Martinsville planning commission approves interior remodels, tables historic storefront sign at 134 E. Morgan St.

The Martinsville Planning Commission on Aug. 26 approved interior and rear renovation work at 134 East Morgan Street but tabled the proposed front façade sign and related exterior alterations in the city’s downtown historic district until the applicant provides more documentation.

The commission voted to table “project 1,” the front storefront sign and façade alterations, and approved projects 2–5 (apartment entry, storefront interior remodel, office space, and garage/loft window repairs) so interior work can proceed while the exterior proposal is revised. The motion to table project 1 was made for the record by Mr. Grunahl and seconded by Commissioner Anne Miller; the motion carried.

The tabling followed an extended discussion about compliance with the city’s historic-district regulations and whether the proposed sign would cover original architectural elements. Planning staff and commissioners noted several ordinance provisions they said apply to the proposal, including the city’s sign allowance (one square foot of sign per 10 square feet of building face) and a storefront-window rule in Section 94-2-21(c) that requires a minimum of 75 percent glass at street-level storefronts unless historic evidence shows otherwise.

"So there is a remodel inside to, account for realty offices. And then there will be a storefront area in the center," said Braden Geswein, who identified himself as a contractor for the project. Geswein told the commission that the large logo panel proposed across the top of the storefront would be roughly 52 inches top to bottom for the logo block and that the Bennett Realty lettering would be about 22 inches tall; he also said the full proposed sign would measure about 180 inches across. He and the owner, Justin Bennett, also noted a 30-by-30 window graphic as a separate element.

Planning staff raised two issues the commission asked the applicant to resolve before the sign and exterior work move forward: whether the proposed signage would cover or remove decorative metal cornices and so-called Juliet balconies that staff and several commissioners described as now-historic features, and whether the proposed storefront glazing met the ordinance’s 75 percent glass standard. "If the brick is currently unpainted, it shall not be painted," Mr. Strader, a planning staff member, told the commission while reviewing historic-district provisions; staff also noted that metal cornices and decorative elements are required to be retained and maintained under the exterior-maintenance standards.

Commissioners and staff discussed precedent in the downtown square, including earlier projects reconstructed after grant-funded historic research. Commissioners asked staff and the applicant to seek historic documentation (photographs or other evidence) of the building’s original storefront before the commission considers final approval for the exterior sign and changes. One staff speaker also advised that the Indiana threshold for state review applies only when new wall construction totals 100 linear feet or more; the commission was told the project is below that state threshold.

Following the vote, the development team was told it may proceed with interior work (projects 2–5) but may not alter the front façade or install the proposed sign until the commission reconsiders project 1 with additional documentation and a revised rendering. Commissioners and staff encouraged the applicant to submit historic images or other evidence to the building department, which will share materials with the commission and petitioner ahead of the next meeting.

The packet included an estimate from FASTSIGNS cited by the applicant; the contractor estimated the combined sign and window graphics would total roughly 70–73 square feet, and packet figures listed the building face at roughly 940–950 square feet, which staff used to check compliance with the one-square-foot-per-10-square-feet rule.

Old business docket PC25017 was also tabled at the start of the meeting because the applicant was not present.

The commission’s next regular meeting was announced as Tuesday, Sept. 23, at 7 p.m.