The property owner proposes to replace the existing V-shaped monument sign located near the intersection of Hanley Road and Davis Drive (west side of the sidewalk) with a two sided, 18-square-foot ground sign atop a six- foot tall stone wall base oriented perpendicular to Hanley Road . The sign panel is black aluminum and will contain the name of the church in white, internally illuminated, cut-out letters. A mulched landscape bed is proposed in the area around the sign that includes Boxwood and Variegated Iris plantings. Section 425.060 of the Sign Regulations addresses ground signs as follows:

A ground sign not to exceed twenty-five (25) square feet in area depicting the name of the building or names of not more than five (5) major tenants, each of which occupies a significant portion of the building, may be erected in lieu of any permitted wall sign, provided the ground sign is designed as a compatible and integral part of a landscaped area or plaza and the size, location, design and construction materials are approved by the Architectural Review Board. Historically, signs have been measured by calculating the area around the lettering/graphics (if individually affixed to a building, wall, etc.) or by calculating the size of a sign box surrounding the lettering/graphics. Because this is a corner property, up to twenty-five (25) square feet of signage is allowed per street frontage. The size of the proposed ground sign (eighteen (18) square feet per side) is below the permitted size for ground signs.

Because this is a corner property, up to twenty-five (25) square feet of signage is allowed per street frontage. The size of the proposed ground sign (eighteen (18) square feet per side) is below the permitted size for ground signs. It is proportional to the building and constructed of high quality materials. The proposed stone wall base incorporates architectural elements from the building. A landscaped area is proposed as required. The sign described above, along with a free-standing three-foot stone wall of the same design (proposed for the east side of the sidewalk on private property) were presented to the Architectural Review Board on April 6, 2015. The Architectural Review Board approved the project as requested minus the free-standing three-foot stone wall by a vote of 5 to 2. Pursuant to Section No. 400.230 “Appeals”, an aggrieved party may, within 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. 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. On April 20, 2015, the City received a letter dated April 20, 2015, from Robert Kuehn, Jennifer Jeffrey, Katherine Bauer, Edward Rader and Stewart Goldstein. Of those five property owners, only two own property

Per Section 405.390 (B), “Definitions”, the definition of an Aggrieved Party” reads:

For the purpose of standing to file permitted appeals from decisions made in the course of administration of the City’s land use regulations, is as follows:

1) The applicant; or 2) One who: a) Suffers a demonstrable and material adverse effect from the decision at issue, and b) Is the owner or occupant of property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property as measured from all boundaries of the subject property. A decision of the ARB is only subject to appeal by someone who qualifies as an “aggrieved party.” This rule of standing allows the city to address issues with true stakeholders as opposed to merely interested observers. It prevents abuse of the appeal and review processes, preserves the integrity of the ARB process and the time and resources of the Board and city staff, and avoids the risk that persons with ulterior motives beyond the decision at issue will try to use the process for their own ends.

A decision of the ARB is only subject to appeal by someone who qualifies as an “aggrieved party.” This rule of standing allows the city to address issues with true stakeholders as opposed to merely interested observers. It prevents abuse of the appeal and review processes, preserves the integrity of the ARB process and the time and resources of the Board and city staff, and avoids the risk that persons with ulterior motives beyond the decision at issue will try to use the process for their own ends. The appellants assert that as “nearby property owners” they “have been and continue to be adversely affected by Central’s activities, including but not limited to increased neighborhood parking, traffic and congestion (both from cars at Central’s events and Central’s buses), reduced property values, and threats to their, and their families, safety, comfort, and welfare.” Finally, they assert that the approved sign “would have the effect of, and indeed is designed to, draw the attention of motorists and others on Hanley Road and east Davis Drive to Central’s activities. It is designed to and will have the adverse effect on [appellants] of greater attendance at Central events, resulting in increased parking on neighborhood streets, traffic and congestion, and other non- residential activities in east Davis Place and further deteriorate the residential character of east Davis Place.” They assert the sign is “massive” and “out of character for and would adversely detract from the residential nature of both east Davis Place in the Hanley Road near East Davis Place.