Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That's what she said. Yes. This is Is that the course?

That's Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call the planning commission for the city of Martinsville, Tuesday, September the 23rd, 2025 to order.

First up on the evening is roll call. Richard Baston here. Steve Bod here. Jim Burkhard here. Joe Dan Disney here. Richard Dal here. Caleb Forester here. Richard Peacock.

Ann Miller present. Jason Scott here. Troy Swan here. And myself, Marilyn Cider Witz. Okay. First up, uh presentation of minutes dated August 26, 2025. Has all the members had a chance to look at the meeting, the amendments from last month? Yes. Are there any corrections? I make a motion that we approve the minutes from August 26, 2025 as presented. And Miller makes a motion. I'd second that. Steve voting.

Thank you. All those in favor? I I pass. Next up on the agenda is old business. Docket number PC25017 is the final PUD final detail plans for address at Artisian Avenue. Uh owner is Habitat for Humanity of Morgan County. Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment? Yes. Um, I assisted Habitat on some planning for this development. So, I'm going to abstain from voting or any discussion.

Okay. Thank you. Steve Modi will be Thank you. [Music] Hello, my name is Brian D with TNH Investments. Um, I guess I want to start by saying that I think I made a mistake when submitting this. There should really be two items on the agenda. one being the uh approval of the final plat and the second one being the item that's on the agenda which is the the site detail plans. So I just kind of wanted to note that and that way we don't lo leave the uh the the plat out there. Um so last time when Mr. Let me address that at this time. So what we have on the agenda tonight is the final detail plan. We do not have on the agenda a final plat. Okay. So I know um last month or two months ago we voted on a plat. I can't recall if that was the final plat or if that

was a preliminary plat two meetings ago. But tonight, we're only going to address the final detailed plan because that's the only thing on the agenda and that's the only thing that was tabled from the last meeting. Oh, I apologize. I didn't realize that the the plat had been voted on. The we took a vote on the plat last time that was approved. We tabled the plan.

Perfect. Then I didn't mess it up. Um so when we when we were here in uh July um we obviously reviewed the the um site plan. Um went through a good discussion about it. Um and out of that there were a number of comments that um I I hope we've addressed and can can discuss today. Um and hopefully this is uh in pretty good shape tonight. Um so just running through those comments. So um the first one was I think there had been the initial plan that had come in sometime last year. There had been a playground on the site. Um that playground had been eliminated in our last submission. Um and we were asked to add that back in. Um, so on what I just handed out, if you go on to the overall site plan, which is labeled at the bottom right, C200, this is a revised site plan. Um, it's hard to see here, but the playground is the hatched area on the top side of the page between buildings two and buildings four. Um there had previously been some grills there, so we used that as it was a good space to fit the playground. Um and then it did there's some more details on that playground. Uh there's actually a loose paper in the packet I handed out which um shows a I'll call it a conceptual playground layout. It is a playground that we have done in the past. Um, I'd say the final the final one will be similar to this, but it'll be subject to um what's what's available from the manufacturers when we actually

go to order it during construction. Um, but this is this is a playground very similar to what we've used at at other projects. Um, so that was the first item. Second item on this on that we had discussed was um finalizing the daycare size. So, there had been a lot of discussion about the size of the daycare and we had talked kind of in detail about why it had gotten smaller. Um, but at the time I couldn't couldn't really give you concrete information about the number of uh children we'd be able to to accommodate. Um, so we went through a a pretty long process with uh the fire marshall to sort of understand the the new requirements that we were going to to need to meet. Um, and ultimately as a result of that, we ended up with a a bigger a bigger area, bigger building than was presented in the last um the last submission. So we will be able to accommodate somewhere between 24 and 28 kids. Um the exact number will will be tweaked slightly between now and when we we have construction drawings and it's just a matter of figuring out the exact room sizes. Um but it'll be at least 24 kids and could potentially be up to 28. um that building will be designed to meet commercial standards which was the requirement given to us ultimately decided on with a lot of back and forth um with the fire marshall and um that will go through a review process with the state once we're ready to submit the the final final building plans for that. Um the LA the the next item was um there had been a request to add in a masonary

weights coding to the artisian avenue side of the building. So, in the um submission that I have or that is in front of you or um starting on A6, which is towards the back of of that, you'll see that we've added um brick not only to the toward to the Artisian Avenue side, but also to to the other sides of the building just to make a consistent look all the way around them. Um, so it's a it's a Wayne's coating that goes up to about the height of the windows. Um, I think it'll it'll look nice and will fit well with uh with the surrounding neighborhood. Um and then the last item um that was brought up for for discussion in the last meeting was the the issue of snow removal and um you know how the t town handles the this the portion of road that would be dedicated. Um, so I spoke to our engineer about this and kind of reviewed reviewed it with him and you know his his comment on it was that most of the snow is going to get pushed to the side of the road. The question about what happens at the end of of the public right of way is a little difficult to address because of the fact that we don't know exactly how how the city will want to handle it. So his thought was was that the easiest way to address it would probably be to um take an area of parking during the winter that would be dedicated as a turnaround. So that would be like the the two or three spots to the if you're looking at the site plan to the left of building two which would provide a place to turn around. Um,

alternatively, there there is place that we could build a dedicated a dedicated turnoff, but I I think that's something that I guess what I would request on that is that we um that we're given an opportunity to work with DPW to figure out what the best solution is for them based on the size of their equipment and and all that that kind of thing. But I think it is an item that, you know, should be out there as a condition and something we should review with DPW to make sure that ultimately this is something that's easy for them to uh to do um when it snows and and to to make sure it's it's working in a way that doesn't doesn't, you know, create a map of snow on our our driveway. Um so those were those were the four things that I had in my not notes. Um, and I guess I'd open it to questions, comments.

I wasn't at the July meeting, so um, I just have some preliminary questions. um this artisian uh place, you know, the the uh town homes and the daycare. Is it going to um pay tax money to provide for the extra fire, police, and street department workers that we're going to need for the this ex the extra population. Correct. It is not a tax exempt.

It is not tax exempt. Currently, it probably is, but it won't be once the O owner that owns the the single purpose entity that owns the property owns it. It's not tax exempt and it there's no pilot in place. So, it would pay taxes based on a standard assessment. Okay. Um, Councilman Coffee, what what kind of taxes would those be? Would that be tip taxes or would that be taxes to the city? Is that in the tiff district? It is in a tiff district because it's in the city. So our entire city boundaries is tiff. But it but it also be generating property taxes as well.

Mr. Coffee. Yes. Uh I'd like to ask a question here. Uh we talked about snow snow removal. Is this something that with this is a city responsibility to remove this snow?

No. I mean it to the extent that we're going to have a public road. Uh that would be the city's responsibility to remove snow. As I understand how they're approaching this, uh, Hannah Drive to a point may be City Street, but it's going to stop at the edge of where homes would be built and then we moving on to a private uh drive for the apartments. And so, um, I I do see that a concern, Mr. Strader. I I don't think we can just leave it up to discussions in the future with the DPW. I think we're going to have to have some definite here in my opinion so that legally everybody knows what's expected. And when this plan gets approved, if it gets approved, those details are uh written down so that we know going forward what's going to happen. What you would have is uh if our men was in there removing the snow to a certain point, whatever point the snow will be placed, uh that kind of puts us liable for curbing uh anything that's on the property,

right? And this being private, we should not be in that location. Don't disagree with you. [Music] Is there a way for it to be just be plowed privately even though it's a public Sure. Yeah. If you guys want to volunteer to do snow removal for the city, I'm sure we would probably say go for it. I mean, I I think that's probably the easiest thing to do if if there's if there's the ability to do that is adding an extra 100 ft of road when they're going to be coming in there anyways is is

But again, that would have to be a commitment that would run with the land. So, you'd be binding yourselves and any future owners of this property to do that in the future. Sure. So there be something if you want to if that's some condition that you would like to place, we certainly could entertain that.

Okay. Yeah. I I mean I feel comfortable with that just from the perspective of we um from our perspective of you know we're going to have a plow coming in there anyway. So adding that extra um extra distance of road is not an issue. I guess the one thing that I I I would want to make sure that we understand or how do we clarify for the habitat homes that end up there that look they they need to talk to us about snow removal if there's an issue that go back to how you're going to do that through habitat and maybe that's something that you address on transfer of land and

okay but I think communication is going to have to be key with that Okay. Well, Mr. Coffee, yeah, it's a PUD, right? So, don't they have don't they have to present covenants to us that what how long this is going to happen?

I mean, again, we're at a stage right now where they're asking you for a final plan approval. So, if there are things that you would like to see addressed as part of this final plan, this is the time to do that. Whether that be you want conditions placed on it that you want them to agree to as a you know as a condition to approving this final plan. You're you know we would like you to agree to this. This is the time to do it. Okay. Question I do have three questions.

Yeah. The question I've got just looking at your playground where that location is. Am I looking at this correctly that that playground's going to be right next to a retention plant? Yeah, it's at the at the top of the retention plan. It would be the playground would be fenced. The playground's going to be fenced. Correct. Kind of fence. Uh typically we would do um like a 4 foot um like an aluminum fence um vertical pickets that that type of fence.

Who's who's going to own the plot west? The empty plot west up here. Uh currently it's anticipated that that TNH would would own that. You'd have too. Okay. So what's plans for that plot? We we don't currently have any plans for it. It would need to whatever would eventually go on there would need to come back in front of this board for approval. Um, do you know, okay, with adding these in, how many um, habitat houses will be in the city of Marksville?

I don't know, Joe, if you can answer that. I uh I looked at the 59 homes that we've built so far. I think we have 38 in the city of Martinsville. Okay. And then and then you this would add another six. That's correct. Okay. And then um you said that your total is how many? 59. 59. Okay. Uh, how many do you have in uh Morrisville? Two. Two. Yes.

Okay. What about Monroia? None. Uh, what about Eminence? None. Uh, what about Morgantown? Two. Is there a reason that there seems to be a you know way more houses being built in the city of Martinsville than any of these other especially Morrisville? Why? Um it's where the greatest need is. I'm sorry.

It's where the greatest need is according to the current population. Um, Martinsville has uh a population household incomes at about 75% of what the county's average income is. In addition, Martinsville has a higher concentration of rental homes in the city.

Right. What we're finding is is that uh the jobs that are available in in Martinsville in the lower tier of of Morgan County uh have nonsustainable incomes for a large number of people in those critical jobs. They're being crushed by uh the housing cost in those rental properties. And that's where the greatest need is. We build where the greatest need is. Okay. So, um where are the other of the 59? Where are the other um houses that you built? Where

scattered in the county? SC. Okay. But you only have two in Morrisville. That's correct. You don't think you have a need in Morrisville at all? There is a need, but if you look at the property values and the cost of land in Morrisville, it's not sustainable for us to build. Uh we're talking uh lot sizes of city lot sizes in the 60 to $70,000 per lot. We can't afford that to build. When do you foresee that uh the property taxes from the daycare and the um town houses would start coming into the city.

So currently the property is owned by Habitat. um as soon as the the sale happens and we close on our financing, which we're currently trying to close by the end of the year, um it would go onto the tax roll. Um I don't know enough to know exactly when the bills are and things like that, but it would become no longer exempt after the sale. Be a nominal amount obviously until things things were built. Okay, thank you.

I guess this is the question maybe Dale will have to answer. Um, and I don't even know if we can do this or not, but is there a way in the conditions to put the the plates west that your your company can't just turn around and sell it to help with money to build and and you know, somebody comes in wants a gas station there next. So, I don't know if we can do that, if that's feasible. And my second one would be that there would be no Habitat homes built until the finish of the townhouse. So um in regards to the first uh question, I don't believe you can do that because it would be a um restraint against the free sale of real estate which would not be uh able to do. Um I mean I think it's important to note for the board that originally what you folks approved was a preliminary plan that had all three parcels with buildings on it. Okay. And so we talked a little bit about this in July that this plan has now changed from what your approval for the preliminary was and now you're being asked to do a final which would approve a plan with no buildings whatsoever on this third parcel. Right. Um so that's number one to note. Uh I believe you could Mr. best and put a provision that says if we approve a plan, we are going to approve

the uh order in which it will be developed. And so you're going to develop parcel two first and have it completed before you develop anything on parcel one. Okay. And as I look at this, it it appears parcel one would be habitat, parcel two would be the uh workforce development uh apartments. So you certainly could put a provision on it in that manner. All right. So that is before you to do the not the restraint on who you can sell number three to. I do not believe you could do that. I I think I mean to to to be clear Habitat uh TNH has is would like to sell it at some point to the right to the right buyer. We're we're going to be very sensitive about what goes in there because whoever goes in there is going to likely drive, you know, through a part, you know, there'll likely be access through our through our property. I mean, I think it's reasonable and obviously, you know, you would have to to do this, but I think it's would automatically need to come in for approval, but I would definitely, you know, be happy with the condition that whatever goes in there has to come in for approval. I mean, that's we're we're not interested in the gas station. We're not, you know, I don't know what a potential use would be, but it would have to be something that fits really well being next to 34 town homes in a daycare. I mean, it's just that's a relatively small subset of things and I think that needs to come to this board and needs to be vetted.

So, Mr. coffee with what you just said. If there was a motion to approve what Mr. Fast said, that would need to be in the motion. That's correct. Okay. So, you refer to, excuse me, you refer to these as town houses, and it's been a few months since you've been here, so um refresh me a little bit. Uh these are going to be privately owned, correct? And so there is uh uh there's no HOA or is there an HOA? So it's fee simple. Is that what you It's fe simple. Correct.

Okay. And so the with that being said, then the homeowner is responsible for all their maintenance. No, the there's the the just to clarify the the 34 town houses are owned by one entity and that entity is responsible for all the maintenance, everything related to those. Separately from that, there's the six lots that Habitat is building. No, I'm talking about the town houses, though. They're they're going to be privately owned,

correct? Okay. But I mean, not individually. Not individually owned. All All owned by one entity. So, legal description, is that town houses or is that apartments?

I think legal description is going to be just your uh you know meets and bounds description or your lot such and such in this particular development Mr. Burkard. Um and then as I understand it they're going to have number of buildings located on the parcel. So, it looks like there's three different buildings as I see it on here that make up the town houses and the separate uh clubhouse slash child care center.

Just to clarify, there's there's five total buildings. Okay. Four apartment buildings and then the clubhouse daycare. And do you plan on building these in phases or sections? No. All at once. So I guess I got a question. You Mr. Where's he at? Breaker. Yes, sir.

Are you good with all this? So, as of today, I saw the new plans and the discussions we have, I think we're we're good. Yes. Just and just to clarify, we still have to go through a whole, you know, building permit process and and have it reviewed by the state to com, you know, to confirm that everything meets the commercial code. Sir, I said I think you said beginning you're you're estimating the number of children at this point would be a total of 28 maximum. Is that right? Between 24 and 28. And

that that final number is just based off of the exact square footage because there's each age group has a certain number of square footage you have to add in the room for each.

So what what's the age of these children? So we would be um it would be everything from uh infants to um to school age with the exception being the preschool age. We don't anticipate doing the preschool age um just because that's something that is kind of already well taken care of through school pre and things like that. Initially you had I think on the preliminary plan that was approved you had 50 I think children and that was all on this separate parcel with the daycare center on the second parcel. Correct.

That's correct. How many types of these facilities you are currently on?

Um, we own between I don't know the number of facilities. It's about 2,000 apartments. I want to say 15 um different properties. Where are these properties located? Primarily in in Indiana. We have a few in um in Ohio, but most of them are in Indiana. What cities in Indiana?

Uh a good number of them are in Indianapolis. We have one that's under construction right now. Nolesville. Um, a couple uh right outside of Indianapolis. You don't know what town outside? I I don't know the specific town, so I could look it up for you. Okay. But mainly what 75% is Indianapolis. That's probably a decent assessment. Okay.

So, if we left this moment and went to look at each one of those is are you would you be hesitant what we see or would you be oh no this is the way it's always going to be or would it be no I wouldn't I mean I wouldn't be hesitant I think they're I mean I've been to five or six of them myself I think they all looked great when when I went to them number of those visits were unannounced. That wasn't when their first bill, was it? What's that? That wasn't when their first bill, was it?

Yeah. I mean, none of them are that old. I mean, TH has not been doing them for that long. I mean, there's We have I think our oldest is probably eight years old. Um, okay.

But no, I mean, I think they I think they all look really well. I mean, I think one of the I guess one of one of the benefits of the programs that we're using is that this is something that is continuously monitored and and regulated by the state. So the state has a vested interest in one making sure that we're we're touching the people that we're supposed to touch the households that meet the income qualifications and and all all of that stuff, but two they're you know they they have safety standards. They come and do inspections every year. um you know it's a it's a far different standard than just a straight market rate would have where the only enforcer is your code enforcement officer and we all know how incredibly difficult that process can be. Um,

so is your uh who's ever directing the maintenance or sorry, who's ever directing the facility that's in charge of the rental part of it that you that you put in charge? Do they do regular inspections of the of the homes? Yes. Yes. What What's their schedule on that?

Well, they so they'll be in there at least quarterly to change filters on the furnace and things like that. Um uh sometimes more than that just depending on exactly what the spec is or what what we're doing. Um and then there's, you know, there's um an annual there would be at least an annual more detailed visit, but we have if there's concerns, we have the right as a landlord to give notice and go in and there's physical condition concerns and to go in and and review them and and address them. Um so you know the the most the the biggest need to be in there is to maintain the the HVAC equipment. You have to change the filters otherwise the equipment breaks pretty quickly and that's very expensive to replace. Um but that's an opportunity for our maintenance people to you know see what's going on. Make sure there's no no big issues. Um that's So, the preliminary plan, we approved how many buildings, Mr. Coffee?

Seven. Um, six, I believe, because you've got five on this one. Uh, I think that there the six. I believe there were six, Mr. Burkard, on the preliminary plan. And when we when you came back with this particular thing, if I remember correctly, it was downsized because of financing issues or primarily primarily, right? Really? So, has that all been taken care of or

Yeah. So, we have um we have all this funding from the state. Um we now have commitments. So the way it works is we get tax credits that we have to sell to somebody in bank usually. Um so we now have commitments for all those. We know um you know we know the price we're going to sell them for. Um I actually just got an updated construction cost from our so we do our own construction um from our construction team today that was within $50,000 of the budget we've been carrying. So, I think that that's a good sign that that we'll be able to move this forward um in and get it closed in December.

Do we have any other questions? I'd like to know if the city's got all the stuff they needed. Did you get everything you needed for this project? We do have Okay. Was there going to be a separate play area for the daycare or

So, we we have um there is an there is an area um I think it's shown. If you look at the site plan C202, you'll see there's a uh there's an outline for a fenced area to the right of building five. So that would be that would be the play area for the daycare. It's not at this point. It's unplanned exactly what goes in there.

So that would be my question is before this here was brought up. The distance from leaving the daycare is quite a distance over to the to the west side where the retention pond is that you're saying will be fenced in. Is that correct? The play the playground will be fenced in. Yeah, but that's quite a walking distance. So, is these children going to be monitored walking to that location?

If the Yes, if the if the daycare decided to head to that would be up to the to the daycare to to handle. But yes, I about 100% certain that that uh our provider wouldn't wouldn't allow kids to just walk. Well, my question is it's no place for a child when you have a very large retention pond that's several feet deep in the rear of that playground.

Ju just to be clear that the retention pond is a dry pond. So, it will have water in it from time to time, but in general, it should be dry. What I received today was it was a wet pond. A wet pond has a ledge in it that you come down off the edge of it 10 ft. And that's what is on the documents that I re received today. Yeah. These plans say wet pond on them. Okay.

It was not my understanding, but Any more questions for Mr. I'd like to have some conversation just between the members before I call for a motion on this.

I say this is not in the best interest of safety or the city of Martinsville. Mr. St. with the exception of or the concern of the playground, I don't really have any issues with it outside of that. as long as that's fixed in. So, Mr. Baston,

only problem I have is that, you know, unfortunately, we get the map right before the meeting and we really don't have time to mull it over, look, uh, come up with questions because we didn't have this. Um, that would be my concern. Okay, I'm going to look past you, Mr. Bod, as you begin comment, Mr. Bart.

Well, I have no doubt that Habitat will hold up the end of the world. Okay. I I just I still I think I have some reservations that uh that this might be a little bit tough to get done. And I I do like the option maybe of of putting it in the in the motion that uh that's done before the habitat houses are done. But that's where I stand. Mr.

Well, I apologize. I wasn't at the July meeting, but I appreciate the my fellow commissioners bringing up the playground, um the brick facade, and the daycare size because those were all very uh appealing points to the to the preliminary plan. Sure.

Um so, I appreciate you coming back with addressing those issues. Um I've been pretty consistent in my stance that I feel that Martinsville does have a need for uh dedicated rental property. Um so I'm not opposed to this at all. Um I think the stipulation for the snow removal being handled privately. Um I'm overall I'm in favor of the project. Mr. Forester.

Uh definitely a little bit. You know, I wish that I'm glad we got 24 kids out of the daycare. I know that's a need that we have. Um I think some proper precautions, the condition that Rick just brought up with snow removal. Think if we know, but I am in agreement that we didn't just get this. So I don't know that they've been able to look over fully to ask all the questions or to comprehend everything. Okay. Mr. Serwood, do you have any comments? Well, I saved my Yes. Mr. Swan, do you have

I don't have anything else. I I I left the the best for last, which is me. Uh I I think my key is after seeing the preliminary that we seen back in I think February and now they've taken that lot away downsize the playground which was or the daycare which was originally on that and just the con conversation that I had in July over financing I mean that I don't want to see a project started installed over financing. That's my major concern. And I'm glad that Mr. Baston brought up about the can we delegate what phases this is built because I think that if we if we move forward with this, I think that's something that needs to be in place in the motion.

Mr. Cby, would you like to add anything? No, I mean I I think what I'm hearing tonight from at least it sounds like the majority of the board is that we still have some questions. We feel like that maybe we need to review these plans a little bit further in order to get our thoughts collected. It sounds like from the discussion tonight, I heard that the uh request that we have some commitments that we would want to put in writing if if this is approved to go with the approval. So, those things probably need to be hammered down, put in writing, shared with the um applicant uh as to what you're thinking. So, I you know, again, just observing uh it sounds like may need to table this uh for another month in order to get your thoughts collected and maybe get those commitments if indeed that's what you want to do down in writing so that you know exactly what it is you want them to commit to so everyone's clear when we come back for a vote on this what is to be expected.

How many times does that have to take hold? Well, it's supposed to be uh it it it it's supposed to be heard within the 90 days of when it was first submitted. Um I haven't looked at the the exact date, but again, the plan commission tableabling it is not going to the the applicant table be one thing. The plan commission for the need to have more information is a legitimate reason that can toll the time frame on your 90 days. Okay, with that said, like to entertain a motion.

I'd like to entertain a motion to table docket number PC25017 and Miller has a motion on the floor to table.

I'll second it. I think Mr. was a louder voice. So, okay, good deal. I don't have much of a voice. Sorry. Second motion. All those in favor questions. Yes, Troy. As far as the the motion itself, I know that the intent is to table to request more information. Do we need to put some kind of statement together of what information is requested at this time that we know of? just table on the table.

I know the two things I heard was the issue of snow removal and if the developer is willing to commit to be the sole removal of snow from um Artisian Avenue uh through Hannah Drive and into their own complex and if they're willing to do that in perpetuity. So I think that's the first issue I heard. Second issue I heard was a fence around the playground. I think we need to know the exact height, the exact material, the exact color, uh so that that can all be brought before and approved by the board. I don't know if there's anything else, but those are the two things I did hear.

And is this going to be a wet or dry for chaining? Well, I I I'm not arguing that. We submitted a report. So if it says it's wet, I think that's it's gonna be wet. That's correct.

That that they spent a lot of time putting those together. So that was just my my misunderstanding. I think the other thing I heard from the commitment would be from a development point of view the desire that um the town homes be completed 100% first before any construction is done on any Habitat for Humanity homes. So that was the other thing I heard being a life bird. My two cents is having a playground uh next to a retaining pond is like a recipe for disaster. [Music]

Yes,

Mr. Burkart second the motion. All those in favor say I. So this and Steve Bodst. Uh this is going to be tabled and I think what we'd like to do is to move things along. Um we'll get a list to to Mr. Coffee to either to you or to Mr. Strader so that that way you can have that to address that. Is that that work? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Still on old business docket number PC25024 is the sign of approval in the historic downtown district um for Bennett Realy which really is also the front of the building. And you are Mr. Bennett. Correct. Have you signed in? I am right now. This is Justin. Justin. Correct.

Justin. So, I know that last meeting we went over some of this and I just want to address the whole front of the building again uh because there were uh some changes made. I believe you guys should have received a copy of the the new rendering. So, first I want to touch on the paint colors which were addressed the last meeting. Any of that black on the front of the building would be a Sherwin Williams paint. It's called Tricorn Black. And the white is called alabaster. Believe that fits in just fine with the historic district. And then secondly, I just want to address the fact of the entire building being painted. Uh, I think that was brought up to some extent last time. And looking back into the ordinance, um, at the top of page 126 of the ordinance, it states that any unpainted brick shall not be painted. The brick that's at the bottom of the building has already been painted at some point. Looks like several times. U, so I don't believe that's an issue. And the top portion of that building is not brick. The top portion of that building is stone or decorative concrete. So that doesn't that's not covered in the ordinance. The ordinance just says brick. Um and then as far as the signage, um that's the biggest change that we had on here. Um we're going to do the signage if approved. um the way that it looks on

the new rendering at the same size as was presented last last month. And just to kind of reiterate the fact of that, the Bennett realy and the real estate services section totals is about 65 square ft and then the logo that would be in the lefthand window is five square feet for a total of 70 square feet. And I believe Mr. Strader last month said the building space on the front of that building was a little over 900 square feet, which gives me a little over 90 square ft of sign space.

Any questions from anyone? That's that's all that I have. This maybe a little off the subject. I saw they were painting the building next to you just today. that that doesn't have anything to do with this. Yeah, it looked like it, but that's Yes, I would agree with that, but I have that's not that's not before us. Are the Juliet balconies going to be retained like you shown here? Yes, we we discussed that last last month. They we wanted to remove them, but we're going to we're going to keep those. They're going to be removed, refinished, and then put back up. Sure. You say there's brick at the bottom of the windows, correct? Yes.

At the bottom. Yes. That's the only That's the only actual brick on the front of that building, right? Yes. My opinion is on this is if it looks exactly like this, it's perfect. And I don't I wouldn't even have a problem with the painting of the brick to be able to match the building. I agree. And you're leaving the windows the same. You're using the same windows. Yes. All the windows on the front will be the same. All other windows are being replaced. And on the second level, the doors are going to be there retained. Yes.

Okay.

Mr. Chair, if I might just to address Mr. Bennett. Um he is correct in regards to uh unpainted brick shall not be painted but that's one part of our ordinance. If you go back to uh section six, exterior design standards, page 124, it talks about in order to maintain and promote the unique characteristic or the unique historic character of downtown Martinsville and to foster economic revitalization. Uh the following design and visual compatibility standards shall apply to the exterior of every building in the district. And under general requirements, it says a building exterior shall not be altered where the defining characteristics of a structure are lost or substantially changed. Uh he's correct. That top part of that building is not brick, but it is a masonary substance. Mr. Strader might be able to be more uh defining as to what it is, but it is certainly uh masonary in character. uh it's historic to that building. Um and if you paint it, you're going to lose that feature. So, I just want to point that out that in your ordinance, you do have the ability, if the board would choose, to tell Mr. Bennett that you're not going to allow him to paint that masonary uh material. Uh again the the uh whole downtown historic ordinance is designed to preserve the architectural features of the downtown. I would also suggest Mr. Coffee that section 7 exterior property maintenance

A4 unpainted brick shall not be painted. Um, I would think reasonably that would apply to other masonry items, stone, uh, or other products. Um, although it does say brick, I I would say a reasonable person would apply that to other materials that are similar. I don't I don't disagree with you, Mr. Bod. Mr. Do you know what material that's made of?

I I've been over at the project with Justin on a couple of occasions and we've discussed this matter. Um the upper level which is the second floor of the face of that building that square footage on the face of that building is about 940 square ft. To clarify Mr. minute shared it earlier. Uh I believe that it could be a concrete material or a stone effect. Not certain. You know, we're up there uh uh 10 and a half 11 ft. I have no clue except viewing it from the wall. Uh but again, what's clarified is and as you look around the square and see the businesses that have either recently applied paint, they've painted over brick that has been painted before. So, but it does state that you do not paint anything that has not been painted. It states that you can't paint unpainted brick is what it actually states.

Mr. Dol, you're our historical guide.

Thank you. Um, I'm I'm not in construction, but it sure looks to me like a veneer um a concrete or a stucco material that was stamped to look like limestone. Um, I wish I could find some information to find out when it was put on there. Um, I I honestly don't know. if you want to. I mean, it's it's been up there for some time, probably 50-ish years. Um, I don't know. It it's it's rather subjective whether that is considered historically accurate. I mean, the flip side of that is we have we have a historic picture with a with a framed awning on the front of the building. We certainly can't go back to that. Um, like I said, I I think that's unfortunate that we've left the ordinance a little vague. Um, I mean, I think of where would we be if uh if a certain bank came in here with a request to pay Mr. Bennett, you want it to be painted white as you shown in this drawing,

correct? Yes. What would it mean to you or the your feel about the building if you left the top exposed with whatever the surface is? Now,

I really wouldn't like to to leave it exposed. Uh, I like for I would like for my office locations to look fairly similar in color. Um, and I would also and I'm not I'm not here for this, but we're if there's one section in the ordinance that that we are stuck on with brick versus concrete and unpainted versus painted. There's several other sections in this ordinance that I don't think are being addressed with the current buildings that are there that are supposed to be maintained. You mean other buildings that have been approved or

not necessarily improved, but the the maintenance of said buildings?

I think we got to look at at the current condition of the building. If the top is painted along with the bottom, that's when we're going to make it look good because right now it does not look great. So, um might be stretching um but um I think this will be a huge improvement to the downtown area. I'm going to agree with Mr. Basson on that. Um I I appreciate the changes you made to your signage as well. Um I apologize for bringing up the the glass percentage. I made an assumption that you were replacing the windows.

No. But without that, we can't stipulate that. No. And I I appreciate the board going ahead with with what you guys did. And I would have done more research on the top part of that building had the ordinance not said brick. Well, speaking of the signage and and I mean it looks great except is that two signs? No. Well, you've got tanability and then you've got right above the door. So, I'm thinking all of a sudden, does that constitute two signs as far as our sign ordinance goes?

I mean, it says the same thing. He's just got his logo over the door and then stealth spells out the the bit of reality over each class.

I'm going to stick with it's a huge improvement the way it looks this on this on this river. So and Mr. called me even though we have a word that's not contained that we can approve this as presented.

Um I think you can but I would caution you to make some very specific finding as to why you're doing that. Okay. again because when I look at this ordinance in totality and particularly section six and also section seven um you've got a lot of different paragraphs there that I think apply to this building in regards to historic significance. We don't know how long that building surface has been there with that material. Um, and that may be something that you want to know prior to making a final decision. But, um, you know, again, another paragraph, because a building changes over time, those changes have been acquired historic significance in their own right, shall be retained, preserved. So, there's an argument that you should paint. distinctive feature finishes and construction techniques for examples of craftsmanship that characterize a building shall be preserved. So again, I don't think you have enough information tonight with where we stand to know how long that surface has been what it is.

But if but if you're going to allow the paint, I would make some very specific findings and reasoning as to why. And I don't know if you have that information tonight. I I guess that brings up a question that I would have if there is some research done on that. How long would it have had to have been the way that it is and that's all subjective and that would all be up for the board determining what you find the facts to be. I would just I would go back to the new rendering that was submitted and ask for approval for the the entire rendering.

So we could table this until the next meeting for further information. You can now you can. Yes. Oh, okay.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to propose a motion and then we can discuss that or vote on it if you'd like. Yeah, you're waiting for me.

Well, you know, my my thing here, Justin, is that um we probably need more information on that effort. You know, that's That's probably the direction this is going. Uh, and I hate to do that to you because I know you want to get going on the front of that building so you can get it done, but it just sounds by conversation that's the direction we're going. If we go that direction, can I ask that the just the top portion of that building be tabled? in case we get to that point so that signage can be ordered and everything else can continue to move along. If if it goes that route as a point of order, I'd like to make a motion if I may.

Sure. Um I move that docket 255024 realy the exterior appearance of the building be approved as submitted, including painting the top half of the building um to repair and upgrade the appearance of this structure making an exception. It is not brick and the appearance we believe would be improved. motion.

I will second that. So, we have a motion on the floor for Mr. Bing and a second Mr. Gall.

Would you repeat the motion, please? Um, docket 255024 for Bennett Realy that we approve the request to paint the exterior of the building and the signage as submitted. This motion includes painting the top half of the structure to improve the overall look of this building. Did you get that?

Hope so. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. Opposed. I. Mr. Burkhart is opposed.

Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, new business. Docket number PC25025. Vacate Replat, address 220 Ferguson Drive, and Sherman Estate, second section, lots, second section, and lot 120. State your name. Did you sign in? Kyle Jert and I sign. Mr. Strader, you have all the information on this. Okay. Did you get his name?

Yes. All right. Thank you. You're up. All right. Um this uh this is a replatting of two lots um that I currently own to add on a master uh suite addition in an office uh to make it go from a three-bedroom home to a fourbedroom home. It's approximately 30T by 30 foot and we will not achieve setback um in order to keep that second lot an actual lot to sell or whatever. So we're asking to combine those. And your plan is to build an addition on your home.

Yes. So that it would encroach on what is now a seven to second lot that you own. Correct. meaning that you wouldn't be able under current conditions to build to build house correct a second house on the second lot and you own both lots. Yes, Mr. Don all this is something that is we see happening within Char estates the most common request we can get. Yes. So I would just ask if there's anybody to speak for or against. Yes. Is there anybody that would like to speak for or against on this?

I would make a motion that we There we go. Mr. Chairman, it doesn't look like you have file certification from the post office in regards to the mailing of the U landers. Sir, did you provide the actual certification from the postal service that the uh mail was or that the uh the notice was placed in the mail? Did you did you get that to from the postal service and provide it to our office?

Uh the verification that this has been quite a process ago. I do not have these in front of me that they should be down in the office. Mr. Dunwire here presented that to the office. So you believe we do have from the postal service the the actual certificate of mailing. Correct? Yes. Okay. All right. All right. Okay. So we can proceed. Thank you. I will make a motion that we approve docket number PC25026 as presented. I second it. All those in favor say I. I. I oppose. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you.

Can I make one correction? That was 2000 250 25.

I'm sorry, but we we we mentioned the wrong docket number. It's 2550 25. I got that. Okay, next up is docket number PC2526.

Reszoning from business 2 to R and R2 to R3. Address is 1209 South Main Street, 1269 South Main Street, 1190 South Maryland Street. owner is Swab Family Associates, Swab Food Liner, Will William and Helen Swab Foundation. I would like to make this announcement for all those that are in the room that are probably here for this. Whenever it comes time after this gentleman has presented his side and you get up to speak, you will have two minutes. I will put you on a timer. We have too many people here

and I just want to make sure that everybody is aware of that. [Music] Okay. Would you please state your name? I'm sorry. My name is Rudol Construction. Can we spell your last name, please? G O S E T G O S E T I don't know where you know right here in front of the podium.

You know we as as the plan commission have good handouts with that information. If you want to turn that around so that you can show the people in the audience, that would be fine for me. Yeah, we have you guys have copies pretty maybe so that the audience I'm sorry sir, but what was your first name? Thank you.

All of you would like to stand and maybe stand off to the side. View that welcome. So, our uh our application is simply reszoning the property. Um there are five lots um that we've kind of got designated for this project. Um the partial numbers are all listed. Okay, they're pretty elaborate there, but you guys should have copies of all the five parcel numbers. Um, I believe three of the parcel numbers are zone commercial right now. Two of them are zone um I think it's R2, which is um medium

medium density. Your submission says they're they're designated R1 single family

single family and that could be I don't I don't know exactly what the city hasn't shown that but I know that they're you're allowed to put doubles on those properties. So that's where the medium density came from. But with the idea to um switch them to multifamily town hope apartments that you guys should all have pictures the same pictures that I have posted up here in front. Um, all of the town houses will have parking. Um, around the back in the bottom, the ground floor. Um, and then the the second floor of the of the apartment is the living space. So, living room, dining room, kitchen. And then the top floor is either the two bedrooms or the three bedrooms. Um, we intentionally because it's a three-story project, we intentionally made the roof flat on these as to not have them any taller than they absolutely had to be. That's the idea behind the flat roof. So all these buildings as you see them and in the pictures that you have now, these buildings are about 30 or 31 ft depending on where you're standing on the grade, but 30 foot above the slab for the height, which is equivalent to about a twostory house with a 812 pitch roof on top of it. Are these photographs renderings or are these a project you're building elsewhere?

No, this is a project that we're not building this project. It's a similar project that we it's it's what we're proposing that we'll go back through the the application process for permitting and all of that. Um but the the footprint of this is similar to the footprint that you see drawn on our plot plan. Um and those are um 20 by 30 is the footprint per apartment. 20 foot wide, 30 foot deep.

So by these illustrations, these are properties that you're in the process of building or have built. No, sir. The this is not our project. This is someone else's project, but this is just similar as close as we could get to what we wanted to do here. Have you done any projects like this in the past?

Yes, sir. So, I have I have about 38 years of construction experience. I've built multiple. Um this is the first time that we're actually doing it for ourselves. My uh the owner of the company, Dan Janick sitting back here. Um he he's got 38 years as well. Um, between us, I don't know, somewhere in the two billion dollars worth of real estate developed, big commercial work all the way down to residential houses and everywhere in between. We just, this is our first project doing it by ourselves, doing it for ourselves. Your suggestion was that the roof line is going to be designed so it would be somewhat equivalent to the height of a an older two-story home.

That's correct. Yes, sir. Yep. If you look in the in the Arbor home subdivision, you'll see um some of them that are three stories over there. On the front, the appearance is that it's two stories. Like you only see a second story window, but then the roof goes up. But if you look on the back of that house, it's actually a three-story building. And those houses over there are in the 36 to 38t tall. Um, so they're, you know, a good bit taller than these buildings here. And you expect these to be what height again? Right at 30 ft. 30 to 31 ft. So in this plan here?

Yes, sir. You're you're proposing 17 units that on the uh the south side of South Street and 13 units on the north side of South Street. That's correct. Yep. And each one of these units. So, as I did the math on the the lot sizes you're showing to me,

in our ordinance, it says that you have to have 3,000 square feet per unit. And the way I calculated, you've only got 2400 on one of them and 2100 on the other. You don't have enough. You don't have enough room to build that many units. Do you mind if I jump in and ask a question? Because I was a little confused on this request. I and I might have misread this. I thought in the public notice that I read in the correspondent it was being reszoned to a PUB, but I see on the paperwork that we and the paperwork that we got with our agenda, we were going to R3 high density. I think that would make a difference with what we're doing here tonight. Mr. Strader, do you have a copy of the I'm not seeing anything. any verification that they applied for a PBD

and I apolog I might have misread that it was several weeks ago in the paper it's the high density R3 is what we're seeing okay yeah okay so as long so if if we're reszoning to R3 then any any development standards in our ordinance was would we would expect that that those will be followed, right? Absolutely. Okay.

One of my questions of Manny when I look at that map right there. Look at this. Yes, sir. So the parking lot already chops into the last house on sorry it goes right through the middle or the about a quarter of a section left. There's about a quarter of that house out into park. I don't believe those red lines are going to be true that the city map.

Okay. appear to be a little bit offset of what actual is on the street. Okay. So, the next one is the size of the second parking lot that was the old IG is this right here. And you're telling me four units fit in that? This this particular building that you're pointing out I believe is this. Is this what you're Yeah. That's 80 ft wide. Yes. That's what

80 ft. That building is 80 ft wide. It's 20 It's 20 ft wide per unit there. So there's two I'm sorry. Right. I'm sorry. That is there two units there or four? There's four units there. Four units.

Isn't that lot 66 by 132? Yes, I just by not going out there and measuring it myself and you look at it from what we've all seen living here all our life. I have there's I'll start here. There's no way you can put four units in that thing and and make it look I I I just I'll start there. Now, second question is on the corner of Maryland and Maine is a home.

Correct. Maryland South Street. Maryland South Street. Sorry. Yes, sir. Correct. Okay. And who owns that lot right there? The Schwab family. The Schwab family. So, the house there is rented. Is that rented at this point? Yes, sir.

Okay. Yeah, from what I'm seeing here, Main Street to Maryland, north of South Street. So, part of the parking, all the parking lot, and then the residence beside of it. So, you're going you're taking a block to block. Yes, sir. Yes.

Yep. And then from South Street down Main Street, parking lot in front of the former grocery store. Yes, sir. The grocery store building and the house behind that. That's correct. Yes, sir. Okay. I believe that used to be their office for swaps. Might have had his office there. Yeah. long ago.

Yeah. The the the property in at that house literally there there isn't any offset there. It is the house is right on the property line and the building is right on the property line. It is it's really tight right there. So that is a rental also.

Yes. Yeah. Of course, all the rentals are subject to the approval, subject to permitting, financing. This is just kind of the first step of starting the ball down the road. Now, the way I read the paperwork, this is just a preliminary um to know whether or not this is approved before you purchase the property. That's correct. Yes, sir. Because swab the swab different organizations still own the property.

That's correct. There are three different organizations between I think it's the their family foundation is owns the parking lot. It's on the corner um just the asphalt lot on the north the north side of South Street and on the east side of Main Street. And then the Schwab I forget I think it's the foundation owns the actual old grocery store. the the kind of dilapidated building there. And then the Swap Family Partnership owns the two rental properties. Well, I realize this is preliminary, but there's so much wrong with this drawing that I mean there the setbacks, the uh is there enough parking and then like I say, you don't have enough room to put that many units on those particular lots. I personally would rather see something a little closer to what should fit on there than what you've drawn here.

Mr. Swan, have you had a chance to look at this? However, Dale, I just want to ask question clarification. I think we've been through this before, but with this being a zoning request, uh, it's not a PUD. It's a zoning request. So, therefore, we're only making a recommendation to council, favorable, not favorable, or no recommendation at all. Isn't that correct? So, as far as the details of the site plan and everything else,

that would still have to go through review with a normal plan submission once it's actually reszoned and and then submitted. So even though we see this picture as it stands today, I think what if it was reszoned and council chose to move forward with the resoning that it would have to come to the city building and engineering department for review. Correct.

Yeah. So tonight what you have before you is a request to reszone property. Now, uh I guess my confusion lies with exactly how all of these are currently zoned because in the application with the attachments, we've got it appears to be three different parcels that are currently zoned B2. All right. And then it appears we have two parcels that are zoned residential. But I'm confused because the application says that's currently zoned R1 and they're asking for a change from R1 to R3. But on our agenda tonight, we have a reszone from B2 and R2 to R3. So I guess my question number one would be what was the notice that was given to adjoining land owners? What did it say? What did the newspaper notice say? And more importantly, Mr. Strader, what do our records show that these residential lots are currently zoned? So, that's number one. Number two, Mr. Swan's correct. The board would be making a recommendation to the city council on what the board believes is the highest and best use for these parcels. And if you believe the highest and best use would be for R3, then you'd make a recommendation to reszone. If you believe it's not R3 and it ought to stay B2 or whatever B uh R1 or R2, then you would make a recommendation unfavorably for the reasonzoning request. Um, I do agree that if this has to move forward

or does move forward, I think that the applicant's going to be before the BZA for a lot of variances based on what I'm seeing with these plans because they're not going to meet setback requirements. They're not going to meet possible square footage requirements for lots to build on and all that. But that is on down the road and that's something not before this board to be uh decided. But I I my initial question is do we have a notice issue here? And if we do, we need to get that addressed before we move further.

How do we determine that now? Yeah. I don't know. Mr. Strader, do you have or or uh applicant, do you have before you the notice that was published in the newspaper and a copy of the notice that was given to the adjoining land owners? I do, sir.

Okay. If you could bring that to me, please. All right.

Okay. This is what you said. Okay. All right. Can we see a copy of what he sent the land owner?

Oh, you can, ma'am, in just a minute after I review it. Oh, okay. Yep. Absolutely. Thank you. So your company had to buy this. This is an all or nothing deal.

Is it an all or nothing deal? It has to be all of it or we don't No, it doesn't. No, I mean uh the the the project this is just a preliminary idea. Okay. four zoning.

Um we come back, we get the zoning approved, we can come back to the city with more detailed plans and site plans. Um all the setbacks will be properly if the if the numbers are cut back or the the amount of units are cut back because of the the setbacks, then that would apply and it would be the case when we come back for permitting. I don't, and this is just an opinion here, but obviously I don't disagree there needs to be something done with the old IG building. Don't disagree with that at all. I don't disagree that you can use the parking lot for something, the second parking lot for something, but to take out all the other homes, you're taking out two homes, correct?

Two homes. Yes, sir. That Mr. Why I mean would be my question. Why the one I mean all right so I'll give you uh I'll give you part of our the mindset behind it. So it initially started with the IG building. Um

we talked to the Schwab family. The property's up for sale. It's sitting there dilapidated. I don't you guys have drove by it. I've got a picture of it right there if you want to see it, but it's it's not very good shape. Um and that's where it started. And that building is built right on top of the property line along with the house to the south on which is it's actually street. It's actually on this lot right here. Okay. But those that house is built so close to the edge of the property.

Um the idea was because the swabs own that house as well. That's where the idea started. And then when we talked about that house, Mr. Swab told me, he's like, "Well, well, we own the lot across the street and these other houses along the side." And when we looked across the street at the other the the empty parking lot that's on the north side of South Street there, um the idea was uh the pictures of the pictures that I saw on Google Maps had a chain link fence and there was I don't know some kind of construction debris or something was had been stored in there. So, Right. Right. Lord only knows what's been on that lot for the years, but I know that it's

been on that lot. Ma'am, so the idea is is to repurpose that lot. It's zoned to commercial at this point right now. So, I mean, realistically, someone could come in there and build something commercial on that lot. Correct. And not have to go through a reszoning process.

You are correct. Um, our idea was if we could if we could create more of a project, even though it's across the street, all of this would be built off at the same time. Um, the idea being that that lot's too small in and of itself to to really make good use out of it. And that's where the idea for this the the second house come in. Now, all of this is contingent, of course, upon us buying those lots. So, have you approached the swabs about this? Yes, sir. Yeah, we're here representing and they're all they're all the family trust is approved is all in favor.

Well, they're in favor if it's subject to multiple things. Subject to zoning, subject to Yes. Yes. Yeah. Like I said, I I have a hard time with I I have I have any problem with working with the old J building in the parking lot on the other side of the street. But to take out other things to me is just not that's just really just not the best idea. too. I I I don't I I don't see where we're gaining by taking these houses out.

Mr. Baston, could you hold that thought, Mr. Coffee?

Yeah. So, uh, Mr. Null, I believe you were correct. This public notice have appeared in the newspaper is inaccurate because it describes the request tonight uh for a zoning map change uh for a planned unit multifamily development. So the public notice in the newspaper is inaccurate. So, we're not going to be able to take any sort of a vote tonight on this matter. Uh, now what we possibly could do, and this will be up to the board, uh, you have some folks here tonight, if you could go ahead and and have these folks uh, speak if you like since they're already showed up and they're here. uh you could uh table it and and reserve all of the discussion for the next meeting, but uh the applicant is going to have to republish in the paper notice of the next hearing because the publication is inaccurate as to what the request is. Now, um I'm going to take a few minutes to go downstairs and look at our zoning map so I can determine exactly what the city says these two residential lots are currently zoned so that we've got that before everybody. Uh and I think there

the last page on that the map is attached there. Yeah. But uh if you've looked at that in my old eyes, I can't see what that says. So I'm going to have to go look at a bigger map. Uh there was a a lady in the audience that asked to see what I was looking at in regards to the public or to the notice that was sent to land owners. Who was that that wanted us to look at this? I did. Okay. You want to come up? You can stand right here and look at that. That's what's up. Well, this is what's represented to me was sent to the land. Yeah, that's not the We did not get anything like this.

Okay. Okay. I'm just going to let I'm going to let I'm going to let you look at it. Okay. Anybody else want to come up and look at it? Did you do what you were saying? Yeah. I I apologize. I I gave them the wrong They all have order, guys. Let's let's just review right now the document. Okay. And reserve comment for later, please. You can look at that, but we've already Mr. Coffey's already said we can't move any further with this tonight. So, you're welcome to look at that.

We're not going to do a question. But I would like while Mr. coffee was downstairs. If you if everyone's fair with doing that, we can go ahead and have that comment tonight if that's what you want to do. Are the commissioners willing to go ahead and hear from the residents while they're here? My question would be if if the information in the notice is not correct to public notice, we have to have this hearing again. Correct. That's correct.

Well, I I think we should hear from the any remmonstrators when we have that hearing, not now. Wouldn't that help us come to a decision though? I mean, what decision we make if if we don't have a proper notice, this hearing shouldn't be happening. Thank you. What do you think? I understand what you're saying. Yeah. Excuse me. However, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I don't want him to go down and look. I actually gave you the wrong piece of paper copies. This is actually the mailing right here. It's not that piece of paper. I apologize.

The certified mail is of course what it is. That's the letter that was mailed to everybody there. So, that's probably what you would reference to, Mr. Bass. But we still Again, my opinion, we still need to hear. Obviously, there's some concerns. Yes.

So, they can come back and state those concerns again, but they're here. I think we need to hear it because we need to see I mean, you got to take in account the residents. Yes. And and maybe we should have a little more discussion if if we're going to continue this hearing um about the highest best use for this property because that's what we're supposed to be talking about. Um the current old IG property um three lots including what is a gravel lot across the street. All zone commercial. We're using the word houses, but there are many there are two. One of them is adjacent to the back of the grocery store that is on the property line. Um, and then there is one home that is on Maryland and South that is a house and it's currently a rental property. So, what is the highest and best use for this? Um, should it be left like it is? Um, should it be a new grocery store? Should it be an apartment community?

Right. Isn't that the question? Right. But I think since we have the constituents here right now, I think we should hear what what they have to say. Yeah. But I agree with you. I I agree with you. But I'm asking all of us to please have comment about what you think the highest best use for this for the commercial property as well as the two residential lots. Any thoughts?

I'd like to hear from the constituents first before I make any comment. You already have my opinion is on the commercial parts the three one two three four right lots but when you start taking out the one in Maryland and south the one in Maine um to me we shouldn't be talking about those Because the the the four lots is what we have to change. Correct.

No, there's a request that that all of these lots show. I understand four lots for business. Well, Mr. Coffee is back. Let's hear what Mr. Coffee has to say that

about the current zoning of these lots. There are four. So the commercial lots are zone B2. The residential are currently zone R2. The notice that went out to adjoining land owners used the same terminology as the public notice in the newspaper, which is incorrect. So, the applicant is going to have to send out new notice to all adjoining land owners with the correct zoning request change for the various parcels R2 to R3 and B2 to R3. And it will not it's not correct to use the terminology of a planned multifamily development because that's not what the zoning ordinance says. our zoning ordinance is R3 and so that's the classification that's being asked to uh change zoning too. So all adjoining land owners will have to receive new notice. The newspaper will have to receive new notice and um our ordinance says it has to uh and uh your submission to the city will have to be amended to reflect the proper zoning from B2, I'm sorry, from R2 to R3 because currently what we have says R1. Okay. So, you got some work to do and you're going to have to get it done to meet the requirements for the next meeting or we won't be able to have it in October. We'll have to have it in November. So, again, uh you've got to have everything to us 15 days ahead of time. Right, Mr. Strader?

That is correct. And the October meeting is the fourth Tuesday of October. October 28th. Okay. So you may have enough time to do it uh if you get on it, but it has to hit the paper um and obviously to the joining land owners 15 days prior to the meeting. Okay. Um so that's where we stand in regards to notification. So what the adjoining land owners are going to get are going to be completely different. what they've got this round.

It it would be because what they have is a reszoning request to a multifamily plan development, which that's not what the zoning is. So, I'm going to ask the commission, do we want to, since this is a whole new game, if they get everything in place and back mailed out to the homeowners and through the building office, it would have to come back before us October 28th.

Yeah. I mean, I really don't think we can table it because that's not proper in regards to the the improper notification. So, I think it's up to the to get it in. If he gets it in in time, then we're going to hear it in October. If he doesn't, then it will have to be November. Good. So, there'll be no action on this. That's correct. Do with the folks here now, commission, do you want to give them two minutes each to speak or do you want to have them come back? do a roll call vote, please. Once I just

We need one of those if that's a question. Shall we allow them to speak tonight? Correct. I think that I guess with that being said, it would be put on record because it's not technically a public hearing because we don't have anything.

Yeah. I I I think I think in light of what I have found, I really think it's proper that we don't entertain any public comment tonight because again the notification was improper. Uh so we really have nothing before and and the application has a defect in it as well. So I think we really shouldn't do any public comment this evening unfortunately for these folks. And I think we're going to have to wait till new notification is done and get back on the agenda as an agenda item. Oh, I hate that. But rules are rules. So, ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry you've heard our legal counsel speak. There's nothing that we can have any conversation on tonight. We will have to come back when they have everything to us either October the 28th or if it's past that, it' have to be November.

Could I make one more comment? Sure. Mrs. McIll. Okay. Thank you. I think there's a big u conflict here with Mr. Goss. Uh he is married to a high official in our uh city and I think that's a big deal. I wasn't aware of that and I don't see how to fix this thing. You don't think it makes any difference how he got this thing this job? Okay. wouldn't have known it if you wouldn't have mentioned it and it doesn't mean nothing to me. Okay, that's fine.

Mayor, if you raise your hand in the back in the community, yes, I would like to have comments just on the proposed buildings. We can't do that tonight, ma'am. We can't have any public comment tonight. You'll have to come back. And I'm sorry. Can I ask a question please? Sure. Whenever you guys table this whenever comes up in the next meeting this is going to be heard. Is it going to be heard first?

Depends on the order that it comes in. It will not be old business. It'll be it'll be under new business. It'll be the order it comes in as far as the other other file is. It still be new business. It'll still be new business because what we have tonight we can't make any action on. Oh, I'm all right with that. I'm just start and I apologize.

Sir, are you aware of what you need to do? The confusion is off. Okay, next up, docket number PC25027, remodel approval in the historic downtown district. Address 183, folks. You can have your conversation now. We're still having the meeting. Oh, the meeting's not over. owner is the city of

Good evening. Sign in, sir. Yes, I did. It's my good evening. Uh, it's been a long evening. I'll try to make this as short as possible. This is the facility that's going to be built behind the venue between the venue and

art uh art sanctuary. Thank you. Had a seen your moment there. Um, this is going to be a facility for restrooms for the performers and also for storage of items that have been put into the dressing room menu that should have never been that should have been stored properly and we've just cluttered those dressing rooms. I'm sorry about this. Go ahead. Why don't you guys take it outside, please? Thank you. over again, please. Please.

Okay. Th This is going to be a facility uh behind the venue stage in the art sanctuary in the alley. That's going to be restrooms for the performers and a storage area. The dressing rooms that are on each wing of the venue have been cluttered up with items that should have been stored in a proper storage area. Uh some sound equipment, some of the ballards and things of that nature. So, this is just going to be something to make it a little bit easier for our entertainers to come in.

Any questions for Mr. C? Can you just real briefly tell us where this is? I haven't gone by to look my fault. If you are in I mean you know where the venue Yeah. If if you're if you're looking at east it'll be on the south end connected to the back of the stage. Is it connected? It it' be self-esteem self north south alley north of the east west alley. Yeah. So it's it's blocked it block the alley but we already stopping right and and there's a there's a fence already up there

standalone structure. So it's all block brick or is it block and brick? It's a called a rough face block that will be it will be smooth block in the ground and rough face from there up uh the same as what it was placed on the water department building on Malbury and this will block the alley or will not block the alley? Yes, it was blocked the alley. It's already blocked. Okay. Okay. The alley's already been vacated. Okay. I'm asking is the alley's already been vacated,

right? I make a motion that we approve PC25027.

Second, can I have a comment? Yes, sir. Should this is crazy to me, but do we really need to approve this or is it really It it is it is technically in your historic downtown district. So it is a new construction within that district. So yes, that's why it's before you this evening for approval. All right, just checking. Mr. Bkart, I believe in short words is we're treating this like it's uh uh someone else and not the city.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. So, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Almost. We would normally expect more from a a member of the public, but well, he's on he's on a train right now. Who knows where? All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion carries.

Well, if you had fun with that one, this next one you're really going to love. Uh I have fallen sword on this one. Uh this is completely on me. I completely jumped the gun. Got excited. um started probably four years ago when I Debbie was watering the flowers out here and she was in her flipflops and doing this with the bird droppings all over the place and I wanted to put soften around the eaves and I was told I couldn't do it. You know, it's a historic building. You can't take it away. So, I let it go about and we didn't do anything. Well, we had discussion on what we were going to do at city hall that's kind of been tabled at this point, but some things came to that need to be repaired. The paint was peeling around the garage door bays. Uh it was looking bad. We had birds roosting all over the place. And excuse me, we did have a gentleman from Indiana Landmarks come down uh when the council and we were looking at what we were going to do with city hall and he was walking around. He was admiring how great shape the building was. But I asked him, I said, "What about these birds?" You know, I can't come out here and shoot them. Uh they love the the little uh I don't nails or sprockets or whatever you put up there for them to roost and build their houses in. I said, "Can we put software on that?" He said, "Yes, you can. In this situation with the bird dropping zone, that is a health hazard. It is a public building. So, you can do that." So, I jumped the gun knowing the festival, the parade was going to be coming down this way. I want to get things painted. Had, you know, we had two bids to to get everything done. Everything was going on. And Mr. Coffee came to my office and

said, uh, sit down in this calm manner that he has. And he said, "You changing the color?" Yeah. He just sat there and looked at me. And then I realized I'd made a huge mistake because here we had Mr. Finnamman that wanted to paint some buildings and we didn't let him until he came before you. But I said, "But Dale, I'm not painting the building. It's just the trim." But still, I should have come before you. Completely my fault. And I beg for forgiveness and I'll entertain any questions. So, has all of this work been done?

The only other thing we've got to do, there was a garage door on the back that has had been hit several years ago that's damaged. We're replacing that door and then we'll be putting an American flag silver screen on that, but everything else is done. So, you painted the garage doors, painted the eaves, put soft, painted around the windows. re refinished the front doors, stripped those and restained them and put varnish on those. Was there a little bit of roofing repair or something? I thought I saw

uh the roofing was was done a couple years ago and a tornado came through. We did paint the whistle. Did paint that. I was a little hesitant when you mentioned enclosing the eaves because I was always a fan of that craftsman prairie style look of the exposed rafters, but I came by here to take a picture and I have a picture of what had been done boxed in next to some of the old and I was shocked at how dingy the old looked And I will say I I was hesitant at first, but I think it's an improvement

and probably a much needed one. Thank you. I know my wife appreciates it.

The the only thing that we're going to do that's left to be done, uh the awning in the front and the awning in back are both in very need of repair. So, we're going to be contacting the awning company to uh fix those. The one in the We'll we'll duplicate the one in the front. Don't know if that's historic or not, but that's what's always been there as far as I can remember. But the one in the back is still kind of half rounded. There's an area in between the brick and the awning that the birds get in the roofs and it needs to extend out off of the steps. It doesn't make sense to have something on that top step. If somebody pulls in back, they need to be able to get out rainy day, come in dry. So those two things we need to get accomplished yet.

So the back awning is going to be a different I'm thinking it'll probably instead of being oval like it is to create a crevice. We're going to come off the brick which is the elevator sl. Is there any other questions for Mayor C? I make a motion that we approve docket number PC25028. I'll second that. Caleb Foresters the motion that Anne Miller made for docket PC25 028. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you.

This has been a record I guess record time. Can I get another point? I'm guessing we yell at Bob. Last meeting, Mr. Strader. Yes, sir. Last meeting, I asked if we could get the people to print their name below where they signed. Yes, sir. Can we do that, please? Or change that on. Are you referring to the application? Is that right? Yes, please. Okay. Any application? Yeah. Any this time I've had trouble with the mayor's signature a little bit, but I have to know who he was. What?

Please. I make a motion we adjourn. Second. Rick Dall seconds the motion. All those in favor? I I. Our next regular session meeting will be Tuesday, October the 28th, 2025 at 7 p.m. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.

Life is worth a wet noodle. [Music]