The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, January 5, 2009. In attendance were Mr. Satterfield, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard and Mr. Dunkin.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the Roll Call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Dunkin made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 1, 2008 Plainfield Plan Commission meeting as submitted. Second by Mr. Satterfield. Motion carried.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Mr. Carlucci said the first item is to appoint a member from the Plainfield Plan Commission to the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals. That is currently Mr. Gibbs. Of course, you can appoint any member to that committee. So, is there a motion to make a one year appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals from the Plainfield Plan Commission?
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to appoint Dennis Gibbs. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
Mr. Carlucci said the current president is Mr. Gibbs. I'm not exactly sure who the vice president is but we can appoint one tonight. Is there a motion for a nomination for the President of the Plainfield Plan Commission for 2009?
Mr. McPhail nominated Dennis Gibbs. Second by Mr. Satterfield. Motion carried.
Mr. Carlucci asked, is there a motion for vice president for the Plainfield Plan Commission for 2009?
Mr. McPhail nominated Gary Satterfield. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Satterfield reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. Since we only have four members tonight I will let Mr. Daniel explain to you what it takes for favorable approval.
Mr. Daniel said this is a seven member board and to take any action on any petition it requires a majority of the full board, which would be four members. Obviously, we only have four members tonight so any action on any petition tonight would require a unanimous vote of the four members that are here. As a result of that, if any petitioner tonight would like to have their matter continued to a date when there are more members of the Plan Commission available to hear the petition, this is the time to ask for the continuance.
Mr. Satterfield asked, is there anyone here scheduled tonight that would like to have a continuance? Being no one coming forward we will proceed. The first hearing tonight is the petition number DP-08-014 for M&I Hospitality at 6110 Clarks Creek Road who is requesting an Architectural and Site Design waiver to allow box signs for the LaQuinta Inn with 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor.
Mr. James said there is no one in the audience representing the petitioner so with that I recommend that we move to the second item on the agenda.
Mr. Satterfield said which is TA-08-004 a proposal to amend the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance in the following respects:
1. Amend Article 7.2 – Exempt Signs – amend this section so that the political signs are not restricted in size or the timing of their placement.
2. Amend Article 12.7 – Penalties for Violation – amend this section to clarify which courts would hear the violations and also to specify which fees and costs might be incurred by the violator.
Mr. James said we have two proposals to amend the Zoning Ordinance before you tonight. It would amend Article 7.2, which has to do with exempt signs and more specifically campaign political signs. If you recall, with the lawsuit back in the fall with the November election with the wording of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the duration, the size, for the political signs. So, to address the lawsuit legal counsel has recommended this revision to the Zoning Ordinance. What it does is it eliminates the restriction size and duration of the campaign signs.
The second item would amend Article 12.7. This article deals with penalties for violations. This amendment would clarify which courts would hear violations and also fees and costs that might be occurred for the violator. It clarifies that someone in violation could seek judicial relief by the Plainfield Town Court. You were given minutes that have been formatted to fit the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. Back in December when you saw them, they were not formatted properly so you have been provided with the proposed amendments in the proper format and the revisions have been shown. So, with that if you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them for you.
Mr. McPhail asked, is there no way we can have any restrictions on sizes for these things? We restrict the size of all other signs in Town based on setback and where they are and here we are saying in the revision to this we have no control when they put them and what size.
Mr. Daniel said part of this was in an effort at this part to resolve the litigation. But I think if the Council or the Town wants us to, we can go through all of the signs that are allowed by the Town and what you have to determine is any restriction on size as it relates to the political sign is consistent with any other restrictions on signs that might be a comparable use in the Town. It would be a matter of going through the ordinance and satisfying ourselves that any challenge that could come from somebody relating to size that we feel we could sustain a court action on that based on size requirements for other types of signs.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said there are court cases on this and the courts obviously will decide what areas of our sign ordinance that they have chosen compare with political signs. You are not talking about business signs for the most part; you are talking about signs that advertise garage sale signs, etc.
Mr. Carlucci said because my understanding is (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I would suggest that we go ahead and approve this amendment now and that gives us plenty of time before the next election cycle where we don't have any issues hanging out there now. But it gives us time before the election cycle to go through that. And do it in a form where I supposed somebody could pick one up in the next couple of years but I don't expect them to. But I do think that some of these get so huge and they are in areas that really are inappropriate for the size they are and where they are put. We wouldn't allow any other sign that huge be there.
Mr. Carlucci said we did see some that were pretty large. (Inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said if they had been out along the highway or something but when you put a four by eight sign three or four foot off a road in front of a house, I think it is too big.
Mr. Dunkin said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said four by eight; it's what we had in the old ordinance.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. Dunkin said (inaudible).
Mr. James said the signs along Main Street this past election were 32 square feet. They were twice the size what we allowed at the time.
Mr. Satterfield said like Mr. McPhail said that could be another meeting.
Mr. McPhail said I think we have plenty of time to work that before the next election cycle.
Mr. James said something else to think about would be the number of signs put out.
Mr. Daniel said we can look at it but I would just about bet money you can't restrict the number of signs; you're coming back to free speech again.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I think it's worth looking at but I don't see any reason why we shouldn't go ahead and approve this now because it gives us plenty of time.
Mr. Satterfield said I'm assuming we need to vote on the amendments separately.
Mr. Daniel said this has been noticed for a public hearing hasn't it Joe.?
Mr. James said yes.
Mr. Daniel said we need to take comments from the public.
Mr. Satterfield asked, but do we need to treat them separately?
Mr. Daniel said yes.
Mr. Satterfield said for the record I would like to open this up to the public for anyone who would like to address the board for TA-08-004. Seeing no response I will close the public hearing and open it up for discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Daniel said I think what the Plan Commission is required to do is either recommend these to the Town Council for approval or non-approval so that is the motion that somebody would need to make.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to forward TA-08-004, a proposal to amend the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance in respects to Article 7.2 and Article 12.7 with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. Dunkin. Roll call vote called.
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. Gibbs – absent
Mr. Kirchoff – absent
4-ayes, 0-opposed, 2-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. James said since the petitioner has not arrived I guess we should make a motion to continue to the February meeting.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. James said Jill did check the lobby earlier.
Mr. McPhail asked, why aren't they here?
Ms. Sprague said (inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield said instead of continuing why don't we go ahead and do the old business/new business and we will discuss whether we want to continue it or not.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. James said probably but they probably figured that they would be continued.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield said I will open it up to the board for discussion on whether to continue DP-08-014.
Mr. McPhail said so move. Second by Mr. Brandgard.
Mr. Satterfield said we have a motion and a second to continue DP-08-014. Roll call vote called.
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. Gibbs – absent
Mr. Kirchoff – absent
4-ayes, 0-opposed, 2-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Satterfield said the hearing will be continued to the February 2nd Plan Commission meeting.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. James said under new business I just have one item. Nottinghill would like to demolish the barn/clubhouse. When the Nottinghill PUD was first approved in 2000, they listed it as a commitment that the old barn would be turned into a clubhouse but those commitments were never afforded. And then in 2005 when the new developer took over, the detailed development standards were modified and when they modified the development standards, they made the commitment a development standard and not a commitment. So, Article 6.1 of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance gives the director authority to modify PUD preliminary plans if the director determines that the changes do not involve an increase in density, change in land use or adversely impact the purpose or intent of the overall development. The Nottinghill homeowners association in their covenants before they can modify the covenants over 50% of the property owners must agree to the changes. Eighty-four percent of the property owners have signed an agreement agreeing to the removal of the barn. Right now they are not getting any use out of it. In fact, it wasn't used at all last year. It was just a burden on the homeowners association to pay the taxes and pay for the maintenance of this building. So, with that it is more of an FYI for the Plan Commission. I just wanted to explain what they were doing. Don is here; as you know, he lives in Nottinghill and he brought this request to me. He can speak on behalf of the homeowners association tonight if you have any questions.
Mr. Satterfield said it is my understanding that the decision is yours, is that correct?
Mr. James said basically yes. It doesn't require approval from the Plan Commission at a public hearing.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield asked, are there any objections to Mr. James making the decision?
Mr. McPhail said no but I do have a question; where did we have a breakdown in our system where these covenants that were approved did not get recorded. I know you weren't here but we have to be careful and make sure that doesn't happen because I don't know but I'm assuming 16% that didn't sign are not opposing it but they just didn't approve it, is that correct Don?
Mr. McGillem said yes there were a couple of people out there, a couple of property owners, that did not return any response. They are essentially gone, this sort of serves as a base, and they are probably not even in the area over a couple of months out of the year. They just did not return; they were not available for the discussion and the ballots were sent out to them and they just did not return the ballots. There was one or two that I would say that is opposed. Now their position was that they agree that it is not going to be used as a clubhouse and so forth but there were suggestions such as well let's modify it and turn it into a storage facility where everybody in the area would have their own storage. That is just adding money to an area when you have storage down the road if you want storage that you want to go to for a lot less cost. How the homeowners association got this was last year after 31 lots were sold the common area and the clubhouse was turned over to the homeowners association from the developer. It was conveyed to the association. With the new assessment and so forth our first tax bill on that building was $3,800.00 back there. With that building back there and with the assessment of the taxes the utilities and the insurance liability and so forth on that building running close to $7,000.00 a year and our total cost at this time is about $58,000.00 for operating expenses with the current 39 owners is 15% of our total cost going towards a building that we're not using and that doesn't count like Mr. Brandgard indicated that old barn was there prior to the development ever being developed. So, we are looking at a new roof, we are looking at probably a new heating/air conditioning system and that $7,000.00 doesn't represent any reserve to go towards cost. So, it just doesn't make sense to us to continue to keep it up. Our meetings are held at the library. There are four or five meetings a year. We have the recreation center. When the original clubhouse was put in as many of you remember, there was going to be a swimming pool and a tennis court back there, which to be very honest with you the homeowners in there are very glad that there is no swimming pool and tennis court to maintain back there. So, basically, this is how we have come to the conclusion to go this route especially after it has been turned over to the association.
Mr. McPhail said I don't have any objection; I'm just concerned that we had a gap in our system that it didn't get recorded. I think they can be changed because they have enough percentage to go in and change the covenants but these out there are not recorded. You may run into something you don't have protection on and if you don't have it recorded; that is what bothers me.
Mr. Carlucci said I'm not sure that was ever part of the plan. I seem to recall when Mr. Andrews developed that property, they just had a dirt road that went back there (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said he was living in it.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I do remember we approved it as a clubhouse, tennis court, parking, etc.
Mr. Satterfield said it's my understanding it wouldn't make a difference if it was recorded or not because here it says it gives you the authority to make minor decisions. To me the question is what is a minor decision and a major change?
Mr. James said I can't amend the recorded commitment; only the Plan Commission can amend a recorded commitment.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield said it says it gives the director the authority to make minor modifications of the PUD preliminary plan without a public hearing.
Mr. James said that would be for like items in the detailed development standards. That is what a preliminary plan is. Sometimes commitments are included in those development standards and they are recorded separately. In 2000 they were never recorded separately.
Mr. McPhail said I don't have a problem with you moving forward personally.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. James said we will codify this with getting the revised detailed development standards recorded. We will get it recorded.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Dunkin. Motion carried.
