MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 18, 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 6:32 p.m.
Present: Joel Arenson, Sharon Clopton, Racheal King, Tom Risso, and Fred Smith
Absent: Kristen Bowden and Jeri Haga
Staff Present: Sarah Hanson

II. Review of Minutes - March 21, 2011

Mr. Arenson asked that the minutes clarify that Mr. Arenson and Ms. King were not present for the March 21 meeting and did not vote on the motion.

Motion: Mr. Arenson made a motion to accept the minutes with the added comments. Mr. Risso seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.

III. New Business - Minor Applications

A. Granny's Laundromat - Wall Mounted Sign

Mr. Amaranto with Atlas Signs presented the application.

There was discussion regarding the Board's wish for a sign that was more compatible with the building other than a backlit cabinet sign. Mr. Amaranto stated they had made changes only to the color scheme.

Motion: Mr. Risso made the motion to accept the application as submitted, option one or option two. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: Ms. King stated she was hoping they would submit something other than a backlit cabinet sign. Ms. Clopton stated they would like to see more creativity but could only review what was presented. Ms. King explained her reservations, stating the Board is trying to upgrade the appearance of the city and its signage. Mr. Amaranto mentioned the landlord was trying to keep the signage consistent for the shopping center.
Vote: Ms. Clopton requested a roll call vote: Mr. Arenson: yes; Ms. Clopton: yes; Ms. King: no; Mr. Risso: yes; Mr. Smith: yes. The motion passed with a vote of 4 in favor and 1 opposed.

B. Pupuseria y Taqueria El Salvador - Wall Mounted Sign and Tenant Panels

Mr. Ostorga presented the application. He stated the business was a restaurant.

Motion: Mr. Risso made a motion to accept the application as submitted. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Arenson questioned if there needed to be something added that explains what type of business it is. There was brief discussion about there being other restaurants with the same situation.
Vote: Ms. Clopton requested a roll call vote: Mr. Arenson: yes; Ms. Clopton: yes; Ms. King: no; Mr. Risso: yes; Mr. Smith: yes. The motion passed with a vote of 4 in favor and one opposed.

C. Edward Jones - Wall Mounted Sign

Mr. Schafstall with Miller Signs presented the application.

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

D. Roper Hospital - Wall Mounted Sign

Mr. Rucker with Nelson Signs presented the application.

Motion: Ms. King made the motion to accept the application as submitted. Mr. Risso seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was a question about the banner that appeared in the photograph. Ms. Hanson explained the zoning ordinance regarding banners. Mr. Arenson asked if there was a freestanding sign for the building and questioned why the signage was necessary. Ms. Clopton stated it was within their allowed signage allowance. Mr. Rucker stated they were trying to clarify the location of an entrance.
Vote: All voted in favor.

IV. New Business - Major Applications

A. Magic Nail Salon - Site and Landscaping Plan, Elevations and Materials

Michael Gregor, project architect, presented the plans. He explained they wished to renovate the existing building as well as add on to the structure. He stated they selected colors and materials to try to unify the project with the center located to its rear, planning to use the same colors as used on the shopping center. He stated that additional landscaping would be added to the site. He explained he was showing both a one story design and a two story design, as they do not yet know if their budget will allow them to build the two story plan; they wished to get approval for either. The materials will be brick with a stucco face above the brick. He explained that access to the second floor would be via an exterior stairway in the rear. There was discussion about the use for the second floor. There was discussion about requiring the parapet to be extended to screen the roof top mechanical units from view as well as the need to provide a screened location for either a dumpster or roll carts, using materials and colors similar to the building. Mr. Gregor stated he would place the refuse area in the back and would fully screen the mechanical units being placed on the roof.

There was discussion about the intended height of the building. Mr. Gregor stated that with a second story this project might be slightly taller than the building behind it.

Motion: Mr. Arenson made a motion to approve the application, contingent upon their submitting drawings within two weeks showing the screening of the mechanical and refuse areas. Mr. Risso seconded the motion.
Discussion: Ms. King questioned if the motion was to approve a one-story building, requiring them to resubmit if they wished to have a second story, and Mr. Arenson answered yes. Ms. Clopton asked what the reasoning was to require the applicant to come back with the same plan in another month. Mr. Arenson responded his motion was for only a one story structure and with the Board not reconsidering for a two story structure. In regard to the decision to not allow a second story, Ms. Hanson explained that the zoning ordinance does allow for a two story structure if the structure is compatible and consistent with the surrounding area and suggested the Board make their decision contingent upon a final zoning determination by Mr. Ben-Yisrael. Ms. King stated in her opinion it was a compatibility question. Mr. Gregor suggested because the ordinance allows for a height of up to 50' it could actually become a legal question. Mr. Risso asked if the motion could be restated, and Mr. Arenson stated the motion is to approve a single story structure with a parapet 360 degrees around the building to screen the mechanical units and that there be a plan prepared and presented in two weeks that shows the refuse location and screening. Mr. Risso stated he thought the motion allowed the option to build a two story structure; therefore, Mr. Risso withdrew his second to the motion. Ms. King then seconded the motion.
Vote: Ms. Clopton requested a roll call vote: Mr. Arenson: yes; Ms. Clopton: no; Ms. King: yes; Mr. Risso: no; Mr. Smith: no. The motion was denied by a vote of 2 in favor, 3 opposed.

Motion: Mr. Risso made a motion to accept the application contingent upon the applicant preparing and submitting a plan showing the screening of the dumpster area and the screening of the mechanical units, allowing a one or two story structure at the discretion of the applicant. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Arenson explained he had a problem with the two story option, as there was no stated purpose for the second story. Ms. Clopton stated that wasn't within the purview of the Board, as this was a decision on aesthetics - compatibility, colors, materials, architectural style, etc. Ms. King stated her concern was that a second story would block the building behind it, and she would hate for the people right behind them to lose their visibility. There was discussion about the height of the buildings behind the project and the visibility factor.
Vote: Ms. Clopton requested a roll call vote: Mr. Arenson: no; Ms. Clopton: yes; Ms. King: no; Mr. Risso: yes; Mr. Smith: yes. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 in favor, 2 opposed.

B. Prolevel Sports- Dennis Park - Elevations and Materials

Mr. Kowalski presented the application. He stated he was building a sports training facility. It will be a 40 x 80 concrete warehouse type building that will look exactly like the smaller buildings now present at Dennis Park. The materials and colors will be the same as used for these existing buildings, per the submitted photographs, and it will be tucked behind the adjacent houses in a wooded area of the property. He requested using a green shingle roof rather than a metal roof and referred to a photograph of the same type roof used by the recreation department at another location. Ms. King asked if there were trees surrounding the project to screen the building from the neighbors, and Mr. Kowalski answered there were pine trees around it. There was brief discussion regarding the site. Mr. Arenson asked about the intended height of the building, and Mr. Kowalski answered it would be approximately 15' tall. Ms. Clopton asked about windows and exterior lighting that will affect the homes nearby. Mr. Kowalski answered there will be a couple of windows in the front of the building but no lighting that would impact the area. Mr. Arenson asked if there were elevations available, and Mr. Kowalski stated he used the photos of the existing buildings. He stated it would look exactly the same, but a larger building. Mr. Kowalski stated there would be a roll up door in the rear for bringing in equipment.

Mr. Arenson asked Ms. Clopton about the process of entertaining an application without requiring the elevations to show windows and a roll up door. There was discussion concerning the necessary submittal materials for review. Mr. Arenson questioned if the Board typically reviewed applications with this type of information, and Ms. Clopton answered that the information provided for the application was typical and actually included some things not necessarily submitted.

Motion: Mr. Smith made a motion to accept the application as submitted, with a shingle roof. Mr. Risso seconded the motion.
Discussion: Ms. King asked that there be additional screening for an adjacent home. Mr. Kowalski stated he was going to have to do significant site cleanup and screening for their purposes and would add some plantings.
Vote: Ms. Clopton requested a roll call vote: Mr. Arenson: yes; Ms. Clopton: yes; Ms. King: yes; Mr. Risso: yes; Mr. Smith: yes. All voted in favor.

V. Comments from ARB

Mr. Arenson asked, in terms of information for submittals, the Board's position in deciding not to approve an application unless they receive the type of information they wish to see. Ms. King agreed that more details need to be available for their review. Mr. Risso agreed as well but stated that Staff reviews the project prior to their review and explains to the applicant what is necessary, so if the Board wishes to make changes in the Board's review they need to let Staff know prior to their conversations with the applicants and prior to the Board's meetings. Mr. Arenson stated he felt the Board had a fiduciary responsibility to the community to have some type of record of what is being reviewed. There was discussion about the process and what is sufficient. Ms. King suggested stating to Staff that the Board may now table future applications if there isn't more submitted to help visually with their review. Mr. Arenson asked that a recommendation be made by the Board that Staff provide a sketch or a drawing at a minimum that clarifies what is being requested so the Board has solid information and knows what they are approving.
VI. Comments from Staff

Ms. Hanson informed the Board that there was a condition that Church of Christ screen their refuse area when their site plans were approved. She explained per earlier questions that the project at Dennis Park was approved in concept as merely an extension of the Dennis Park complex; thus, the application tonight was viewed as merely an additional building to the complex with the same shape, materials, and colors as the existing buildings at the complex. In reference to Ms. King's earlier question regarding the expiration of approvals, Ms. Hanson stated that currently an approval by the Board stands without a time limitation, and it is up to Staff to ensure that the projects are completed per the plans approved by the Board.

VII. Adjournment

Ms. King made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Risso seconded the motion. All voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at or about 7:47 p.m.