Historic Review Board

HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD March 9th, 2021 Virtual Meeting 4:30 PM Live Viewing Online: Request Access by emailing before 4:00pm on Tuesday, March 9th, 2020 to Penelope G. Karagounis, Planning Director at pkaragounis@fortmillsc.gov Public Access by Phone: Dial (toll free) 1-877-309-2073 and use access code 796-275-149 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. HRB Meeting: December 8th, 2020 [Pages 2-10] NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) [Pages 11-19] Applicant Name: TJ Christenburg/Sign Techniques Owner Name: Tysinger Capital Advisors, LLC Property Address: 135 Confederate Street Purpose: COA request for a new ground sign Property information: Town of Fort Mill Historic Preservation District LC, Local Commercial Zoning District ADJOURN The following press was notified of the meeting by email or fax in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act: The Herald; CN2; WRHI; Fort Mill Sun; 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 December 8th, 2020 Virtual Meeting 4:30 PM Live Viewing Online: Request Access by emailing before 4:00pm on Tuesday, December 8th, 2020 to Penelope G. Karagounis, Planning Director at pkaragounis@fortmillsc.gov Public Access by Phone: Dial (toll free) 1-877-309-2073 and use access code 468-676-149 Present: Assistant Chairman David Booth, Megan Brinton, Scott Couchenour, Samantha Nifong, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Senior Planner Alex Moore Guests: Jacob Saylor, Matthew Spiva, Daniel Giroux, Will Bigham, Jason Mathis, Bryan Southwick CALL TO ORDER Assistant Chairman David Booth called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Assistant Chairman David Booth entertained a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Couchenour made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 13th, 2020, meeting as presented. HRB member Megan Brinton seconded the motion to approve the minutes. The minutes were then approved by a vote of 4-0. NEW BUSINESS Assistant Chairman David Booth opened the new business portion of the meeting by noting the contents of the agenda and the associated packet of information. NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 1 The first item on the agenda included a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) submitted by Unity Presbyterian Church located at 303 Tom Hall Street. Senior Planner Moore introduced the request as submitted. The catalyst for the planned work was the unfortunate fire at the church in December 2018. This resulted in the Unity Hall portion of the church being razed. This COA request and review by HRB was required because the property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The COA request consisted of the following four improvements at Unity Presbyterian Church: 1. A “flexible use space” addition of 305 square feet to the historic sanctuary 2. Placement of insulated glass over the exterior windows of the historic sanctuary 2  3. The construction of an open courtyard to the rear of the historic sanctuary 4. An addition to the existing columbarium located on the church property Moore then illustrated the particulars of the request using the materials as provided by the project architect, Mr. Matthew Spiva, AIA. Moore noted the staff findings in the packet as based upon the US Department of Interior standards for historic rehabilitation. He then stated that Planning Staff recommended approval for the proposed improvements as presented within the packet with the condition that the applicant obtain all necessary zoning and building permits prior to installation of the various project elements as presented. Moore then opened the meeting for representatives of Unity Presbyterian Church to present any additional information on the project. Jacob Saylor, the Unity Presbyterian Church Administrative Officer, noted that it had been two years since the fire of December 2018 had taken place at the church. Mr. Saylor said he was thankful for this project to be on the HRB agenda and that he was available to answer any questions that HRB members may have. HRB member Megan Brinton asked for clarification regarding the “area of refuge” as labeled within that portion of the project consisting of the 305 square foot addition to the historic sanctuary. Mr. Matthew Spiva, AIA stated that the area of refuge as noted on the plans is an ADA requirement for someone in a wheelchair. Mr. Spiva used the example of a fire within the building. At the front of the historic sanctuary, as well as on the eastside of this building, are located ADA accessible ramps. However, if a fire occurred at the front, or side, of the building which prevented a wheelchair bound individual from accessing the ramps, this person would need to go to the area of refuge at the rear of the building. There is a phone there where they can call 911 to give their location. The area of refuge is fire rated for one hour. The fire department should be able to evacuate the individual within this timeframe. Ms. Brinton then asked a question about the brick at the rear of the historic sanctuary. She noted that the current picture indicated a good deal of damage from the fire. She asked if this section of brick would be cleaned or replaced? Mr. Saylor indicated that a combination of methods would be used at this location. The rear-center of this exterior section would consist of new brick which would be complimentary to the existing brick. Then, the remaining section of damaged brick would be remedied partially by cleaning, with the balance consisting of new brick. HRB member Scott Couchenour noted that with various improvements in the past, Unity Presbyterian has consistently attempted to match new brick to existing brick as closely as possible. He then asked Mr. Saylor if that was what was intended with this addition. Mr. Saylor responded affirmatively and added that in the past, the only instance of brick not being able to be matched up was in 1938 when the Unity Hall building was constructed. However, as Mr. Saylor noted, this was the building that burned in December 2018 and was then razed. 3 Assistant Chairman David Booth then asked about the glass system to be used on the new ingress/egress door on the 305 square foot addition to the historic sanctuary as well as the type of windows associated with this add-on. Mr. Spiva responded that these components of the project were being designed to match the existing architecture. Mr. Booth then asked about the design of the new windows as proposed on the historic sanctuary building. Mr. Spiva indicated that the design for these windows was based on the precedent of the windows on the existing ministry building. Mr. Booth then expressed concern regarding the anticipated removal of the keystone around the bricked-up door facing Tom Hall Street as illustrated on page 21 of the HRB packet. Mr. Saylor stated that the reason for this was for architectural continuity of the historic sanctuary. Mr. Booth then asked if there were any other questions from HRB members. Mr. Couchenour made a motion to approve the overall proposal as presented. Mr. Booth seconded the motion. Planning Director Penelope Karagounis then did a member roll call by which each board member cast an affirmative vote. Thus, by a vote of 4-0, the HRB voted to approve the COA application as presented. NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 2 The second item on the agenda included a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) submitted by Dan Giroux of Emmet’s Social Table restaurant. Mr. Giroux is currently in the process of upfitting the building located at 100 Main Street for this restaurant. Senior Planner Moore introduced the request as submitted which included an aluminum roof over the existing deck/outdoor dining area, a projecting sign to be located on the front façade of the building, and a wall sign to be located on the southwest façade of the building. Moore then gave an opportunity to the HRB members to ask questions of staff or the applicant regarding the application. Ms. Brinton asked if the palmetto tree and crescent would remain on the southwest façade of the building. Mr. Giroux indicated that this sculpture would remain. Ms. Brinton indicated that she would prefer that nothing be painted onto the existing brick. Rather, she noted her desire that the proposed painted signage would instead be implemented as an affixed/attached wall sign. Mr. Giroux stated that he would certainly be amendable to installing an affixed/attached wall sign on this southwest façade. Mr. Booth then asked Senior Planner Moore about the parameters for a painted sign. 4 Moore stated that the town’s zoning ordinance treated such a painted sign the same as a typical wall sign, i.e., the sign could not exceed 15% of the area of the façade to which it is attached. Mr. Booth echoed Ms. Brinton’s sentiments about the proposed painted sign and also noted that a previous case at 100 Main Street had revealed the board’s preference that the brick not be painted. Ms. Brinton then noted the need for the proposed aluminum awning to be able to support adequate loads such as would be present in a heavy snowfall event. Moore stated that the awning would have to be reviewed and approved by the town’s building department to ensure that it would meet such a load capacity. Mr. Booth asked if this aluminum awning was the same type of product as was proposed by the Southern Sugar restaurant, also at 100 Main Street. Mr. Giroux stated that it was the exact same product. Mr. Booth asked if the awning contained a drainage system. Mr. Giroux noted that it did. Mr. Booth asked Mr. Giroux if he intended to do internal heating or enclose the awning area with plastic. Mr. Giroux stated that he planned on providing some type of shield from the sun on the awning that can be rolled up and down as needed. Ms. Brinton asked Mr. Giroux if he knew what this shielding would look like. Mr. Giroux stated that the shield would consist of custom-made black vinyl. He also suggested that he might investigate doing clear vinyl with a layer of tint included. Mr. Booth asked Mr. Giroux if the vinyl shield would have any advertising such as a logo. Mr. Giroux stated that the vinyl would be plain with no logo or name and that the external signage for his business would be limited to the projecting sign and wall sign. Senior Planner Moore then asked Mr. Giroux if the intended to illuminate this signage via up-lighting. Mr. Giroux responded affirmatively. There being no more questions, Vice-Chairman Booth entertained a motion on the COA application. Mr. Couchenour made a motion that the HRB approve the black, aluminum covering over the existing, exterior deck, a projecting sign to be located on the front façade of the building, and a wall-sign to be located on the southwest façade of the building, with a condition that the wall sign be attached rather than painted onto the brick, and a condition that the aluminum covering meet all load-bearing standards as required by the building code. Mr. Booth seconded the motion. 5 Planning Director Penelope Karagounis then did a member roll call by which each board member cast an affirmative vote. Thus, by a vote of 4-0, the HRB voted to approve the black, aluminum covering over the existing, exterior deck, a projecting sign to be located on the front façade of the building, and a wall-sign to be located on the southwest façade of the building, with a condition that the wall sign be attached rather than painted onto the brick, and a condition that the aluminum covering meet all load-bearing standards as required by the building code. NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 3 The third item on the agenda included an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) submitted by Will Bigham of The Improper Pig Restaurant located at 204 Main Street. This request was to install temporary doors to enclose one of the entrance vestibules during the winter months. The doors were proposed to be red and consist of sunbrella fabric installed on aluminum frames. Senior Planner Moore introduced the request and noted that staff recommended approval of the proposal with the condition that the applicant and subcontractors obtain all necessary business licenses, zoning, and building permits prior to installation of the various project elements as presented. Ms. Brinton asked Mr. Bigham how the doors would be attached to the building. Mr. Bigham stated that hinges would need to be installed to facilitate these doors. Mr. Booth asked about the general dimensions for the doors. He expressed concern that if the doors were installed to swing outward, then they may impede pedestrians along the sidewalk. Mr. Bigham indicated that the doors would be designed to swing both ways. Mr. Couchenour noted that the building was on the NRHP and thus there may be an opportunity to vary from the requirement that the doors swing outward. Mr. Booth asked if there would be any advertising on the doors. Mr. Bigham stated that there would be no advertising on the doors. Ms. Brinton asked if there was any type of color palette requirement for the historic district. Senior Planner Moore indicated that there was not. Ms. Brinton asked about the size of the vestibule area. Mr. Bigham indicated that there was approximately four feet between the sidewalk and the interior doors. Ms. Brinton asked which way the interior doors swing. Mr. Bigham noted that they swing outward only. Ms. Brinton asked if this would leave enough space for the interior and exterior vestibule doors to be open at the same time. 6 Mr. Bigham indicated that there would be enough space for the interior and exterior doors to be open at the same time. Ms. Brinton then indicated that she agreed with the proposal as it seemed minimally invasive and would improve the dining experience of the restaurant guests in the colder months. Mr. Booth asked the board members to be cognizant that approving this type of modern design would set a precedent along Main Street. Ms. Brinton asked if there had been anything like this before on Main Street. Mr. Couchenour stated that he did not know of a similar request along Main Street in the past, but that he understood the need for this request. Mr. Booth asked if the board would place a timeframe within which the doors would need to be removed once the weather warmed. Planning Director Penelope Karagounis indicated that this would be a good idea. Senior Planner Moore asked Mr. Bigham when he anticipated removing the temporary doors. Mr. Bigham stated that he did not have a specific date in mind, but that once the weather had fully moderated that the doors would be removed for the season. Perhaps though, he then stated, that the doors could be removed sometime in April and then reinstalled for winter sometime in November. Ms. Brinton stated that she would be amenable for the doors to be in place between November and March. Mr. Couchenour indicated that he would be agreeable for the doors to be in place between the November and March/April timeframe. There being no other questions, Vice-Chairman Booth entertained a motion. Mr. Couchenour made a motion that the COA request for the temporary doors at 204 Main Street be approved with the condition that the temporary doors may be installed no earlier than November 1st and be removed on or before April 30th. Ms. Brinton seconded the motion. Planning Director Penelope Karagounis then did a member roll call by which each board member cast an affirmative vote. Thus, by a vote of 4-0, the HRB voted that the COA request for the temporary doors at 204 Main Street be approved with the condition that the temporary doors may be installed no earlier than November 1st and be removed on or before April 30th. 7  NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 4 The fourth item on the agenda was included as an informational/discussion session only with no formal decision to be rendered by the HRB. This item included a presentation by Durban Development for a proposed adaptive reuse of the existing building located at 314 N. White Street. Senior Planner Moore introduced the discussion and noted that the property is currently zoned R-15 and was originally a service station and had more recently housed an automobile towing service. He noted that the property would need to be rezoned from R-15, Residential, to LC, Local Commercial prior to a restaurant use being developed at this location. Additionally, Moore stated that a traffic impact analysis would need to be performed for this project. Both actions would need to take place prior to an acceptance of an official COA application by the HRB. Moore then indicated that staff believed the project to have tremendous potential. Thus, the applicant was given the opportunity to present to HRB for informational purposes and perhaps gain some valuable feedback in the process. He also noted that the restaurant was anticipated to be known as “Bossy Beulah’s” and that the same restaurant business currently operated a location on Freedom Drive in Charlotte. Moore introduced Jason Mathis with Durban Development along with Bryan Southwick of Gensler Architects. Bryan Southwick then provided a presentation to the HRB which consisted of several slides illustrating proposed exterior improvements to the building. Moore thanked Mr. Southwick for the presentation and asked the board members if they had any questions or comments about the presentation. Ms. Brinton asked about the location of parking. Mr. Southwick indicated that most of the parking would be at the rear of the building with some along the side. Ms. Brinton stated that she liked the proposal and noted the similarities between this property and the building located at 240 Main Street in Fort Mill. Ms. Brinton expressed concern about future pedestrian traffic crossing North White Street from Elisha Park to this proposed restaurant. She noted that a crosswalk could be beneficial. Planning Director Penelope Karagounis stated that SCDOT has no plans for a crosswalk at this location. As this is a state road, it would be at their discretion as to whether a crosswalk could be located here. Currently, the closest crosswalk to this site is located at the intersection of N. White Street and Clebourne. Mr. Booth asked if this project would trigger traffic improvements that might aid with pedestrian circulation. Ms. Karagounis stated that a traffic impact analysis (TIA) would be done for this project. She indicated that pedestrian access to this site could be considered within this TIA. Mr. Booth then asked Mr. Southwyck what the proposed occupancy load would be for this building, including outside dining. 8 Mr. Southwick stated that the current plan indicated approximately 75 occupants on the interior of the restaurant and 60 occupants on the exterior. He indicated that the plumbing counts would not allow more than 150 total occupants. Mr. Couchenour asked about the storage area on this property that has been used for cars. Mr. Southwick stated that it was the intention of the project developer to clean up the entire lot and provide parking in the rear. Ms. Brinton noted that this may lead to more people parking on this property and walking over to Elisha Park. Mr. Booth asked if there had been any conversation with Springs about making a connection to their property which is adjacent to this one. Mr. Jason Mathis with Durban Development indicated that they had reached out to Springs on this. However, the current plan does not reflect this. He indicated that this may not come to fruition. Additionally, he stated that they were certainly amenable to providing pedestrian improvements along their project frontage of N. White Street as the development plan evolves via feedback from SCDOT. Ms. Karagounis then stated that SCDOT will likely not be agreeable to a mid-block pedestrian crossing along N. White Street between this parcel and Elisha Park. The safest route for pedestrians will likely be the crosswalk at the N. White Street and Ardrey/Skipper Street intersection. Mr. Couchenour stated that the drawings as provided by Durban Development look great. Ms. Karagounis asked if Durban Development intended to use the existing ground sign pole and cabinet for future project signage. Mr. Southwick stated that they likely would be using this and that they would highlight this within their official application. Ms. Nifong asked if the signage located on the architectural fins would be illuminated. Mr. Southwick responded that they would be illuminated, but not internally. Mr. Booth asked if the current garage doors would be used. Mr. Southwick stated that the garage doors were operational and would be used or replaced in-kind. Ms. Brinton asked about a project timeline. Mr. Southwick stated they wished to get started as soon as possible. Senior Planner Moore reiterated that the rezoning and TIA needed to be accomplished prior to official submittal for HRB review. Moore then thanked Mr. Mathis and Mr. Southwick for presenting the information on the project to the HRB. Moore then noted that the only other item on the agenda was the adoption of the 2021 meeting calendar. 9 Ms. Karagounis stated that the HRB would continue to meet on the 2nd Tuesday of each month at 4:30 PM. Mr. Couchenour asked if the meetings would continue in a virtual format. Ms. Karagounis indicated that the meetings would continue to be held virtually for the foreseeable future due to COVID, until such time town management made a change. Mr. Couchenour made a motion that the 2021 meeting calendar be approved. Ms. Brinton seconded the motion. By a vote of 4-0, the HRB approved the 2021 calendar. Ms. Karagounis then wished board a happy holiday season. There being no other business, Vice-Chairman David Booth then entertained a motion to adjourn. Ms. Nifong made a motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 PM Respectfully submitted, Alex J. Moore, AICP Senior Planner February 19th, 2021. 10 11 12 13 14 15  HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD A P P LI C A N T TJ Christenburg/Sign Techniques Subject Property: 135 Confederate Street Tax Map # 020-06-08-001 Zoning District: Local Commercial/Historic Preservation District Zoning Case: 2021-0063 REQUEST The Town of Fort Mill Planning Department has received an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from TJ Christenburg of Sign Techniques articulating a request to place one pole mounted/freestanding sign at 135 Confederate Street. S I T E D E S C R I P TI O N A N D G E N E R A L C O N S T R U C T I O N P L A N This property is located within the Historic Preservation District. It is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As you know, the property owner recently finished an adaptive reuse project at 135 Confederate Street which converted the former single-family residence into office space. The design of this pole mounted/freestanding sign indicates that there will be four office tenants within the structure. HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES REVIEW The Town of Fort Mill Historic District Guidelines indicate that pole mounted/freestanding signs should maintain the visual qualities and ambience of a building, site, and surrounding context. These considerations are enumerated on page 109 within the design guidelines. This portion of the design guidelines is included on the last page within this HRB packet and enumerated below:  Place ground mounted signs in a location that is readable from the street and appropriate for the building and its surroundings.  Within the historic district context of 135 Confederate Street, the sign should not rise above the typical front porch railing height of a traditional residential building. In this instance that would be the height of the front porch plus 36-inches.  Do not design ground or monument signs to be so elaborate that they replicate or upstage the architecture of a historic building or its surroundings. 16   When night-time illumination is needed, use focused external illumination.  Do not use internally lit plastic or plastic-looking boxes. ZONING GUIDELINES REVIEW The allowances for pole mounted/freestanding signs per the Town of Fort Mill Zoning Ordinance are juxtaposed with the corresponding design for this sign below. Please note that the zoning ordinance terms this type of sign as a “ground sign.” HEIGHT  Zoning Ordinance Requirement: Maximum permitted height: Eight (8) feet. However, as noted above, within the historic district context of 135 Confederate Street, the sign should not rise above the typical front porch railing height of a traditional residential building.  Proposal: Proposed height of the pole mounted/freestanding sign: Five feet, six inches (5’6”). NUMBER OF GROUND SIGNS  Zoning Ordinance Requirement: Maximum number of ground signs: One (1) for each street frontage.  Proposal: Number of proposed pole mounted/freestanding signs for the respective street frontage: One (1) MAXIMUM AREA  Zoning Ordinance Requirement: Maximum square footage for a non-illuminated, ground sign: Eighty (80) square feet  Proposal: Approximately Fifteen (15) square feet, not including the address number. MINIMUM SETBACK  Zoning Ordinance Requirement: Minimum setback required for a ground sign: Fifteen (15) feet from any property line and/or three feet from any right-of-way.  Proposal: The proposed location of the sign appears to be located at least 15-feet from any property line and at least 3-feet from the street right-of-way. ADVERTISING MESSAGE  Zoning Ordinance Requirement: Letters, symbols, and graphics of a ground sign should not occupy more than 40% of the total sign area.  Proposal: The signage graphics do not appear to occupy more than 40% of the total sign area. 17 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff recommends that the HRB grant APPROVAL for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed pole mounted/freestanding sign with the condition that the sign shall not exceed the height of the front porch plus 36-inches. 18 Pole Mounted or Freestanding Sign A pole mounted/freestanding sign is generally mounted on one or two simple poles. 5.20 A pole sign should be appropriate to the context. In a residential context: ‡ The top of the sign should not rise above the typical front porch railing height of a traditional residential building. ‡ A double pole mounted sign or cantilevered sign is preferred. In a commercial context: ‡ The top of the sign should not rise above the typical top of the street level storefront of a traditional commercial building. ‡ Sign panels that stretch to the ground are inappropriate. Ground or Monument Sign These signs are low to the ground and are not attached to any part $SROHVLJQVKRXOGEHDSSURSULDWHWR of the buildings. WKHFRQWH[W 5.21 Maintain the visual qualities and ambience of a building, site and surrounding context when adding ground signage. ‡ Place ground mounted signs in a location that is readable from the street and appropriate for the building and it surroundings. ‡ Design ground mounted signs to be subordinate in size to the building and in scale with a building’s architectural elements. ‡ Do not design ground or monument signs to be so elaborate that they replicate or upstage the architecture of a historic building or its surroundings. ‡ When night time illumination is needed, use focused external illumination, particularly in residential settings. ‡ Do not use internally lit plastic or plastic-looking boxes. 0DLQWDLQWKHYLVXDOTXDOLWLHVDQG DPELHQFHRIDEXLOGLQJVLWHDQG VXUURXQGLQJFRQWH[WZKHQDGGLQJ JURXQGVLJQDJH Fort Mill Historic District Design Guidelines 109 19