TOWN OF PLAINFIELD
PLAN COMMISSION
March 2, 2009
The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, March 2, 2009. In attendance were Mr. Satterfield, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Dunkin, Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Mr. Gibbs.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Ms. Sprague administered the Roll Call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 2, 2009 Plainfield Plan Commission meeting as submitted. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Gibbs reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. The first case this evening is RZ-09-001.
Mr. James said the only petition tonight is RZ-09-001. It is a petition to rezone approximately 9.4 acres from GC, General Commercial to R-3 Residential. In my report I said it had four single-family homes but it actually has five homes. It was legal nonconforming when the Town changed the zoning I believe from Agricultural to General Commercial. Article 9.1 which regulates nonconforming uses and structures was amended to allow the reconstruction of single-family or two-family homes when made legal nonconforming as long as the dwelling units could comply with the development standards for the R-3 or R-5 Zoning Districts. Driving this request tonight is the fact that the petitioner who would like to refinance his house and other members of homeowners in this area may want to refinance as well but the lender has said that residents who sell in the secondary market must be zoned residential. So, even though we have this provision that allows legal nonconforming single-family homes be rebuilt the bank is still requesting that the property get rezoned to a Residential District.
Here is the location. This is Williams Trace; over here is Plainfield Commons and here is Perry Road. This is a signalized intersection and a gravel drive that provides access to homes back in here. This is all zoned General Commercial. Out front there are some commercial uses; Mike's Car Wash is right here. You have an auto dealership and Tractor Supply is over here. To the north is a residential PUD; that is the 80 acres. Even though it is a residential PUD it is owned by ADESA so if that would go as residential or not who knows. But over here is neighborhood/commercial and that was rezoned two years ago and all of this area is commercial as shown on the zoning map.
I have a correction to make; in the report I said that this consisted of seven parcels but it is actually eight parcels. The parcel that has the commercial business has been subdivided and is an independent parcel and is not part of this rezone request.
The Comprehensive Plan does recommend Regional Commercial for this area. That is probably why it was changed to General Commercial zoning when Plainfield adopted the new Zoning Ordinance.
All of the property owners in this area have authorized the rezone. The request is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan, which recommends Regional Commercial. Given the circumstances and the fact that the Town made these homes legal nonconforming is the rezone appropriate? The petitioner and all of the property owners have agreed to the commitment that the property cannot be subdivided to create additional residential lots. The petitioner is here and Mr. Beaman is here representing the petitioner. I'm sure Mr. Beaman would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Richard Beaman with Land Sciences at 113 S. Center Street, Plainfield, Indiana said I would be happy to answer any questions? I was requested by Mr. Williams and I think most of you or all of you are familiar with the Williams Brothers Appliance Store that was there for years and they own back of the railroad track. During that time they owned that property they set residences back behind the business and those were there when the general Comprehensive Plan was changed, therefore, the overall affected these properties. Mr. Williams has been trying to refinance his property and he has been declined by most lenders for the reason that the property is zoned Commercial. Joe James pointed out to us a clause in the Zoning Ordinance that allowed residential in General Commercial. Most of you probably know Bob Cheek, a good friend of mine, and I consider him a good consultant on residential loans. I asked Bob to explain why a loan was not available to these people even with that clause. Bob wrote a letter that I believe you have a copy of on Lincoln's letterhead and explained as we all knew or learned of recent events that loans are not held by the local banks anymore. They are bundled and sold all over the world. When they are done that way, there is certain criteria set up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that they will not make a residential loan on property that is within a Commercial zoning area. It is contradictory to their standards so that has caused these people the problem that has arisen and that is why they are petitioning for rezoning by the zoning board. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Brandgard said just a clarification I guess that is platted as one property and each home is not a lot. (Inaudible). Is that correct?
Mr. Beaman said these were separated using meets and bounds descriptions.
Mr. Daniel said on the plat itself Mr. Beaman it shows different PIN numbers I guess for the auditor over there. These have been legally separated and recorded as separate lots or not?
Mr. Beaman said separate parcels yes. They are separate existing standalone parcels on the record books. I have plotted these from the deeds and that is the result of the plot that you see before you.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this and open it up to the board for further discussion or a motion.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said it will have a major affect if people try to develop around it in terms of zoning requirements and adjacent property will then have to conform to developing next to a residential zoning. I have some real difficulty with this request in the fact that it is General Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan and the whole area around it is General Commercial. Our master plan shows a roadway to the northern part of that someday connecting those properties all the way across from ADESA back over to the Township Line Road. I think if we rezone this to residential, I think it has a negative affect on the current zoning. Certainly when this was rezoned, the nonconforming use has been very well protected. The zoning allows a rebuild if they have a problem but to put a burden on the adjacent property owners I don't think is appropriate. I don't believe individual financing is a good sound reason to rezone property.
Mr. Brandgard said you had mentioned that refinancing has been a problem. You had one letter from Lincoln Bank and have you had the same response from multiple lenders?
Mr. Rob Williams said yes we have. We have tried Hendricks County. We've tried Citizens. Lincoln Federal in years past, like 15 years ago, they thought the property would be sold commercially. We have had it listed a number of times in the last 15 years to sell for the purposes of (inaudible). But nobody has really come forward. We sold off the frontage to Premier Properties but they didn't want to buy (inaudible). I have tried a lending institution outside of the State and the appraisers that came through for that and said it is zoned Commercial and we just can't do it because of Fannie and Freddie. In years past, actually in '98, whenever this was rezoned Commercial, I don't remember seeing (inaudible). Maybe I saw it and didn't really know what I was looking at. At any rate in years since '98 we refinanced on one of the homes and it was a little bit of a struggle because we wanted to stay in Town basically or in the County but nobody would touch it. So, we did have to go outside of the State to get a loan and now they won't touch it. We've been there since the fifties and most of these structures have been there since the fifties. One of the houses that we have been trying to get a loan on was remodeled and added onto in the early seventies. It has been impossible to get a loan, a traditional home mortgage to this point. Back in October whenever I originally tried to have this happen to get a loan, they said if you had been six weeks earlier, it would have been probable so we are stuck. We have been there for years.
Mr. Brandgard said the way that our zoning is set up with a business (inaudible) close to a residential (inaudible) landscaping and berming and stuff like that to protect (inaudible). If we were to do this, would you agree to forego (inaudible).
Mr. Williams said yes I don't see a problem with us agreeing to that. We are pretty close to Mike's there. I don't know if you have heard the blowers run there and we knew what was going on there. We didn't have an issue with that. We did have a fence put up between a retention pond that serves part of Mike's (inaudible). We did have a fence put up between Mike's and that pond simply because one time we were having kids getting in cars and going across there to get in there. So, that is one of the biggest reasons getting the fence constructed but no I'm sure the rest of the family would have a problem with that.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Williams said I'm sorry?
Mr. Brandgard said if we were to change the zoning, it should not affect the (inaudible).
Mr. Williams said there is a 50 foot wide easement going back through there that is a private drive at this point yes. And whenever we put that in, is whenever we hooked onto City water a number of years back. We ended up putting a 12-inch main from U.S. 40 all the way back to serve the houses because I don't know if any of you remember back in about '91 we had a fire out there and we didn't have hydrants and we lost our building. At that time the Town of Plainfield did not have a snorkel to throw on the top; the next day they did. But you know it was an unforeseen type of thing. I worked for five years to try to get City water main out there and I've worked for six different times I think it was over 25 years to make that happen. So, that was before any of the big time changes out in that direction. But no in regards to your question I don't want to put an unforeseen burden on any commercial property there. Of course, to the north of us the old (inaudible) right now that (inaudible) at this point. Our intent is not to try to cause problems for somebody but our hands are basically tied at this point. We never foresaw this coming. Who knew what was going to happen to the financial market. I mean I don't think anybody really saw it coming. I mean people knew that you probably shouldn't be borrowing 125% of your homes but that is another story. But no we did not foresee any (inaudible) over the last decade.
Mr. Gibbs said so the homes that are back there are five homes, is that correct?
Mr. Williams said yes.
Mr. Gibbs asked, are they rental property?
Mr. Williams said they have been public residences. We do rent one of the homes out there. And the intent would be to rent possibly one of the other ones out there. My mom lives by herself.
Mr. Satterfield asked, do you own all of these homes?
Mr. Williams said somebody in the family does. My mother owns two homes; I own two homes and then my sister and brother-in-law owns the other one.
Mr. Satterfield asked, wouldn't you have to get all property owners to agree to that, what Robin was asking about?
Mr. Daniel said no. If the rezoning was passed with that being a part of the requirement of the rezoning, you wouldn't have to get permission. We have one petitioner here petitioning for all of these properties.
Mr. McPhail said I'm a little confused when I look at this. It looks like there are individual lots. What is all of the other property around?
Mr. Williams said there are two fields; one on the east side of the homes and one on the west side of the homes. There are three homes connected to each other. Each one is just a touch over a half an acre. There again back in the seventies we had to do that to make different individual homes on the properties. Otherwise the banks wouldn't loan a traditional home mortgage. So, we broke out half acre lots on those. On the northern edge basically right in the center is another half an acre. (Inaudible). But the field with the pond in it kind of buffers us from the people to the east. The west field kind of buffers us from the adjoining property owners to the west, which is the old J&J Plumbing building to the west of us. But yes basically there are four half acre lots. There is a small house, a yellow house that sits at the very beginning of the piece of that 5.8 acre piece of property. There is a small house there that we want to remodel. Anyway it sits on the 5.8 acres. Those were all broken out like I said back in the seventies. The house to the north was done in the early eighties (inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield asked, is this all one loan on this property or are there individual loans?
Mr. Williams said no it is on one half acre lot, the loan that I was attempting to get.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Williams said (inaudible). But the retention ponds are just north on the railroad track, old railroad track property.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Beaman said I would like to put one thing in prospective that the home that is closest to a boundary line is to the south, which is already existing commercial property. But the rest of these homes the distance from the property lines ranges anywhere from 150 feet to over 300 to 400 feet from the boundaries. So, it would not be a hardship on these people or commercial to do what Mr. Brandgard has suggested is for them to waive buffering. These homes are nowhere close to the boundaries to any later commercial development. They are a full football field away from the commercial properties.
Mr. McPhail asked, if we rezone it, how do we eliminate the addition of residential being built there?
Mr. Daniel said (inaudible).
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Beaman said all of the existing parcels have a residence on them.
Mr. Brandgard said we are talking about (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said that is one parcel though. That little house in the front if I'm reading it right, it is part of that parcel.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
(Inaudible).
(Inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield asked, how many parcels do not have a home on them right now?
Mr. Daniel said one.
Mr. James said it looks like two; this one and this one.
(Inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said it looks like they are the same parcel connected with a little strip, is that right?
(Inaudible).
Mr. McPhail asked, is this a connecting strip that connects these two parcels?
(Inaudible).
Mr. James said (inaudible).
(Inaudible).
Mr. Williams said the railroad property is a different parcel.
Mr. Brandgard said I think the agreement that we need is not to build anymore residents on that 9.4 acres.
Mr. Williams said that is correct.
Mr. Brandgard said whether it is subdivided or not.
Mr. Williams said our agreement was whenever we were talking to Mr. James is we would not want to subdivide or build anymore residents on the property. Obviously, we would have to come back before you to make that happen to get a variance in the event 20 years down the road something like that would happen. But there is nothing in the foreseeable future for us to even entertain that thought. The diagonal line is Township Line so all of this sits in the Avon School district even though we have a Plainfield address. I went to Plainfield and I lived back there all my life. I've lived on that piece of property all but three years and nine months when I was in the Air Force back in the early seventies. We went to Plainfield but that has been a hindrance for all of our kids. They are having kids now and they don't want to live there because they will have to go to Avon and not that Avon is a bad thing but that is the reason. But that is the reason why because the kids are not interested.
Mr. Daniel said here is what I would suggest if you are going to make a favorable recommendation, that item number one would read “the subject property shall not be subdivided to create additional residential lots and no additional residences shall be built on the subject property.” And number two “the subject property shall be treated as General Commercial zoning for purposes of developing surrounding property abutting and near to the subject property.”
Mr. Satterfield said read number two again.
Mr. Daniel said “the subject property shall be treated as General Commercial zoning for purposes of developing surrounding property abutting and near to the subject property.” It basically means the normal things that you have to do; screening and all of that will not be applicable.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this meeting and open it up for discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment request RZ-09-001 as filed by Robert Williams requesting rezoning of approximately 9.4 acres from GC, General Commercial to R-3 Residential with a favorable recommendation subject to the following commitments being submitted on Exhibit “A” forms prior to certification to the Town Council:
1. The subject property shall not be subdivided to create additional residential lots and no additional residences shall be built on the subject property.
2. The subject property shall be treated as General Commercial zoning for purposes of developing surrounding property abutting or adjacent subject property.
Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. James said our second item tonight for a public hearing is the Community Focus Fund Grant Request to fund the Town Center facade perimeter program. Since this is federal funding we have to hold a public hearing. We have already held one public hearing when we made our initial proposal back in January at the Town Council meeting. So, we are having a public hearing tonight to allow for public comment. We are requesting a half million dollars from the Indiana Office of Community World Affairs. It is a community focus fund grant, which is a federal grant. For the purpose of the grant is to fund a facade improvement program. We will fund 80% of the improvement cost and the property owner has to match 20%. It goes to restore 17 buildings along Main Street in the Town Center to the original historical character. The facade easements will be granted by the property owners so improvements that can be done as recommended in the U.S. 40 streetscape master plan. That was done in '04. Linda Fulford is here with Banning Engineering. She is the grant administrator. We have to give OCRA the final proposal on March 13th so we still have a couple of items we have to take care of. We are going to do that at the Town Council meeting on March 9th. Hopefully, we will have everything in order and ready to turn into OCRA on March 13th. If you have any questions for Linda, I'm sure she would be glad to answer them for you.
Mr. McPhail said Linda can you explain to us how DNR got involved with our project?
Ms. Linda Fulford said as part of the grant criteria we had to do an environmental review and it is categorically excluded but we had to contact three agencies at the State level to make sure that it met their approval. So, DNR was one and the State Preservation Office was the other and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management was the third. Is that the letter from DNR that you were referring to?
Mr. Brandgard said there was one from DNR that required us to spend more money to get a study done.
Ms. Fulford said that was from the State Historic Preservation Office. It is a division of DNR.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Ms. Fulford said yes I'm doing my best. They threw me a loop on that one. I wasn't expecting them to ask for additional criteria. I knew that they would probably require specifications but I thought that would come after the grant award.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield said I have no idea.
Mr. Kirchoff said basically they want us to tell them what materials we would use (inaudible).
Ms. Fulford said they wanted a materials schedule for the doors and windows of all 17 buildings.
Mr. McPhail said the Department of Natural Resources for a facade front.
Mr. Satterfield asked, so what are we going to do?
Mr. Brandgard said we are too far down the road not to.
Ms. Fulford said we had a really good review at the proposal stage of our project. It had a good score. It is not 100% sure but it scored well so we are keeping our fingers crossed that we will get the funding but, of course, you know how that goes. We have a few more issues to resolve that Joe mentioned that we are taking care of at the Monday meeting. Hopefully, we will get the support for it.
Mr. James said the good part of that is it goes toward the (inaudible).
Mr. Gibbs asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one forward we will close the public portion of this meeting.
Mr. James said I have some photos; these are renderings of the U.S. 40 streetscape master plan if you haven't seen it before. Again, it is to return the facades back to the historic character. This is the way that they exist now and that is how we would like for them to look. Here is the south side and the new bank. That is proposing a new development (inaudible). That concludes our public hearing portion.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. James said we were asked to take a look at the Comprehensive Plan and what they recommended for our housing element, our housing mix in Plainfield and then take a look at existing conditions and see where we stand. I put this report together and I will just go over some of the highlights of the report. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted five years ago; 100,000 units have been added to Plainfield. So, are we complying with what was recommended in the Comprehensive Plan as far as the recommended housing mix in Plainfield? And also we wanted to take a look and see if there was enough R-1 zoning for executive style homes like there is a lack of this type of home. It may have hurt us in getting some corporations to locate in Plainfield. So, we looked at the land use plan and what was recommended. By 2025 we need over 12,000 dwelling units. That is to house the projected population of 47,600. This means we have to have 3,500 more acres of residential zoning. With our GIS we were able to determine Plainfield's current land allocation. Currently we have 39% residential, 26% industrial, 15% commercial, 12% agricultural and 8% other, religious use, parks and school districts.
Ms. Sprague said that 1,073 should be 1,703.
Mr. James asked, what is that?
Ms. Sprague said the new dwelling units are 1,703.
Mr. McPhail said we have 1,703 new units instead of 1,073.
Mr. James said that is just in the last five years. With our desired housing mix (inaudible) based on public opinion (inaudible). That would be 250 units, 265 acres (inaudible). In 2008 it was almost zero R-1. The correctional facility is zoned R-1 but we had no residential development over there unless you count the inmates. I think we have 10 acres zoned R-1, six lots. That's all we have in Plainfield right now. The R-3 and R-4 percentage is in line with what was recommended by 2025. So, the desired mix was 54% and we are at 59% right now. We do have more R-2 zoning than what was recommended and we are lacking in PUD or R-6 zoning. If the growth rate continues based on current trends, we are going to need over 12,000 more units and 4,400 acres.
Existing conditions: Since 2000 seventy-five percent of all units have been single-family. Half of all single-family have been built since 1990. We estimate currently rental units make up about 24% to 26% of all units in Plainfield right now. In 2000 the census said 31%. That includes single-family homes and duplexes. Since 2000 Plainfield has averaged about 4.5% growth per year. That is based on units sighted and not true population. We have averaged 337 units per year. Of the lots platted in 2000 we had about 1,300 lots remaining. We looked at three different growth rates; high growth rate, saturation point. That means how long is it going to take at the current level to build out the remaining lots? High growth was 3.9 years. The medium growth was 5.3 years and low growth was 10.3. That is basically what has happened in the last couple of years. Hopefully, we will have the medium growth.
Mr. Satterfield asked, how did you define low, medium and high?
Mr. James said medium we used the highest three years. High was the highest three years. Medium was I think the nine year average and low was the last couple years. Plainfield has enough existing R-2 and R-3 zoning based on the desired housing mix. Based on existing housing we have enough lots for six to 10 years with the existing land use constraints as far as residential development goes. We have the bat habitat south of I-70 and we also have the air space overlay district that restricts new residential development.
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible).
Mr. James said that is all apartments based on the natural count of apartment units; 1,941 apartment units. That also includes a list I received from the Guilford Township Assessor where people have identified property as income producing property.
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said in the 2000 census I think it was 28% in Guilford Township but we couldn't break it down any closer than that.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said countywide was like 13%. We were much higher but we always have been.
Mr. Brandgard said we always have been.
Mr. James said we have the highest percentage in the County.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. James said I know at one time 20% of the population (inaudible). Other constraints are the airspace overlay district. We need to take a look at that and see how that impacts residential development to the south; how far out those districts go. How does the ability to connect (inaudible). We have the capacity of formal growth but where would the new facilities be located and what will it cost to connect to these new facilities especially for low-density development? This plan (inaudible) as low-density but more (inaudible) zoning is needed. We probably need to look at an annexation plan and see if there is a cost benefit analysis to zone (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said 265.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, is that existing?
Mr. James said no; that is the desired housing mix.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Ms. Sprague said it is like 12 acres right now.
Mr. McPhail said he said 10 or 12 acres.
Mr. James said it is 10 acres. It is next to ………
Ms. Sprague said it's Rockingham.
Mr. James said yes.
Ms. Sprague said and across Township Line and then the new James parcel I think it was over by the senior living facility.
Mr. James said six lots.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail asked, Joe what is our minimum lot size in R-1?
Mr. James said I think it is (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail asked, and what's an acre? Three-quarter? See I'm not so sure that when I'm thinking executive homes, that necessarily lot size controls that. Maybe even an R-2 would accommodate the executive style home because we see a lot of that in other areas, a very expensive home on a small lot. I think I probably started this dialog and asked Joe and the Council both to look at this as we try to figure out what we can do and continue to develop our commercial/industrial base. We are obviously looking for some mix in that from warehousing into office and that type of thing and there is a perception out there that we don't have the executive style housing to support that type of development. So, I wouldn't want to get locked into R-1 as defining that.
Mr. Brandgard said it has been my experience in building the executive houses most of them don't want big lots. Again, we need to define what we mean.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said those were all PUDs.
Mr. Kirchoff said oh they were.
Mr. James said yes. So, off the top of my head I couldn't tell you what an average lot size is but their ordinances are on line so that is something that we can check into.
Mr. Kirchoff said I'm anxious to see what they have done here because (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said that is frankly the Fishers/Carmel area that we are competing with for housing for those types of people.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. James asked, how do we track development coming to Plainfield?
Mr. Brandgard said we have to create the conditions.
Mr. McPhail said I would say probably the closest thing that has been developed in the last few years that is probably Prestwick and I don't know what size those lots are.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said we have some and I would say in the developments that we have now that have lots available you are probably going to max out at the $350,000.00 range probably in today's market. We have Rockingham out there. We have Oak Park, the Princeton development along Township Line Road. Those are certainly very nice homes and very nice developments but I can't put them in the category of executive style homes.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield said I was telling Kent that we needed a reservoir out here.
Mr. McPhail said and, of course, values right now who knows but we will come out of this sometime I think whatever is going on.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said and how do we get there? We probably don't have any vacant land within the Town boundaries that we could define right now as being potential for that kind of development.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said if we could connect three or four of those down there, we have a pretty large body of water, it could probably be done too.
Mr. James said we should probably look at the annexation plan. What is the cost and benefits annexing more property for executive style homes? Look at the property taxes, look at the revenue generated property taxes and is there a (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said I have one issue with signs that deals with the “for sale or lease signs”. The ordinance doesn't allow them as banners. There are three buildings in the old Wal-Mart and at the Main Street Crossings where Joe's Grille was. They have put up these large banners on the facades. Our ordinance doesn't allow them. There is one up at the Cord's Camera building but given the situation of the economy if you wanted to allow them to leave them up.
Mr. Brandgard said my view is, and we have done this in the past in various areas, is I'm not in favor of leaving banners up (inaudible).
Mr. James said the ordinance does allow them as a temporary sign as a freestanding sign. That is what I recommended to them. I will let them know that they need to come down.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. McPhail made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned.