PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION March 4, :00 PM

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION March 4, 2013 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Mr. Gibbs: I would like to call to order the Plan Commission meeting for March 4, 2013. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Mr. Gibbs: Jill would you poll the board to determine the quorum? Ms. Sprague: Mr. Brouillard- here Mr. McPhail- here Mr. Brandgard- here Mr. Duncan- here Mr. Kirchoff- here Mr. Gibbs- here Six members present, one absent, we have a quorum for conducting business. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Gibbs: If you would please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- February 4, 2013 Mr. Gibbs: Have all of the board members have an opportunity to review the minutes from February 4 th, if so and there is no corrections I will entertain a motion. Mr. Brandgard: Mr. Chairman, I would move to approve as written. Mr. Duncan: Second. Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, all those in favor signify by saying aye, opposed, motion carries and the minutes are approved. DRC SCHEDULE Mr. Gibbs: The DRC must need approval for rescheduling of their meeting on April 16 th to April 17 th. Mr. James: Yes we have a conflict, Jill and I will be in Chicago at the APA conference and we won t be back until Tuesday night, so we just need to reschedule that for the next day. Mr. Duncan: So move. Mr. Brouillard: Second. Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, all those in favor signify by saying aye, opposed, motion carries. Plainfield Plan Commission 3-4-13 1

OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Gibbs: Those wishing to address the board this evening will need to take an oath of testimony, so if you would please rise and Mr. Daniel will administer that. Mr. Daniel conducted the oath of testimony. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Gibbs reviewed the guidelines governing the conduct of Public Hearings. PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Gibbs: The first item on the agenda is PUD-13-001, Timberstone Development. Joe, we will turn it over to you. Mr. James: Thank you Mr. President and members of the Plan Commission. This is a petition to amend the Blackthorne PUD. They want to do a new 4 unit building in the multi-family portion and then also they want to create 102 single-family lots. To do this they would create 2 areas, area A would be the existing condos, multi-family plus five of their new 4 unit building and then area B would be 102 single-family lots. This would decrease the overall density from 7.9 units per acre to 3.9 units per acre. Area B would be 1 story ranches, it would be a low maintenance empty nester market and they would use the same architectural standards that were approved for Devonshire, they have a master homeowners association with 3 covenants, one for the existing condos, one for the new 4 unit building, and one for the single family. Then the four unit multi-family would be fee simple instead of horizontal property regime condo, but the existing multi-family will remain as condominiums. Here is the site, it is about 40 acres all together, about 10 acres over here it has already been developed. They ve got 5 existing multi family buildings, plus one over here next to Dan Jones Road, and here is the Vandalia Trail. To the south you ve got Duke and this is where the new Meijer s will go. Then over here you ve got Carr Road, the former Plainfield Ready Mix site is zoned I-2 and then you ve got Oak Park, which is a single family residential zoned R-2. Here is the concept plan, here is area B, the 102 single family lots over here and then this would be the area A with the existing condos plus 5 of there 4 unit buildings which would complete the multi-family portion. Landscaping plan, they will do a level 3 on perimeters and then level 5 along Dan Jones Road, and this would comply with our current perimeter landscaping standards. Area A standards for the multi-family, shutters have been added to all elevations which would match the existing current standards, the first 4 would be 90% brick wraps, which matches the existing standards. Again they would match the existing standards with minimum 2 car garage at 440 square feet. There is one difference, they proposed a vinyl privacy fence instead of a brick wall, but they would have a brick wall option. They have committed to the building backing onto Blackthorne Trail would have brick walls. There would be no shake siding over the ports that are in the original plan. Minimum living area would be the same as the original at 991 square feet, and then they would do the original foundation landscaping. They did edge shutters to all windows on all Plainfield Plan Commission 3-4-13 2

elevations, there is the fronts and the rear. Brick wraps on the first floor and brick wraps on the sides, architectural elements on the shutters. There is a floor plan; the garage had a minimum of 440 square feet, which matches the original. This is the original elevations, approved in 02, and they were amended in 03 and then amended again in 06 to allow the 5 unit building. Here is a photo of the 4 unit product that they built at State Road 37 and Southport. Here is the front view, and bricks on the fronts, but this doesn t have brick, this first floor would be brick wrapped, which it has vinyl on the sides and the back would have a brick wrap on the first floor with shutters on all windows. Then area B single family standards, minimum lot size would be 6,000 square feet, but they will have 2 lot widths at 52 and 60 and most of the 60 wide lots would be adjacent to Oak Park along the north perimeter, and then they have committed to be more compatible with Oak Park at lot 17 through 25 that are adjacent to Oak Park, would have first floor brick wraps and again you can use the same design standards that were approved for Devonshire, the design options of our residential design guidelines with some exceptions. They are using all of the Devonshire ranches that were approved for that subdivision, but they have added three additional models and all of the models comply with their standards. They are going to use the Plainfield vinyl siding standards, which includes our sheathing standards, and then minimum living area would be 1,300 square feet, really the 1,500 square feet doesn t apply because that is for a 2 story, basements are an option if the soils are okay. Then we will have an anti-monotony code and each home will have landscaping package with the potential with a street tree. Just to show you the analysis we did and all of the models that they comply with the required standards for the front side and rear elevations. I will show you a couple of the models, the ranches, there are 12 models in all, some staff comments, the 140 square feet would be exclusive of mechanical equipment, it is more a low maintenance community instead of a no maintenance community. The 440 garage size allows for an all seasons room in the rear with the 25 front setback. Then is the vinyl fence option okay, the perimeter landscaping matches the original plan and also it will comply with our current standards. They are going to remove the club house commitment, but they will install the trail. Here is the trail; it will hook up Oak Park to the Vandalia Trail, 10 wide trail. I think they could also offer a discount to the Rec center for homebuyers to make up for the clubhouse. They are going to match existing street lights, or either change them out so they will all match, what is already there in area A. The amount of open space, actually increases, it goes from 10% which is the commitment for the original plan to 16.9% for area A and 17.7% for area B. The density is reduced from 7.9 to 3.9 and then it would complete the development because it has been sitting uncompleted for several years now. The developer has met with Oak Park owners in that subdivision, and they committed to the first floor brick wraps. I will show you the site plan too. There are existing retention ponds, so actually out east; you have about 120 setback between these lots and then this would be augmented with the perimeter 3 landscaping along this north perimeter. Are the lot sizes, home sizes, the home styles, architecture standards and garage sizes appropriate for this area as an empty nester product? With that I will have a seat, there are representatives here with Westport Homes and I am sure they would be glad to answer your questions. Plainfield Plan Commission 3-4-13 3

Mr. Gibbs: Would the petitioner like to address the board? Mr. Staton: Good evening, my name is Bob Staton, for the record with Banning Engineering, 853 Columbia Road in Plainfield. Joe did a thorough job I think of explaining our project tonight. As he mentioned with me, Jim Van Ness and Matt Dunn with Timberstone Development and I think between the three of us I think we can probably answer any question that you might have. Mr. Gibbs: Any questions from the board at this time. This is a public meeting so we will open it up for public input, if there is anyone opposing or questions on this petition, please come forward. In favor of this petition? If not, I close the public portion and open it up for the board for discussion. Mr. McPhail: Mr. President I would like to make a couple of comments. This happens to be in my ward, and I have been pretty active working on this project with the developer and with the planning department and I met with the developers on numerous occasions and I also was able to organize a neighborhood meeting where they were able to meet with the current homeowners in Blackthorne and the homeowners in Oak Park, I believe the developer was able to address the concerns of the homeowners and the neighbors in that meeting and I didn t see anybody stand up to comment one way or the other, but I do believe their support for the project, particularly from those folks that currently live in Blackthorne. The development went bankrupt with the prior developer and I believe that this is a positive move and will be good for the neighborhood to get the development completed. Mr. Brandgard: I think I would like to raise at least one point on the patio privacy was. My view of what we have out there ought to be brick. If you have a brick wrap on the house, bringing that wall up to that house, it ought to match the brick on the house instead of throwing vinyl up. I think it would upgrade the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Dunn: My name is Matt Dunn with Westport Homes, 9210 N. Meridian, Indianapolis, 46260. We originally looked at this, we have done similar projects like this in the past and used vinyl privacy fences as are reflected in these pictures if I may hand one out. It was our intention to use a similar product like this to divide the patios between these units; we certainly understand that we are looking at keeping a certain amount of consistency with those currently built in the community. Therefore we would be happy, especially with the building on the site plan that backs up to Blackthorne Trail to commit to doing a brick wall. I guess our thought on the remainder of the buildings was to leave that to our buyers and give them the option one way or the other, whether they prefer to have a vinyl fence which may actually be able to enclose the entire patio or they could have a brick wall at their option if they saw fit. Mr. Brandgard: I guess one of the things, I understand where you are going and what you are saying, but on the other hand you run the risk of having a hodge podge of what you are looking at out there. From somebody decides to go to brick it is going to give a completely different look than if you have the vinyl. Plainfield Plan Commission 3-4-13 4

Mr. Brandgard: What is the existing, are they brick now? Mr. Dunn: The existing buildings have, I don t know the exact type, somewhere between 5 or 5 ½ tall brick partition walls. Just one perpendicular panel coming away from the house and dividing the patios. Mr. Kirchoff: You used brick? Mr. Dunn: It is brick. Mr. McPhail: I remember when we approved the original Blackthorne development the original developer had proposed vinyl, and I had visited a project that they completed in Avon and I didn t think they had done a good job maintaining the vinyl and that type of thing and I was a strong proponent of the brick at that point and time, and I would hate to see a mixture here with just a small number of buildings. I think when it becomes a maintenance issue and of course that s going to be up to the homeowners association and all of that, but I think brick certainly is more of a permanent product. Mr. Staton: If I may propose one other alternative, if we were to not use vinyl fences anywhere on the project, but rather just offer the brick privacy partitions as an option, as opposed to we may have homeowners who do not care to have the privacy enclosed anyway, or don t want any privacy, but that way there wouldn t be a hodge podge of materials or mismatching, it would all be consistent, it just might not be on every unit. Mr. McPhail: I wouldn t have a problem with that. Mr. Brandgard: I m ok with that. Mr. Brouillard: The brick wall option, would that be just the walls coming out from the building or enclosing the whole patio? Mr. Staton: We would probably offer multiple levels of the upgrade, so they could have just a perpendicular wall coming away from the building or if they choose, they could enclose the entire patio for full privacy. Mr. Kirchoff: Joe, could you bring up the plot plan? I guess that is about the largest one you have. As I am looking at ours, my recollection is the lot 17-25, you are proposing first floor brick wrap. My point is, why don t you include the corner lot, lot 26 so that when you are coming in they are all consistent, I would suggest you make that whole corner consistent. I haven t been out there for a while, but it seemed to me that some of the existing buildings were not occupied. I didn t see anything in here about your plans perhaps to bring them up to some level of Mr. Staton: Part of our purchase agreement with Salem Bank does include the purchase of 4 existing condominium units. To my knowledge there are a few other units unoccupied, but they are not owned by Salem bank, they are not part of our purchase agreement. So the four we are acquiring if we proceed through with the project, we will be completing under construction and deferred maintenance on them. Plainfield Plan Commission 3-4-13 5

Mr. Kirchoff: Thank you. Mr. Gibbs: One thing I noticed as I was looking at the residential plans, the square footage, always matched on the summer sheet and the individual pages? Mr. Staton: It is potential there; it could just be some drafting errors there. If you have a particular reference I would be happy to clear up any confusion. Mr. Gibbs: I m not sure what this one is called, the Hawthorne? The square foot living space has 2301, but when you look on the sheet when you look at the floor plan, it says 4,202 square feet. Mr. Staton: The 4,000 number is actually our plan number. It is not indicative of the square foot number. Our operating system runs off of a 4 digit model number and that is just our plan number if you will. The square footage is what is on the cover page. Mr. Gibbs: I look at too much detail. Are there any other questions for the board? Mr. Staton: Thank you very much. Mr. Kirchoff: the motion? Mr. Brandgard: street lights? So should we list those other commitments in here for I guess I have one question, have you agreed to the Mr. Staton: At the DRC meeting we proposed that we would either install LED street lights in the new sections, or we would install decorative high pressure sodium which is currently what is in the project today. I believe at the DRC meeting it was decided the Town would prefer us to keep it consistent and do high pressure sodium lights, which will basically match what is currently there. Mr. Brandgard: I would like to see it consistent. Mr. Staton: We plan to do the decorative high pressure sodium so they will match the current street lights. I move that the Plan Commission certify the PUD amendment request PUD- 13-001 as filed by Timberstone Development requisition the amendment of the Blackthorne PUD creating Areas A & B to allow five new 4 unit buildings in Area A and 102 single-family lots in Area B with a favorable recommendation subject to the following commitments being submitted on Exhibit A forms prior to certification to the Town Council: 1. Substantial compliance with Commitments Amendment document, preliminary Plan and Landscaping Plan file dated February 15, 2013. 2. Is that the multi family units will offer the option of brick wall dividers. 3. Lot number 26 will be added to the list of lots that will include a brick wrap on the first floor. Plainfield Plan Commission 3-4-13 6

Mr. Brandgard: wall. I will change one thing that is offered, brick privacy Mr. Brouillard: Second. Mr. Gibbs: Got a motion and a second, Jill would you poll the board. Ms. Sprague: Mr. Brouillard- yes Mr. McPhail- yes Ms. Lafata is absent Mr. Brandgard- yes Mr. Duncan- yes Mr. Kirchoff- yes Mr. Gibbs- yes Six ayes, one absent, the motion carries. Mr. Gibbs: The next item on the agenda is DP-13-002, Jill. Ms. Sprague: This property is for the Plainfield oral surgery, which is proposed at approximately 803 Edwards Drive. It is located here across from the strip center where Chicago Pizza and Penn Station. The lot is an out lot in the Plainfield Commerce Center and is surrounded primarily by general commercial but with industrial to the east. In this case, the lot is just a little bit unusual; the lot is platted so that the private street, the property line goes to center of the private street instead of to the edge. In this case, that works out well for the property owner, because they don t have to ask for a bunch of variances or development incentives for their front setback. In this case they did have to ask for one, just that the southeast corner, because that curve where the interior access drive would have been within that setback which is not normally permitted, and so they ve had to double the landscaping along there. This is the site plan, just to show you, this was the setback there that they had to ask for the development incentive on and as you can see they ve got about twice as many trees on that corner as they do on any other perimeters. Another thing they are going to ask for in this case since they have four frontages, and normally the ordinance does not allow a trash enclosure between a building and a front lot, so they are asking for a waiver for their trash enclosure, which is traditionally, would be considered the back of the lot as compared to Stafford Road. Just a couple of other details, they ve got the pedestrian connection to the internal sidewalk network, because in this case, Stafford Road does not have a sidewalk along the south side, so this will get them out to the trail so they can go along the north side. All of the other issues that DRC had has been corrected since DRC. Just to show you the elevations, all of the building materials comply, they are actually using a screened in wall for their HVAC and other mechanical equipment. The color renderings don t show the different heights that are required, but the actual regular elevations do show that on the plans you ve got. Then the detail, the sign complies and they have fixed the setback and it complies, as well as the details for the building materials and trash enclosure also complies. As I mentioned, DRC and staff they have done everything we have asked them to do, the only question we really have is if you have any issues with granting a waiver for that trash enclosure. I think that is all I need to say and I believe the petitioner is here if you have any questions. Plainfield Plan Commission 3-4-13 7

Mr. Gibbs: Thank you, Jill. Any questions at this time from the board? Mr. Keiser: Good evening, I am Jeremy with Holloway Engineering, 100 Professional Court, Mooresville, Indiana 46158. We are her to representing Dr. Randy Lee, and we are also working with John Slattery with Practice Evolutions, he is the architect and the person that did all of those plans. So we are here representing both of them tonight. Any questions I am here to answer anything, thanks. Mr. Gibbs: Any questions from the board at this time, if not I open it up to the public for anyone in favor or opposing this petition. And I close the public portion of the meeting and open it up to the board for discussions or a motion. Mr. McPhail: I will just make a quick comment, I think they found the best corner they could for putting the trash enclosure, and I think we are going to have to give them a waiver. Looks like a pretty nice little project to me, and it would be good addition. Mr. Kirchoff: I move the Plan Commission approve DP-13-002 as filed by John Slattery, requesting Architectural and Site Design approval for the construction of an oral surgery facility at 803 Edwards Dr. on 1.37 acres finding that: 1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development Standards of the District in which the site is located. 2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development Standards of the District in which the site is located. 3. The Development Plan Complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted. 4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. And, regarding a waiver to allow the dumpster enclosure between the building and a front yard, the Plan Commission finds that: 1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of building and site design and landscaping which will enhance the use of value of area properties. 2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located along the Gateway Corridor; and 3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. and such approval be subject to the following conditions. 1. Substantial compliance with site plan, landscape plan, signage plan, building elevations, trash enclosure details, and photometric plan submitted file date February 22, 2013. Mr. McPhail: Second. Mr. Gibbs: board. Ms. Sprague: I have a motion and a second, Jill would you poll the Mr. Brouillard- yes Mr. McPhail- yes Ms. Lafata is absent Plainfield Plan Commission 3-4-13 8

Mr. Brandgard- yes Mr. Duncan- yes Mr. Kirchoff- yes Mr. Gibbs- yes Six ayes, one absent, none opposed, motion carries. Mr. Gibbs: Next item on the agenda. Mr. James: That concludes tonight s portion of the public hearing. OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS Mr. James: We need approval for the negative findings for the DP-12-011, the Hearthview Apartments. I provided those negative findings with a memo to you in your packet, and hopefully you had a chance to look them over. If you agree with the findings we will need a motion to adopt them. Mr. Brouillard: I would like to make a motion to accept the findings as written. Mr. Brandgard: Second. Mr. Gibbs: board. I have a motion and a second, Jill would you poll the Ms. Sprague: Mr. Brouillard- yes Mr. McPhail- yes Ms. Lafata is absent Mr. Brandgard- yes Mr. Duncan- yes Mr. Kirchoff- yes Mr. Gibbs- yes Six ayes, one absent, motion carries. Mr. James: We will move onto our Plan Commission invitees, we have one that is an invited representative of the LaQuinta Inn at 2251 Manchester Road. They have had an open banner up for over two years and we sent them a notice and never heard back from them. So I paid them a visit and told them they needed to come down and their excuse was they didn t have a ladder tall enough to reach it, so I sent them another notice and I haven t heard back from them. Mr. McPhail: I would start our fining process. Mr. James: The next issue, it is not on the agenda, it just came up recently. The Burlington Shopping Center that is owned by the Tabani Group, they have a tenant for the B shop. It is a Vicki s Barbeque, and the IOP was approved last May for the Burlington remodel to help them go along, when you get Burlington in and you can approve the rest of the building and B shops when you get tenants. Now that they have a tenant, they need to go ahead and finish improvements for the B shops and finish the parking lot. I emailed Ross Hall with Tabani last week and said we heard you got a tenant for the B shops and we need to finish the exterior improvements for the B shops. So he said, yeah we are going to finishing painting and we will finish the parking lot and Plainfield Plan Commission 3-4-13 9

he said that includes the landscaping. We are waiting on the tenant, tenant improvement permit to be issued and we wanted to make sure we had a clear understanding of what we needed to be done to move forward, and so I guess I just wanted to get your thoughts on that and if you agreed, that is what needs to happen to get their tenant improvement permit. Mr. McPhail: I don t believe just painting meets the plan they submitted does it? Mr. James: Yes, they finished all of the exterior improvements. All the B shops or just that one tenant space. Mr. McPhail: I think they need to do them all. Mr. Brandgard: You got one tenant in there, you can t do that design just on one store front, its got to be all. Quite frankly you drive out there you still see broken windows and everything else out there. The other part is, if you give them a tenant go ahead on that, you still don t have anything that, you still don t have anything that says they are going to do what they are going to go do what they need to do to the building. Is there such a thing, or can we give them provision permit so a tenant can get started if he wants, but at some point and time, before the tenant gets done and is ready to open if Tabani hasn t done anything it stops it. I have problems, under the provision that you are telling me, the Town is the one getting held up, nobody else. We don t have anyway of enforcing them to do the improvements they need to do. Mr. Daniel: Well I think if you let a tenant get in there and start that or whatever else or inventory or both and then say, sorry you can t open. I think you are inviting some problems there. The requirement to finish that now is the time hope there is some provisional and have some tenant standing out there where they are fixed the property. Mr. Brandgard: I want to ask a question, until they do what they are supposed to do, nothing is going to happen. Mr. Kirchoff: Where is the new tenant relationship to Burlington? Mr. James: I think it is at the end of buildings where the Mexican restaurant used to be. Mr. McPhail: All the way at the end, then we are going to have all of that mess in the middle if we don t hold our feet to the fire. They submitted a plan for the whole building didn t they, DRC approved the plan for the whole building. Mr. Kirchoff: That confirms it, we need too. Mr. Brandgard: The fact that we already asked them why they don t have the rest of them done yet. Mr. James: The IOP is good until May, so they will have time to finish it. Plainfield Plan Commission 3-4-13 10

Mr. McPhail: Yes they do. Mr. Brandgard: place is good. Everything that I heard of that particular barbeque Mr. McPhail: It would be nice to get somebody in there, but you don t want the mess between them. Mr. James: Ok, I will tell them they need to complete it by May and if it is not completed by May we will treat it as a zoning violation. Mr. Brandgard: Have that too, but the other thing is there tenants are not going to get the go ahead to go in and approve a permit until that is done. On their side it is important to get a tenant. Mr. James: I have one more item, the old Serendipity at 620 East Main, which is between Speedway and Hardees s, when we did our legal nonconforming sign inventory a couple of years ago, I think we missed this one, but we discovered that we missed it and so we sent them a notice that it needs to come down, but now they think they have a tenant for that building, Noble Romans. They are saying it is continued to be used by Serendipity, they use it for storage that is there argument that it never lost its legal non-conforming status. Just wanted to get your thoughts on that if you agree with that. Mr. Kirchoff: I ve toured the building and the former tenant, there is areas in it that you can use, but it s a mess. Mr. McPhail: She might have a little bit of storage in there, but she is not doing business out of it. Mr. Kirchoff: No. Mr. Brandgard: I think the sign has been up there saying Serendipity but the business has not been operating. Mr. James: Yes, in my opinion the sign hasn t actually been in use because it is not advertising any business on the site. Mr. McPhail: Not advertising the business on that site. Ms. Sprague: I think it literally says Serendipity at Metropolis. Mr. Gibbs: Looks like you got the consensus. Mr. James: Ok, I will tell them it has to come down. That is all I have for tonight. Mr. Brandgard: I would suggest this needs to go through Mel. Mr. Daniel: I was going to say, we will take a look at that, get into some fine lines on there. Mr. Brandgard: I don t want the Planning staff answering this letter, Mel needs to answer it. Ms. Sprague: We still did have that outstanding issue with Ryland. I Plainfield Plan Commission 3-4-13 11

only got a response from 3 Plan Commission members. Mr. James: Jill sent you an email about out in Sugar Grove, it is at the end of a cul-de-sac, and technically its lots are across from each other. Mr. Brandgard: I don t look at it technically, I think technically they are not across from each other. Even though there is a narrow offset there. But again if you had a straight road through there, you get into that cul-de-sac, I don t know how you avoid that. Mr. McPhail: I guess I missed that. Mr. James: Jill was those models exactly the same? They were. Mr. Brandgard: I guess the point being, the floor plans can be the same in them, but the outside needs to be different. Mr. Brouillard: Unfortunately on a cul-de-sac like that they look like they have a lots that is basically across the street. Mr. Kirchoff: What does our language say on that? Mr. Gibbs: It doesn t say anything about cult-de-sac. Mr. Kirchoff: In a cult-de-sac it is hard to split hairs. Mr. Brouillard: No problems to find my neighbors on my street, the guy that lives 4 houses down, I would say he is still across the street, I wouldn t say he is 4 down, he is across the street, so that is kind of broad. Mr. Kirchoff: Does it say directly across the street? Mr. Brandgard: Some of our newer ordinances say directly. Ms. Sprague: That s right, some of the new ones do, and that was going to be my question, as the person that reviews them, I would still consider this directly across the street since the frontages are at lease somewhat in line with each other, whereas like the next lot over, I wouldn t, so I would still consider this one directly across the street. That was a question I was going to ask you for in the future, how should I Mr. Brandgard: And again I look at that, to me it is more diagonally across the street, it is not directly across the street. So the houses are not going to face each other that is directly. Ms. Sprague: this case. Right, I would say they would kind of be like this in Mr. Kirchoff: I thought you were asking about the one in the blue, the light color. Ms. Sprague: No. Mr. Kirchoff: Because it is pretty much directly across the street. Plainfield Plan Commission 3-4-13 12

Mr. Brandgard: I would agree with that one. Mr. Kirchoff: I responded that it was, but looking at this, I was looking at the wrong lots. Ms. Sprague: I would actually feel more comfortable with the one, because I would say this one faces over here, whereas the second one, I almost think these two face more than that angled one would have. Mr. Brouillard: I Would say if you said directly across the street, you might have a discussion or splitting hairs, but if you say across the street that appears to be across the street. Ms. Sprague: Ok. Mr. Kirchoff: I agree with that, but the question is what is the intent? When I responded to Jill, I said yes, I think it is across the street. Mr. Brouillard: I appreciate seeing it, I didn t respond because I didn t really see the layout or what. Ms. Sprague: I put in the picture, did it not show up? Mr. Brandgard: The picture that I looked at didn t show that much offset, is what you are showing here, it was very narrow. Mr. McPhail: I must have missed it. Ms. Sprague: So in line with that, are these directly across the street? So I don t have to come back and ask you again. Mr. Kirchoff: Are these the last 2 remaining lots in the cult-de-sac? Ms. Sprague: No, these are actually close to the end, yes. Although it is not necessarily the last cult-de-sac. Mr. Kirchoff: No, I know that. Ms. Sprague: Then in the future, a lot of times you will have the straight streets, but like there will be a 2 lots here but the 3 rd lot will be there, so I am always theoretically going to have 2 that are basically across the street, in my opinion, does that sound reasonable? Mr. Duncan: If we want to enforce it we may need to draw up something a little more well defined of what directly across the street means. Mr. Brandgard: Directly across the street would give me a different view of that than saying across the street. Mr. Duncan: Exactly. Mr. Brandgard: When you look at the cult-de-sac, if you go to the next lot to the left, you use the same argument that is across the street from this one in question. Plainfield Plan Commission 3-4-13 13

Ms. Sprague: Even though they are facing perpendicular towards Mr. Kirchoff: If you think of the intent of this, what we are trying to, if not have the same basic floor plan, I m going to say clustered together, and so therefore I could make an argument that I am going to look at the cult-de-sac, see what I am saying? Mr. Duncan: It is the exterior more than it is the floor plan. Mr. Kirchoff: I meant elevation. That might not be the appropriate way to describe it, that we could not have the same elevation on a cult-desac. You will have to define what a cult-de-sac is starts and ends. Mr. Brandgard: I was going to say then the lot on the bottom there that is in question is, was that in the cult-de-sac or not? Mr. Brouillard: You are right, but what is the intent? Is it for the neighbor so he ahs a unique kind of house, or is it for the neighborhood. Mr. Brandgard: The intent is to get away from, like over here in Claymont, where every house looks the same going down the street. So the intent is by using the term antimonopoly, you put different elevations. Mr. Brouillard: If that is the case, I don t think you have monotony going on here. They are fairly close together, but it also sounds like you have 3 other houses separating it too, and looking quickly, you are not going to think all of those houses are the same. But if you describe it as across the street, that is across the street. Mr. Brandgard: It says across the street from each other, and then you throw a cult-de-sac in there. Mr. Kirchoff: What would happen if we said it would be ok, but we want to make sure that they don t look alike? Mr. McPhail: I don t know what your total criteria is but if you try to separate them, but I don t think they would be able to do enough to it. Mr. Kirchoff: I wouldn t want to do this with every case, but if this is unique, and if we could find a way to work with them and say you can have the same elevations, but we want them to look different. Ms. Sprague: I know that they say they have different colors. Having just driven out there, I would just say that doesn t mean they could have 2 different brick color, but the vinyl might still be the same color. So do we want all of the colors be different? Or should I specify something like that? Mr. Brandgard: I guess the way that I would look at it is, they may have the same elevations but we don t want them readily identifiable as having the same elevations. In other words, if they are both houses are painted, same brick, same roof, you are going to look and say, I am looking at duplicate houses. But if you have one house that has a different color of brick, different color of vinyl, different color of Plainfield Plan Commission 3-4-13 14

roof, it is not going to be so noticeable as being the same. Ms. Sprague: So all of the colors to be different. Mr. Kirchoff: I would just say have them give you a rendering of it and use your common sense, if you say that looks an awful lot alike, then tell them to do something different. Mr. Brandgard: He has to be reasonable. Mr. Kirchoff: I think they can have the same elevation, but let s find some way to Mr. Brandgard: They want to sell a house out there, so they are going to work with us. Ms. Sprague: They don t normally give us the colors, I m sure they would if I were to ask them. Mr. Kirchoff: Also this doesn t set a president that we are going to waive anti monotonous. Ms. Sprague: So just in this one case we are going to let them with the differences, ok. Mr. Brandgard: If this comes up again in another cult-de-sac, we will have the same discussion. If it happens too many times, we will rewrite the books. Mr. Gibbs: Do you have the direction you need? Ms. Sprague: Yes, thank you. Mr. Gibbs: Anything else? ADJOURNMENT Mr. Gibbs: I will entertain a motion. Mr. Brandgard: So move. Mr. McPhail: Before we adjourn, I have one comment, I would really like to thank the DRC and the TAC committee for all the work they do. We got through a couple pretty in-depth projects here tonight really quick because of the work they have done and sometimes I don t think they get recognition for all of the work they have done. I appreciate that. Mr. Gibbs: Anyone wishing to adjourn? Mr. Brandgard: So move. Mr. Kirchoff: Second. Plainfield Plan Commission 3-4-13 15