Historic Review Board

MINUTES TOWN OF FORT MILL HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD March 12th, 2019 Council Chambers – 112 Confederate Street 4:30 PM Present: Chairman Louis Roman, Carolyn Blair, David Booth, LeAnne Burnett Morse, Chip Heemsoth, Melissa White, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Senior Planner Alex Moore Guests: Kyle Hobbs, Trevor Threet, Dan Dodd CALL TO ORDER Chairman Roman called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chip Heemsoth made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 12th, 2019, meeting as presented. Ms. LeAnne Burnett Morse seconded the motion. The minutes were then approved with a vote of 6-0. OLD BUSINESS 1. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness – 135 Confederate Street Senior Planner Moore introduced the request, the purpose of which was for the review of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a driveway and associated ADA parking space at 135 Confederate Street. This COA request was submitted to revise what was approved by the HRB at the 2-12-19 HRB meeting. Moore noted that SCDOT would not permit an ADA space designed to permit a vehicle to back-out into the Confederate Street right-of-way, which was what the previous approval allowed. Moore presented a revised illustrative drawing to the HRB showing a configuration submitted by the applicant. This schematic had been revised by the applicant’s design professional subsequent to the HRB packet being delivered via email the previous week. While still designed to meet SCDOT requirements, the revised proposal also preserved a tree on the site. Moore stated that there were no other changes proposed to the site plan or the building at 135 Confederate Street.  Dan Dodd, representing the applicant, was on hand to answer questions from HRB members. Mr. Heemsoth asked Mr. Dodd if the driveway was remaining in the same location. Mr. Dodd stated that this was correct. Chairman Roman asked Mr. Dodd if SCDOT had any other stipulations regarding the site plan. Mr. Dodd stated that they did not have any other required changes to the plan and noted that SCDOT presented him with this solution to the mandate that there be no vehicular backing into the right-of-way. Dodd noted that if HRB would approve this iteration as presented then SCDOT would be satisfied. Chairman Roman asked if there was any other discussion. There being none, he entertained a motion on the COA application as presented. Ms. Blair made a motion to approve the COA application as presented. Mr. Heemsoth seconded the motion. Then, by a vote of 6-0, the HRB approved the COA request. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness – 106 Confederate Street Senior Planner Moore introduced the request, the purpose of which was for the review of an application for a COA for a projecting sign at 106 Confederate Street. The COA request was submitted by Kyle M. Hobbs of the Hobbs Threet, LLP Law Firm. Mr. Hobbs was at the meeting along with his associate, Trevor Threet. Senior Planner Moore reviewed the schematic drawing as submitted and noted that the proposed sign met the criteria as stipulated within the Historic District Guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance respectively. The sign was proposed to be placed above the awning and over the door facing Confederate Street. Ms. White had a question about the materials and color of the sign. Mr. Hobbs affirmed that the sign would be black wrought-iron, that the sign face would be black and white with recessed lettering, and that the sign would be two-sided. Ms. Burnett Morse stated that the projecting sign was certainly needed at this location so that the law firm would have needed visibility. Mr. Hobbs agreed that this sign was very much needed so that clients could better locate their office. There being no other comments concerning the projecting sign, Chairman Roman entertained a motion from the board. Ms. Burnett Morse made a motion to approve the COA application for the projecting sign as presented. Ms. Blair seconded the motion. The HRB then voted 6-0 to approve the request. INFORMATION / DISCUSSION 1. Continued discussion of the potential for administrative reviews of painting proposals based on a selected color palette for the Town of Fort Mill Historic District Senior Planner Moore introduced the discussion. He noted that he had included the City of Richmond’s historic district color palette as a resource to draw upon in formulating the prescribed colors to be included within Fort Mill’s approved paint colors. Ms. Burnett Morse asked the HRB members if they had looked at the Richmond information and stated it would, in her opinion, be an easy adaption to the Town of Fort Mill. She also noted that the Richmond color guidelines provided for the appropriate treatment of façade elements such as trim and lintels. Senior Planner Moore noted that the administrative color palette would be for previously painted commercial buildings only. Masonry buildings that have not been painted should remain unpainted. Mr. Booth asked if the different types of architecture would be defined vis-à-vis the color palette or would there simply be an overall color palette for body, trim, etc. Chairman Roman responded that this could be done but that it did not have to be this way. He then noted that communities that have color palettes typically do match colors to architectural types. This allows a profile to be created for each structure type and lends consistency to the process. Ms. Blair asked if commercial buildings that have been painted an inappropriate color in relation to architectural type would be allowed to use the same color, or if the applicant would have to choose a color from the approved palette. She also noted that she liked the Richmond color palette. Senior Planner Moore noted that it was his understanding that the HRB would allow an applicant to use the same color, regardless of its hue. Ms. Blair stated that this was also her understanding, but that there was a discussion about this as to whether this is what the HRB wanted to move forward with. Mr. Booth stated that the HRB might create a date by which all commercial painting proposals within the historic district would have to conform to the newly adopted paint palette. Chairman Roman stated that the HRB should gain a consensus on this issue. Ms. Burnett Morse asked how long a color review requirement had existed, and how long had the historic district regulations been in place. Mr. Heemsoth responded that, while the issue of the adoption of a commercial district color palette had just recently been undertaken, he believed the historic district had been in place twelve to thirteen years. Additionally, he noted that in some instances business and property owners had not come before the HRB to request approval on painting their commercial buildings. But, when such an individual or group did come before the HRB, they would bring one or more potential colors for review. Mr. Heemsoth then added that it was his opinion that if a color palette was to be adopted, then the applicant should conform to that palette, regardless of what the color was before. Ms. Burnett Morse expressed her agreement with this view and stated that any projects that had been approved prior to approval of a color palette but had not yet moved forward should be allowed to continue with what was approved. Chairman Roman also agreed with this sentiment and suggested that a maintenance timeline might be adopted for requiring applicants to adhere to the new palette. As an example, he used a ten-year timeframe, meaning that a business or property owner could re-paint to an existing color, regardless of hue, with no staff or HRB review and approval. If the ten-year timeframe elapsed, then the applicant would have to either conform to the adopted color palette or receive HRB approval to use a color not within the approved palette. Mr. Booth noted that this made sense but that conversely, a property might never be updated to an approved palette color if the structure was painted every nine-years. Ms. Burnette Morse then stated that the HRB might adopt a date, based on a somewhat recent HRB approval, after which all commercial painting proposals would have to adhere to the new color palette. She used the Olive’s Mud Puddle approval of July 10th, 2018 as this possible date as this was the last commercial painting proposal to come before the HRB. Ms. Blair then noted, after whatever date is adopted, an applicant could still go “off-palette,” but such a proposal would have to come before HRB. Chairman Roman asked if there was now a consensus from the HRB on this issue of adopting such a date. Senior Planner Moore then asked for clarification on which palette colors were being adopted. Ms. Burnette Morse, Ms. Blair, and Chairman Roman stated that they wanted to adopt the Richmond color palette. Senior Planner Moore noted that the Town of Fort Mill’s historical building stock was not as varied as what the City of Richmond contains. Mr. Booth then noted that if, for example, someone wished to do a redevelopment project within the historic district, then there would be ample architectural style-based colors to choose from.  There was then a brief discussion on the treatment of any structure in the district which might be destroyed by fire or otherwise. Senior Planner Moore noted that if the property was on the National Register of Historic Places that such rebuilding must also be coordinated with the South Carolina Historic Preservation Office. For such buildings not on the National Register, but within the Historic District, board members stated that rebuilding did not have to coordinate with the state historic preservation office, but only with the local HRB. Senior Planner Moore then clarified if the HRB wished to adopt the entirety of the Richmond color palette and associated details, such as architectural type. Ms. Blair stated that there could be a statement in the adoptive language indicating that not all the architectural styles are applicable in Fort Mill but that the information could be kept for reference if someone did wish to construct a respective style not of the existing historic stock. Ms. Burnett Morse also noted that some of the information from Richmond would need to be taken out before adoption. Chairman Roman indicated that this color palette would be an important component of historical redevelopment moving forward as much more growth was anticipated due to the community’s location in the Charlotte region. Ms. Burnett Morse then had some thoughts on the concept of painting masonry work within the historic district of Fort Mill. She agreed with the appropriateness of not allowing brick to be painted in the downtown area. However, she’d noted her belief that painting brick residences in the historic district should not be prohibited. Chairman Roman noted that, while the historic design guidelines indicate that it is not appropriate for masonry to be painted, an applicant could come before the HRB and request to paint a brick structure. Ms. Burnett Morse stated that the current language of the design guidelines stated that brick indeed cannot be painted. It was the board’s feeling that an individual should be allowed to paint brick upon approval by the HRB of such a project. Senior Planner Moore noted that staff would look at an edit of this and bring it back to HRB along with the paint palette draft. Chairman Roman then reminded the board of the upcoming South Carolina Historic Preservation Conference in Columbia on Friday April 26th. Senior Planner Moore noted that the Town could pay for any HRB member who wished to attend this conference. Senior Planner Moore then introduced Penelope Karagounis, new Town of Fort Mill Planning Director, to the HRB. Ms. Karagounis spoke briefly about her background and noted that she looked forward to working with all the HRB members. There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 5:08 PM. Alex J. Moore, AICP Senior Planner March 28th, 2019