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?”

But, what we were wanting again was to have two signs of representation on the building. I mentioned to Monetta about doing the north and the west and they came back and said they thought it would be approached from the south, the south elevation and the west because the building extends out when you are going up Brentwood and customers can see that from the south and if you’re coming, if you’re going through on southbound you can see the one on the west and if you’re going northbound you can see the one that is facing the south elevation. That was our justification, okay so, when it wasn’t moving forward as far as what we were asking for that I felt that they wanted to signs, does it make sense, better sense, and it wasn’t more of the ordinance, it was about how it looked and how it looked on the building. And plus the fact that that sign, no sign was allowed in the ordinance, I believe, if it doesn’t face a street where the south faces the alley I think that’s correct. That’s what I said about the sign on Maryland…it faces the alley.

And plus the fact that that sign, no sign was allowed in the ordinance, I believe, if it doesn’t face a street where the south faces the alley I think that’s correct. That’s what I said about the sign on Maryland…it faces the alley. So, but anyway that’s what came in my mind and I thought then it would make better sense if it architecturally doesn’t look good there….I think it does but if it doesn’t, if that wasn’t going to be a win then why don’t we leave the north face sign as it is, trim the trees back….I know there’s a monument sign there, but if you’re at the corner….”

City Attorney: “Maybe I didn’t make my question clear. What is the error in the decision of the ARB?”

Mr. Brown: “I’m not saying there is an error in the decision of the ARB.”

City Attorney: “Thank you, and the other question was as to whether there is or was a conflict of interest on the part of Mr. Lintz is there any factual information that your client gave you with regard to how they perceive, how they reached that conclusion?”

Mr. Brown: “What I had in the letter is exactly what they told me.”

City Attorney: “They felt it was…it’s a feeling?”

Mr. Brown: “In their opinion, yes.”

City Attorney: “Thank you, that’s all the questions that I have. Thank you very much.”

Mayor Sanger stated that the Board will take this under advisement and will come back with a decision at the next meeting.