MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2011, 6:30 P.M.
MARGUERITE H. BROWN MUNICIPAL CENTER
519 N. GOOSE CREEK BOULEVARD

 

I. Call To Order - Chairperson Sharon Clopton

Ms. Clopton called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
Present: Joel Arenson, Sharon Clopton, Jeri Haga, Racheal King, Tom Risso, and Fred Smith
Absent: Kristen Bowden
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson

II. Review of Minutes - February 21, 2011

Motion: Mr. Risso made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor. Mr. Arenson and Ms. King abstained because of not being in attendance.

III. New Business - Minor Applications

A. Bi Lo - Wall Mounted and Marque Signs

A representative from Hilton Displays presented the application.

Motion: Mr. Risso made the motion to accept the application as submitted, noting that the leaf emblems on the spandrel glass areas had been eliminated. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: Mr. Arenson asked about the significance of the leaf emblem.
Vote: All voted in favor.

B. Bi-Lo - Exterior Painting

Mr. Guy Harrison presented the application for Bi-Lo.

Motion: Mr. Risso made the motion to accept the application as submitted. Mr. Arenson seconded the motion. After discussion, Mr. Risso amended his motion to approve the Latte color for the back of the building and the generator in the event they required repainting. He also stated in the motion that the two leaf emblems illustrated on the glass spandrel were to be eliminated from the application. Mr. Arenson seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was discussion regarding whether the back of the building will also be painted, and it was decided it would be painted only if needed. Mr. Harrison suggested they would use the submitted "Latte" color if they decided to paint the back of the building. Mr. Harrison stated the spandrel glass was to be painted black. Mr. Smith requested they also address repainting the generator that sits behind the building, and Mr. Harrison agreed. There was discussion regarding the fact the project includes only the Bi-Lo store rather than the shopping center as a whole, as the landlord would have to accept the same color scheme, but they have not committed to repainting the rest of the center. There was discussion regarding the Board being able to require the landlord to match the color scheme if the landlord proposes to repaint the center. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained the Board could require that the same scheme be used, and he explained that the Board did not have to approve this application as presented if they prefer to require the entire center be painted. He stated he felt what was being proposed was a big improvement and would be in the best interest of the City to approve the proposal as submitted.

Vote: Five voted in favor; one opposed.

C. Pet Rest Cemetery and Cremation - Accessory Structure (limited site modification)

Mr. Dennis Ashley, the project architect, presented the application. There were questions about the permits required and the compatibility with the location being so close to the residential area. Mr. Ashley explained the intent was to match the colors of the principal structure, but he stated they would be using a hardy board siding that will be painted to match the existing red brick. The roof is designed to be a green standing seam metal roof to compliment the green shingle roof of the primary structure. There will be a garage door. There was brief discussion concerning using different materials from the primary structure, and Mr. Ashley stated they wished to build with more fire resistant materials. Mr. Ashley stated it was designed to provide the look of a detached garage, and the proposed landscaping would screen the building from the neighbors. There were questions concerning the compatibility of the building with the principal structure. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that by virtue of the color scheme Staff felt it met the compatibility requirement within the zoning ordinance. There was also concern expressed regarding emissions, and Mr. Ashley stated there would no environmental issues with any emissions.

Motion: Mr. Risso made the motion to accept the application as submitted. Ms. King seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Arenson asked about required permits. Ms. King asked about the gravel driveway, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he had visited the property and decided because this wasn't a parking area and is a preexisting drive it can remain gravel, though he would have preferred it to be paved.
Vote: Five voted in favor; one opposed.

D. Divine Design Salon - Wall Mounted Sign

Ms. Washington, owner of the salon, presented the application.

Motion: Mr. Risso made the motion to accept the application as submitted. Mr. Arenson seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.

E. Granny's Laundromat - Wall Mounted Sign

Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that the applicant had a family emergency that afternoon, so Staff would present the application.

Motion: Mr. Risso made the motion to accept the application as submitted. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was discussion about the colors not being compatible with the building. Ms. Clopton asked if the Board wished to take the motion off the table, as there was no one present to discuss any options.
Motion: Mr. Risso made the motion to table the application until the following meeting when there was a representative present. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Discussion: Ms. Clopton suggested that whoever represents the application at the next meeting be able to discuss options for colors.
Vote: All voted in favor. The application was tabled until the following month.

F. A Lord Ashley Driving School - Wall Mounted Sign and Tenant Panels

Linda Hoeff of Roberts and Sons Signs represented the applicant.

Motion: Mr. Risso made the motion to accept the application as submitted. Ms. King seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: Five voted in favor; one opposed.

IV. Comments from ARB

Ms. Haga asked about the improvements along Highway 52, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained the project was a part of the downtown improvement plan and gave a brief description of the improvements being made.

Ms. Clopton discussed the problem of refuse areas not being screened, particularly when the applicants state they are not going to have a dumpster area. She asked that the Board be cognizant of that when reviewing plans. There was discussion about whether, if something slips through in their approval that is in violation of an ordinance, the violation could still be addressed and that the Board does not have the authority to approve something that is in violation of the ordinance. There was brief discussion about being able to modify the ordinance to require locations presently grandfathered but in violation of the screening ordinance to comply within a given time period. Mr. Ben-Yisrael suggested this might best be done through the new land use buffer ordinance and its street buffering language and/or tie the enforcement to property reinvestment or improvements.

There was brief discussion regarding the method of determining maximum signage.

V. Comments from Staff

Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that until an easement agreement for the downtown improvement plan for Thomason Blvd. could be finalized with Hardees he was holding off fining Hardees for the roofing approval violation. He stated the discussions for the easement are independent of the enforcement of the nonconforming roof.

VI. Adjournment

Ms. King made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Risso seconded the motion. All voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at or about 7:30 p.m.