Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yes. He's more than She's lucky.

Exactly. Okay.

I still How are you? Okay. At 700 p.m. I'd like to call the planning commission for the city of Martinsville, Tuesday, August the 26th, 2025 to order. First up is roll call.

Richard Baston here. Uh Steve Bod. Jim Burkart here. Joe Disney present. Richard Dural present. Caleb Forester present. Rick Peacock here. Ian Miller present. Jason Scott here. Troy Swan. And myself Marilyn Cider. So there's nine here.

Okay. Next up is presentation of minutes. Has everybody had an opportunity to look at the uh minutes from last month? Do we have any corrections or additions to the minutes? If not, I'd entertain a motion. I'll make a motion that we accept the minutes as presented. Second.

Caleb Forester made a motion to

And was that Mr. Burkart? It was Jim Burkart. Second. All those in favor? Opposed? carries. First up on our agenda tonight is old business uh docket number PC25017. They have not got their everything in order and they are not here tonight. So this docket number PC25017 will be tabled until next meeting. Next up, under new business, docket number PC25024, remodel and sign approval in the historic downtown district. It is at 134 East Morgan Street. Owners are Ron and Vina U. Meyers Revocable Living Trust. And we've got somebody here to present this. Would you please sign in and state your name?

Uh, Braden Guestwine. Excuse me. What was that? Braden Guestwine. You might want to spell that last name for the secretary. Are you ready? Yep. Uh, G S W E I N. Okay. Did you get that? What was the first name? Braden. B R A D E N. B R A D E N. Yes. And would you spell the last name again? Uh G E S G E S W E I N. Okay, I got it. Thank you.

Mr. Shreder, have you got all the uh documentation in on this? Yes, I do. Okay, sir. Uh uh what is what are you here? You're here on behalf of a construction company. Is that right? Uh yes. I'm a contractor. Okay. Who's the owner of the property? Uh Justin Bennett. Mr. Bennett owns the property. Bennett realy. Yeah.

Okay. What is the applicant then named the trust of Ron T? Ron uh I think you said the applicant Mr. Disney was Ron Ronald K and Vina U Meyers revocable living trust is what it shows on the doc.

So the owner of the property is Mr. Bennett. Correct. Okay. I would add I think I believe the Meyers were the had owned the property. It had been listed for sale just recently. Okay. I don't I haven't seen any actual like transfer paperwork come through the county, but doesn't mean it just hasn't reached my office yet. So, Mr. Bennett, when did you purchase the property? August 4th. August the 4th. Yes.

Okay. All right. Okay, you can proceed. Okay, good. Um, what do you want? I guess what do you want me to say? I can't hear you. Is there Yeah, speaking. Maybe raise the microphone up since you're taller.

Um, what is it that you're going to do? So there is a remodel inside to uh account for um realy offices and then there will be a storefront area in the center. I don't know off top of my head how many square foot that will be. Um the front outside will be painted. um any tuck pointing, any stuff like that will be dealt with. Um I don't I believe new doors, uh windows I think are in fine shape. Um and then new signage on the front.

Well, you do understand that this isn't a historic district, correct? And that paint, windows, doors, anything on the facade has to be approved. Correct. Okay. So, is this the rendering that you're Yes. Close to it. Okay. And this is what's there now? No. The one on the right is the correct rendering of what the like the signage is supposed to look like. So the sign's going to be this here. Yes. But the columns and everything are going to be they are they are

what's here. Correct. The columns are pretty much what is there currently? Okay. That was going to be my question. Are you are you utilizing the columns that are that are currently there? Yes. It's probably tough to put those in a rendering. Correct. Okay. Correct. Yeah. I think the the second photo that doesn't have the that just says Bennett Realy um I think that is more proportionate to what the front of the building looks like currently. If that makes sense. Okay. So, it's going to look more like which which one? The one with the blue windows or

So, the blue windows is the the proper signage. the the one with the black windows is what uh the building pretty much looks like. That's as close to what the building looks like as we could get. And and and what it's going to look like. Yes. Okay. Yes. Gota, but the signage is going to look like correct. Is that a sign or is that painted onto the building the building? So, I think it'll be like a um Oh, like a poly material, a black poly material that'll be stuck on the building. Oh, okay.

If that makes sense. Um, what size is the lettering? So, at this point, so the the house size side of it will be about 52 in top to bottom, but the lettering the rest of the lettering should be in the 20 20 22 inches tall. What' you say the first one was? Probably 52. 48 to 52 in that area. If I'm not mistaken, Bennett used to be on West Washington. Is that right? I mean West Morgan.

Correct. Okay. And you have what? Sold that property. Yes. Okay. And so you no longer have your business there. Correct. Okay. Mr. President, can you tell me what the current sign ordinance is?

So under your historic uh ordinance for signage, one square foot of sign shall be permitted for each 10 square feet of building face fronting on the public street. Sir, we've also got in our packet this particular document. It says this is going to be on a window. Yes. Is that the plan? I do believe so. So, that is going to be part of your signed square footage. Do you understand that? Yes. And that's I believe that it is it written on the bottom of it roughly 30 in by 30 in is what it says.

Okay, Mr. Strider, what's the square footage of the front of the building? I was there this uh past week. Uh it diffult task to measure, but I estimated to be around 940 to 950 square feet on the building. So this this is going to this particular signage will what I'm saying is the the square footage is from the sidewall estimated to the top roof line. Okay,

that's the question that this board has always wanted to know. Does this make the sign parameters then of our sign ordinance?

Uh I don't think it's going to. I don't know the exact square footage of these signs, but that lettering will constitute a sign as well as will the window uh component also will be a sign. So all that will factor in. Sir, is it your intent to remove the lattice work that's above the windows here? Yes. Those um what those like little things that are right on below the windows.

Yes. If you remove the where is the Bennett realy sign then going to be because this appears to be a true accurate photo of the front of the building currently. Right. Correct.

Okay. So where are these sign of Bennett realy going to be? So there we will build a um a flat space. So it may cover a little bit of the top of the peers or the posts. Um but it'll create a 52 inch flat space across the front of the building um right in that area where those where those pieces would be removed. So it would cover up the post then a little bit of the top

maybe maybe two feet max of the top of them. You may be getting into an area board that is more than just signage. And if we're going to be changing the front of this facade, you probably are going to have to look at your downtown historic building ordinance in regards to section six, which is exterior design standards. Uh, so I think we could be getting into that issue as well. My question for you is, did you look at the historic plans for these buildings before you put this proposal together?

Um, was you aware that there were standards in downtown?

Yes, I was aware of some of the standards. I I I didn't have a complete knowledge of all of them. I think I got a question. This is a question that popped into my mind as when I went down there and look at this thing and it's a question for Mr. Coffee and maybe Mr. Sideways because I haven't been on here long. I've been on here 3 years, but I don't know when we started painting the brick. Okay? Because it says in the ordinances that we don't paint brick in the historic district yet. This is painted and it was kind of painted before you got to it. So, I didn't know when that happened.

I'm not sure when it happened, Mr. Murkard, but I know your current ordinance says if the brick is currently unpainted, it shall not be painted. Right. So that's what it currently says. So I think so he's okay. But

Right. Yeah. You're kind of stuck with what's there now. But in regards to coming before you from, you know, future requests, if it's not painted, the ordinance indicates you should not allow it to be painted. The other concern I've got is with the exterior property maintenance section 7 talks about uh metal cornises and brackets uh or corbelled brick cornises and other decorative elements shall be retained and maintained. And the idea behind this is that even a structure that may have not historically been a structure as far as what's on it over time becomes historical. And so this particular building has those metal um features on the front that proposal as I understand it's going to be to remove those. They've actually become historic now to this building. And the way I read the ordinance, it says they shall be maintained and not uh eliminated.

Mr. Coffee, are you are you referring to the I would call them Juliet balconies. window.

That's correct. Yes. You're currently working on the inside of it, correct?

We have not started any work. No.

No. um because I was under the understanding that we had to go through this process prior to any work starting. Can we reward the document to uh say that they can start on the interior remodel and then table the um exterior remodel and sign approval until later? Mr. Straight, as far as your permitting is concerned, um, if I may, uh, back you board members up for a little bit. I had quite the discussion with this downstairs project. little knowledge for all of you is if there is a amount of lineal feet of new wall constructed. So what I'm saying is if you go across this room an hour for that that's lineal field and I'm trying to explain it simply. So the state of Indiana says that 100 ft or more wall new law that they have to take this and present it to the state first. So they are not meeting the 100 foot of line wall. It's less than that.

So they do not have to go to the state but this outside is included in this packet and I don't believe that we have just speak I don't believe we have anywhere that advertising letters are 52 in tall because that's what's here on the document. 52 in is about the from the floor to the height of that chamber there.

I can clarify some on the sign.

Justin, could you step up here so that what you say is picked up by the microphone, please? So, just for your understanding of the the signage, the 52 in um is only on the actual logo with real estate services at the bottom. That's 52 in top to bottom. And then the actual lettering of the Bennett realy that's only about 22 in. So, in your packet, you should have It's like a an email receipt or estimate from Fast Signs that breaks down what that size is and it's 180 in across and they just say the height is 52 in all the way across. Um, if I break that down, that's just shy of 65 square ft. I mean, you guys, you can do the math. plus the 30 by 30 on the window which is another five square ft. Based on what Mr. Strader said, the estimate of 940 to 950 square ft, we're definitely under what the standard is for that. And as far as the railing, um, for that sake, if that has to stay there, that's perfectly fine. We can clean that up, get it to where it's it's in working order. Um, has become historic. I can understand that

and I personally like the clean lines in the front of the building, but again those have been there so now they become

and I can completely understand that if if they happen to stay there and they become storeable that's perfectly fine. My concern is covering up putting something on the front of that building to be able to put your logo and the B of reality and covering up the top of those columns cuz I don't look it does I'm looking at a picture. It just doesn't look like there's going to be enough room there. If those Juliet balconies are still there and the top of the column. I don't know what that dimension is.

So, is there this is just a construction aspect question. Is there anything against removing those and getting them professionally like repowder coated or anything like that and then reinstalling those Juliet boxes? Is that hurt anything or do they have to everything has to be done in place? Well, I can't answer that, but I can tell you that looking at what uh has been done on other buildings, let's say in front of Creeks Pizzeria, I believe some of those columns columns was removed, repaired, and put back. Am I correct in that, Mr. Straighter, Mr. Oaks?

Okay. So, if the columns have been removed and been refurbished and put back, then I wouldn't see why the Julian balconies couldn't be removed, refurbished, and put back. I mean, you might be able to blend them into a collar of whatever the windows or the Yeah. It just says truthfully that it it be retained and maintained. So, I mean, if you're retaining and you're you're going to put it back.

Y. So, I mean, but personally, I'd rather see it more this size than this size. And that's if we have to go that route, we can do it on that first rendering. This one just the only reason I always want to do this one is this. That's my Morrisville office. Like that's the picture on the front of my Morrisville office currently. And I just wanted to match

Mr. Chairman.

Yes sir. Point San Die didn't have all the documents to be able to review what was required. We're happy to provide those to you uh bring those forward. Secondly, as a city, we're looking at the overall project and I see cond upstairs and I want to know where these people are going to park. So there's there's no condoms. There's one apartment currently upstairs and at this point that hasn't in discussion about or anything of that nature. So I don't have a good answer for you on that because there's there's no way it's going to be parking. I assume you're I assume you're assuming it's street parking and that's a really problem for the city because we're getting more and more condos all the way upstairs and street parking is not provided for that provided the street businesses downstairs a car sitting there all day long all weekend long 24 hours a day

again it's not least there's a lot of work main concern right now is the main So, I'll I I'd like I'll just go kind of down the list of things I had written down. Your colors are I'm I'm fine with that. I'm familiar with Tricorn Black from Sherwin Williams. It's on their historic palette. They see me pulling the parking lot and I think they start mixing that color for me. So, that's fine. Um I like the answer on Juliet balconies. That was a was a concern of mine. Um, the original column staying. I think that's important. And it looks like the square footage of the sign does fall into the guidelines. Um, the one the the question I had and I think this this was really a gray area for me. Um, anybody that's has the ordinance in front of 94-221, it's section C. Um, under windows, street level storefronts shall be a minimum 75% glass unless verifiable historic evidence for a building shows otherwise. That's kind of where I was. I was having a problem with knowing how we would move forward on this because I like your rendering. I think it's an improvement over what's there. And my understanding, the whole purpose of this ordinance is to kind of prevent what we're currently looking at where it looks like painted plywood covering the top portion of windows and doorways. Um, had this ordinance been in place 50 years ago, we might not see that on

there today. Um, but in my very crude measurements, I think the total glass frontage is well under the 75% requirement. I don't know that for me personally, I don't know that that's a huge sticking point because I do think it's an improvement from what's there. But I was curious if if anybody else had opinions on that because that that was the one item that I was coming up with. I'm like I I think we're if I'm looking at these pictures right, I'm estimating we're about 50% of window front. So just to to kind of interject on that that that rendering is not true in that sense. We aren't doing anything with the the current windows and the amount of window space that's there is what's staying.

Okay. And and part of the part of the problem and not problem but the the purpose of the ordinance is that historically people took very large window openings and put smaller windows. We're trying to prevent that and reverse past wrongs from a historic standpoint. Yes, we do not plan to do anything with the current windows on the on that level. Okay. at one point

and probably I'm kind of like I'm I'm kind of with Jim on this. This this first rendering gives a better look of the historic part of the building, I believe. But Rich, the the the rendering with blue windows,

yes, that is more in line with instead of a computer generated. That's more of a picture. Correct. That is an that is an actual picture. Yes. And I just don't see between the top of that window and the bottom of the top window where they're going to put Bennett realy and then looking at the actual picture that the only thing that that could do is they're going to cover up the top of those columns. Yeah.

And they're going to come down and cover up the X crossing above those windows to be able to put venerity there. And I think that's my sticking point is I don't want to see them columns covered up. And I don't know that they've got enough room between the top of the column and the bottom of that window to do what they want to do. Rick, am I am I saying that right? You're the the story guy.

Well, no. I I I I think you're right on that. I was just curious to everybody's opinion on this because I don't I do like the rendering and I think it's an improvement from what we're looking at, but I don't want to find us in a in a sticky situation down the road because we made an improvement but we didn't stick within the guidelines of the ordinance. Correct. Correct. And we have to take into account this also in the window. Correct.

I if if it's to I I I totaled that up with the even even the outside dimensions of that larger sign. We're still under 73 square foot of signage on a 900 square foot face. So,

I don't have an issue with the the size of the sign. It's I don't know that our ordinance cover say that I don't know that the ordinance handles the situation where a sign is going to cover part of the architectural detail. I read through it and I certainly could have missed a section. Um, but you know, in all my spare time, I I did not see where it addresses covering a historic element. Um,

and I would really have to just go and walk around the square and look at the other storefronts myself to see what's been done on on the other storefronts. I to me personally it's it's more important that the the architectural element is preserved. Um, I I I guess I'm not sure that I have a problem with the signage covering it as long as the element is is there because um I mean, who knows what the future brings if if Mr. Bennett is not the owner in the future and another tenant moves into that space, they they're going to change the sign anyway,

right? Um, as long as it's not damaging the architectural element, I could I could be persuaded either way on that. The single most distinctive element to this front of the building is these columns capitals on top. Yep. And it appears to me that you're going to lose that height to those columns. It's going to shrink down to you if you restore it and put a new capital on a new top of the column. But clearly a proportion you Look at that and the head of the door and the space you're going to have for a bed sighting. They're not going to exist as they do now. And that's that's a different way of putting the way that I was thinking. Thank you.

Again, I don't like to see, you know, progress being peted and Mr. Bennett and um I'm sorry, Mr. Gwine.

Mr. guest wine, you know, not be able to proceed with progress. Um, I would like them be to be able to start on their inside and like I said, table the outside or bring us back another rendering for the outside. And I would kind of be in line with that if we need to amend and remove the signed request at this point or table that we have some more clarifying information on that the rest of it if possible. So if we take project one off the table that's front of the building. So that's what most of the discussions have been about. Project two is the apartment entry. Add a door in the main entryway with the walls connecting to the stairs.

Yes. Just remove project project three storefront space. And Bob, you said they're not are they taking any walls out and adding walls? They're stripping out existing walls. will correct me if I'm wrong. They're they're stripping out the existing malls that we they're building two cubical offices and the that space falls well under 100 linear feet of wall

and there's no structural things or anything. Okay. So, you've looked at that. So, project three, project four office space, project five garage space. Large conference room to the front will be included in the office space walls. Place the six windows in the loft space above the garage. And that's on the alleyway. That's on the on the alleyway. Yes. Those those windows are Plus, they're housed out right now.

And you kind of heard what Rick said while go, you want to go back into the same size window. You don't want to cut it down on size and put a smaller window in or something. Go back to what was there. So, and and I I I'll clarify that actually because because this has been a an irritation of mine. The ordinance It actually says the original openings. Yes.

So, not what's there now, but the original storefront openings. Um or or upper level, either one. Um so, at this point, I mean, if I understand the ordinance correctly, it doesn't matter what the windows are today. Um if there's any work done, they should be returned to their original size. Should be great. Unless Unless there's historic data to prove otherwise. Is is that just on the score front? That would be upper any anything on the front of the building. So these none of these are on the front. It's all on a side and the back. So on project five that they've got listed here.

Okay.

Place the six windows in a loft space above the garage is on the So since this Mr. F since this is all listed as one thing, can we eliminate the the storefront and go ahead and put it in the motion to eliminate that? So what you could do is you could table the issue of project one which is front of building. So that's tabled at this point with the understanding no work will be done on project one until come back for further consideration and then you could approve the other projects if you so desire so they can move forward with those but they will not be doing anything concerning project one.

So does everybody on the commission understand that? Yes, Mr. Bennett, you understand what we're Yes. We're just trying to get you moving forward on the building so you're not sitting there with your hands tied.

I appreciate that. Yes. Originally, when they were doing the downtown, let's say, um, for one building example, the candy kitchen, the building that was there had the kind of in, you got to go into a little walkway before you go into the door. And they had them change the front of the building to what it is today to match the history. So, who did that original research to find out because we don't at this point we don't really know what the front of the building look like. So, Mr. asked. And what happened there was at the time the city of Martinsville had a resident Joanne Stut that went back and historically researched the history of those buildings which were redone and was able to document that back in time this was how it was. And so she was able to present that to the planning commission at that time. And there was a grant they were able to get, a federal grant they were able to get to assist with the reconstruction the front of some of those buildings downtown. And that's how that was done. But it was researched. It was documented as to what originally those storefronts look like back in the early 1900s.

And that was all something that had to be done for that federal grant. That's correct. Yes. So, we don't have no federal grant on this. Okay. But I mean, is there documentation of what their building looked like? Don't know. Where is all that new service? Well, again, Mr. Stan only did the buildings that actually were redone.

Oh. and and I there there were a few other buildings, mine included, that she did research on, but we chose not to move forward. But that, you know, there would be those plans would have to be presented to show historically this is what it was. I don't know if there's any of those plans in this particular building or not. Okay.

So, really all we can go with is how it looks right now. Correct. Yep. What we have now and what they want to do to it. And I really think that we we've got enough uh questions on project one that need more information. And I hate to see them. We put a stop to them tonight to do stuff to the building over one stumbling correct step on project one. So if we can everybody was okay with two through five. Is that correct?

I believe so. So with that said, I'd entertain a motion um to table project one. Uh, prior to that, I I'll ask you if I don't know if this is appropriate or not, but um if we table project one um and I I can potentially do some research um at the library, various sources, see if we can find a historic picture of this store firm. Um, is it a is it would it be appropriate for me to share that with the commission and with the petitioner prior to next month's meeting with no communication other than just sharing what I find um so that if they want to alter their rendering they they can do so they can come in prepared instead of presenting my findings. If I come up with anything, I don't know if that's appropriate or not.

Yeah, Mr. Null, if you find anything, I would suggest you forward it to the building department and the building department then can disseminate it among the members and among the applicants. Okay. Yep. Then any other discussion? I would make the motion that we table we approve the petition contingent on tableabling project number one. and I second that.

Okay. So, we have a motion from Mr. Kernal to table project one in this presentation and approve project two, three, four, and five. And Miller has made a second. So, so the motion will be to to table number one and go ahead with the other split that. Okay. So, we'll make that in one motion. Okay. Table number one and so we've got a motion. We've got a second. All those in favor? I

I opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. And as you heard Mr. Nolo and he's got some he's had several historic homes. He'll do his research and then he'll give that to Mr. Strader and then Mr. Strader can stay in communication with him and then we look forward to seeing you back with some more specifics. So that once we can get that front approved. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, that's all we have under new business. Do we have any discussion this evening? We have nothing more. I entertain a motion for adjournment. I make a motion we adjourn. I'll second that. Okay. And made a motion. Caleb second. Meeting is adjourned. Next regular session meeting will be Tuesday, September the 23rd at 7 p.m.

And I need the minutes wherever they are. like if we were a master that realy. [Music]