Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Turn back. truth. So obviously What's important? I didn't want to say my go upstairs and then everybody

something. Okay, it's 7 pm. I'd like to call the planning commission for the city of Martinsville to order. Tuesday, February the 24th, 2026 at 7 p.m. First up is roll call, Lisa Holland. Lisa, usually

Oh, secretary reads our names and we say, "Okay, not used to this." Richard Baston here. Steve Bodie here. Joe Disney, present. Richard Dell, present. Caleb Forster, present. Rick Peacock here. Ann Miller. Jason Scott here. Troy Swan here. Jim Burkart.

Yes. Also present is Bob Strader, the building inspector. Uh Kenny Cen, mayor. Dale Coffee is not here tonight. Next is presentation of minutes from January the 27th, 2026. Has everybody had a chance to look over the minutes?

I have Steve Bod. I would move that we accept the written minutes as presented unless anybody has any corrections. I'll second that. So, Steve Bod made a motion to accept Caleb Forester seconded. All those in favor? I

opposed. Okay. Minutes are accepted. Uh, first up on the agenda is old business docket number PC25029. It's a sign of approval in historic downtown district for 10 North Maine. Is there anybody here to present this? Mr. Strader, have you had any communication with these on this sign?

Nothing more than what you have in front of you that was presented yesterday to us by email. I will say that the dimensions now of the new new renderings match up with what was there before in size. I hate to cause a local business restaurant difficulty, but shouldn't um petitioners be here in front of us just to step up and say hello and say what it is they need?

Well, you would think so, but that is not something that is in our ordinances. Am I correct in that, Mr. Swan? particularly when it comes to site applications. There's nothing in the ordinance that says that has to be here. And I had that question, Mr. Bod, and I had it answered by Mr. Coffee before the meeting. So, we don't know if any of this is going to be illuminated. It will be all of it, but the the picture of the I'm not I'm not saying that the round disc

and we don't let's see round disc we think is 38 in high and none of it's going to go over the windows right that's uh yes between the two windows. Okay and Mr. What you're saying is that what they presented is practically the same size as what was there under the loss rate. This is exactly what was I presented to them when I sat down with them at the restaurant.

Okay.

The measurements and all. I measured what the old sign was and explained to them that if they come back with that same size sign, they could have already had it up. And so if I have a question, the member has a question for the petitioner, what do we do, fellow members? Well, Mr. Bod, I don't have an answer for that.

The only thing we do is table and request that they come and if they don't come meeting questions we have, I think you could probably just deny it based on the lack of I believe that's exactly what we did a month ago, Richard. And and I I think it how many times we table it, then all of a sudden it just it goes away. Is that not correct?

Well, this is a different to me it's different than an ordinance. Of course, you have an ordinance comes or a subdivision or something. I think they can resubmit the application, but they would have to pay and refile. No different than what they did to begin with. So, So this was dated 10:30. We heard it on the first night and asked them to come back. I'm not sure what we need to really cover. It's the exact same size what we asked for. I'm not sure why we would table it again. The only concerns I would have is if that circular logo is powered and how are they getting power to it because it is disconnected from the text. That's really the only thing I would have and the only concern I would have and it's not much of a concern but just making swords. Sure. It's not an eyesore or just that's it. That's the only

May I ask a question to that? So are you referring that what you see is okay minus illuminating that Yeah. because There is two signs there you see besides the Mexican restaurant below it.

So there is two fees there now. And the only other thing would happen is with these two even the bottom one that the uh the print would require power. So there would be a fee for that power if there was conduit up the sold building, right? But now that's kind of my point more or less. It's

as long as it blows in, it's fine if they're sending power out for a conduit or a track or whatever. So yeah. Anybody else have any conversation on this concerns? Steve, did you have more thoughts on it or

Oh, I I uh I was just going to make a motion that we approve the sign request for for uh docket number 25 29 as submitted so that we could get to a vote and then I have another comment. I'd second that. So Steve Bod made a motion that we approve docket number PC25029. M Miller made a second before I ask for a vote. Do you have a com?

Yeah. If there's any discussion, I'm going to vote no. Um but I don't want to hurt the restaurant. I'd like them to be successful and proceed. I'm sure that the signage will be be fine, but I think that our petitioners should be here in front of us to answer questions. Um, so I'm going to vote no for the motion. I need Okay. All those in favor? I opposed. Steve Bodos. Motion carries.

Mullo. I think that somehow someway I I totally agree with you and I wasn't here at the last meeting. I think Ann brought up the last meeting and I saw a little bit of the video, but I don't know how we do that. But I think we need to change the ordinance or whatever it takes to make sure that when people present something, if it if it's going to be heard, they should be here.

Well, and that was exactly my concern since the last meeting. I've had it on my thought and I wanted to talk to Mr. Coffee about it tonight and uh even though he's not here, Mayor Cen called him so that I could talk to him and Troy Swan was involved in the conversation and he assured me that there was nothing that says that an applicant has to be here. But I mean, we need to we need to change whatever we need to change to make that happen. And I and I would like to see the applicants here. Is that an administrative rule or is that an ordinance that we would have to get the city council to approve? I wonder. Yeah.

You may make it part of the permit application. Just make an administrative change. That may have to go works for approval. Well, and that's something that we can uh I will carry on this conversation with Mr. Coffee so that that way we're prepared for our next meeting. It seems obvious. I mean, I'm surprised that anybody would think they could apply for something and not have a representative show up. Um, so hopefully we can just do it like an administrative update and not be a big deal. Correct.

I can understand on a project But on a sign if you've got exact dimensions, but they don't Richard, you know, you're looking at Well, they would have to know what the dimensions were, but I I don't like the staff representing individual citizens. Um, you know, getting information that's important from Bob Strader, from staff is critical to us, but it sure seems like the petitioners should be here or have a representative here to speak on their behalf.

I agree. I know I try not to sleep during any of these meetings. Well, I appreciate that that come out. I'm sorry. So they never anytime that this was presented originally, they weren't here. Yes. They were not. They were here. Yeah. Okay. So all I would wonder is if they were here in good faith and then we had some questions or whatever and then they felt like they addressed

Yeah. those concerns or maybe they were reassured that oh yeah that's all they needed and that'll be fine and that'll pass that maybe they were under the impression that they didn't have to come back again. Well question I don't think that was the case with this one. Okay. May if you're talking generally it that may hold out but in this case Mr. Barter very clearly told the young lady to work with Mr. Strader. And you said you just got this yesterday. That's correct.

So this has been ongoing. Nobody's contacted Mr. Strader. Okay. So but but this uh that did get approved. So that motion uh passed. So they're good on their sign. So now we'll go to new business. But I I understand everybody's concern and I will follow up with Mr. Coffee uh to see what the the path is that we need to take and I'll come back with more information next meeting. Thank you. Uh next up, new business docket number PC26004, remodel and historic downtown district. The address is 65 West Morgan Street. Uh owner is Jesse Logston. Mr. Logston here.

Mr. Logon, I believe, has just bought this building. Mr. Strager, is that correct? Yes. Um again, Mr. Logan's not here. We just talked about all this. um I see a lot of questions I have um and nobody to answer them. So So I'm going to make a motion we table this.

Can I add to that motion, Jim? That we table it and make a request that the petitioner show up or have a representative to answer questions or speak to his. It looks like he's got a lot of stuff he's going to do there and like to find out exactly what he's going to do. So, Mr. Burkhard has made a motion that uh we table this. I'll second that.

Everybody's second in. So, we're going to call Caleb Forester. He was the loudest in first. So, Caleb Forester makes a second that we table this. U Mr. Modi made a recommendation that the petitioner be present. So, we'll make that part of this motion. Uh, all those in favor, may I ask a question? How do we do that? Do we ask Mr. Strader just to contact him or how do we officially tell this person? I actually think that we should probably send a letter from the planning commission to Mr. Lston. Should we do that, Lisa? Yep,

that'd be great. Thank you. So, the motion is for uh table uh and that we send a letter to the petitioner to be present to explain what he is doing. All those in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. You may not.

Thank you. Next up, docket number PC260005. We have a winner. Sign approval for historic downtown district. Mr. Bennett is in the house. Thank you, sir. This is the third time you've been before us. Yes. Thank you for showing up. He knows the routine. He's signing in. Is it Justin? Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir.

Okay. Justin Bennett. So, as you guys should have before you um is just a request for some additional signage um for my tenant that's in the lease space. Um we talked about this a few months ago. Um, I'm allotted about 93 square footage 93 square feet of signage on the front of the building. We've used about 60 and in total this new rendering is about 12 square ft. Um, DG Graphics is the one that's doing it. Um, that's who this proof came from and it'll be on the east window of the building. and I'm up for any questions that anyone has.

Any questions for Mr. Ben? Yeah, Mr. Bennett, it um the sign rendering that we have um is will you be able to will we be able to see through that or is that kind of um covering the complete window? It it's not covering the complete window. You'll be able to see through that. It's just going to be the white lettering. Yes.

Gotcha. Um the the reason I asked members is it says in our historic downtown code for signs, signs shall not be placed on a building to obscure any window or door opening. So I would agree that that doesn't obscure the window. And this is in your existing um business that you have that the uh real estate business. So it's when we when we redid that building initially the ask was to have a lease space um my office and then there's an upstairs as well. But this is for that lease space. So it's

it just conjoins to my building. Yes. So, you've got a wall down the center and then there's two different doors. Two different Yes. Two different entry doors. Yes. And the the county actually had to split up the addresses. That's why the address on the application was different than what it originally was. They did two suites downstairs and a completely different address upstairs. And if your sign is this sign for your customer is lettering and numerals only. I don't even know how you figure out what the square footage of that is. So, it's not much. Correct.

Any other questions for Mr. Bennett? I would make a motion that we approve uh docket number PC26006 as presented. Uh 260005. Sorry. 005. Rick Dernal has made a motion to approve document number PC26005 for sign approval for Bennett realy and Miller seconds. So we got a second. All those in favor? I opposed. Thank you. Your building looks great. That's my personal comment. I appreciate it. Thank you.

You work very well with us. I appreciate uh what all you done. Thank you. I appreciate you, guys. Yeah. Thanks for showing up. Okay. Uh, next up on the agenda is re revisiting the signed ordinance uh that I sent to subcommittee. Mr. How long ago? Um, January of 25.

Okay. So, the sign ordinance that we had um we approved, we sent it to city council. City council um did not like the the language in some of it. So it came back to plane commission and I signed it to a subcommittee which u I think we had three city council members and three plan commission members. Uh I sat in on the subcommittee just to hear what was going on. And we also had uh Mike Kersh

Mike Kersh as a citizen involved and then the gentleman that did the signing ordinance for us Brad Johnson. Brad Johnson. There we go. So that kind of brings us up to speed. Um I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Denal to uh talk on the side rooms. Rick, may I interrupt? Absolutely. Briefly. You're probably going to talk about this, but um I'd love a quick synopsis of the result of that subcommittee. You're getting ready to share. Thank you. Yeah, he probably is.

I mean, you you shared before, but I it's been a while.

Yeah. So, um Mr. Disney uh gave a good recap of timing and the membership of the subcommittee. We met in January and got a lot of information out there about what we were looking for. Um we had several bits of language in it that certain people weren't comfortable with. Um there was one uh Supreme Court case that was referenced. We believe that was out of date by this point. So we we made some changes. We struck one section. We elaborated on interim signs and added a section about electronic uh electronic signs with changeable copy to give some guidance on I'm going to butcher this luminescence or how quickly a the brightness of a sign can change.

Yes. It was all about brightness. Yes. Um, so those were those were some changes that we made. There was a lot of discussion on temporary signage um both size and the uh duration that it can be out. So, we came back to our second meeting with ideas on how to amend the ordinance. Um, I think we had pretty decent attendance at the second one. Uh, I I believe maybe one of the council representatives was not at the second meeting, but I would have to go back and check my notes on that. We gave our our suggestions to Brad Johnson and then on I believe it was March the 5th we met a third time and that seemed like kind of a formality. U we we didn't have a lot of attendance at that one if my memory is correct but Brad had presented us with the updated ordinance as he read as he wrote it out uh with the changes that we requested highlighted in red. So, um, at that point, I had hoped to have a full subcommittee so that we could maybe get on the same page. Is this the ordinance that we wanted to bring back to plan commission and and vote on? I I don't I'm not sure that we quite got to that point. Um, but we do have I have a copy of what Mr. Johnson provided us. So I don't know if we want any I mean we can present it as the subcommittee left it and if anybody has

issues with those changes we can certainly that would be the time to adjust. So did we um did we each receive a copy of the redlinined final? I I don't recall the no it okay

and I don't remember the exact reasoning like I said I I I felt like I was unclear if the subcommittee was in total agreement or not. Um so it never actually came back to us to look at as a planning commission. That was a very good politically correct response. And when you say didn't come back to us, we have the ability to bring it up anytime we so choose. Correct. Yes. As a plan commission, we may suggest an ordinance and recommend that the city council review and approve it. Yes.

Including speak at the city council meeting if that would be helpful. Right. Right. So that is up to us, but it would be a um it would be not useful if we have reason to believe it won't be approved. So that's why we work together with the city council, I'm sure.

Yes. Um I I don't know. Jim and Ann were both in there as well, so uh feel free to to jump in. I I know there was a little concern from uh from Mr. Oaks. Um I think he wanted to see a little more guidance come back to the plan commission on what was wanted from the council. And honestly, the the thing that that I felt like was kind of bombarded with was the temporary sign uh part of it. So, yeah, we spent an awful lot of time talking about temporary sign and duration of temporary signs and and I personally I don't think there was ever a consensus of of the people around the table. Um, and I think we were close. Uh, maybe by the last meeting I'd say maybe one guy, one person. But with that being said, uh I I think from what I can say about the sign the new ordinance, it's it's not as restrictive as the original. And like I said, they cleaned up the language. Personally, I don't have anything. I mean, I think goes back, but you know, it's uh and you know, if they reject it, then

they reject it. That's all I can say. We can have Mr. Johnson um put together. We can contact him and have him put together uh what the conversation was and we can uh bring it put it back on the agenda as old business and give everybody a copy of the updated next meeting if you'd like to. And uh do you mean get it to us in advance so that we can be if we can get it next meeting? That'd be great.

Yes. That way we can read through it. Um they're really really from what I have here that we sent to city council there's not a lot of changes to it. Does that suggest that unless something has changed in some city council members opinions they're going to the vote it down again? The biggest thing in this is temporary science. That was that was the it we spent a lot of time Sure. between our our private citizen that is a former plan commission member that wrote the original

and a city council member bickering back and forth. Okay. And that's what a lot of that subcommittee was about. And it was a shame. And that didn't get resolution and Jim by the third meeting. Well, I I think we had there was a lot of give and take. Mhm.

And I think for the record, I would I would like to state that as the ordinance was originally presented, it is no more strict regarding temporary signs than what we currently have on the books right now. If it's an enforcement issue, that's outside of our jurisdiction. Mhm. But we have an ordinance that has some fundamental concerns, right? Legally, is it enforceable?

This this takes care of that. Um, honestly, my my position is I I some of the language that we corrected I liked. I think in an effort to plate a group, we have made one section several times more confusing. Um, you're talking about the temporary signs. Yes. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, we we tried to extend the time a little because how it's written out, it's 30 days a year. Um, and we have several examples where obviously that has not that's been completely disregarded. Um, but the new ordinance is written the exact same way as the old one as far as temporary signs go. Um, if they're placed in a right of way, it needs to go before the board of works for an approval. Um, so I, as as Joe kind of mentioned, a lot of time was spent trying to

cater to one very vocal party. And you're talking about trying to reach some compromise. And uh if one person on the city council doesn't care for the sign ordinance, it may certainly pass the city council with one no vote. Correct. Okay.

It seemed like it was somewhat um slanted against one particular vendor um with a sign ordinance. And so, um, we didn't want to, this other, uh, councilman and myself and and and Mr. Badger, we did not want to, um, pick on one particular vendor with this with this particular sign ordinance. Yes. You get Yeah.

Yes. And what outcome came of that? Well, we just never did get to a concrete house. So, okay. The answer to that, Steve, is that the existing sign ordinance is worse for that particular vendor than the new sign ordinance. That's how I that's how I comprehend it. in the particular person in question that was argumentative on this. His biggest complaint was we don't have

cannot be brought up again. And we are also concerned with a a point that we were trying to figure out too. Exactly. How bright is too bright? Correct. Yes. Right. Yes. Yeah. And I don't think we ever did we ever come to a concrete decision on that? I I think in the final draft um Mr. Johnson had used some numbers that are very kind of boilerplate. I mean,

we're not trying to reinvent the wheel here. several other communities around us, other counties, our own county already have ordinances on the books that deal with signage. Um, so a lot of what what was presented is kind of boilerplate. It's standard with other ordinances that are currently being enforced. So, um, and something like brightness probably is measurable by this ordinance in some fashion. I don't Jason's probably more Yeah, well versed on that. Um, I really need to see Dr. O'Neal. I can't read anything. Are we talking

the billboards that change? Are we talking any of the signage that like over here in uh at the new theater, the the brightness of that sign um as it changes. Uh there's a digital message board down here at the Legion. Uh, you can set the brightness. I've got a digital message board in my business. You can change the brightness. Um, and I think that's the the wordage that was in there. Yeah.

But it was all as RIP said, boilerplate because Mr. Johnson writes ordinances for cities all across Indiana. So, it's not something that, and he made a comment during subcommittee. He said, "I'm not going to put something in here that handcuffs people. That's not what the mayor is interested in, and I'm not interested in writing an ordinance to that effect."

Yeah, I believe the the final on that was um the electronic changeable copy brightness shall not exceed 0.2 to put candles above ambient light levels day or night. I don't I can't claim to know what that means, but it sounds I know what that is. Yeah, I mean it can be measured, but I mean it's it's mostly going to be a visual thing. So obviously if you see it and it just stands out, you're going to want to take action if something's bad. But yeah, it's not they also have 30 days to fix it.

The other and and I don't know if if tonight's the proper time or not since not everybody's looking at this, but something I've noticed in um our comprehensive plan versus our ordinances. Uh they threw a map in on here which is our downtown commercial historic district. You're talking about the sign ordinance.

Yes. Okay. Because this does also include our downtown signage with a little bit clearer language concerning window signs. I might add. Um, but something that I I would point out, and I don't know if this if we need to address this at some point, but this map is what the National Register of Historic Places uses as the downtown boundaries. Our city ordinance simply states the courthouse square and the direct the surrounding eight blocks around that. It doesn't specify cut in and cutouts of certain properties. We might, if Mr. Coffee was here, I would ask him, I that seems like something that needs to be cleaned up because we might have I mean, for example, Home Bank, according to this map, they're not in our commercial historic district, but the way our ordinance is written, they would be. You may be talking about two different things though.

Okay. Potentially I mean you geographically you may have some sort of mapping based on a state registry type situation versus what is defined within the ordinance as by ordered by named streets which seems pretty clear to me. We get to decide the city through ordinance decided here's a boundary and inside this you have to paint everything red outside it you don't.

Yeah. I just I find whenever whenever we I mean even in our comprehensive plan it actually shows the uh national register boundaries not what our own ordinance shows as it's written. So, just more food for thought, I guess. But

some of that's because some historians some place may not know what's really right for the city of Martinsville. So, there's a there's a, you know, there's that flexibility allows allows you to define those limits. It's actually applicable due to what's going on in within the city itself. So, gives you some flexibility. because you do control your own your own way. Okay.

So, we're going to reach out to Brad Johnson and ask him to um give us the final on this signed ordinance. Rick, would you like to do that? I can. Yes. I have his email address. I'll reach out to him uh this week. Okay. Um I'm Steve though. Is there any way we can get a copy of that prior to the packets go out. It would be nice to have it, you know. Yes. At least more advanced when the packets go out so we can actually review. I can I mean, if it's okay, I will I can scan this and email it to Lisa. Yeah. And she can forward it to everybody. That'd be great. Tomorrow.

And you say it's kind of redlined. I mean, it's red lettered. Yes. Where the changes from the original draft?

Y. And I think as a group, as members of this commission, we should look at it carefully again. We did this quite a while ago, a couple of years ago, but um look at it carefully and if we think that it's appropriate and reasonable, then we should wholeheartedly have that discussion, vote, and then pass it on. And it probably would be prudent for some of us to attend a city council meeting where we believe it's going to be read or heard to speak about it. I agree. Steve, we nominate you to nominate Rick. I won't be there that Jim and I are at a lot of them anyway. So,

okay. Rick, did you have something else you wanted to talk about?

Oh, um, just and I'm glad we got through tonight's agenda. Um I will take ownership of this. Uh after our last meeting uh we had some illness in my household and I was operating under the assumption that the building department had the um our proposed um addition to the downtown applications. They did not. So that none of the applications that we received tonight uh were given that information. So I took care of that today and it'll be it'll be there going forward. So

great. It's already been changed and taken care of. Perfect. Thank you so much. Does anybody else have any discussion? Make a motion to adjurnn. Second. Rick Dur made a motion to adjourn. Troy. Troy Swan. Yeah. Up on deck. Second. All those in favor?

Opposed. Next regular session meeting will be Tuesday, March the 24th at 7 PM, 2026. Meeting adjourned. Obviously 5:00