Citation in context
July 14, 2015 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
Their appeal does not articulate any such particularized effect. Their generalized and conclusory statements do not support a finding of aggrieved party status. If the appeal is entertained, the Board may approve, modify or disapprove the sign application at issue based on the Board’s assessment of the facts and governing ordinances. Bob Kuehn, resident of 7752 Davis Drive, attorney representing Ms. Bauer and Mr. Goldstein, addressed the Board with a PowerPoint presentation (attached). Mr. Kuehn stated that the approved signage was not compatible with the image of Clayton and feels that the size of the signage including the monument base violates the City’s sign ordinance. He said that the Planning Department and ARB took a narrow view of its requirements and does not have the authority to rewrite the ordinance and authorize the sign to exceed 25 square feet. He brought up the issue of the “rules of standing” and felt that the Board was making an effort to hear the “right” person instead of “merely observers”. Alderman Garnholz moved that the Board proceed to consider the appeal and allow appellants and the representatives of Central Presbyterian Church to present evidence regarding their positions as to the sign permit in question. Alderman Winings seconded. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote. Mr. Kuehn continued with his presentation showing the Board examples of other signage throughout the City. He pointed out that the much larger 25 square foot sign will bring more people or members to their streets.
Approval of the proposed monument also would have the adverse effect of undermining compliance with zoning regulations, including restrictions on the size and nature of signs, by other activities along portions of Hanley Road and Clayton Road that border East Davis Place, further deteriorating its residential character.”
The appeal goes on to identify the alleged errors in the decision by the ARB. The appeal challenges the sign’s size, design and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The only effort to identify any particular “material adverse effect” associated with the sign at issue is the unsupported and conclusory statement that by reason of a different sign, the church will enjoy greater attendance and that this attendance will result in increased parking on neighborhood streets and traffic congestion, and that this increased membership and traffic will “deteriorate the residential character” of the neighborhood in general. None of these assertions identifies a material effect experienced by these appellants and demonstrably resulting from the installation of the permitted sign on Hanley Road. Recommendation is to consider whether the appellants’ written request for an appeal of the Plan Architectural Review Board’s decision complies with the requirements of Sec’s 400.230 and 400.230(B)(2). If so, the Board may decide whether to consider the appeal on the record of the prior decision by the Architectural Review Board,
07-14-15 BOA Minutes July 14, 2015 Page 5 of 6
or may at its sole discretion, receive additional evidence in such manner as it deems appropriate in light of the circumstances. The requirement that ARB appeal processes be made available only to people with adequate standing to have a real stake in the matter was enacted in response to appeals which the Board perceived as frivolous or ill- motivated. The requirement serves important policy objectives. Prior appellants have been held to establish standing as a prerequisite to consideration of their appeals. In fact, on the last two ARB appeals concerning architectural elements of proposed homes, the Board was careful to make specific findings that the appellants in those cases had demonstrated “aggrieved party” status. Staff believes the policy goals behind the requirement for “aggrieved party” standing are best served if all appellants are held to an obligation to demonstrate in their statement of appeal that they have the requisite standing to entitle their appeal to consideration. It is the opinion of staff that the appellants’ appeal documents have not demonstrated that they are reasonably likely to risk demonstrable and material adverse effect by reason of a decision allowing the church to erect a sign on a collector road on the opposite side of the church’s property from the appellants’ homes. Their appeal does not articulate any such particularized effect. Their generalized and conclusory statements do not support a finding of aggrieved party status.
Kuehn continued with his presentation showing the Board examples of other signage throughout the City. He pointed out that the much larger 25 square foot sign will bring more people or members to their streets. He is urging the Board to accept the appeal and withdraw the Plan Commission/ARB decision. Tim Page, Executive Administrator, Central Presbyterian Church, and Tom Avery, Attorney representative, addressed the Board presenting a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation reflected a change in the signage. (attached)
In response to the Board’s questions, Mr. Page explained that the new design reflects a reduction of three to four feet in size; the signage will only carry the name and not list the current events and attractions. The signage is replacing the current outdated sign to which he believes the old sign is almost the same size as the new signage. Alderman Garnholz moved that the Board approve a modification to the sign permit application. Alderman Winings seconded. The motion passed on a voice vote of 6-ayes; 1 – nay (Alderman Boulton).
07-14-15 BOA Minutes July 14, 2015 Page 6 of 6
Other
Alderman Garnholz reported that the St. Louis County Municipal League will be expecting to select a new executive director at its July 16 meeting.
Alderman Garnholz reported on the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting: