Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

I'll call this April 14th, 2026 Board of Zoning Me Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to order. Um, David, you want to do roll call? Sure. Pete Saunders? Yeah. Vicky Gushki here. Mark Danielson. Brian Cer present. Nate LS here. Four present. Uh Baron's petition to allow massage therapy establishment for the petitioner. Please have board state your name and address for the Do we need to approve last the minutes from

Go ahead and move. Go ahead and move to do that. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from our March 10th meeting. Yeah. Uh I'll second that motion. Motion and a second. All in favor? Sorry about that. Motion passes. Thank you. Go ahead, Ashley. I'm Ashley Williams. I'm a tenant at 505 Lincoln Way B. I here summary of your petition, please. I would like a zoning uh variance so I can have a massage therapy establishment on Lincoln Way.

Maybe tell the board about your experience.

I have been a nationally board certified massage therapist since 2004. I've been state licensed in Indiana since 2019. I am up to date on all continuing education. I hold um maximum personal professional insurance. Um I work very well with Go Aerial Fitness. I um have worked with April for a very long time. And up until recently, I didn't realized that there was a zone for massage therapy. And in doing some research on a second location I'm opening in county I came across the information that I'm not in the right zone to be doing what I've you know my job. So you know better you do better. So I reached out to David and he told me to come here today.

So this is actually this is in the go aerial building right? Yes the upper back half of the building. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Um at this time I'll open it for public comment and hearing none I'll close public comment. David give us that report.

Yeah. So item number five as was mentioned is a it's a use variance petition because in the this is located in the central business district one or downtown zoning district which doesn't allow massage therapy establishments. So hence the use variance petition to allow the the use that is u mentioned here um at 505 Lincoln way and the the upper story um currently there there's health health fitness studio um uses within the same building um the so there are decision criteria that are set forth with use variance petitions I'll just briefly mention those the approval will not be injurous to the public health safety morals and general wealth welfare of the community. Um because of the existing uses in the same building um within the downtown district, there's a lot of already health and fitness related uses um that are similar in the surrounding area and this proposed use will be complimentary to those uses within um the same downtown or the same downtown Leaport area. Two, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. um the use and value will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner um because it is similar to all the the existing health and fitness uses in the surrounding area. Three, the need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved. Um the need for the use variance arises from the condition peculiar to the property involved um because the proposed use is complimentary um to the health and fitness studio um within the same building located within the downtown. Four, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought. Um, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance to limit um the use to not be allowed will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought to allow

this use um because there are other similar uses in the surrounding area. And five, that the approval does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive land development plan. Um this proposed use for the massage therapy establishment does not um does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive land development be because of the similar uses. Um staff recommendation is that the staff finds that the approval of the use variance petition to allow the massage massage establishment in the suite within the existing building is appropriate for the surrounding area and downtown Leaport. So staff recommends approval of use variance petition 26-01 to allow massage establishment and I'll answer any questions if you have them.

Any questions? Makes sense to me. You want to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the use variance for the massage therapy facility.

I'll second that. Vicki motion second. All in favor? I motion pass. Congrats. Uh item number six uh development standard 2604 uh to allow individual tenant cabinet signs to be placed above the roof line and allow conventional existing non-conforming sign electronic message center on existing pylon sign petitioner state manager please. Good evening board. My name is Tom Steiner, owner of Steinler Signs and Graphics out of Wanatal, Indiana. I come to you tonight um to ask for a variance. Uh we are applying for a variance on behalf of bring Inkstrom from Instrom's Furniture and Pawn Shop. uh to allow tenant panel signs to be placed above the roof line and to allow uh one doubleface electronic message center to be retrofitted into the bottom of an existing pylon sign. Uh the building signs that we are asking uh that we allow to fabricate and install single internal illuminated sign cabinets. Each will have a disconnect and a single face lexan face with first surface applied vinyl graphics. The signs will be secured to the existing dormers and to the front of the building facade. Nine total signs, one for each tenant space. The pylon sign, the sign will be uh restructured, not changing any existing dimensions to have adjustable divider bars for tenant panels, sign cabinet to be painted black. We will uh we are asking for the allowance for a doubleface electronic message center in EMC to be retrofitted into the bottom of that existing cabinet. This will serve also for public information including time and temperature. The sign can also

be used for service announcements such as Amber alerts, child abductions, uh silver alerts, and the sign will be automatically uh set up for dimming for nighttime visibility. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. At this point, I'll open it for public comment. And hearing none, I will close public comment. David, staff report.

Yeah. So item number six, variance of development standards 26-04 petition is to allow individual tenant signed cabinets to be placed above the roof line or also termed roof signs and allow conversion of an existing non-conforming sign to an electronic message center on the existing pylon sign. Um and I have a couple of pictures to show the next couple of slides. You go forward. There is the existing um pylon sign which the petitioner has mentioned that they would like to change out the existing sign. Um if you go forward a couple of slides it shows couple more there. Right there there is the existing sign. You can see the Araon um signage and they proposed to add in their proposal to add an electronic message center doubleface sign as was mentioned on both sides to the existing sign which is considered um a non-conforming sign because we don't allow pylon signs in the current zoning ordinance. Um and so the the site is kind of undergoing some changes. It's mostly been a a retail oriented building site um with some changes as you mentioned in um some previous meetings before as the board approved um a package of use varants um a multiple of different uses that could occur on that site. Um and so just with that kind of history in mind, I just wanted to mention that really briefly. Um article 19 sets forth requirements for the type and size of signage in zoning districts. Section 19.05N states that signs that are erected above the roof line of a building are prohibited. Um, and so if you go to the back one slide, um, actually forward too. There we go. Um, so the building right

there, I just wanted to mention for just from clarification on the what the roof line is any I'm just going to go back to the definitions. Um, a roof sign is any a sign erected, constructed, maintained above the roof of any building. So on this building, um, any part where there's you see shingles above, you can see there's dormers that are located above that, that would be considered the roof. Anything with a wall plane on the front is considered a front wall plane. Um, and you can see where there's white. Um, but the dormers would be considered part of the roof. And so that would be considered a roof sign as the petitioner has um proposed. If you go back a couple of slides, it'll show the signs that they propose uh right there. Um in between the individual dormers. So those are the ones that um they're requesting to be allowed as a part of the the roof signs. Um there are some of the signs that are allowed already because they're just considered wall signs within what the signage um what the zoning ordinance currently allows. um per building u number of square feet um as is mentioned in the statement of compliance there for um the total per building um and then I already mentioned the electronic message sign may not be added to a non-conforming sign um the pylon sign so there are three decision criteria for a variance of development standards. The approval of the approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. Um the proposed signs above the roof line um above the entryway to the building um in between the dormers um that are located um directly on top

of the roof. Um the dormers themselves were added after a few about not even a year ago um with the construction project some remodeling that has been happening on the buildings. So the those will the signs will be injurous to the community because they're um not like a lot of the signs along Monroe Street. A lot of the signs along Monroe Street consist of a lot of monument style signs. Um, some a little bit taller that have been allowed um to exceed the height limits by the board of zoning appeals previously. Um the the property is um the proposed roof signs um are not compatible with the existing signage on surrounding properties on Monroe Street within the B1 neighborhood commercial district. Um, the addition of a approximately 15 square foot electronic message center to the existing pylon sign cabinet is not appropriate for the subject property because it is located on a major transportation route in the community and adjacent to residential uses on the south and west sides of the property. The proposed conversion of a portion of the existing pylon sign to an electronic message center is not compatible with the existing signage for surrounding monument signs along Monroe Street. Two, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property will be affected in a substantially adverse manner because the proposed roof signs are not compatible with the existing signage for businesses in the neighborhood commercial district along Monroe Street. Um, and in a lot of the existing uses, um, the monument signs are allowed a an electronic changeable message center component within them, but do not contain any

pylon signs that are already existing. There there are none. There are no electronic message centers within any of the existing pylon signs along Monroe Street, of which there are um like three signs that are or two signs that are pylon signs and they're on this one's on a different property. Um it's on the property immediately adjacent to the subject property um of where this property is located. And three, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance to prohibit the signs above the roof line of the building will not result in practical difficulties because the roof signs will be located on architectural features that were recently added on the roof structures and are not compatible with the existing signage signage for businesses along Monroe Street within the B1 neighborhood commercial district. The addition of the approximately 15 square foot electronic message center to the existing sign cabinet is not appropriate for the subject property because it is located on a major transportation route in the community and adjacent to residential uses on the south side of Monroe Street. Currently, the petitioner does have opportunities to install appropriate advertising on the the um on the wall plane of the building for businesses without the need of the variance request that meets the 2017 city of the port revised joint zoning ordinance. So, staff finds that the requested variance petition does not conform to the goals and policies of the countywide land development plan. The petitioner's request to allow individual tenant sign cabinets to be placed above the roof line and allow conversion of existing non-conforming sign to an electronic message center on the existing pylon sign is not compatible with the existing signages. Signage for businesses along Monroe Street within the V1 neighborhood commercial district. So staff recommends denial of the petitioner's request to allow variance of development standards

petition 26-04. And I'll answer any questions if you have them. So David, are there other other than there are no signs currently like that, are there safety issues with signs that sit on the roof line? It so a lot of the existing like the existing buildings located along Monroe Street all have kind of more of a a co like a coherent appearance to signage. Um, they're not located above the roof where you're having to look in terms of like they're in a place where you see them. They're not just like concealed like how they would want to locate them in between dormers. So yours is more of a aesthetic kind of

kind of thing. There are no safety concerns with roof line signs or not not to my knowledge. So it's more of an aesthetic purpose of continuing that edge. So, it's not particularly a safety issue. It's an aesthetic, community aesthetic in that district. And then one other question about the electronic sign. So, how is his sign his the electronic sign that he wants to have different from all of the electronic signs we've allowed previously like recently Huber

Horizon, Huber, you know, Huber Marina. They're all on major thoraways. They have, you know, houses in that area. Um I know just so I'm in row further down uh Tech Credit Union has an electronic sign. Houses are right across the street. So why is this one different than all of these other electronic signs? the so the one of the main differences so Tech Credit Union and and I kind of mentioned earlier um monument signs are allowed a component and and of which there is a monument sign located on the property um that could allow a a message center conversion to a certain size the 15 square foot um as is right now in the zoning ordinance currently. Um the existing sign would create smaller signs that would probably be more difficult to read um in terms of smaller size because it's chunking up the the sign in terms of individual businesses. Um and so adding the electronic message center within that existing sign cabinet because they're not asking to enlarge it. They're just asking to add it within that and so the signs will be a lot smaller so it could be a little bit harder to read the signs. Um, this is a a pylon sign. A lot of the other signs were wall signs. This is on one single pylon and the other ones are more of like monument signs and wall signs.

What would what would the sign be on H the Huber Marina? Is that a pilot? It's a freestanding Yeah. freestanding pylon. Yep. Okay. Two posts. I mean, I kind of think we're at a point with these electronic signs. They continually come before us and it's just hard to say no to one when we've had other people before um the BCA and we've approved these. So, I mean, I know this is kind of a two-part thing. We've got the roof lines and we've got the um

Vicki, we can approve one and not the other. I mean, that's almost kind of where I'm going. I I I get I get the roof line, the aesthetics of the roof line. Um I like I say, I just have an issue with the electronic sign because we've approved so many that have come before us before. Yeah, that's true. I agree. You can start back up, Peter. Yes. Have you opened the public meeting? I didn't. Sorry. Okay. Y

if I could also just make one other comment about the roof line. Um when I met with the customer on this, the difficulty for us as designers of the sign company was to create uh a tenant space uh for one of the clients because he's technically between the two dormers and there is no it's just gutter and that's that was the reason that we had um designed it to the for the sign to be above the roof line. Um, and that was that was the primary reason for the the one sign. And I think you have that uh should have that in your in your scope for the one sign. Uh, again, if you look at that, you'll see the building has a column at the uh walkway there and then uh there's a doorway and there is a there's no um flat spot there. That would probably be on the built that one right there. Yes. So, right there in the middle dormer, you'll see there's no no place to place a wall-mounted sign there. So, that's that's the only thing I wanted to bring up about that. Thank you.

Would all the other businesses in that section have somewhere for a sign that's not on the roof line? Was that the only one? Yes, that that um that is that is the one that we had proposed. I think that you have on yours. Um, and correct me if I'm wrong, if I'm looking at something different.

I'm I think I see four at least, right? David, are all these photos in the including this one? Yeah. Yeah, there there's more than the one that doesn't have a uh um a section to put a sign. Although it looks like on one of the sheets we have there, it looks like there's Yeah, these almost look different than um what's up there. Correct.

So, there would have to be more than one roof line sign. So, yeah, because there's there's two buildings. And if you'll notice there, uh the sets of dormers have just the glass doors below them, but there is no facade. And I think on one of your other pictures, it showed multiple. Yeah, right there. So, we had uh the signs going between those dormers and that was that was the logistical design that we had to work with trying to create nine individual tenants. I think I'm comfortable with the electronic sign, but not so much with the roof signs.

Yeah, I mean I I agree with the ex with the with the aesthetic. Another question for David. It said that the petitioner has opportunities to install appropriate advertising on the un on the interrupted wall plane. Would that be for all businesses? Did was there did you identify areas for all of those businesses where signs could be added without doing the roof line? Yeah. So the so the building on the north side Mhm.

there is room on that building for wall signs and not having any roof signs. Um, and then there really is only I only see three areas where they wouldn't be able to have a wall sign because it's underneath the the awning.

Yeah. All right. Okay. Yeah. Again, like I said, I I'm okay with with keeping the no signs on the roof line, but then the second part of that, I don't technically agree with the no electronic sign. So, I guess my proposal would be to deny the roof line signs, but approve the electronic messaging board. I'll second that,

Steve. Anything? No, I mean that sounds reasonable and I I totally agree with what Vicki said. I think there have been I say too many occasions where we've um had to talk about electronic signage and it we have to be very careful that it's not one rule for one and one for another. I I have a problem with that. So that's a good point.

Anything? No, I'm with them. Yeah. So that yeah that that was my recommendation to deny the first and approve the second part of that uh use variance. You want to make that motion? I will make Okay. And I second it. Y I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I thank you. Thank you. All right. Then my final question would be for David. Can we have a chance to talk about maybe where we could put those other signs? Yeah, we can talk about the other customers. Okay. Thank you board. Thank you.

Item number seven. Item number seven to exceed maximum accessory building area to requesting 1,56 square feet. Petitioner, step forward, please. This isn't the longest meeting we've had. Right. Uh Kevin Watts, 411 Grove Street. I'm just asking for a variance to build a little bit larger garage than what the city allows. Why is that, sir?

I got too many cars and I u I got se two storage garages that I pay for. So, I just want to get them all home and put lifts in there and just store them at home.

Okay. Thank you. Uh this point I open for public comment. Hearing none, I'll close public comment. David number seven, variance of development standards 26-05 petition is to exceed maximum accessory building area is requesting 15,56. For a second there, I thought I had the number wrong, but um that's correct. 156 square feet. Petitioner proposes to allow construction of a 26 foot by 36 foot detached garage in addition to the existing 10 foot by 12t garden shed on the subject property um hence the request. The property is currently used for a house in a um currently there is a garage on the property um that the petitioner plans um if approved um for this variance to allow construction would be demolished. Um the proposed accessory building size will not be injurous to the public health, safety, morals of general welfare of the community because there are other similar accessory buildings on residential lots in the surrounding area. Um the existing accessory building sizes in the surrounding area range from about 634 ft to um a max of about 1,380 ft on similarsized lots um to the subject property. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner with the construction of a 26 foot by 36 ft detached garage for personal use. Um the proposed detached garage will not negatively impact the use and value of the area adjacent to the property because the accessory building will be used for personal storage and is of a size that is less than the size of the the footprint of the home. Um the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance to

limit the size of the accessory building to 721 square feet on a 0.13 acre residential parcel with a 1,122 ft house will constitute practical difficulty in the use of the property for personal storage. The proposed size for the detached accessory building will be less than the building footprint of the existing house. So staff finds that the proposed accessory building size is comparable to buildings on similar properties in the surrounding area. The proposed building size is less than the size of the existing single family dwelling on the subject property. So staff recommends approval of variance of development standards 26-05 and I'll answer any questions if you have them. Thank you.

Any questions? No. I'll make a motion to approve the variance. Seconded. Motion is second. All in favor? I. Motion passed. Congrats. Um, old business, new business. Other motion to adjurnn. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. I'll second. All in favor? I I motion pass.