Board allows Merchants Bank one new rooftop sign on HQ2; staff sought net‑zero roof‑sign condition

The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance July 28 allowing Merchants Bank to install one rooftop sign on its HQ2 building at 420 Third Avenue Southwest in Midtown Carmel.

Wendy Creech, assistant vice president of property management for Merchants Bank, said the proposed rooftop sign would match the “elegant, tasteful, and truly understated” signs affixed to the bank’s HQ1 building and reiterated arguments that alternative permitted signs (canopy, blade, wall) would not provide adequate visibility. She said relocating existing rooftop signage to HQ2 is impractical and risks roof membrane damage and structural bracket failure.

Design consultant Dan Moriarty told the board the proposed sign would not be illuminated and would measure 7 feet tall by 20 feet wide. Jack Russell, president of OneZone Chamber, testified in favor, saying the sign’s design fits the industrial character of the corridor and that Merchants Bank is a major local employer. Several nearby residents in Johnson Edition and Wilson Village testified in opposition, citing concerns about size, nighttime illumination, view impacts and potential light intrusion into backyards and hot tubs.

Planning staff noted HQ1 previously received a rooftop-sign variance and that HQ2 had been denied two rooftop-sign requests in 2024. Staff described the proposed sign as 20 by 7 feet, located in the northeast quadrant of the roof, and suggested that the board could consider approval only on condition that there be “no net gain” in rooftop signs — meaning one of the three existing rooftop signs on HQ1 would be removed and reinstalled on HQ2. Staff characterized the petition as a self-created hardship but indicated conditional support if net roof-sign count did not increase.

Board discussion balanced concerns about neighborhood views and precedent against the practical difficulties and costs described by the petitioner for moving an existing sign. Petitioner representatives and some board members said moving a permanently affixed steel bracket would be costly (estimates cited in testimony) and risked roof integrity; planners argued transfer would avoid increasing the total number of roof signs in Midtown. The planning-commission representative said that because HQ1 already has approved rooftop signage, removing an existing sign to reassign it did not make practical sense to her.

After discussion, a board member moved to approve a new rooftop sign for HQ2 (explicitly not conditioned on relocating an existing sign); the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor. The transcript records the board saying “Aye” and the chair declaring approval.

Outcome: The variance to allow one rooftop sign (20 ft × 7 ft) on HQ2 was approved. Planning staff recommended adoption of findings of fact; the board approved the petition without the staff-suggested “no net gain” condition.

Direct on-record quotations include: petitioner Wendy Creech saying the HQ2 sign is “consistent with the roof signs permanently affixed to h q 1,” design consultant Dan Moriarty stating “it is not lit,” and planning staff noting that “the HQ1 Building did have a variance for roof signs that was approved.” Several residents said they “strongly disagree” with the rooftop sign request and asked whether it would be lit and how large it would be.

The board moved on after the vote and concluded the meeting.