MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MARCH 31, 2010, 6:30 P.M.
GOOSE CREEK MUNICIPAL CENTER
519 N. GOOSE CREEK BOULEVARD

I. Call To Order - Chairman Robert Williams

Chairman Robert Williams called the meeting to order at 6:42 p.m.
Present: Butch Clift, Larry Monheit, Kevin Smith, Thomas Volkmar, Robert Williams, and Van Williams
Absent: James Fisk
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson

Pledge of Allegiance

II. Review of Minutes -February 24, 2010

Motion: Mr. Clift made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Mr. Volkmar seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All in favor; none opposed.

III. Public Hearing - Chick-fil-A, Sign Ordinance Variance Request

Mr. Williams read the general oath, and those present took the oath to provide truthful testimony.

Motion: Mr. Clift made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Volkmar seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All in favor.

Mr. Robert Williams asked City Staff to present their documentation and supporting evidence concerning the application. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained the applicant was requesting a variance of the Zoning Ordinance 151.084(D)(2)(e) which states that a business located within a shopping center is not authorized to erect a freestanding sign. He stated the City in 2005 designated the Lowe's property and all subsequent outparcels as a shopping center. The signage for the Chick-fil-A property was approved as a part of the shopping center by the ARB in June 2008. He stated that Staff recommends denial of the application unless the Board finds that the application meets the criteria for a variance as stated in Zoning Ordinance 151.171.

Mr. Robert Williams asked for clarification of the issue. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that the Lowe's shopping center currently has two shopping center signs, and Chick-fil-A currently has two sign panels on these shopping center signs. He stated the applicant wished to add a third freestanding sign.

Mr. Chris Walker, owner of the Chick-fil-A, stated that he wished to install a reader board sign so as to be able to communicate with the community. He introduced the signage he wished to add to the property, as well as alternate designs. He explained his marketing goals and the importance of the reader board to his strategies. He stated his goal is to keep the two shopping center sign panels and add a third sign. He stated if that wasn't possible, he would be willing to remove the panels from the shopping center sign and then build a new freestanding sign. He presented photographs of other properties which were located with shopping centers but which had their own individual signage, suggesting there was no difference in locations and, therefore, should be no difference in signage requirements. He suggested it was not Lowe's intent to have the Chick-fil-A site included as an outparcel to their center, and the shopping center signage requirement was intended for the back right parcel that Lowe's was including as their shopping center outparcel.

There was discussion concerning the purview of the Board in relation to the sign specifics in that the Board could only approve or deny the variance request; any signage specifics would be under the purview of the ARB. There was discussion about the possibility of replacing the panel on the shopping center signs with the requested reader board.

There was discussion about the similarities with other outparcels which are able to have their own freestanding signs. There was also discussion concerning Chick-fil-A having been designated a part of the Lowe's shopping center. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that at the time the City approved signage for Lowe's, the language specifically stated that the property was being developed as a shopping center, and all future outparcels shall have signage placed on the two shopping center signs. Therefore, the City does consider the Chick-fil-A outparcel a part of the Lowe's shopping center, and its signage must then be placed on the two shopping center signs. The Board questioned why this was the case with the Lowe's property but not other shopping center areas. Mr. Walker stated that if need be he would be willing to have just the one freestanding sign and remove the signage from the two shopping center signs.

The Board discussed if allowing a third sign would be setting a precedent.

Mr. Robert Williams asked Staff for their summary of the application. Mr. Ben-Yisrael responded that his summary was limited to the advisory that the Board's decision is limited solely to whether or not to grant the variance to allow the applicant to erect another sign on the property, as that currently is not allowed by the City Ordinances. He advised the Board to look closely at the criteria for allowing variances.

Mr. Robert Williams asked Mr. Walker if he wished to make a summary, and Mr. Walker stated he felt he had made his complete proposal.

During the Board's discussion, Mr. Volkmar stated he didn't feel this was an extraordinary case because of other establishments having their own signage. He felt this was its own outparcel, and, therefore, Chick-fil-A would have to remove their signage off the shopping center sign. There was agreement that there should only be one sign.

Mr. Smith asked Staff how this decision would impact the agreement with Lowe's. Mr. Ben-Yisrael responded it was his understanding that Lowe's controlled all the land surrounding the Center, and it was their desire to be considered a shopping center so to allow them to have the two signs; otherwise, once they parted with the other two properties it would have restricted them to one sign on their property, as the other freestanding sign would be considered an illegal off premise sign. The ARB reviewed the signage application, and they specified in their decision that the Lowe's area, including the two outparcels, would be considered a shopping center. The question was asked if the Board's decision would affect that determination that this is a shopping center, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated it would have no bearing on that determination - it would just determine if the applicant can have an additional sign. Mr. Monheit questioned if this would set a precedent for other shopping center tenants to request additional signage, and Mr. Smith stated he felt it would.

There was discussion about the Board's wish and ability to approve the application with the condition that the sign panels presently on the shopping center sign be removed. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that under Section 790 629 800 regarding the powers of the Board of Appeals, it states that the Board may attach conditions of the proposed structure, building, or use; it does not say the Board can alter a use that is not pending before the Board for review. Conditions can be attached to the new use or new structure. He stated he's not certain the Board can approve the application for an additional sign with the condition that the existing sign be changed. Even if that was the proposal from the applicant, the removal of those existing signs is not enforceable.

There was discussion about the applicant seeking a determination from the City that this parcel is not a part of the shopping center.

The Board discussed the fact that they did not feel comfortable allowing three signs for the location and agreed it was not within their ability to require changes to the existing signs. They discussed the suggestion that Chick-fil-A approach the issue in determining that this is, indeed, a part of the shopping center.

Motion: Mr. Smith made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Monheit seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All in favor.

Motion: Mr. Volkmar made a motion to deny the application for the variance request. Mr. Monheit seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All in favor.

IV. Comments from the Board

There were no comments from the Board members.

V. Comments from Staff

There were none.

VI. Adjournment

Motion: Mr. Clift made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All in favor.

The meeting adjourned at or about 7:43 p.m.