architectural review board tuesday, january 17, 2017 · this is to inform you that the...

Architectural Review Board Tuesday, January 17, 2017

6:30 p.m.

City of Goose Creek

Marguerite H. Brown Municipal Center 519 N. Goose Creek Blvd.

Goose Creek, South Carolina

MEMORANDUM

TO: MembersoftheArchitecturalReviewBoardFROM: BrendaMoneer PlanningandZoningSpecialistDATE: January12,2017SUBJECT: NotificationofARBMeetingThisistoinformyouthattheArchitecturalReviewBoard(ARB)willmeetTuesday,January17,2017,6:30p.m.atCityHall.Enclosedpleasefindagendamaterialforthemeeting.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorcomments,pleasedon’thesitatetocontactmeat797‐6220ext.1116.WelookforwardtoseeingyouMondayevening.

Please note this Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City Website prior to meeting.

AMENDED AGENDA CITY OF GOOSE CREEK

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2017 6:30 P.M.

MARGUERITE BROWN MUNICIPAL CENTER CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 519 N. GOOSE CREEK BLVD.

VISION STATEMENT: Goose Creek is a city that has achieved a balance between growth, the environment, and the preservation of its small town character. The city’s primary concern is for the lifelong needs of all its citizens. Goose Creek is a partnership between its government and its people in the determination of the city’s future. MISSION STATEMENT: Objectively guide the evolution of commercial and industrial projects creating a synergy between the business and residential community consistent with the city of Goose Creek’s vision statement. THE PROCEDURE FOR PARTICIPATION WILL BE AS FOLLOWS: Minor applications will be allotted three (3) minutes to present to the Board, major applications will be allotted five (5) minutes to present. Board members will be allowed to ask questions and to discuss merits of the application following the presentations. The question/discussion period by the Board will be limited to five (5) minutes for minor applications and ten (10) minutes for major applications.

AGENDA:

I. CalltoOrder–ChairpersonSharonClopton

II. ReviewofMinutesfromNovember21,2016,andDecember19,2016

III. NewBusiness–MinorApplicationsA. ViperAutoSales–WallMountandWindowSignageB. DogwoodDentistry–FreestandingandWallMountSignC. GooseCreekAntiqueMall–WallMountSign

IV. OldBusiness–MajorApplications

D. Wendy’s–Elevations,SitePlanandLandscapePlan

V. CommentsfromBoardVI. CommentsfromStaff

VII. Adjournment

of 7

MINUTES

CITY OF GOOSE CREEK ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2016 6:30 P.M.

MARGUERITE H. BROWN MUNICIPAL CENTER 519 N. GOOSE CREEK BOULEVARD

I. Call to Order – Vice Chairperson Tom Risso Vice Chairperson Risso called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Present: Joel Arenson, Gary Becker, Lisa Burdick, David Cantrill, Sharon Clopton, Chris Cook, and Tom Risso Staff Present: Sarah Hanson

II. Review of Minutes from October 17, 2016

Motion: Mr. Arenson made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Becker seconded.

Discussion: There was none. Vote: All voted in favor.

III. Old Business – Minor Applications

A. Diamond Heroes – Wall Mount Sign

Mr. Woody Poole, of Fast Signs of North Charleston, presented the wall mounted sign proposal along with color samples for Diamond Heroes. He described the sign consist of channel letters on two raceways with two lit cabinets that would be mounted directly to the wall.

Motion: Mr. Risso made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Burdick seconded.

Discussion: Mr. Arenson inquired about the square footage calculations, and if the logo was the branding or copyrighted. Mr. Poole stated this is the first, and the owner hopes to expand using this logo. Chairperson Clopton inquired to Staff if the sign met the square footage allowance as submitted. Ms. Hanson stated it does meet the square footage requirements as per the ordinance.

Vote: Six voted in favor, one voted against. The motion carried.

of 7

IV. New Business – Minor Applications

B. The Hair Boutique – Wall Mounted Sign The representative from identityGraphics presented the sign to the Board. There was some discussion about the sign colors, cabinet, and if it is lit. The applicant confirmed the sign is lit.

Motion: Mr. Arenson made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Risso seconded.

Discussion: There was none. Vote: All voted in favor

C. Boost Mobile – Wall Mounted Sign

There was no applicant present.

D. Sprint Radio Shack – Wall Mounted Signs Mr. David Pineiro, of Charleston Sign and Banner, presented the sign proposal with color samples to the Board. He explained the sign would be modified to include the words “Sprint Radio Shack” in lieu of “Radio Shack”, consisting of channel letters, and trademark logo’s. Mr. Pineiro stated the signage proposal included the Davenport side, the St. James frontage, and the tenant panel reface. Mr. Arenson inquired about the existing signage on the St. James Avenue side, and if the combination of the “Sprint” and “Radio Shack” was common. Mr. Pineiro stated that it is a nationwide change.

Motion: Mr. Risso made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Arenson seconded.


E. Dr. Stephen Huch – Wall Mounted Sign and Freestanding Sign

Ms. Laurie Teats, of American Artist Signs, presented the sign proposal with color samples to the Board. She mentioned that Dr. Huch’s sign was damaged during Hurricane Matthew. Mr. Arenson inquired if the freestanding sign design has been changed to withstand winds. Ms. Teats stated the 6 x 6 post would be set in concrete footings. There was some discussion in regards to the previous signage installment, and the landscaping.

Motion: Mr. Risso made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook seconded.

of 7


F. We Gotcha Covered Upholstery – Wall Mounted Sign

Mr. Burt Welch, representing Carolina Sign Company, presented the application and color samples to the Board. There was some discussion about the wording “embroidery” as submitted on the application, and the wording “upholstery” as submitted on the artwork. It was determined that the name shall include “upholstery”.


Discussion: Mr. Becker stated concerns about the inconsistency of this sign including a cabinet versus other tenant’s signage with channel letters. It was determined that there are a mixed use of sign types.

Vote: All voted in favor.

G. Big T’s – Wall Mounted Sign and Freestanding Sign Mr. Burt Welch, representing Carolina Sign Company, presented the application and color samples to the Board. Mr. Welch stated they would be removing an LED section at the top of the freestanding sign and replacing it to conform with the ordinance along with removal of the digital pricing. Mr. Welch stated the other sign proposed is a wall mounted sign. Chairperson Clopton inquired what would be placed in lieu of the digital pricing and electronic reader. Mr. Welch stated it would consist of the acrylic panels with a reader board. It was determined the sign would be brought into conformity. Mr. Arenson inquired if the sign structure was the original frame. Ms. Hanson stated they would be using the original posts and have it painted. Mr. Becker inquired if there was landscaping. Staff stated it was in concrete. Mr. Risso inquired if it was the sign located by the dumpster and fencing. Staff confirmed that location.

Motion: Mr. Arenson made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Risso seconded.

Discussion: There was none. Vote: Six voted in favor, one voted against. The motion carried.

V. New Business – Major Applications

H. Optical Impressions – Elevations, Site Plan and Landscape Plan

Mr. Curt Wriggle, of Tidewater Architects, presented the application with color samples to the Board. Chairperson Clopton inquired as to the location for the project. Mr. Wriggle stated it is

of 7

located at 119 St. James Avenue. Mr. Arenson inquired if the Optical Impressions would occupy the entire building, and if this building is existing. Mr. Wriggle stated they would occupy the end unit, while leaving the other spaces available for lease. He also added that there currently is an existing building to be demolished, and this building would be new construction. There was discussion about the location and access to the site. Mr. Becker inquired as to what was located behind the property. Chairperson Clopton stated law offices were located on the property behind this property. Mr. Arenson inquired as to the location of the HVAC unit and the screening. Mr. Wriggle stated it would be located at the rear of the building, and pointed out the location of the units to the Board. He added it would be a brick screening, and presented a brick sample. Chairperson Clopton inquired with Mr. Wriggle if the entire building would be brick. He stated it would have brick with a split face CMU on the bottom. Mr. Arenson asked Staff if signage would be presented at a future date. Staff confirmed it would be submitted separately. There was discussion about the screening of the HVAC, and the view from the street. Chairperson Clopton questioned the lighter colored panels on the elevations. Mr. Wriggle stated that this was to create architectural interest to the façade of the building.

Motion: Mr. Risso made a motion to approve the entire application package as submitted. Mr. Becker seconded.

Discussion: Mr. Cantrill noted the screens need to be rotated 180 degrees, to screen the HVAC units from the street.

Motion: Mr. Risso made a motion to include amending the motion to add rotating the screening for the two back HVAC units to block the view from the street. Mr. Becker seconded the amendment.

Discussion: Mr. Cook inquired about the types of trees to be planted. Ms. Hanson stated the parking lot and street trees would be live oaks, and the other landscaping would consist of Crepe Myrtle’s, Allee Elm’s, Holly’s and Japanese Evergreen Oak’s. Mr. Cook inquired to Staff about the AR designation on the landscape plan. Staff stated those had all been changed to live oaks. There was discussion about the parking lot spaces, landscaping plan and ordinance requirements. There was also some discussion in regards to the materials to be used for the refuse screening to mimic the building materials.


I. Charter Schools USA – Elevations, Site Plan and Landscape Plan

Ms. Hanson presented the concept of the project and introduced Mr. Max Bosso to the Board. Mr. Max Bosso, of Ryan Companies, presented the Elevations, Site Plan and Landscape Plan to the Board. He explained the Charter School is open to the public, first come first serve. Ms. Burdick inquired if the school would be K‐12. Mr. Bosso stated it would consist of K‐8, with a capacity for 1,250 students. He mentioned that Charter Schools USA currently has 81 schools throughout the US, with most of them in the Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana areas. Mr. Bosso stated this is the first school to be proposed in South Carolina, and added that Ryan Companies has previously developed 25 of the 81 schools within those states.

of 7

He mentioned the difference for South Carolina is the building permit is unique because it is not reviewed by the local municipality, adding that the South Carolina Department of Education is responsible for the reviewing and permitting of all the schools within the entire state. Mr. Bosso stated they are currently waiting for the permit from the South Carolina Department of Education, and have submitted all other applications, including a traffic impact to the Department of Transportation. He added that they have submitted storm water, sewer, and right of way permit to Berkeley County; with site, landscape, and water plans to the City. Mr. Bosso stated consultants had completed and submitted the wetlands analysis, endangered species analysis, and soil report to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. He mentioned DHEC is waiting for the Berkeley County letter, and the Coastal Zone letter to issue the permit, adding that Coastal Zone indicated the permit should be coming shortly. Mr. Bosso noted that Berkeley County would be discussing the opening of the main road that connects Henry Brown Boulevard to Montague Plantation Road, with hopes to open it by the end of the month. Mr. Arenson inquired if there was a cost involved to attend the school. Mr. Bosso stated it is free to the students to attend, and explained the operations of the Charter School. Chairperson Clopton requested the material samples. Mr. Bosso presented the elevations and materials to the Board. He stated the exterior would consist of stucco. Mr. Arenson inquired if it would be a masonry stucco, or an artificial stucco. Mr. Bosso stated it would be painted masonry stucco over concrete tilt panel construction. Mr. Arenson inquired if the project was designed to withstand hurricane level winds. Mr. Bosso stated it would be designed accordingly in conjunction with the requirements of the South Carolina Department of Education. Mr. Cook inquired if the façade consisted of all painted stucco. Mr. Bosso stated yes. There was discussion of the lack of depth and architectural interest with the elevations. Mr. Arenson inquired to Mr. Bosso where the HVAC unit is located. Mr. Bosso stated the units are located on the roof. There was discussion in regards to screening the units to meet the ordinance requirements. There was also some discussion about current development and the proposed location for the Charter School. Ms. Burdick inquired about the drop off location. Mr. Bosso pointed out the covered drop off and pick‐up area. There was a detailed discussion about the access road and the impact this development would have on traffic. Staff requested to add information. Ms. Hanson noted the developer is currently working with SCDOT as well Berkeley County, and Seamon Whiteside. She added the plans for the Henry Brown Boulevard connection currently consist of a two‐lane road that will connect with Montague Plantation Road at the round‐a‐bout. She also mentioned the original plan and the current design to keep the round‐a‐bout with the connection.


Discussion: Mr. Cook expressed concerns with the design of the elevations lacking depth to the façade of the building. There was a discussion on the architectural elements of the elevation.

of 7

Vote: Chairperson Clopton requested a roll call vote. Joel Arenson‐No, Gary Becker‐No, Lisa Burdick‐No, David Cantrill‐No, Sharon Clopton‐No, Chris Cook‐No, and Tom Risso‐No. The motion did not pass.

Discussion: Mr. Bosso inquired what the Board suggested for the modifications. The Board requested to modify the long façade and change in materials to add depth to break up the long expansion of the walls to add architectural interest to the elevations.

Continuation of IV – New Business – Minor Applications – C)Boost Mobile – Wall Mounted Sign Chairperson Clopton inquired if Staff could present the application for the Boost Mobile signage. Staff presented the application to the Board.

Motion: Mr. Risso made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Becker

seconded. Discussion: There was none. Vote: All voted in favor.

VI. Reorganization of Board – Election of Chairperson & Vice Chairperson for Calendar Year 2017

The floor was opened for the nomination of Chairperson.

Motion: Mr. Risso nominated Sharon Clopton for the position of Chairperson. Mr. Cantrill seconded.

Discussion: Chairperson Clopton inquired if there were any other nominations. There were none. Chairperson Clopton accepted the nomination.


The floor was opened for Vice Chairperson. Motion: Mr. Arenson nominated Tom Risso for the position of Vice Chairperson. Mr.

Cantrill seconded. Discussion: Chairperson Clopton inquired if there were any other nominations. There

were none. Mr. Risso accepted the nomination. Vote: All voted in favor.

VII. Approval of ARB Calendar 2017 Chairperson Clopton opened the discussion for approval of the 2017 Architectural Review Board meetings.

of 7

Motion: Mr. Cantrill made a motion to approve the calendar as submitted. Ms. Risso

seconded. Discussion: There was none. Vote: All voted in favor.

VIII. Comments from the Board

Mr. Cantrill inquired about the dental signage as proposed. Staff stated the freestanding sign met the ordinance criteria. Mr. Cantrill inquired about the signage for Big T’s, and the internal LED versus external LED. Staff stated internal LED bulbs are the typical type bulbs used with signage. Ms. Hanson also detailed the zoning ordinance language for scrolling LED signage. Chairperson Clopton mentioned to Board members that would need to state if they would like to request to be reappointed. Mr. Arenson, Mr. Becker, Ms. Burdick, and Chairperson Clopton all requested to be reappointed. There was discussion about the Big T’s signage being installed in concrete without landscaping. There was also some discussion about the new projects proposed within the City.

IX. Comments from Staff Ms. Hanson stated Staff would address the concerns of base landscaping with Big T’s. Staff thanked the Board for their input with the proposed projects. Ms. Hanson reminded the Board of the upcoming meeting scheduled for December 21, 2016. Staff also mentioned the Planning Commission would be holding a public hearing December 6th to amend the Zoning Ordinance to require that ARB approvals expire after one year.

X. Adjournment Mr. Arenson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Cantrill seconded the motion. All voted in favor. ________________________________________ Date_____________________________

Sharon Clopton, Chairperson

of 4

MINUTES

CITY OF GOOSE CREEK ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2016 6:30 P.M.

MARGUERITE H. BROWN MUNICIPAL CENTER 519 N. GOOSE CREEK BOULEVARD

I. Call to Order – Chairperson, Sharon Clopton Vice Chairperson Risso called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Present: Joel Arenson, Gary Becker, Lisa Burdick, Sharon Clopton, Chris Cook, and Tom Risso Absent: David Cantrill, Staff Present: Sarah Hanson

II. Review of Minutes from November 21, 2016 Minutes were not complete. It was determined the minutes would be reviewed at a future meeting.

III. New Business – Minor Applications

A. Mami and Me – Freestanding Sign Mr. Hugh Welch, of Carolina Signs, presented the application with Color samples to the Board. He explained the proposal included two new acrylic panels within the existing pylon sign, for the two tenants. Ms. Burdick inquired about the legibility of the “Mami and Me” signage as proposed. Mr. Welch stated the section available was approximately 3’x3’. There was discussion about the two types of businesses at that location. Mr. Risso inquired about if there was any plan for planter boxes at the base of the sign. Mr. Welch stated he would be happy to mention it to the tenants, as it is currently solid concrete. Chairperson Clopton inquired about the current condition of the sign cabinet, and if the pole and cabinet needed painted. Mr. Welch stated it is in good working condition, and he did not think that the cabinet or pole needed painted. There was a brief discussion in regards to the details of the logo for “Mami and Me”.

Motion: Mr. Risso made a motion to approve the application as submitted, with the addition of base landscaping in the form of a planter box containing evergreen plantings. Mr. Becker seconded.


of 4

B. Mt. Holly Veterinary Clinic – Signage Mr. Hugh Welch, of Carolina Signs, presented the application and color samples to the Board. He stated the pylon signage would use the existing sign and cabinet, with new panels installed. There was discussion about the location, lighting of, and proximity of the proposed wall mounted sign, and the pylon sign. There was a brief discussion about the base of the sign, and suggestion of base landscaping. Chairperson Clopton asked Staff for input. Ms. Hanson stated Staff would prefer the wall mounted sign be centered on the side of the building, and did not have a problem with both signs being lit.

Motion: Mr. Risso made a motion to approve the application as submitted, with the wall mounted signage centered between the side door and the front corner of the building, and that there be base landscaping provided around the base of the freestanding sign in the form of a planter box with evergreen plantings. Mr. Cook seconded.

Discussion: Mr. Arenson inquired about the location of the wall mounted sign being too close to the pylon sign.

Motion: Mr. Risso amended the motion to have the wall mounted sign moved as close to the door as possible and lowered a little bit on the side elevation. Mr. Cook seconded.

Discussion: Mr. Arenson inquired if the signage met the ordinance criteria in regards to square footage calculations. Staff confirmed it does. Mr. Becker suggested the sign company relay the concerns to the tenant.


IV. Old Business – Major Applications

C. Charter Schools USA – Elevations, Site Plan and Landscape Plan

Mr. Max Bosso, of Ryan Companies, addressed the Board with the changes as suggested by the ARB at the previous meeting. He pointed out key concerns the Board had with the lack of architectural interest and the new outline of the perimeter of the building. Mr. Bosso stated the changes included color changes, roof areas at all exit doors, awnings at windows on the South and West sides, and 1 foot staggered panels every 20 to 30 feet. He presented photographs of examples of the panels to illustrate the offset as proposed. Mr. Arenson inquired about the depth of the offset. Mr. Bosso stated it would be approximately 1’, and presented a rendering to the Board that was recently created. Mr. Arenson inquired to Staff for an opinion in regards to the offset. Ms. Hanson stated that the 1’ does meet the ordinance, along with the staggering of the panels. Mr. Becker inquired to Mr. Bosso about the roof design as shown in the photo. Mr. Bosso stated that design would not be used for this particular school. Mr. Cook requested clarification for the correct elevation as included in the packet. Mr. Bosso pointed out the latest design for submittal with the requested modifications. There was some discussion about the elevations with offsets and those without.

of 4

Motion: Mr. Arenson made a motion to approve the revised application as submitted. Mr. Risso seconded.

Discussion: Mr. Cook inquired if the landscaping package was the same as previously submitted. Staff confirmed it is.


V. New Business – Major Applications

D. Starfish – Elevations, Site Plan and Landscape Plan

There was discussion in regards to the number of entry and exit points to the location. The landscape architect outlined the landscape plan as submitted. The applicant presented the sample materials to the Board. There was some discussion in regards to the material for the canopy, windows, and parapet. There was discussion about the skyrocket junipers location. The landscape architect pointed out the location. Mr. Arenson inquired about the patio, and refuse location. The applicant stated the patio is proposed at the back of the building, and the dumpster is proposed at the northeast corner of the property. There was discussion about the location and materials of the dumpster to be of like materials of the building. Ms. Hanson added Staff would ensure the materials are like the building and the area is heavily landscaped. Ms. Burdick inquired about the drive‐thru order location. The applicant noted the location it would be on the back side of the building close to the curved area.

Motion: Mr. Risso made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the stipulation that the dumpster enclosure is constructed with brick material that matches the building with heavy landscaping. Mr. Arenson seconded.

Discussion: Mr. Cook inquired to Staff if the signage application could include information on the order board and decorative fence location. Mr. Becker inquired about the timeline. The applicant stated fall of 2017.


VI. Comments from the Board There was discussion about the paraphet at the Dairy Queen, and the roof top unit.

VII. Comments from Staff Ms. Hanson mentioned upcoming training, and her retirement.

of 4

VIII. Adjournment

Mr. Becker made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Arenson seconded the motion. All voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at or about 7:27pm. ________________________________________ Date_____________________________

Sharon Clopton, Chairperson

ARB MEETING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2017 BUSINESS NAME: VIPER AUTO SALE LOCATION: 103 AUTO SUPPLY DR. NUMBER & TYPE OF SIGNS APPLYING FOR: 2 WALL MOUNT NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS: 2 WALL MOUNTED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA: 80 SF WALL MOUNT (APPLICABLE TO SIGN FACE)

GENERAL INFORMATION:

SIGN SIGN 1 SIGN 2 SIGN 3 SIGN 4 SIGN 5

TYPE (W= WALL-MOUNTED/F=FREESTANDING) W W

Window vinyls - 4

HEIGHT 4’ 1.2’ 28”

WIDTH 10’ 5.3’ 70”

AREA 40 SF 6.4 SF See attached

COLOR Red/White Red/White See attached

MATERIALS Polycarbonate Pan

Face Polycarbonate Pan Face Vinyl

SIZE OF GRAPHIC n/a n/a See attached

IS IT ILLUMINATED? Yes Yes n/a

ONLY APPLICABLE TO WALL-MOUNTED SIGNS:

REFERENCE SIGN # (FROM ABOVE) SIGN 1 SIGN 2 SIGN 3 SIGN 4 SIGN 5 FRONT LINEAR FRONTAGE OF

BUSINESS 80’ 80’ DISTANCE FROM BUSINESS TO

PROPERTY LINE < 100’ < 100’ TOTAL NUMBER OF LETTERING

STYLES 2 2 SPACE BETWEEN LETTERS (FOR CHANNEL LETTERS) See attached See attached SPACE BETWEEN WORDS (FOR CHANNEL LETTERS) See attached See attached

HEIGHT OF LETTERS See attached See attached

PROJECTION FROM WALL ONLY APPLICABLE TO FREESTANDING SIGNS:

REFERENCE SIGN # (FROM ABOVE) SIGN 1 SIGN 2 SIGN 3 SIGN 4 SIGN 5

DISTANCE FROM STREET CURB

HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE

BASE LANDSCAPING LANDLORD APPROVAL LETTER RECEIVED YES NO N/A PERMIT PAID YES NO N/A SAMPLE MATERIALS ATTACHED YES NO N/A

CITY OF GOOSE CREEK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 519 N. GOOSE CREEK BOULEVARD GOOSE CREEK, SC 29445 (843) 797-6220 WWW.CITOFGOOSECREEK.COM

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD SIGN FORM

ARB MEETING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2017 BUSINESS NAME: DOGWOOD DENTISTRY LOCATION: 130 ST. JAMES AVE. NUMBER & TYPE OF SIGNS APPLYING FOR: 1 WALL MOUNT, 1 FREESTANDING NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS: 2 WALL MOUNTED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA: 50 SF WALL MOUNT (APPLICABLE TO SIGN FACE)



TYPE (W= WALL-MOUNTED/F=FREESTANDING) W F

HEIGHT 2.75’ 4’

WIDTH 12.7’ 5’

AREA 35 SF 20 SF

COLOR Blue Blue

MATERIALS HDU Vinyl on Acrylic

SIZE OF GRAPHIC 33”x34.6” See Attached

IS IT ILLUMINATED? Interior LED Interior LED



BUSINESS 50’ DISTANCE FROM BUSINESS TO

PROPERTY LINE < 100’ TOTAL NUMBER OF LETTERING

STYLES 1 SPACE BETWEEN LETTERS (FOR CHANNEL LETTERS) See attached SPACE BETWEEN WORDS (FOR CHANNEL LETTERS) See attached

HEIGHT OF LETTERS See attached

PROJECTION FROM WALL 1” ONLY APPLICABLE TO FREESTANDING SIGNS:


DISTANCE FROM STREET CURB 10’

HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE 12’

BASE LANDSCAPING Existing shrubs LANDLORD APPROVAL LETTER RECEIVED YES NO N/A PERMIT PAID YES NO N/A SAMPLE MATERIALS ATTACHED YES NO N/A



ARB MEETING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2017 BUSINESS NAME: GOOSE CREEK ANTIQUE MALL LOCATION: 98 DAVENPORT STREET, UNIT 1 NUMBER & TYPE OF SIGNS APPLYING FOR: 1 WALL MOUNTED SIGN NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS: 3 WALL MOUNTED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA: 123 SF WALL MOUNTED (APPLICABLE TO SIGN FACE)



TYPE (W= WALL-MOUNTED/F=FREESTANDING) W

HEIGHT 3.83’

WIDTH 11.79’

AREA 45.20’ SF

COLOR red/black/white

MATERIALS Acrylic

SIZE OF GRAPHIC N/A

IS IT ILLUMINATED? Interior



BUSINESS 82’ DISTANCE FROM BUSINESS TO

PROPERTY LINE 280’ TOTAL NUMBER OF LETTERING

STYLES 1 SPACE BETWEEN LETTERS (FOR CHANNEL LETTERS) N/A SPACE BETWEEN WORDS (FOR CHANNEL LETTERS) N/A

HEIGHT OF LETTERS N/A

PROJECTION FROM WALL 8” ONLY APPLICABLE TO FREESTANDING SIGNS:


DISTANCE FROM STREET CURB

HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE

BASE LANDSCAPING LANDLORD APPROVAL LETTER RECEIVED YES NO N/A PERMIT PAID YES NO N/A SAMPLE MATERIALS ATTACHED YES NO N/A



architectural review board tuesday, january 17, 2017 · this is to inform you that the...

Documents