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.

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. The Board of Aldermen may consider the appeal on the record of the prior decision by the Architectural Review Board or may, at its sole discretion, receive additional evidence in such manner as it deems appropriate in light of the circumstances associated with this application for appeal.

The original request from Mr. Brown on behalf of Moneta was for two 24+ sf wall signs, one located on the west façade and one located on the south façade. There is an existing Hoffman sign on the west façade and would represent a maximum of two on that face. During the Architectural Review Board meeting they felt that a wall sign on the south was not appropriate because 1) it is not a street frontage and does not meet the sign code; and 2) the Board felt that it would be an overload of signage in that area of the building. They did not feel that they wanted to approve a sign modification to allow a sign on the south wall. As discussion continued they felt that a 24+ square foot sign is twice what is allowed and recognized that the Hoffman sign is that size and that it would visually look better to have similar sized signage on that wall. The ARB also took into account the existing sign tenant panel on the monument sign located at the northwest corner of the property and decided that a condition of approval to keep the appearance of this building more cohesive with the downtown area would be to limit the repetitive signage for Monetta. They also felt that a 24+ sf sign along with the existing monument sign would already be a sign modification. Ms. Krane clarified that the original request to ARB initially applied to remove the existing north wall sign, but during the meeting Mr.

Ms. Krane clarified that the original request to ARB initially applied to remove the existing north wall sign, but during the meeting Mr. Brown suggested that maybe they would like to keep the north wall sign which is approximately 24 sf as well. The ARB felt that approving two 24sf wall signs, which are double the size allowed, would not be cohesive with the signage in the downtown area. The ARB approved a Monetta sign on the west façade located at the south end of the building, which is the opposite of the existing Hoffman sign, and also with the condition that the existing north façade sign is removed which is what is being appealed. Note: The following was requested to be part of the record. City Attorney O’Keefe (speaking to Mr. Brown): “For clarification the City Code requires that as part of an appeal the appellant identify the error in the decision that the ARB made. You do not claim any error in the decision made and that the decision, contrary to the ordinances, misunderstood relevant facts, misapplied the law, and that you don’t make any such allegations – correct?”

Mr. Brown: “Well?”