Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At 7 o'clock, I'd like to call the Planning Commission for the City of Martinsville, Tuesday, April 28, 2026, to order. First up on the agenda is roll call.

Richard Bastin. Steve Bodie.

Here.

Jim Burkhardt? Here. Joe Disney? Here. Richard Merrill? Here. Caleb Forrester? Here.

Rick Heacock?

Here. Ann Miller? Jason Scott?

Here.

Troy Swann. Here. Myself, Marilyn Seiderwitz. That's it.

Okay, we have a quorum. Next is a presentation of minutes dated February the 24th, 2026. Has everybody had an opportunity to go over the minutes?

Rick Durnall will make a motion we accept the minutes dated February 24th, 2026 as presented.

We have a motion, do I have a second? Steve Bodie, I would second that. Okay, we have a first and second on the motion. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Minutes are approved as presented. First up, under old business.

Chairman?

Yes.

May I make a quick statement I'd like to share with our fellow members and everyone who's in the audience that we're sorry that we didn't have a quorum last month and yet we held the meeting. It was our fault. And we can count, so that shouldn't happen again. But as part of that, I wanted to ask about our friend Troy Swan, who is very helpful and needed at the plan commission, but I don't understand if he is truly a member of the commission or not. Troy, or any others have an opinion on that? I get an opinion on that. As city engineer, I am a member of your commission. You're a voting member of the commission.

Yes, I am. Okay. City of Martinville has a parks board, which would require my statute. The city engineer has to play commission.

Okay. And whether we have 10 or 11 members, it doesn't matter. For the quorum, we need six. So we have 11 members with the board. Thank you. Thank you.

as came in during Mr. Bodie's statement. First up under old business is docket number PC26004. Remodeled in historic downtown district. Address is 65 West Morgan Street. Owner is Jesse Logsdon. Mr. Stranger, has Mr. Logsdon given you everything you need?

Chairman, I believe you spoke with Mr. Logsdon on his last visit and the board here reached out to him with concerns about the design of the outside of the structure, which would be windows of what his plans are. I believe you informed him to be here this evening. I've not heard anything at all from him.

Thank you, Mr. Strager.

So I'm gonna confirm that there's no elevation, just the... What you have received in the past is all we have. Alright, just wanted to make sure.

Members, uh, Mr. Logsdon is not present. What do we want to do with this?

This may or may not be Jermaine. I saw a stop order on the front door of the mission. How does that relate to anything we're discussing?

That was, Steve, that was placed there with no design. It's been on the door for, I can't, I placed it there. I can't recall the date. But that was when they were working. Just thought they could go ahead and explain to them that they were in the downtown historic district and they had to submit certain things and that's where we have left it. And there's not been any work except I did authorize that you could clean it out. That was all.

Okay.

Mr. Coffey, if we table that, how many times do we table with it?

Well, this will be your first time tabling it. So, yeah, I think the proper way to do it since he's not here is to table it and put it on the agenda for next month.

Then I make moves when we table it.

I second.

So we have a motion from Jim Burkhart to table it. Ann Miller has seconded. All those in favor? Can I ask a question?

Yes. Will we reach out to this property owner to say we need you to come next month? Do we communicate what we just did to him?

Yeah, I think we'll ask our office to contact him and let him know that it's been tabled. We expect to see him in May.

I thought that we had tabled it before and I had asked Lisa to send a letter to the owner.

Actually, the first he was not present. That's correct. We didn't have one at the February meeting. So this is our second time to table. So again, we have a motion from Mr. Burkhart, a second from Ms. Miller. All those in favor of tabling? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next up on the docket is PC26006. It's a remodel in the historic downtown district. Address is 89 South Main Street. The owner is First Christian Church. Do we have everything submitted on this bottom? Yes, sir. Okay. If you could please sign in, sir, and then state your name.

Okay, thank you, commissioners. Mike Halstead, Halstead Architects, 1139 Shelley Street in Historic Fountain Square, Indianapolis, and I'm here to answer any questions or concerns you might have regarding First Christian Church and the improvements we're planning there. I was here last month, so some of you have heard this before, The major work that we're doing is on the interior of the sanctuary. We're replacing the organ pipes and the organ, repainting the ceilings and the walls, new flooring. But I think what you're here to talk about are the exterior improvements that we're doing. There's a canopy on the south side of the building that runs along Jackson. and we're removing that canopy and removing the doors that are there and the steps. So right now, it's currently an exit that they don't use. It's blocked off. The steps are really steep. No one uses that entrance, so they've blocked it off for several years. We're going to take all that out and replace the doors with new windows with stained glass. So that's the project that we're talking about in terms of the facade. And as I mentioned last time, we're gonna make sure that the window, one of the comments last time was to make sure the window sills line up with the other windows. It's definitely in the drawings that way, but we've had our pre-construction meeting with Meijer Najim, who's also the contractor on the courthouse. They understand that that's a concern, that even though it's on the drawings that way, make sure you're focusing on that. They're well aware of the, I think last time there was a good comment about soft mortar. They're aware of that, so.

Is there any questions for those gentlemen?

I'm sure it'll be beautiful to have that come down and shine again on that side of the street.

I make a motion that we approve docket number PC26007. 06.

06. 26006.

6, I'm sorry, 6. I'll second that.

Caleb Forrester seconds. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Docket number PC26006 is approved. Thank you, sir, for coming back.

Have a good night.

Next up on the docket under old business is PC26007, remodeling historic downtown district. Address is 59 North Jefferson Street.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to recuse myself and step out of the meeting. Our contractor, Mike Kirsch, is here tonight to present this for us.

Thank you, sir. Good evening, Plant Commission members. My name is Mike Kirsch. I'm here on behalf of the owners of 59 North Jefferson, not to be confused with 59 South Jefferson, more commonly known as the Warren Oliver and Coffee Building. And what we are planning on doing is just an upgrade of the facade that's an existing facade. Basically, the reason for doing the update is to kind of bring the exterior of the building kind of into a more modern motif along with the rest of the facades downtown. Prior to looking at the construction and design that we did for the facade, we checked into any kind of historical relevance of the building. transgression in park randy marsh and neither one of us saw any relevance historically at the building so what our intention is is to basically strip off the awning with the cedar shakes remove it remove the windows and the doors to update everything make it more energy efficient more aesthetically pleasing and make it blend into the rest of the downtown area so the uh... Some of the demo that we're going to be doing is going to involve blocking off the sidewalk for a couple of weeks and closing the alley for a couple of days. But our intent is to get in and out of that project in about a two to three week period. I wouldn't say from beginning to end, but for when we'll have the sidewalk closed. And that'll be something that we'll work out with the city as far as the dates of closing and everything. The materials on the outside are pretty much what you can see in the drawings. We got a standing seam steel roof, which is going to be a dark color, either charcoal or black. The windows are going to possibly be a dark charcoal or black also, with the trim to match. There's no work that's going to be done above the awning. Everything's going to remain as it is. The only exception to that is that we are going to be removing the blade sign, which the law firm owns on the building on the north side of the square, taking that blade sign off and putting it onto the southwest corner of the building on Jefferson Street. So that's pretty much the extent of the work. There will be some soffit lights to create some down lighting, and we will be cutting and replacing the concrete where the entrance of the door is, which will eliminate a trip hazard that's been there for many years.

So the question I have, the way I followed what you just said, the blade sign that is on the... building on Morgan Street will be coming off and going on this building.

Correct. The sign will have to be altered because it mounts right on the northwest, the southwest corner on the alley on Morgan Street. It'll be on the opposite corner on Jefferson Street. So they'll have to cut the mounting brackets off and reattach them so it can mount on that outside corner. Basically the same elevation above the sidewalk as it is now.

So what you're saying, the sign is like a left hand now, and the mounting is going to be a right hand. Correct.

And the windows are going to be new or bigger than the windows that are in there now?

Slightly bigger, yeah. And the window manufacturer is going to be the same manufacturer as what was used on the theater building. So it'll just allow for more light. That office... It could use just a little bit of updating and we thought that this was the best way to go. Especially opening up that doorway a little bit to allow for people with disabilities to get in and out a little bit easier. Okay.

Is this something they're going to have to come back to us for the sign? No. No? Now, since it's already been approved, it's going to be fine?

It's all part of this package. I mean, it's checked on the application.

Oh, okay.

But there's no image of the sign, is there?

There's no images. We're just using the same sign. It's really a minimal blade sign. You really don't even see it as you're going down the road.

Any other questions for Mr. Kirsch? I'd entertain a motion on this.

I move that we approve pocket number PC26007. Okay, Mr. Heacock.

Has made a motion we approve.

We'll second.

Ripper and all made a second to approve. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Mark. Thank you. Mike, do you want to step out there and see where Mr. Coffey went? Next up, new business, docket number PC26008. It is a rezone from business one to residential two. The address is 2009 Burton Lane. Owner is Todd and Tricia Price. This on the rezoning, commission members, is a... We'll hear what they have to say. We'll listen for if there's any remonstrators here and then what we're going to vote on will be a recommendation for or against this that goes to City Council. So that way you understand. Could you state your, did you sign in? No. Mr. Strater, do you have everything you need on this? Yes.

Hi, my name's Todd Price. We bought 2009 Burden Lane. When we bought the property, we bought it, it was listed as R1. We didn't find out it was B1 until we took our paperwork for our taxes in and then found out it was B1. This is my realtor. So I contacted her. She obviously contacted the listing agent and that pretty much went nowhere. So it was either hire an attorney to try to find a realty company or hire one to try to get it rezoned back to what we thought we were buying in the first place. That's kind of where we're at. I didn't see a need to hire an attorney because the house is literally in a residential neighborhood. I'm just looking to fix it up, make it better than it is now. So, I'm not asking for anything special.

Mr. Price, why, why are you suggesting R2 instead of R1?

We are thinking about turning it into a duplex. But that is really going to depend. I haven't got into it a whole lot yet as far as putting pricing together and everything. It's going to depend on that.

You'd like it to be R2 so you'd have the option for two family dwellings.

I, for one, am jealous you brought that building. I went to Dr. Schneider for many years. I don't know. Did you saw this platoon where you can spit after he cleaned your teeth?

There was some artifacts in there. Yeah.

You got some great stuff in there, yeah.

But I mean, it's a good building.

Right, it's a very good building. Very nice building, like I said.

It's been in a time capsule for a while. Yes, right. It was very well taken care of.

A dental time capsule, yeah.

We do have prints that we turned in. Okay. Showing what we possibly might do if we turn them into a duplex. Any other questions?

The blue drawing that you submitted is a single-family home, isn't it?

It is now, but the print should be, it's from Brad Rowe, turned into adding square footage to meet the minimum requirements for a duplex.

So really it's still, I mean, it's still a business, but not, I mean, it looks like a single family home, but it's still, it's its own business. Yes. A business from the 1970s, or a house from the 1970s. I make a motion that we approve PC26008.

And what we're, it's a recommendation. Oh, okay. To go to city council.

Okay, okay.

So, is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against this rezoning? GREG BRUDNICKI So we have a motion on the floor from Ann Miller.

GREG BRUDNICKI Steve Bodie, I would second the motion to recommend changing the zoning from B1 to R2.

JAN SMITH No, R2 to B2.

GREG BRUDNICKI He said it right. JAN SMITH Oh, okay. JAN SMITH The recommendation is to go from B1 to R2. So we have a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, we send a recommendation to city council that we approve this. Thank you, sir, for coming in. Next up under new business, docket number PC26009. This is a rezone from industrial 2 to residential 2 to B2. No, industrial 2 and residential 2 to B2. Addresses are South Ohio Street. Two addresses on South Ohio Street, yes. The legal description is lot 3 for Bear Feet, Minor and Platt. The other is for Brian and Stephanie McDonald. We have a representative here.

Yes. Uh, good evening Mr. Chairman. My name is Jordan Huttenlocker. I've signed in your sign-in sheet. Um, I am an attorney with the law firm of Drew DeVault. My address is 505 East Washington Boulevard in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

I didn't get your name, I'm sorry. Jordan Huttenlocker. Did you sign in?

I did sign in. I know there's a lot of letters in my last name, so they're all here. I'm here tonight representing the applicant, which is Crane Credit Union. Before I begin, there are two applications before you. Both are involving Crane Credit Union. I would like the opportunity to present on both applications at the same time.

Okay. The only thing I can say about that is the first one, all we're doing on that is sending recommendation.

Correct.

To City Council and the second one we can't approve.

Correct. So. I just thought if I could talk generally about both applications at one time and then you can make your recommendation for a do pass or do not pass to City Council and then approval of the vacation and replat.

So, Planning Commission, what she's going to do is she's going to talk about the overall scope of the project. And then what we'll do is we will have a vote on 26009. And after that, that's a recommendation to city council. And then after we have that vote, then we'll go back and we'll have a vote for PC 26010. So everybody's aware. Okay, go ahead.

Thank you very much. With me tonight are Kevin Sparks, the President and CEO of Crane Credit Union, Brian Myers, Senior Vice President and COO of Crane Credit Union, and Alvin Leaker, CFO and Senior Vice President of Crane Credit Union. We also have Brian Haggard, the Senior Project Manager for V3 Companies, a surveyor for this project. So to the extent that you have any non-legal questions, I would ask for them to answer those for you. Again, there are two applications before you this evening. One is to rezone the property located at 1139 South Ohio Street and the adjacent parcel to the north at the southeast corner of South Ohio Street and East South Street from R2 medium density residential and I2 medium industrial, respectively, to a new zoning of B2 local business. And this is filed under docket number PC26009. The second application before you this evening is a partial plat vacation and replat to remove that southeast parcel located at the corner of South Ohio Street and East South Street from a minor subdivision plat and then combine it with that adjacent parcel located at 1139 South Ohio Street into one new parcel in a new minor subdivision plat. That's pending under docket number PC26010. First, I want to give you a little bit about the property. As you already know, there are two parcels involved tonight.

I can't hear you and you're talking real, real fast.

Oh, I'm sorry. I will slow down. So there's two parcels involved in both of these applications tonight. The north parcel sits on the southeast corner of that intersection of South Ohio Street and East South Street. This parcel is presently vacant and is also known as lot three of the four bare feet minor subdivision. It is currently zoned I-2 medium industrial. The south parcel is located at 1139 South Ohio Street and is developed with a single family home. It is currently zoned R2 medium density residential. Both of these parcels are owned by other owners at this current time and we have executed consents that are included in your application package for these applications tonight. Essentially, we are asking for a recommendation for a down zoning for one parcel and an increased zoning land use for the other parcel. Now, with respect to the rezoning petition before you tonight, to rezone to B2 local business is requested in order to support the development of a new branch location for Crane Credit Union. A conceptual site plan along with photographs, examples of planned construction were included in your application packet. Additionally, proposed findings of fact were included in the packet, and I ask that the full text of these findings be incorporated into the record as if they were read verbatim tonight. Now, state law requires the city to consider the following in making a decision to rezone property. One, the comprehensive plan. The city of Martinsville comprehensive plan update 2022, which I will now refer to as simply the plan, identifies future land uses of the property as residential. However, the existing industrial zoning predates the plan and was not incorporated into the plan as a future land use map. Additionally, the plan predates the final construction of I-69 and the improvements made along South Street, sorry, East South Street and South Ohio Street that has now resulted in these two city streets and that intersection adjacent to the property in becoming important thoroughfares to the city street network that is now more limited of points of intersect crossing. Nonetheless, rezoning the property to B2 allows the property to effectively respond to I-69's interchanges at a strategic location and to encourage development of an underutilized property. The plan also contains several goals for economic development, including strengthening small businesses, attracting new businesses, strengthening the workforce development, and balancing the mix of uses. Here, by rezoning these parcels, This would accomplish each of these goals by permitting Crane Credit Union, a small business, to expand its footprint into Martinsville and add approximately eight to ten jobs to the local workforce. It would also positively add to the character of the corridor of Ohio Street, which is described as a corridor to the heart of the city. It will also provide a transition between the existing industrial uses to the east of the property and the adjacent residential uses. The city must also consider the current conditions and character of the current structures and uses. Right now, all the properties surrounding the property subject to these applications is zoned R2 medium density residential with the exception of the property to the east. That property is zoned I2 general industrial and is home to four bare feet. The city must also consider the most desirable use for the land. As traffic along South Ohio Street and East South Street increases over time, the property will become less desirable for residential development. Commercial development of the property will act as a land use intensity buffer between the existing industrial uses and the residential uses, and that's exactly what a B2 zoning district is designed to do. It is designed to be a transition between higher intensity uses and lower intensity uses. The conservation of property values must also be taken into consideration. Here, commercial development on this corner of an intersection of two important streets into the city's transportation network will add to the economic development efforts of the city. The commercial development that is situated between the land uses of higher intensity, like industrial, and lower intensity, such as residential, offers this reasonable buffer and transition between land uses that works to protect the area's property values. And last, responsible development and growth. Commercial development at this location is a natural response to a myriad of changes that have occurred over time, including the long-term vacancy and underutilization of a portion of the property, changes to the street networks associated with the construction of I-69 that will increase traffic on these adjacent streets, and the commercial development of the property acting as a buffer between different land uses. In sum, allowing a local credit union to operate at this corner will continue to preserve the character of the neighborhood while creating economic opportunities for the community and adding to the city's important thoroughfares leading to the heart of the city. Now, turning to the second application before you tonight, the vacation. This is actually a two-part process that is required for the development of a new branch location for Crane Credit Union. First, it involves the parcel vacation to remove lot three from the four bare feet minor plat and vacate any existing covenants that might be associated with that plat. And then it involves combining this parcel with the parcel located at 1139 South Ohio Street to form one new lot in a new minor plat. Again, the proposed findings and facts were included in the application packet, and I ask that the full text of these findings be incorporated into the record as if they were read verbatim. And as you will see in your packet, there's two separate findings of fact, one for the vacation and then one for the replat. In considering whether to vacate part of a subdivision plot, state law requires that the petition state the reasons and the circumstances prompting the request. Again, lot three holds little utility for industrial development at this point because it is somewhat isolated to the west of the four bare feet industrial complex and it's a long, narrow configuration making it hard for development. The applicant, again, wishes to combine this area with the adjacent parcel to create a new lot, but it cannot be done until the plat is vacated from lot three. The petition also must describe the property of the plat, which I think it does thoroughly. And it must give the name and addresses of all the owners of the land, which includes the City of Martinsville Board of Public Works and Safety and FBF Real Estate Investment. And now, state law requires a plan commission to make the following determinations, that the condition of the platted area has so changed to defeat the original purposes of the plat. Here, Lot 3 has been undeveloped since at least 1998. There has been a general land use transition in the vicinity of the real estate over time, and there were improvements made to East South Street, South Ohio Street, and the intersection as a result of I-69 improvements. It must also be shown that there is public interest to vacate part of the plot. Again, vacating lot three will allow for it to be merged with the adjacent parcel for the sake of economic development on the real estate. It will be less impactful than a potential industrial development permitted under the current zoning. And the proposed development of the property represents a relatively low impact land use. And last, the value of the part of the land in the plat not owned by the petitioner or the applicant in this case will not be affected. Again, the current owner has entered into a purchase agreement to sell this portion, demonstrating to some extent that at least the real estate is in surplus to its needs. The proposed development would be compatible with the adjacent adjacent to existing industrial operations, and the commercial development, again, will provide that nice buffer between industrial land uses and residential land uses. Now, if you approve the vacation of lot three from the four bare feet minor plot, that parcel can be combined with the adjacent lot in a new one-lot creating a new plat called the Ohio and South Minor Plat. This legal description was included in the rezoning application. Of course, all the notices for public hearings were provided by mail and publication. We did not receive any inquiry or any comment about the proposed applications. So tonight, on behalf of Crane Credit Union, we respectfully request the plan commission first recommend approval to city council to rezone The property to B2 under the application filed under docket number 26009 based on the findings presented tonight and included in your packet. And then second, approve the vacation of lot three from the four bare feet minor plat based on the findings presented and vacate any covenants associated therewith. And then approve the Ohio and South minor plat as presented, all filed under docket number 26010. Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer it, or I have representatives from Crane who would happily answer any questions that you might have.

Council, I have a question for you.

Were you asking that the vacation replat be contingent upon the council rezoning the property?

Yes, I think that logically makes sense. It could be a condition of the approval.

So what part, what lots are owned by Stephanie and Ryan and Stephanie McDonald and which lots are owned by Forbear Food?

So Forbear Food, so let me take, the easier one to answer is 1139 South Ohio Street. That's owned by the individual property owners. They own one parcel, it's one lot. If you drive down South Ohio Street, it's currently a blue house. And it sits south of the other parcel that's subject of these applications. That doesn't have an address. That's just the southeast corner of South Ohio Street and East South Street. I don't know if this was provided in your packet. I have a zoning map that might help you depict where this is, if that's helpful. I'm happy to pass up copies. Yes, it's in here. It's in there? It is. Okay.

Do any Commission members have any other questions? Very thorough. Thank you.

I hope I didn't bore you with the details, but I'd like to get all the information out.

You dotted your I's and crossed your E's. Thank you. Is there anyone here that would like to speak for or against this recommendation of the City Council?

I think it's McDonald's.

So we don't have anybody here to speak for or against.

And you said mailers were sent out to everybody? Yes.

I have copies of the affidavits and everything if you'd like to see those. That's okay. Okay.

Jason, did you have any questions or? No. Mr. Grinnell, you've got that look on your face.

I'm simply contemplating.

So the first thing we're going to be looking at is docket number PC26009. That is a rezone from industrial 2 and residential 2 to B2. And that is going to be in the form of a recommendation to City Council that that rezoning is done.

I make a motion that we make a recommendation to the City Council for PC 26009.

A favorable recommendation.

I'm sorry favorable. Favorable recommendation.

So Ms. Miller has made a motion for a favorable recommendation.

I'll second.

Rick Heacock has a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next up is Oh I'm sorry. Next up is docket number PC26010. That is, we're going to vacate the lot three for bare feet, minor plat, which is .800 acres. and that will be combined with the .50 acres of 1139 South Ohio Street, which will be replatted as Ohio South Minor Platte, correct?

I think it's Ohio and South Minor Platte, but yes.

Ohio and South Minor Platte.

I make a motion that we approve docket number PC26010.

Mr. Miller, will you amend your motion to make that condition and contingent upon the council rezoning the approving the rezoning?

With the contingency of the council approving the rezoning.

So we have a motion. by Ms. Miller to vacate and replat and that will be contingent on City Council approving PC26009. Do I have a second? Steve Bote, I would second that. Okay. All those.

That was vacate and replat.

Vacate and replat. And the new plat would be called Ohio and South Miner Plat. All those in favor?

Mr. Chairman, I've got a question.

Mr. Durnall, yes.

So I'm looking at one of the pages of the proposed development. And I would like a little clarification regarding entrance and exit points onto the streets. Who has the final authority? public safety of those entrances.

I will let the surveyor, Brian, come up and talk to you, but Crane Credit Union will go through all necessary applications and permitting process that we need to get the entrances and the building and the sidewalks and all of that. So that generally might answer your question, but specific wise, then Brian might be the better point person.

So that's the whole process of being able to do engineering. They will submit plans. We will make sure it meets all requirements. What they provide here is a schematic. In theory, you're not approving that layout. Did I answer your question? We don't have to hear from Mr. Haggard? Okay, so we have a motion and a second.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? No next. Motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you for your time tonight.

Next up on the docket, We want to talk about the sign ordinance. This has been before us several times. I'm going to ask to back up. The sign ordinance is something that was brought before us. We made a recommendation. It went before city council. City council had a lot of conversation. They sent it back to us. We formed a subcommittee to go over the sign ordinance. That was, what, Rick, was that a year ago?

Yeah, a little over a year ago. A little over a year ago.

And there are some things that we want to change, but I want to have conversation on that. I not only want to have a conversation from everybody, but I want to ask the members of the subcommittee that are here to speak on what they've seen. And then I want to vote on this. This is something that will get everything, our I's dotted and our T's crossed. I want to send this back to city council. So we'll start with you, Rick. You're the chairman of the subcommittee.

Okay. So, yeah, I think, I mean, we've been looking at this for over a year and a half. I think it started in September of 2023. 2024, I'm sorry. And read through it several times. I feel like we're at a point where this is an improvement over our current ordinance. In speaking with Brad Johnson, who is actually the author of this, he reminded me of a good point. It is near impossible to craft a perfect ordinance. If it covers 90% of the situations, you're doing fantastic. For those 10% that it doesn't cover, there are other avenues. There's the Board of Zoning Appeals. or works, for example, placing signs in right of ways or anything, there are avenues to get exceptions made. From a constitutional standpoint, upholding an ordinance, I do feel like this new proposal is far superior to what we currently have. It is slightly longer, but the bulk of that extra verbiage is definitions and pictures, examples of what we're looking at. It's a lot easier for me to look at this not being a science expert and understand what it says compared to reading the existing ordinance. That being said, I think I've hit on, in a couple of meetings back, the subcommittee, we made some good progress in there and we changed some things that I believe we were all in agreement on. Trying to say this judiciously, as judiciously as possible. I felt like a majority of the subcommittee was leaning one way and we were being pulled in another way. And our third meeting, which was supposed to just be a tie-up session to make sure everybody was on the same page and liked it, attendance was not a strong suit at that final meeting, so we didn't really get that uh that affirmative at the end the people that were in in attendance that last meeting i feel like were we were more in agreement to go a certain way with it which leads me to want to propose two changes to it You have the red pen draft dated February 20th, 2025. And I'm going to pass around, just so everybody has a visual, but I think it's pretty important to pass those around. I will be as clear as I can with this. The first change that I'd like to make is on page eight. It's simply a map that shows the downtown commercial historic district. And you've probably heard me say that's using a map that actually originates from the Department of Interior for the National Register of Historic Places. Our ordinance, section 94-216, simply defines it as a nine square block section surrounding the courthouse. which will be the first page of that. It'll show you exactly what that'll look like. Page two is a printout of that specific ordinance with the wording. The second change that I would like to propose is on page 12, and this deals with the special temporary signs. You'll notice there's three columns, the left one's regulation category, and about two-thirds down there's a section called duration. It starts off, the use of special temporary signs shall not exceed, followed by the largest paragraph on the page that's in red ink. That was a proposed change that we worked on for quite some time. My proposal is that we would strike that red lettering and go back to what it originally says in black, which is simply the use of special temporary signs shall not exceed 30 total days in any calendar year. If we do that, the very next category, which is cumulative duration, is completely unnecessary. So we would just simply strike that I would point out just a point of discussion here. Our current ordinance has that exact same verbiage in it. One temporary sign does not exceed a collective 30 days out of a calendar year.

And we're not enforcing that? Second question, sorry. Forget that. Yes.

Is that all you have, Rick?

That is all I have.

OK. Mr. Burkhart, do you have any thing to add to that? You were also a member of the subcommittee.

I totally agree with that, simply because I think trying to enforce that paragraph or duration and the duration would be a nightmare for whoever the enforcement person is.

I mean, you'd be out there. putting notices and you'd have to date everything and then toward the end of the year it gets more. It just, it's way too cumbersome.

So I totally agree with that. I do like the person that, we hadn't talked about, square enough, the historic district, but I think that makes sense when you look at our map, personally. But the other thing is, one thing, there's a couple things I really like about the new one, but if you go to the first page, the administration, you know, it doesn't take a city employee basically so it can be a volunteer to help.

police this so i kind of like that too so that's my thoughts mr donnell does this have any exclusions for like um people who are running for office or anything like that so someone's running for office that has a temporary sign they have to have it taken down within 30 days

believe in the language political signs are exempt.

Right.

I should be able to tell you the page and paragraph number, but I have slept since I last read this.

Well, that is something that we did talk in length about is the political signs. And I like the fact that this is, it's on page one, this is something that If I'm gonna put up a sign, I can come in and get this or get it on the website and I understand it. In the current, I would have to ask for advice and clarification on some of the stuff. Mr. Strater, did you get People coming in, asking questions about any of the sign ordinances?

No, sir. Okay.

We have in the building Mr. Kirsch. Mr. Kirsch, would you like to add anything? Mr. Kirsch is formally with the Planning Commission. Mr. Kirsch was a member of the subcommittee as a resident. We had him there. Is there anything that you'd like to add?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one thing. Rick, can I look at your drawing? Yes. And that's the page two.

This is how the ordinance defines the historic district. I think it was just a confusion. Somebody used the National Register boundaries.

Okay, so Mr. Grinnell answered my question. That was really the only question I had. It's nice to see the sign ordinance come back to the Planning Commission because this is an adventure that started over 10 years ago back under Phil Deckard's administration. And it's just nice to finally see that we're moving along and getting it to the point where we can get something approved and sent from the Planning Commission to the council. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kirsch.

Is there any other Planning Commission members? Mr. Bodia?

So folks who were on that subcommittee, did you discuss at all off-premises signage? It was struck, redlined out, a prohibition about having signs for your business. somewhere else on a property that is not yours. I would prefer to have off-premises signs not be allowed and put back in.

What page is that on, Mr. Bote?

Well, it's not. It's completely gone.

Mr. Kirsch, do you have a comment on that?

Yeah. Steve, when we were meeting on that, basically the comments were that we could not regulate the sign based on what the text on the sign said. Does that make sense?

So off-premises, you can only determine that if you can read, and it's not for this premises.

The off-premises sign was the one thing I wanted to try to get eliminated totally. And so I was not happy with the answer that we got. Is that your understanding too, Rick?

It is. Thank you. You explained that much clearer than I would have.

Yeah. That's basically what we were told is that you can't administer discretion about a sign based on what the text on it says. Thank you.

So basically what you're getting at, Mr. Bodie, is that if someone in their yard has a sign for...

If I put up a sign in my home front yard that says, go to Susie's Pizza Shop at somewhere else. that that would generally be, used to be considered, the language was an off-premises sign, and plan commissions, cities used to have ordinances to say you can't do that. But if we can't regulate signage based on the content, that becomes almost a null, it's void. That's what Mr. Kirsch just shared. Weirdly, I mean, it makes sense. I don't like it, but it makes sense.

So that can be permitted now, correct?

Yeah, following all the other rules.

That's the point. It can be permitted, but the sign still has to follow the rules. And the new ordinance really does break down where these signs are and are not allowed to be placed.

including Mr. Grinnell's suggestion that we alter the duration of how long signs may be up. Temporary signs. Yes. Therefore, I could put up Susie's Pizza sign in my yard for only 30 days if we can get this recommended to the city council and they approve.

Yes, at the size that is permitted for the special temporary.

And there are special requirements for the placement of those special temporary signs also. Yes. All depends on the district you're in.

I like the suggested alterations. Thank you.

Do we have any more comments that anybody can answer? Something needs brought up?

If not, Richter and all will make a motion that we send the proposed ordinance with the noted changes to page 8 and to page 12 to the city council with a favorable recommendation.

Do we have a motion to send with the changes?

I'll second.

Jim Burkhart seconds. All those in favor? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Opposed. And Miller is opposed.

Ms. Miller, can you explain why you're in opposition to the sign ordinance?

It just seems to me that we're kind of targeting a business that's here in town that, you know, someone's business that I, you know, that they are a sign company. They have a sign company as one of their businesses. And I think that inferences on their ability to make a living with their songs.

Thank you.

Motion carries. We submit with the proposed recommendations to City Council. Do we have any other comments from anyone? A conversation you'd like to bring up?

Very quickly, I would, since we're still live streaming, I would like to explain my nay vote earlier. I like the idea of Crane's presentation at Ohio and South Street. It's unfortunate to me that our comprehensive plan was updated in 2022, and I'm fairly certain, I looked at some aerials last week, the interstate was well under construction at that point, as I believe South Street was closed off in 2022 for upgrades. I would really have liked to have seen that been, with the changes made, I feel like the comprehensive plan should have covered that area. With the exception of the two businesses, that's a very residential area. Like I said, with the exception of two large industrial businesses. And between Poston Road and Washington Street, I don't believe that we've ever rezoned from a residential to a business use along the Ohio Street corridor. There are a few grandfathered properties, the school maintenance building, the old bucket factory, and this particular parcel. But I do think it'll be an improvement to that corn if traffic can be handled strategically. I just wish that our comprehensive plan had addressed that. And I hope to be around to maybe be involved in the next update.

Thank you. With that said.

Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Mr. Burkhart.

Considering the issue we had last month, I have my rules and regulations for this commission is 2017. I would like to have the updated rules and regulations.

Okay.

Can we all get a copy of that somewhere online?

Sure we can. Yes.

The 2017 rules had a line in it that says, five members make a quorum. As you must have just read, the rules we're under now are dated 2020. It says what a quorum is, one more than half. So yes, we all need a copy of those.

And I apologize for my part in last month. I knew the number.

Oh, we all blame you.

Pile it on. And I guess I apologize for not letting you know that I was not going to be there last month. So, I apologize for not expressing that beforehand.

Do we have any more discussion? I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.

Swimming. Motion. I second. We did that.

Richter and all made a motion to adjourn. And Miller seconded. All those in favor? Aye.

No, Evie, my daughter. She was a . Thank you.