Citation in context
October 23, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
10-23-18 BOA Minutes October 23, 2018 Page 4 of 8
Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition
REGARDING TWO EXTERIOR BUILDING SIGNS AT 100 SOUTH BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD
City Manager Owens reported that this is a request for a motion regarding the appeal of the Architectural Review Board’s decision to deny part of an application submitted by Shannon Brown of Designery on the behalf of Moneta. The original request submitted by the applicant to the Architectural Review Board proposed the installation of two 24.69 square foot Moneta wall signs and the removal of the north elevation Moneta Group sign. One sign was proposed on the west elevation and one sign was proposed on the south elevation. The signs were proposed above the first-floor windows and bracket-mounted to the brick façade. The City’s sign code states: “Ground floor office tenants with a substantial glass wall or window area and street frontage may erect a wall sign 12 square feet in area, but not more than 2 such signs shall be permitted for each building frontage.” The Sign Code also states that wall signs should be installed on street frontages. A sign modification, granted by the Architectural Review Board, would be required to install a sign of the proposed size on the west elevation. A sign modification would also be required to install a sign of the proposed size and in the proposed location on the south elevation.
We are confident Commerce Bank can fulfill the City’s needs and in addition, Commerce Bank is a good community partner. The City’s pension plans also currently use Commerce Trust for pension administrative services, custodial services and fixed income investments. The proposal is for services for a three-year period, with an option to renew for two (2) additional one-year periods at the City’s choice. Janet Watson, Director of Finance, addressed the Board to answer questions. Motion was made by Alderman Winings to approve Resolution No. 18-20, to authorize the execution of a banking agreement with Commerce Bank. Alderman Boulton seconded. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote. A RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER DECLARING THE INTENT TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM BOND PROCEEDS FOR EXPENDITURES IN RELATION TO THE RENOVATION OF THE CENTER OF CLAYTON RECREATIONAL FACILITY
City Manager Owens reported that the City plans to issue bonds to fund the City’s portion of the renovations to the Center of Clayton recreational facility. The City will be expending funds soon on items which have a significant delivery period and pre-construction items and the City would like to be reimbursed for those costs. The attached ordinance will allow the City to be reimbursed for costs incurred prior to the bond issuance once bond proceeds are received. Motion made by Alderman Winings to approve Resolution No. 18-21, declaring the intent to reimburse the City of Clayton from Bond proceeds for expenditures in relation to the renovation of The Center of Clayton Recreational Facility. Seconded by Alderman Boulton. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Seconded by Alderman Boulton. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote. MOTION - APPEAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD’S DECISION
A sign modification, granted by the Architectural Review Board, would be required to install a sign of the proposed size on the west elevation. A sign modification would also be required to install a sign of the proposed size and in the proposed location on the south elevation. In an email sent to staff prior to the Architectural Review Board meeting, the applicant Shannon Brown, clarified that the request was to install the proposed west and south elevation signs and remove the existing north elevation sign. At the Architectural Review Board meeting, Mr. Brown made a presentation of the signage request and provided reasoning including that the existing north elevation sign is not visible to northbound traffic and has limited visibility to southbound traffic due to existing trees. Mr. Brown stated that the proposed west and south elevation signs would provide the desired exposure to traffic along Brentwood Boulevard and that the existing monument sign would remain. On September 17, 2018, the Architectural Review Board voted 6 – 0 to deny the south elevation Moneta sign while approving the west elevation sign under the condition that the north facing elevation Moneta Group sign is removed. Reasoning provided by the Architectural Review Board members for their decision included a desire to follow the Code and keep signage on street frontages, to prevent a corner of the building from being overloaded with signage and a desire to keep repetitive signage on buildings to a minimum – citing the existing monument sign to remain.
On September 17, 2018, the Architectural Review Board voted 6 – 0 to deny the south elevation Moneta sign while approving the west elevation sign under the condition that the north facing elevation Moneta Group sign is removed. Reasoning provided by the Architectural Review Board members for their decision included a desire to follow the Code and keep signage on street frontages, to prevent a corner of the building from being overloaded with signage and a desire to keep repetitive signage on buildings to a minimum – citing the existing monument sign to remain. On September 25, 2018, the City received a letter dated September 25, 2018, from Shannon Brown appealing the decision denying to the north elevation sign. The applicant is appealing the Architectural Review Board decision on the grounds of a conflict of interest for a voting member. In the letter of appeal, the applicant has requested that a north elevation wall sign is allowed in addition to the west elevation sign. The applicant is appealing the condition of approval, not the denial of the south elevation wall sign. Pursuant to Section 400.230 “Appeals”, an aggrieved party may, within fifteen (15) days of the decision for which redress is sought, file with the Board of Aldermen a written request for reconsideration and appeal of any decision of the Architectural Review Board under this Article. The written request must set forth in a concise manner the decision being appealed and all grounds known to the appellant as to wherein and why the decision is allegedly in error.