeNormandie, to adjourn. The motion passed on a voice vote, 6-0.
Adjournment: Approximate time: 9:10 p.m.
Attest:
____________________________________ Transcriber: Lance Ryskamp
Plan Commission Secretary Zoning Administrator
__________________________________________
Plan Commission President