Historic Review Board
Regular MeetingFort Mill, SC · November 13, 2018
Minutes
MINUTES
TOWN OF FORT MILL
HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD
November 13th, 2018
Council Chambers – 112 Confederate Street
4:30 PM
Present: Chairman Louis Roman, Carolyn Blair, David Booth, Michael Hirsch, Leann Morse, Senior
Planner Alex Moore
Absent: Chip Heemsoth, Melissa White
Guests: Phil Lewis
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Roman called the meeting to order at 4:31 PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Morse made a motion to approve the minutes from September 11th, 2018 meeting as presented. Ms. Blair
seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness – 130 Tom Hall Street
Senior Planner Alex Moore introduced the request, the purpose of which was to approve an application for
a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to place two, 15’ diameter SunBlox umbrella canopies above an
existing playground. This playground is used in association with the St. John’s UMC Weekday Early
Education program (W.E.E. School).
Senior Planner Moore noted that the design guidelines that would apply in this instance are those for
historic, civic, office, industrial, institutional, and religious buildings. Additions within this context should
preserve the key character-defining features that are important in defining the traditional setting of the
historic property. Senior Planner Moore stated that an existing shade canopy was in place over the current
playground and that the proposed umbrellas would augment this structure.
Senior Planner Moore noted that staff had taken into consideration the setting and functionality of the
current configuration of the playground. He stated that acceptable assimilation would be achieved with the
incorporation of the proposed umbrellas into this setting. Moreover, he noted that staff recommended that
the HRB grant approval of the COA for the two umbrellas.
Mr. Phil Lewis was at the meeting representing St. John’s UMC. He provided a general overview of the
project. Mr. Lewis stated that the umbrellas were needed so that heat reflecting from the rubberized play-
surface might be mitigated. This reflective heat causes the playground equipment to become uncomfortable
for children to play on.
Board members had some general questions for Mr. Lewis regarding the proposed umbrellas. Inquiries
were principally focused on the color and materials of the umbrellas. Mr. Lewis noted that the structures
would include footings, posts, and umbrellas. The posts would be red, and the umbrellas would be a shade
of blue which would match as closely as possible the color of the existing canopy.
Ms. Blair stated that, considering the information provided by Mr. Lewis, the addition of these umbrellas
to the playground is a necessity to the operation of the preschool.
There being no other comments, Chairman Roman entertained that there be a motion. Ms. Blair made a
motion that the Board approve the COA application as submitted by St. John’s UMC. Ms. Morse seconded
the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
2. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness – 123 N. White Street
Senior Planner Alex Moore introduced the request, the purpose of which was to approve an application for
a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to change out copy on an existing monument sign structure at 123
N. White Street. The signage proposal is a result of a business name change from the existing UC Synergetic
to PIKE Engineering. Moore noted that the proposed sign would be internally illuminated and that all
aspects of the new copy area would conform with the Town of Fort Mill Zoning Ordinance.
Senior Planner Moore stated that staff recommended HRB grant approval for the COA application for the
new signage copy.
Chairman Roman noted that UC Synergetic has been a great neighbor in assisting local organization and
that he looked forward to the same from PIKE Engineering. Chairman Roman then asked if any HRB
members had questions about the signage proposal.
There being no questions, Chairman Roman entertained a motion. Ms. Morse made a motion that the
application for the COA be granted with the notation that the sign will be illuminated. Ms. Blair seconded
the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
3. Preliminary Review/Discussion for a Monument Sign at 303 Tom Hall Street
Senior Planner Alex Moore introduced the third item for discussion, which included discussion on a
possible monument sign to be located at 303 Tom Hall Street. This monument sign would be on the Unity
Presbyterian Church property, and immediately adjacent to the Tom Hall Street right-of-way.
Jacob Saylor of Unity Presbyterian Church was in attendance to go over the specifics of what the
congregation might propose at this location. Mr. Saylor noted that the church had, somewhat recently, taken
down a row of large, old, rather unhealthy trees on their property and adjacent to Tom Hall Street.
Subsequently, the church leadership had a desire to come up with a landscape and sign feature to be placed
within the space that remains in absence of the previous tree-scape.
Mr. Saylor directed the HRB members to a concept drawing which included the main monument sign,
ingress/egress piers, and a site-landscaping plan. He continued his presentation with a description of each
of the plan components. Mr. Saylor requested that HRB members provide feedback and opinions on the
plan so that he may take them back to the church committee.
Chairman Roman noted his appreciation to Mr. Saylor for putting together the informational plan for the
HRB to review. He asked Mr. Saylor if the church had yet chosen the desired tree species to be placed
within the newly designed landscape area. Mr. Saylor stated that at this point everything was preliminary,
but that it was the desire of the committee to choose trees that would be appropriate to site conditions and
native to this area.
Ms. Morse noted that it would be important that the trees do not impede the vision of drivers accessing Tom
Hall Street. Mr. Saylor concurred, and stated that the church would ensure that safe ingress/egress would
be paramount with the design.
Senior Planner Moore noted to Mr. Saylor that the maximum signage copy area would be 40% of the face
of the monument structure.
Mr. Saylor stated that the sign would not be internally illuminated, but that there would be external lighting
for the sign.
Ms. Morse asked if the sign would be two-sided. Mr. Saylor replied that it would be. He further elaborated
upon the plan and noted that the signage would align with where a former sidewalk connected the church
to the sidewalk along Tom Hall Street. Mr. Saylor then expanded to note that the current on-site traffic
pattern would be maintained with the addition of two, ingress/egress piers.
Mr. Booth felt that this traffic pattern might in fact prove to be problematic due to an insufficient ingress
vehicle staging area. Ms. Blair noted that most congregants instead access the church property from Morrow
Bradford and thus the lack of supposed vehicle staging was not an issue.
Mr. Booth asked Mr. Saylor about the envisioned time-frame of the project, including installation of
utilities, ground-work, signage, and landscaping. Mr. Saylor said he hoped the monument sign,
ingress/egress piers, and some of the landscaping could be accomplished in six to nine months once the
congregation agreed to move forward.
Chairman Roman asked if there were any other comments from the HRB members. Mr. Booth noted several
points including the height of the sign in comparison to the pedestrian scale of the adjacent sidewalk, the
phasing of the landscaping materials within the project timeline, and the types of landscaping materials to
be incorporated into the design.
Senior Planner Moore asked Mr. Saylor what species that the felled trees on the site consisted of. Mr. Saylor
answered that the trees consisted of both pine and hardwood.
Mr. Booth asked Mr. Saylor if the church had verified that there would not be a future widening of Tom
Hall Street by SCDOT which would adversely affect their finished project at some point. Mr. Saylor stated
that they were not aware of any planned road widening at this location.
Mr. Saylor noted that he felt that his proposal was “in the ballpark” of what the HRB desired. Chairman
Roman interjected that he liked what Mr. Saylor had put together. Chairman Roman reiterated that it was
the board’s desire that canopy trees ultimately be placed into this project to account for those trees that had
to be take down previously, and that it would be his desire that in the initial phase with the signage that
some landscaping be done to improve the streetscape. Ms. Blair stated that this might include the
landscaping immediately around the monument sign and that canopy trees may be added later.
Mr. Saylor stated that this was the type of feedback he was looking for from the HRB so that the project
might move forward with further planning on the church’s part. Chairman Roman thanked Mr. Saylor for
presenting the information and this portion of the meeting concluded.
4. Review/Discussion of Color Palette for the Fort Mill Historic District
Senior Planner Alex Moore introduced the discussion on a potential historic district color palette and noted
that staff had determined it would be best if only commercial projects have the potential for administrative
review. All residential painting projects within the historic district would be required to come before the
HRB with no opportunity for administrative approval.
Senior Planner Moore also provided an example from the City of Marietta, Georgia historic district
regulations indicating colors for Victorian-era architecture allowed to be approved administratively within
that respective jurisdiction. HRB members essentially did not like the specific colors provided in this
instance. Ms. Blair noted that the colors seemed more appropriate as trim rather than primary colors. Ms.
Morse stated that there needed to be more options for brick colors, for example, and more choice in general.
Mr. Booth had some concern that the process was drifting somewhat. Thus, he suggested that more options
be provided.
Ms. Blair interjected that it in looking at administrative options for color approval, it was the HRB’s
intention to give staff a base range of color schemes that fit within the context of Fort Mill.
Ms. Morse stated that she wanted both a basic trim and base palette to be available as a guideline.
Mr. Booth asked if it was staff’s intention only to review proposed commercial projects administratively.
He also asked if there would be a section within the design guidelines which illustrated these colors. Senior
Planner Moore clarified that this was the case on both accounts.
The consensus of HRB members was that commercial colors will ultimately may be approved
administratively with all residential, regardless of color, being required to come before them for approval.
There was then some general discussion regarding the cost of an applicant appearing before the HRB.
Chairman Roman formally requested information on how the fees were determined. This request included
what type gives the Town authority to assess this type of fee. Chairman Roman indicated that it was not
imperative the that HRB address this, but he believed it would be helpful to know.
Ms. Morse stated she felt it added insult to injury to ask someone to pay a fee in addition to requesting
permission to do something to their own home or business. She believed it should be viewed as a service
provided by the Town.
Chairman Roman noted that his rationale was that the HRB wants to continue to encourage and reward the
considerable investment that individuals are making within the Fort Mill historic district. They want to
encourage maintenance, redevelopment, and other positive things to occur here. He further noted that he
knew of one tenant within the historic district who has curtailed some improvements because of the $250.00
HRB commercial review fee.
On another note, Ms. Morse requested that there always be factual information presented by HRB members
and staff at these meetings. She was concerned that there may be non-factual statements made to individuals
who are involved in rehabbing structures on the National Register of Historic Places. As an example, she
mentioned that she was told that the Wilson House might be in jeopardy of losing its status on the Register
if appropriate colors were not selected during its rehab. Ms. Morse stated that she consulted with the South
Carolina State Archives and History that this was not the case.
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:47 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Alex Moore, AICP
Senior Planner
February 4th, 2019
Agenda
TOWN OF FORT MILL
HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD
November 13th, 2018
112 Confederate Street
4:30 PM
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. HRB Meeting: September 11th, 2018 [Pages 1-3]
NEW BUSINESS
1. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness [Pages 4-23]
Applicant Name: St. John’s United Methodist Church
Owner Name: St. John’s United Methodist Church
Property Address: 130 Tom Hall Street
Purpose: Request to install two 15’ diameter umbrella canopies above
existing playground equipment
Zoning: LC / Historic
2. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness [Pages 24-29]
Applicant Name: Sarah Onativia of Richa Graphics representing Pike
Engineering
Owner Name: Springs-Office Investors LLC
Property Address: 123 N. White Street
Purpose: Request to approve new signage copy on an existing
monument sign-structure
Zoning: LC / Historic
INFORMATION / DISCUSSION
1. Preliminary Review / Discussion
Applicant Name: Unity Presbyterian Church
Owner Name: Unity Presbyterian Church
Property Address: 303 Tom Hall Street
Purpose: Provide information and gain feedback from the HRB on a
planned monument sign and two directional signs to be
located on the church property and adjacent to Tom Hall
Street.
Zoning: HC / Historic
2. Preliminary Review / Discussion [Pages30-31]
Planning Staff to present information on the proposal for administrative reviews for the
painting of buildings located within the Town of Fort Mill Historic District.
ADJOURN
The following press was notified of the meeting by email or fax in accordance of the Freedom of Information Act: The
Herald; CN2; WRHI; Fort Mill Times and WBTV. The agenda was also posted at the entrance to Town Hall the
required length of time and on the Town website.
The Town of Fort Mill is committed to assuring accessibility with reasonable accommodation, of Town services and
facilities for all individuals, in compliance with federal law. Please contact the Town Manager’s Office at 803-547-
2116 if you need assistance.
MINUTES
TOWN OF FORT MILL
HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD
September 11th, 2018
Council Chambers – 112 Confederate Street
4:30 PM
Present: Chairman Louis Roman, Carolyn Blair, David Booth, Melissa White, Planning Director Chris
Pettit, Senior Planner Alex Moore
Absent: Chip Heemsoth, Leanne Burnett Morse
Guests: Phil Lewis
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Roman called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. White made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 10th and July 31st meeting as presented. Ms. Blair
seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 4-0.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness – 112/114 Tom Hall Street
Senior Planner Alex Moore introduced the request, the purpose of which was to approve an application for
a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace two existing windows in one side of an existing brick
duplex located at 112 Tom Hall Street. He noted that the duplex is owned by the St. John’s United Methodist
Church (UMC) and is tenant occupied.
Senior Planner Moore went on to note requirements for windows as found within the Town of Fort Mill
Historic District Design Guidelines. Senior Planner Moore further stated that the COA application indicated
that the window requirements were substantially met with the exception that the replacement windows
would be vinyl. Senior Planner Moore noted that the preponderance of evidence indicated the application
for the COA was congruent with the historic district requirements. Thus, he stated that Planning Staff
recommended that the application for COA be granted.
Mr. Phil Lewis was at the meeting representing St. John’s UMC. Board members had some general
questions for Mr. Lewis regarding the home and the type of windows which are currently in place. Mr.
Lewis noted among other things that the church acquired the duplex property in 1999 with plans to
ultimately expand their campus. Since that time, he continued, maintenance on the duplex has been
somewhat deferred, the result being that portions of the structure, e.g. the subject windows, have fallen into
disrepair.
1
Chairman Roman then noted that he was concerned that the allowance of vinyl windows within the historic
district would set a precedent for future projects here. Ms. Blair stated that she was not as concerned with
this since the project involved the side façade of the duplex rather than the front. This coupled with the fact
that the church may eventually remove the structure create extenuating circumstances allowing her to
support the proposal.
Chairman Roman asked how the Board might differentiate on the significance between front and side façade
projects. Planning Director Pettit stated that the Historic District Design Guidelines do differentiate about
the primary, side, and rear walls with less visible secondary walls being less critical in their treatment. Ms.
White and Ms. Blair commented and agreed that this façade, the west facing one, is much less noticeable
to passersby and would be construed as the less visible secondary wall per the Design Guidelines.
Mr. Lewis suggested that if the Board should approve the two vinyl windows in this instance that the church
would be willing to bring all windows up to the standards of the historic district (non-vinyl) if a structural
restoration of the duplex ever took place. Chairman Roman stated that this was a generous and considerate
offer.
Ms. Blair asked if this could be added in as a condition. Planning Director Pettit recommended that the
motion be to approve the request as submitted with the condition that any future window maintenance or
replacement are to come before the Historic Review Board and that they are to conform with the District
Guidelines.
There being no other comments, Chairman Roman entertained that there be a motion. Ms. Blair made a
motion that the Board approve the windows as presented with the condition that with any future window
replacement at the duplex, the church must come back before the Board and that all Historic District
Guidelines would be met. Mr. Booth seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
2. Discussion of Potential Standardized Color Palette
Senior Planner Alex Moore began the discussion regarding the proposed standardized color palette for
painting projects within the Historic District. He noted that Planning Staff was still working on the proposal
and that the information would be presented to the Board upon completion.
Chairman Roman noted that various manufacturers have completed historic color palettes and that an
appropriate one should be readily available. Ms. Blair reiterated that such a color palette would not preclude
someone from using another color, but that these would simply be recommendations allowing Staff
approval.
Mr. Booth recommended that Planning Staff pick styles, and pick within a range of perhaps five colors,
along with accent colors. The focus should be on a baseline program of colors that would withstand changes
in manufacturer product lines. Chairman Roman noted that applicants would still then have the option of
picking other colors with the understanding that, as a result, HRB approval would be required in such an
instance.
Senior Planner Moore noted that Staff would continue moving forward on development of the color palette
and present information at the next meeting.
2
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:27 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Alex Moore, AICP
Senior Planner
November 7th, 2018
3
H ISTORI C R EVI EW B OARD
APPLICANT
St. John’s United Methodist Church
130 Tom Hall Street
Tax Map # 020-03-01-013
Zoning District: Local Commercial/Historic
Zoning Case: 2018-0901
REQUEST
The Town has received an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from the St. John’s United
Methodist Church to install two, 15’ diameter umbrella canopies above the existing playground equipment used
as part of their on-site pre-school program.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN
The property is located at 130 Tom Hall Street and is zoned Local Commercial (LC)/Historic. The parcel contains
the St. John’s United Methodist Church (UMC). Associated with the St. John’s UMC is the Weekday Early
Education program known as W.E.E. School. Adjacent properties along Tom Hall Street are used as residences,
small businesses, government and church uses.
The applicant proposes to install two, 15’ diameter SunBlox brand umbrellas above existing playground
equipment used by the W.E.E. School. The applicant has provided a detailed project description within the
attached application. Additionally, the information within this packet includes an expansive explanation of the
materials to be used for this installation.
HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES REVIEW
Prior to any demolition, new construction, alteration, modification, or addition to a designated historic landmark
or within an area designated as a historic district in the Town of Fort Mill, a COA from the Historic Review
Board (HRB) shall be required. Because the St. John’s UMC is located within the historic district a COA is
required for this project. The design guidelines that will apply in this instance are the guidelines for historic civic,
office, industrial, institutional, and religious buildings. Specifically, any additions should preserve the key
character-defining features that are important in defining the traditional setting of the historic property. See
Section 3.82 on page 64 of the Town of Fort Mill Historic District Design Guidelines. Thus, the Historic District
Guidelines note that such historic properties include the building as well as the surrounding grounds.
4
As can be seen in the photo below from Google Maps, there is an existing shade canopy over a portion of the
playground. The applicant desires to replicate the effect of this canopy over the playground equipment. This will
be done via two, 15’ diameter umbrellas. The applicant intends for these umbrellas to be blue just as the existing
canopy.
Staff Recommendation
The W.E.E. School at St. John’s UMC has operated for sometime. The existing church playground used within
the early education program is remarkable in its simplistic but very functional design. This playground fits very
well within the traditional setting of this historic property as well as into the overall historic district. Moreover,
acceptable assimilation will be achieved with the incorporation of shade umbrellas into this setting.
Planning Staff therefore recommends that the HRB grant Approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
addition of two, 15’ diameter umbrellas at 130 Tom Hall Street.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
H ISTORI C R EVI EW B OARD
APPLICANT
Sarah Onativia with Richa Graphics, Inc. representing Pike Engineering
Property Owner: Springs Office Investors, LLC
123 N. White Street
Tax Map # 020-01-23-013
Zoning District: General Industrial
Zoning Case: 2018-1154
REQUEST
The Town has received an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from Sarah Onativia of Richa
Graphics Inc. Ms. Onativia represents Pike Engineering.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN
This project involves proposed new sign copy to be placed on an existing monument sign structure located at 123
N. White Street. The name of the business is changing from UC Synergetic to Pike Engineering. The monument
sign structure is located at the intersection of N. White Street and McCammon Street. A schematic of the proposal
is included within this packet.
HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES REVIEW
The design guidelines that will apply in this instance are those for signs. Specifically, Section 5.21 of the Town
of Fort Mill Design Guidelines involves Ground or Monument Signs. However, most of the requirements for
this type of sign involve completely new construction of the monument. As this monument is currently in place,
the principal requirements involve zoning. It should be noted that this sign will not be illuminated.
The Town of Fort Mill Zoning Ordinance requirements for a Ground Sign are listed below:
1. Maximum height: Eight feet above normal ground level. The height of the sign is approximately 5.3
feet.
2. Maximum number: One for each street frontage except in the case of a real estate development, in which
case two are allowed, one on either side of the main entry way street. There is only one ground existent
on this property.
24
3. Maximum area: Internally illuminated—66 square feet. Nonilluminated or indirectly illuminated—80
square feet. If a setback is in excess of 50 feet from facing property line, maximum area may be increased
0.7 square feet for each additional foot of setback up to a maximum sign area of 150 square feet. The
proposed area for the new sign-copy is 19.11 square feet.
4. Minimum setback: Fifteen feet from any property line and/or three feet from right-of-way. Line of sight
guidelines must be followed. The existent ground sign is located approximately 5.5 feet from the
right-of-way.
5. Advertising message: Letters, symbols, and graphics of a ground sign should not occupy more than 40%
of total sign area. The proposed new copy occupies approximately 28% of the total sign area.
Staff Recommendation
The proposed sign-copy area is in conformance with the Town of Fort Mill Historic District Guidelines as well
as the Town Zoning Ordinance Planning Staff therefore recommends that the HRB grant Approval for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for this sign located at 123 N. White Street.
25
26
27
28
29
H ISTORI C R EVI EW B OARD
REQUEST
Planning Staff has been directed to research and determine how best to allow for administrative review and
approval for the painting of buildings within the Town of Fort Mill Historic District. Staff believes the best course
of action in this regard is to administratively review and approve commercial painting projects within the Historic
District. This review would be based on a color palette adopted by the Town of Fort Mill Historic Review Board.
Proposed residential painting projects within the Historic District would remain under the purview of the HRB
for review and approval.
PROPOSED STAFF REVIEW PROCESS
Staff members to the Town of Fort Mill Historic Review Board (HRB) are authorized to assist property owners
on paint color selection for those properties located within the commercial portion of the historic district.
Additionally, commercial properties which are not located within the historic district but are otherwise listed on
the National Register of Historic Places, may be allowed such an administrative review. This manner of review
for proposed paint colors will hasten the approval process for such proposals rather than require HRB
endorsement of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application.
The South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SCSHPO) has noted that the building itself can be the
best guide for property owners in the selection of paint color for a historic structure. An analysis of the building
can reveal colors used in the past which can then be matched with a variety of appropriate colors available today.
The chart of paint colors below represents a palette appropriate for use on historic, commercial properties within
the Town of Fort Mill. This color palette has been adopted to guide property owners and Planning Staff in paint
selection. It should be reiterated that each color must be approved by Planning Staff prior to property owners
initiating re-painting projects on historic buildings in the Town of Fort Mill.
30
SAMPLE
31
Get email alerts for Fort Mill
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.