Muyni
← Back to Fort Mill

Historic Review Board

Regular Meeting

Fort Mill, SC · April 13, 2021

AgendaMinutes

Minutes

MINUTES TOWN OF FORT MILL HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD April 13th, 2021 Virtual Meeting 4:30 PM Present: Chairman Louis Roman, David Booth, Megan Brinton, Scott Couchenour, Samantha Nifong, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Senior Planner Alex Moore Guests: Les Spencer, Terry Kountz CALL TO ORDER Chairman Louis Roman called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Louis Roman entertained a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Couchenour made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 9th, 2021, meeting as presented. David Booth seconded the motion to approve the minutes. The minutes were then approved by a vote of 5-0. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Louis Roman opened the new business portion of the meeting by noting the contents of the agenda and the associated packet of information. NEW BUSINESS ITEM ONE (1) The first item on the agenda included a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the replacement of windows at St. John’s United Methodist Church. Mr. Les Spencer represented St. John’s UMC. Senior Planner Moore gave an overview of the COA request. He noted that the windows to be replaced were located within the church’s education building as shown on the submitted drawings. The applicant’s request for replacement was based on the deterioration of the current windows. This property is located within the Town of Fort Mill Historic District. It is not located on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The property is zoned local commercial district. The church notes on their application that they would like to replace deteriorating windows within the education building. This deterioration includes wood rot and flaking paint caused by condensation aggravated by the existence of storm windows. Additionally, the applicant indicates that the existing single thickness glass affords little, if any, sound attenuation. So, the church would like to replace the existing windows with Pella 250 series vinyl units. These windows will incorporate the color, size, detail, and lite pattern which matches the existing windows by location. The glazing on the proposed windows will be insulated, clear glass. Thermal and acoustical performance will be improved. Page 13 indicates that portion of the St. John’s campus, the educational building, which will have new windows. Page 14 shows east and west elevation views of the building along with typical, existent window conditions. Page 15 illustrates the look of the replacement windows. Pages 16 and 17 contain elevation views of those windows to be replaced. I would then note the historic district guidelines review on pages 6 and 7: • Section 3.23: Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. Frames and sashes should be repaired and replaced, whenever conditions permit. The applicant has indicated within this application that the existing wood windows are deteriorated in the form of wood rot and flaking. Thus, it seems that these windows cannot be repaired as a practical matter. • Section 3.24: Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. Preserve a distinctive window opening shape, such as an arched top. The number of existing window openings are not being reduced. Additionally, the application materials indicate that the replacement windows will be appropriately sized for the existing openings. • Section 3.25: Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a primary façade. The historic ratio of window openings is not being altered. • Section 3.26: Match a replacement window to the original in its design. The replacement windows will be double hung just as the existing windows. The grille pattern of the replacement windows matches the existing windows with 6/6 and 4/4 patterns. • Section 3.27: In a replacement window, use materials that appear like the original. The materials that are being used will appear to be very similar to the existing windows. See the page within this packet containing the window types, grille details, color, and pattern information. Though they are vinyl, the replacement windows do incorporate materials that appear very similar to the existent, original windows. • Section 3.28: Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. The applicant has noted that the proposed replacement model will contain simulated divided lite design that creates shadows very similar to that of a true divided lite. • Section 3.29: Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. The application indicates that there are no window openings proposed to be enclosed. • Recommendation: The project as presented indicates that a total of 52 windows are being replaced. While the historic district design guidelines do state that vinyl replacement windows are not appropriate, the applicant has carefully chosen a window that very closely replicates the original, wooden ones. This is due to the design details which are incorporated into the respective Pella 250 series. Therefore, staff believes that there will be no discernable difference between the current windows and the proposed replacements. The new windows will additionally be much more efficient than the original windows and will meet the parameters of the 2009 Energy Conservation Code (IECC 2009). The IECC 2009 is a model code produced by the International Code Council (ICC). This document provides the foundation for the building code upon which the Town of Fort Mill operates. Planning staff thus recommends that the HRB grant APPROVAL for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the application as submitted. Senior Planner Moore then asked if the HRB members had any questions or comments on this information. Megan Brinton asked the age of the church educational building. Les Spencer, representing St. John’s UMC stated that the educational building was originally constructed in the late 1920s or early 1930s. Ms. Brinton asked Mr. Spencer if the church had investigated repairing the windows. Mr. Spencer stated that the church did not investigate repairing the windows due to the perceived advantages of replacing them. Ms. Brinton asked Mr. Spencer if the church looked at the cost difference between replacing the existing windows with wood versus the vinyl product. Mr. Spencer stated that he did not but that others did. Based on this he believed that the cost difference was as much as 50% to 100% more than the vinyl window product. To Ms. Brinton’s point of asking if the church had looked at non-vinyl products, Chairman Roman noted that he has found that there are manufactured windows in existence which will facilitate the replacement of wooden windows with a like, composite product costing roughly the same. Ms. Brinton asked Mr. Spencer if the vinyl windows would contain less glass than the existing windows. Mr. Spencer stated that he had not specifically looked at the amount of glass in the proposed windows versus the existing windows. He did note that the muntins on the replacement windows were nearly identical in size to the existing. Based on this, he surmised that the glazed window area on the replacement windows should also be nearly identical to the existing. Chairman Roman then stated that moving directly to a vinyl replacement without having any other window models for comparison may set a bad precedent within the historic district. He stated that his thought on this was not generated to ignore the cost of replacement windows that would be incurred by the church, but rather to provide more information to the HRB in reaching a decision. Scott Couchnour stated that he would make a motion to approve the request as submitted with the notation that the church could look at other options if they wished. Then the church could come back to HRB with that proposal with no application fee required. This motion did not receive a second and therefore was not voted on. Ms. Brinton stated that she would instead like to see other alternatives presented by the church, including repairing the windows, as well as the option of replacing with materials other than vinyl. Chairman Roman asked the other HRB members if they agreed with Ms. Brinton’s idea and they responded affirmatively. Chairman Roman then indicated that the HRB wished to see a cost analysis prior to making a final recommendation on the windows. This analysis would indicate the price differences in vinyl, composite, and wood replacement windows. Scott Couchnenour then made a motion to defer this item pending the applicant obtaining the information that the HRB requested. Samantha Nifong seconded the motion. The HRB then voted 5-0 in favor of the motion to defer this business item to a subsequent meeting. NEW BUSINESS ITEM TWO (2) The second item on the agenda included a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the installation of new equipment on the existing playground at the First Baptist Church of Fort Mill. Mr. Terry Kountz represented First Baptist Church of Fort Mill. Senior Planner Moore gave an overview of the COA request. This property is within the Town of Fort Mill Historic District and is located at 121 Monroe White Street. It is not located on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The church wishes to install new equipment on their existing playground. The location of this playground is noted on page 23. Per the plans submitted, this playground consists of 1,410 square feet and has a perimeter of 148 feet (see page 29). The playground equipment is illustrated on page 26-28. Additionally, they will be replacing the existing fence around the playground. The new fence is proposed to be black aluminum. So, the historic district guidelines which will apply in this instance are those for historic, civic, office, industrial, institutional buildings. These are found in Section 3.82 and are found on page 22 within the agenda information. This guideline notes that properties within the town’s historic district include both buildings and the surrounding grounds. All such additions should preserve the key character-defining features that are important in defining the traditional setting of the historic property. Senior Planner Moore noted that the existing church playground fits very well within the traditional setting of this property as well as into the overall historic district. The new playground equipment as proposed will serve to enhance the existing playground. Moore then stated that Planning Staff recommends that HRB grant approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition of the playground equipment at 121 Monroe White Street as presented within this application. Senior Planner Moore then asked if the HRB members had any questions or comments on this information. David Booth asked if the proposal was only an update and replacement of what was already in place. Senior Planner Moore replied that this was correct. Megan Brinton asked if there was a chain link fence in place currently. Terry Kountz replied that this was correct. He added that the older playground equipment that was in place was an Eagle Scout project consisting of a wooden structure. He noted that this was beginning to deteriorate and needed to be replaced. Ms. Brinton stated that she was ok with the proposal and that she liked the look of the proposed aluminum fence and that this would be an upgrade. She also noted that the purpose of the space was not being changed in that there was already a playground at this location. David Booth then made a motion to approve the COA application as presented. Megan Brinton seconded the motion. Chairman Roman asked if there were any further discussions. There being none he asked all those in favor of approving the COA application as presented to signify by saying “aye.” The HRB then voted 5-0 to approve the application as presented. Chairman Roman then asked the HRB if anyone had any other items to discuss before adjournment. There being none, Chairman Roman then noted that he had one comment. He went on to state that HRB members were free to speak with citizens about matters that were discussed publicly in HRB meetings. However, members shall not communicate individually on behalf of the HRB within a public forum, whether this be online or otherwise. Rather, when deemed necessary, at the direction of the chairperson, and after consultation with appropriate Town of Fort Mill personnel, suitable messaging will be developed and published publicly. This is to avoid any confusion on the part of citizens and the public due incomplete or inaccurate information due to improper messaging. There being no other business the meeting adjourned at 5:20 PM. Respectfully submitted, Alex J. Moore, AICP Senior Planner May 5th, 2021

Agenda

HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD April 13th, 2021 Virtual Meeting 4:30 PM Live Viewing Online: Request Access by emailing before 4:00pm on Tuesday, April 13th, 2021 to Penelope G. Karagounis, Planning Director at pkaragounis@fortmillsc.gov Public Access by Phone: Dial (toll free) 1-866-899-4679 and use access code 146-472-901 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. HRB Meeting: March 9th, 2021 [Pages 3-5] NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) [Pages 6-19] Applicant Name: St. John’s United Methodist Church Owner Name: St. John’s United Methodist Church Property Address: 130 Tom Hall Street Purpose: COA request for the replacement of existing windows Property information: Town of Fort Mill Historic Preservation District LC, Local Commercial Zoning District 2. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) [Pages 20-34] Applicant Name: First Baptist Church Fort Mill Owner Name: First Baptist Church Fort Mill Property Address: 121 Monroe White Street Purpose: COA request for new playground equipment Property information: Town of Fort Mill Historic Preservation District R-15, One-Family Residential ADJOURN 1 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 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. 2 MINUTES TOWN OF FORT MILL HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD March 9th, 2021 Virtual Meeting 4:30 PM Present: Chairman Louis Roman, David Booth, Megan Brinton, Scott Couchenour, Samantha Nifong, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Senior Planner Alex Moore Guests: TJ Christenburg CALL TO ORDER Chairman Louis Roman called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON & VICE-CHAIRPERSON Scott Cochenour made a motion to nominate Louis Roman as Chairman. Chairman Roman recused himself and Vice-Chairman David Booth then presided Vice-Chairman. Megan Brinton then seconded the motion to nominate Louis Roman as Chairman. By a vote of 4-0, the HRB elected Louis Roman as Chairman for the year 2021. Chairman Roman returned to the meeting and noted that nominations would then be accepted for vice-chairperson. Samantha Nifong made a motion to nominate Megan Brinton as Vice-Chairwoman for the year 2021. David Booth seconded the motion. By a vote of 4-0, the HRB elected Megan Brinton as Vice-Chairwoman for the year 2021. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Louis Roman entertained a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Couchenour made a motion to approve the minutes from the December 8th, 2020, meeting as presented. Samantha Nifong seconded the motion to approve the minutes. The minutes were then approved by a vote of 5-0. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Louis Roman opened the new business portion of the meeting by noting the contents of the agenda and the associated packet of information. 3 NEW BUSINESS ITEM The first item on the agenda included a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) submitted by TJ Christenburg of Sign Techniques. Mr. Christenburg represented several business owners located at 135 Confederate Street who wished to install a pole mounted/freestanding sign. The location of this address is within the Town of Fort Mill Historic District. The property is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Mr. Christenburg gave an overview of the proposed sign and noted that Bliss Real Estate, one of the businesses at 135 Confederate Street, was leading this initiative. He stated that they desired for the sign to be interchangeable in the event any of the existing tenants left and a new tenant(s) wished to then lease space within the building. Mr. Christenburg referred to this type of sign as a “post and panel” sign. The panels would be acrylic. Chairman Roman then asked if there were any questions from HRB members about this proposal. Megan Brinton asked if this sign would be replacing an existing sign. Mr. Christenburg stated that no sign currently existed on site. Additionally, he noted that the only issue that had been brought forth regarding the proposed sign was with the height of the sign. Mr. Christenburg indicated that due to this that the design had been adjusted. Chairman Roman then asked if the submitted package represented the actual color scheme that would be used with any future tenants. Mr. Christenburg answered affirmatively. Chairman Roman inquired if the proposal as submitted met Town of Fort Mill requirements. Senior Planner Alex Moore stated that the only issue with the sign as presented included the height of the sign. The staff report noted that the recommendation was that the sign not exceed the height of the front porch plus 36-inches. Chairman Roman concurred and asked if there were any other comments from HRB members on the sign proposal. Ms. Brinton asked about the location of the driveway location on Confederate Street as shown within the submitted drawing. She also asked if there was additional parking on site. Senior Planner Moore noted that this is a driveway and that there was at least one ADA space at this location. He also noted that there was additional parking immediately off Monroe White Street within this site. There being no further questions or comments, Chairman Roman entertained a motion on the COA application. Scott Couchenour made a motion to approve the COA application with the condition that the sign not exceed the height of the front porch plus 36-inches. Chairman Roman then noted that he would like to add a condition that future tenants could change out signage panels, to the extent that the existing color backgrounds were maintained, without being required to come back to the HRB for approval. Scott Couchenour accepted this condition to his original motion. 4 Megan Brinton seconded the motion with the conditions that the sign not exceed the height of the front porch plus 36-inches and that future tenants could change out signage panels, to the extent that the existing color backgrounds were maintained, without being required to come back to the HRB for approval. The motion then carried by a vote of 5-0 by the HRB. Chairman Roman then asked Senior Planner Moore if he had any other items that needed to be addressed by the HRB. Moore stated that he did not. Megan Brinton then stated that she would like to discuss the possibility of conducting a historic survey of properties within the Town of Fort Mill. She noted that there were grants available from the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SCSHPO) and that the town would need to match the available funds. Ms. Brinton also discussed several additional tools that could be advantageous to preserving the historic heritage of the town. Chairman Roman stated that this was talked about a few years earlier but that there were some challenges such as finding property owners who wish to cooperate with being listed on the NRHP or having property owners who agree with the expansion of the town’s historic district. However, Chairman Roman indicated that such endeavors could be beneficial to the town. There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 5:18 PM. Respectfully submitted, Alex J. Moore, AICP Senior Planner March 30th, 2021 5 H I S T OR I C R E V I E W B OA R D A P PL I C A N T St. John’s United Methodist Church Subject Property: 130 Tom Hall Street Tax Map # 020-03-01-013 Zoning District: Local Commercial/Historic Preservation District Zoning Case: 2021-0066 REQUEST The Town of Fort Mill Planning Department has received an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from St. John’s United Methodist Church requesting to replace deteriorating windows located within their education building. S I T E D E S C R I P T I ON A N D G E N E R A L C ON S T R U C T I ON 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). The applicant indicates that the existing double-hung windows have deteriorated in the form of wood rot and flaking paint. The intent is to improve both the aesthetics and functionality of the existing windows by replacing them with Pella 250 series vinyl units. This product will incorporate the color, size, detail, and lite pattern which will match the existing windows. H I S T OR I C D I S T R I C T D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S R E V I E W The Town of Fort Mill Historic District Guidelines indicate that historic windows are one of the many key characteristics of building style. Therefore, historic windows along with their distinct decorative features should be preserved. Replacing a window should occur only if the existing historic material is beyond repair. These guidelines do state that the use of vinyl windows is not appropriate. The specific points below, which are taken from the town’s historic district guidelines are applicable to the review of this application: Section 3.23: Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. Frames and sashes should be repaired and replaced, whenever conditions permit. The applicant has indicated 6 within this application that the existing wood windows are deteriorated in the form of wood rot and flaking. Thus, it seems that these windows cannot be repaired as a practical matter. Section 3.24: Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. Preserve a distinctive window opening shape, such as an arched top. The number of existing window openings are not being reduced. Additionally, the application materials indicate that the replacement windows will be appropriately sized for the existing openings. Section 3.25: Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a primary façade. The historic ratio of window openings is not being altered. Section 3.26: Match a replacement window to the original in its design. The replacement windows will be double hung just as the existing windows. The grille pattern of the replacement windows matches the existing windows with 6/6 and 4/4 patterns. Section 3.27: In a replacement window, use materials that appear like the original. The materials that are being used will appear to be very similar to the existing windows. See the page within this packet containing the window types, grille details, color, and pattern information. Though they are vinyl, the replacement windows do incorporate materials that appear very similar to the existent, original windows. Section 3.28: Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. The applicant has noted that the proposed replacement model will contain simulated divided lite design that creates shadows very similar to that of a true divided lite. Section 3.29: Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. The application indicates that there are no window openings proposed to be enclosed. Z ON I N G G U I D E L I N E S R E V I E W There is no zoning guideline review necessary for consideration of this application. S T A F F R E C OM M E N D A T I ON The project as presented indicates that a total of 52 windows are being replaced. While the historic district design guidelines do state that vinyl replacement windows are not appropriate, the applicant has carefully chosen a window that very closely replicates the original, wooden ones. This is due to the design details which are incorporated into the respective Pella 250 series. Therefore, staff believes that there will be no discernable difference between the current windows and the proposed replacements. The new windows will additionally be much more efficient than the original windows and will meet the 7 parameters of the 2009 Energy Conservation Code (IECC 2009). The IECC 2009 is a model code produced by the International Code Council (ICC). This document provides the foundation for the building code upon which the Town of Fort Mill operates. Planning staff thus recommends that the HRB grant APPROVAL for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the application as submitted. 8 9 10 Historic Review Board Submittal Window Replacement for St. John's United Methodist Church Fort Mill, South Carolina Section Page Project Description 2 Location of Project 3 Existing Conditions 4 Window Types, Grille Details, Color & Pattern 5 North & West Building Elevations 6 South & East Building Elevations 7 Window Installation Specifications 1 of 2 8 Window Installation Specifications 2 of 2 9 Index Window Replacement 1 ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9 11 Proposed Window Replacement The existing double hung windows of the Education Buildings have deteriorated due to age and moderate maintenance. Deterioration is in the form of wood rot and flaking paint, both aggravated by condensation caused by the addition of storm windows intended to improve thermal performance. Additionally, the added storm windows have had a visual impact and screen the "texture" and scale of the window details created by the 6 over 6 and 4 over 4 sash glazing. As the storm windows are not removed seasonally, the windows, both wood and storm, are not as clean as they might be. Single thickness glass was used in the original windows since insulating glass was not readily available nor common practice. With the church located across the street from the Fort Mill Fire Department, the single thickness glass affords little, if any, sound attenuation, especially high frequency sounds common to emergency vehicles. Although not used for ventilation, the windows have aging counterbalance systems: sash cords and weights pocketed into the jambs or stile-mounted tensioning springs. Due to these issues, the church would like to replace the existing windows. The choice for replacement is the Pella 250 series vinyl unit incorporating a color, size, detail, and lite pattern matching the existing windows by location. This nationally recognized manufacturer offers the selected simulated divided lite design that creates shadows rivaling the appearance of a true divided lite. The glazing for these windows is insulated, clear glass with a low-e coating that will improve thermal and acoustical performance. Additionally, the windows are to be installed using the manufacturer's professional labor. Project Description Window Replacement 2 ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9 12 1 2 Limits of Window Replacement 4 (See Elevations Pages 6 & 7) 3 Location of Project Window Replacement 3 ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9 13 View at West Elevation from Tom Hall Street South View at Rear of West Elevation South View at Rear of East Elevation View at East Elevation from Tom Hall Street Typical Window Conditions Existing Windows & Window Deterioration Window Replacement 4 ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9 14 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION HEAD CHECKRAIL Rail, Stile, & Muntin Color: White Grille Styles Simulated-Divided-Lite Grilles: - Adhered to the interior and exterior panes of glass for authentic look of divided lites. - Grilles at 7/8" wide. SILL - Color matches frame. - Grille pattern matches existing 6/6 and 4/4 patterns and muntin width. EXISTING CONSTRUCTION Section at Windows Simulated Divided Lite Replacement Window Replacement Window B A Stained Glass to remain S See pages 6 & 7 for Window Type locations Stucco Infill to remain I Window Types, Grille Details, Color, & Pattern Window Replacement 5 ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9 15 S S S A A A A S S A A A A S S 1 North Elevation - Tom Hall Street Note: Only Windows Types A and B are being replaced. See page 5 for window details B A A A A A A A A A S S B A A A A A A A A A A 2 West Elevation – Toward Main Parking Window Type Locations Window Replacement 6 ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9 16 A AA A A AA A A A A A A 3 North Elevation South Elevation –- Tom HallFellowship Toward Street Hall A Note: Only Windows Types A and B are being replaced. See page 5 for window details A A A A A A A A A S A A A I I A 4 East Elevation – Toward Playground Window Type Locations Window Replacement 7 ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9 17 Manufacturer's Installation Specifications Removal of Existing Windows A. Score the paint between the interior trim and the window frame to minimize damage. B. Remove the interior trim. C. Temporarily pry any head flashing up to avoid damaging or cutting it. D. Cut through the sealant line and nailing fin (if existing) on all four sides and examine jambs, head and sill to determine how windows were installed and attached to framing. E. Remove windows taking care to avoid breaking glass or damaging buikldng subframe to remain. Measure Rough Opening A. Measure width and height of the opening in the wood framing or masonry. The window must be at least 1/2" smaller in width and height. B. Compare dimensions to the new window frame depth. 1. If the window is larger than the return opening, it can typically beinstalled against the exterior edge of the drywall return. 2. If the frame depth is larger than previous window, cut the drywall back with a utility knife and straight edge enough to allow the window to fit within the jamb depth. (Note:Interior shades/blinds may have to be moved to the interior.) 3. If the window is smaller than the drywall return opening, add treated blocking to the opening until the opening is approx. 1/2" larger in width and height than the window. Prep Rough Opening A. Prepare head flashing with no up-turned leg by cutting it the same width as the brick/siding opening. The head flashing should not extend past the interior of the window frame. B. Apply (2) 3/16" beads of sealant, one at the interior edge of the flashing and one along the exterior edge of the sheathing. C. Apply a 3/16" bead of sealant at each corner connecting the two beads from the previous step. D. Secure the flashing to the opening over the sealant using roofing nails or corrosion resistant pan head screws at 12" max. spacing. (Important: The flashing must slope to the exterior. Flashing may be installed before blocking at head (if required). “Z" shaped flashing may be appropriate for some applications.) E. Clean the siding J-channel/trim or brick and rough opening thoroughly. F. If a head flashing with upturned leg was used, seal between the back of the flashing and the sheathing at the head. Tool the sealant athead and/or jambs with a putty knife to press the sealant into the opening. G. Place a 3/8" bead of sealant at each corner of the opening. H. Apply flashing tape over the sealant at the head if a flashing with upturned leg was used. Extend the flashing tape 6" down each jamb. Cover the exterior surface of the drywall (if applicable). Manufacturer's Specifications for Installation Window Replacement 8 ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9 18 Manufacturer's Installation Specifications Prep Rough Opening (Continued) I. Apply flashing tape at the sill, folding it behind the brick onto the surface of the building wrap (if applicable) or vapor barrier and up each jamb 6". Apply up the exterior edge of the drywall. If 2 pieces of flashing tape are required, apply the 2nd so it overlaps the first by 1". F. For brick, apply low expansion foam at the jamb to seal between the back of the brick and the sheathing. G. For siding, apply flashing tape at each jamb extending 3" onto the head and sill. Cover the exterior edge of the drywall (if applicable) and extend the tape over the sealant onto the side of the trim or j-trim. (NOTE: The jamb flashing tape may also be used on brick . Apply sealant to the brick before application.)J. If the window is smaller than the drywall return opening, add treated blocking to the opening until the opening is approximately 1/2" larger in width and height than the window. K. Cut treated blocking equal to the width and height dimensions as necessary. L. Rip the treated blocking as required. The width may be reduced to fit behind brick/siding or head flashing or to fit behind a flush flange as with Pella® 350 Series. M. Apply (2) 3/16" beads of sealant. One just to the exterior of the drywall return and one along the exterior edge of the sheathing. N. Apply a 3/16" bead of sealant at each corner connecting the 2 beads from the previous step. O. Secure the treated blocking to the opening over thesealant using 2" corrosion resistant screws. P. Install and level sill shims. Place 1" wide x 1/4" to 3/8" thick shims 1/2" from each each side. Keep shims back 1/2" from interior and exterior face of window. For vinyl windows, add shims so maximum spacing is 18". Q. Attach shims to prevent movement after they are level. (NOTE: Improper placement of shims may result in bowing the bottom of the window.) R. Drill pilot holes in the window frame (if they are not factory pre-drilled). Refer to the anchor and shim spacing instructions as recommended by the manufacturer. S. Secure drywall return installation clips using #8 x 2-1/2" flat head screws at the jambs to align with each pilot hole in the window frame. These clips provide secure attachment when frame screws will not penetrate the framing or treated blocking . T. Apply sealant to the exterior edge of the drywall return on all four sides. Window Installation, Operation, and Cleaning A. Position windows taking care to avoid damage to any finishes or working parts and as recommended by the manufacturer. B. Secure windows to subframes using SS fasteners or as recommended by manfacturer for type substrate. C. Test operations of windows and correct any non-conforming operations. D. Clean all window surfaces using agents appropriate for substrate and as recommended by the manufacturer. Manufacturer's Specifications for Installation Window Replacement 9 ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9 19 H I S T OR I C R E V I E W B OA RD A P PL I C A N T First Baptist Church Fort Mill Subject Property: 121 Monroe White Street Tax Map # 020-06-09-001 Zoning District: R-15/Historic Preservation District Zoning Case: 2021-0265 REQUEST The Town of Fort Mill Planning Department has received an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from First Baptist Church Fort Mill requesting approval for the addition of playground equipment to their property. S I T E D E S C R I P T I ON A N D G E N E R A L C ON S T R U C T I ON 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). The applicant indicates that this equipment will be placed within an existing fenced, playground area on the property. This equipment will be incorporated into the church’s children’s ministry. H I S T OR I C D I S T R I C T D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S R E V I E W Prior to any new construction, alteration, modification, or addition to an area designated as a historic district in the Town of Fort Mill, a COA from the Historic Review Board (HRB) is required. Because the First Baptist Church 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. See Section 3.82 on page 64 of the Town of Fort Mill Historic District Design Guidelines (attached). These guidelines note that such historic properties include the buildings as well as the surrounding grounds. Specifically, any additions should preserve the key character-defining features that are important in defining the traditional setting of the historic property. Please note the attached and completed COA application from First Baptist Church along with illustrations of the proposed playground equipment. Additionally, the applicant has provided a site plan. 20 As indicated on the site plan, the actual playground area is already established within the fenced portion of the property. The new equipment will be placed within this existing fenced area. Z ON I N G G U I D E L I N E S R E V I E W There is no zoning guideline review necessary for consideration of this application. S T A F F R E C OM M E N D A T I ON The children’s educational ministry at First Baptist Church Fort Mill is a long-established program. The existing church playground is used as part of this. The existing playground fits very well within the traditional setting of this property as well as into the overall historic district. The new equipment as proposed will serve to enhance the existing playground. Planning staff therefore recommends that the HRB grant Approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition of the playground equipment at 121 Monroe White Street as presented within this application. 21 iÈ}˜Ո`iˆ˜iÃvœÀˆÃ̜ÀˆV ˆÛˆV]"vwVi]˜`ÕÃÌÀˆ>] ˜Ã̈ÌṎœ˜>>˜`,iˆ}ˆœÕà Ո`ˆ˜}à These design guidelines address office buildings (complexes), churches, schools, libraries and government buildings. These historic properties including the building and setting are important resources within the community and should be preserved. 3.82 Preserve the key character-defining features that are important in defining the traditional setting of the historic property. These can include: ‡ Site features such as expansive front, side and rear yards ‡ Site features such as fences and walls ‡ Building orientation to the street or lawn ‡ Natural and topographic features ‡ View corridors 3.83 Preserve the key character-defining features of historic Civic, Office, Industrial, Institutional and Religious Buildings. These can include: 3UHVHUYHWKHNH\FKDUDFWHUGH¿QLQJ ‡ High quality materials such as brick, stone and stained glass IHDWXUHVRIKLVWRULFFKXUFKHV ‡ Four-sided architecture ‡ Building features such as: a grand entry, porticoes, stairways, canopies, etc. ‡ Building division into base, middle and cap, as well as streamlined features ‡ Steeples, towers and penthouses ‡ Solid to void ratio ‡ Elaborate window openings 64 Chapter 3: Treatment of Historic Resources 22 23 24 25 First Baptist Church Sales Representative Equipment Manufacturer Fort Mill, SC POST & COMPONENT ROTOMOLD PLASTIC 2-COLOR PLASTIC ECO-ARMOR 21-4289A.PWC 26 First Baptist Church Sales Representative Equipment Manufacturer Fort Mill, SC 21-4289A.PWC 27 First Baptist Church Sales Representative Equipment Manufacturer Fort Mill, SC 21-4289A.PWC 28 98' PLAYWORLD PREFERRED 11515 Vanstory Drive Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 1-800-459-7241 PICNIC TABLE PICNIC TABLE PART#ZZPQ106Q PART#ZZPQ106Q EQUIPMENT SIZE: 16' x 20' x 11' FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH USE ZONE: 6' BENCH PART#ZZPQ303Q See Dwg 33' 9'-10" AREA: PERIMETER: 1,410 SqFt. 148 Ft. 6'-8" FORT MILL, SC 6'-3" NUVO 360° GLIDE SPIRAL SLIDE SLIDE FALL HEIGHT: 71' 6' BENCH 12'-1" 6'-1" 6 Ft. PART#ZZPQ303Q COZY COCOON 72" PART#ZZXX0483 1,83M PIPEWALL 72" USER CAPACITY: AGE GROUP: W/ TELESCOPE 1,83M 9'-1" (deck) STOREFRONT ADA STAIRS ROCK CLIMBER 47 2-12 34' (ground) ACTIVITY PANEL W/ VERY BURIED INSERT (deck) 30' ADA BELL 48" PANEL (ground) 1,22M BUTTONS ADA SCHEDULE (2) 12" Total Elevated Play Activities: 7 POST 36" (1) 18" MOUNT DRUM 0,92M 7'-4" Total Ground-Level Play Activities: 8 ADA STAIR 10' Accessible Accessible Accessible MOON ROCK Elevated Ground-Level Ground-Level GLIDE TRANSFER BLOCK SLIDE CLIMBER Activities Activities Play Types STATION CLIMBER PART#ZZXX0148 W/ STEP Required 4 2 2 Provided 7 8 6 6'-2" ASTM F1487-11 42' CPSC #325 10' PROJECT NO: SCALE: 21-4289A.PWC 1/8"=1'-0" DRAWN BY: Paper Size L.RICE 0 5' 10' DATE: B 29 *PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION REQUIRED 12-JAN-21 6' BENCH PART#ZZPQ303Q 23" 396" 52" PLAYWORLD PREFERRED 118" 120" 11515 Vanstory Drive Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 6' BENCH 1-800-459-7241 PART#ZZPQ303Q NUVO FOOTING LEGEND 360° SPIRAL 92" 14" COZY COCOON SLIDE 18" PART#ZZXX0483 852" FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH GLIDE 57" 15" SLIDE COMPONENT FOOTING (DETAIL 3) 3" 51" 160 93" " 160 ADA 29" " 36" 160 STAIRS ROCK " SPIRAL SLIDE CENTER POST FOOTING (DETAIL1) 44" CLIMBER 33" 160 408" " 16" 24" FORT MILL, SC 36" 25" 136 18" 9" N " ZZU 40 22" " 165" 37" 18" 71 ZZU N 360" 136 136 ZZU 40 " 714 N 74" 4" 124 36" 136 6 71 " 14" " BUTTONS SUPPORT POST FOOTING (DETAIL 1 or 4) 15" (2) 12" 547" (136" INDICATES POST LENGTH) 8" 20" 16" 296" 124 136 " 36" " (1) 18" 124 263" 2" " ADA 16" STAIR 20" 7" 16" 10" 15" 64" 4" H 124 " ZZC 0 185 TRA STA NSFE TIO R N 19" 4" 75" 14" 18" 41" 103" 170" TRANSFER 32" TRA STA NSFE TIO R 11" GLIDE MOON ROCK CANTILEVER, "T" POST, AND COMPONENT STATION N BLOCK SLIDE CLIMBER POST FOOTING (DETAIL 2) 16" W/ STEP CLIMBER PART#ZZXX0148 (ZZCH1850 INDICATES PART NUMBER) 117" " 148 GZ GROUND ZERO POST FOOTING (DETAIL 2) (148" INDICATES POST LENGTH) 504" 122" " 210 P S 122" SHADE HAT POST FOOTING (DETAIL 5) (210" INDICATES POST LENGTH) PROJECT NO: SCALE: 21-4289A.PWP 3/16"=1'-0" DRAWN BY: Paper Size AWB 1176" DATE: B 30 *PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION REQUIRED 16-MAR-21 First Baptist Church Design Number: 21-4289A - Bill Of Material Ref. No. Part No. Description Quantity Posts 1 ZZCH0018 3.5in OD x 124in STEEL POST W/RIVETED CAP 4 2 ZZCH0028 3.5in OD x 136in STEEL POST W/ RIVETED CAP 4 3 ZZCH0048 3.5in OD x 160in STEEL POST W/ RIVETED CAP 4 Decks & Kick Plates 4 ZZCH0616 SQUARE COATED DECK ASSEMBLY 3 ADA Items 5 ZZCH2006 TRANSFER STATION (36in DECK) 1 6 ZZUN2019 APPROACH STEP FOR TRANSFER STATION 1 Slides 7 ZZCH2696 GLIDE SLIDE (72in DECK) 1 8 ZZCH3126 GLIDE SLIDE (48in DECK) 1 9 ZZCH3537 SLIDE- NUVO 360 SPIRAL SLIDE 1 Activity Panels 10 ZZCH4357 PIPEWALL WITH LOWER TELESCOPE 1 11 ZZCH4646 STORE FRONT PANEL 1 12 ZZCH4671 CH PANEL FRAME- DECK LEVEL 1 13 ZZUN4677 VERY BURIED INSERT 1 Climbers 14 ZZCH7087 CLIMBING SQUARES BLOCK CLIMBER (36in) 1 15 ZZCH7439 ROCK CLIMBER (48in DECK) 1 Balance 16 ZZUN7140 STATIONARY BUTTONS (12in) 2 17 ZZUN7146 STATIONARY BUTTONS (18in) 1 Audible Activities 18 ZZCH4409 ACCESSIBLE BELL PANEL 1 19 ZZCH4649 POST MOUNT DRUM 1 Stairs and Ladders 20 ZZCH9168 12in ACCESS STEPPED PLATFORM (DECK TO DECK) 1 21 ZZCH9170 24in ACCESS STEPPED PLATFORM (DECK TO DECK) 1 Additional Tool & Maintenance Kits 22 ZZUN1471 INSTALLER HARDWARE KIT 1 23 ZZUN9930 PIPE SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE KIT W/ AEROSOL 1 24 ZZXX0678 LABEL KIT- COMPOSITE STRUCTURE - ASTM 1 25 ZZXXGNGUID GENERAL INSTALLERS GUIDE 1 Tuesday, January 12, 2021 Page 1 of 1 Playworld.com 31 First Baptist Church Design Number: 21-4289A - Compliance and Technical Data Reference Document: ASTM F1487 Pre- Post- Unit Total Consumer CO2e Active Ref. ASTM Weight Recycled Content Footprint Install Concrete Play No. Part No. Qty. Description Status (lbs) (lbs) (kgs) Users Hours (Yds3) Events 1 ZZPQ106Q 2 6ft RECTANGLE TABLE - PERFORATED- N/A 514.00 1,597 0 0.00 0.00 0 PORTABLE 2 ZZPQ303Q 2 6ft BENCH W/ BACK - PERFORATED - N/A 250.00 813 0.00 0.00 0 IN-GROUND 3 ZZXX0148 1 MOON ROCK Certified 242.30 1,073 8 4.00 0.18 1 4 ZZXX0483 1 COZY COCOON - SPINNING Certified 132.00 834 3 1.50 0.13 1 5 ZZXX8905 1 WHEELCHAIR ACCESS RAMP - BORDER N/A 213.68 456 0 1.00 0.00 0 TIMBER 6 ZZXX9409 1 1ft BORDER TIMBER w/STAKE N/A 5.51 13 0 0.25 0.00 0 7 ZZXX9410 4 2ft BORDER TIMBERS w/STAKE N/A 30.44 64 0 1.00 0.00 0 8 ZZXX9430 34 4ft BORDER TIMBERS w/STAKE N/A 350.54 677 0 8.50 0.00 0 9 ZZCH0018 4 3.5in OD x 124in STEEL POST W/RIVETED Certified 155.64 215 0 4.00 0.50 0 CAP 10 ZZCH0028 4 3.5in OD x 136in STEEL POST W/ RIVETED Certified 174.04 234 0 4.00 0.50 0 CAP 11 ZZCH0048 4 3.5in OD x 160in STEEL POST W/ RIVETED Certified 200.84 272 0 4.00 0.50 0 CAP 12 ZZCH0616 3 SQUARE COATED DECK ASSEMBLY Certified 164.58 521 9 3.00 0.00 0 13 ZZCH2006 1 TRANSFER STATION (36in DECK) Certified 145.80 308 2 2.00 0.09 0 14 ZZUN2019 1 APPROACH STEP FOR TRANSFER STATION Certified 35.83 72 1 1.00 0.04 0 15 ZZCH2696 1 GLIDE SLIDE (72in DECK) Certified 151.63 653 2 1.50 0.03 1 16 ZZCH3126 1 GLIDE SLIDE (48in DECK) Certified 119.73 492 2 1.50 0.03 1 17 ZZCH3537 1 SLIDE- NUVO 360 SPIRAL SLIDE Certified 650.00 1,417 2 6.00 0.15 1 18 ZZCH4357 1 PIPEWALL WITH LOWER TELESCOPE Certified 32.11 118 1 0.50 0.00 1 19 ZZCH4646 1 STORE FRONT PANEL Certified 33.98 243 3 1.00 0.00 1 20 ZZCH4671 1 CH PANEL FRAME- DECK LEVEL N/A 32.87 163 0 1.00 0.00 0 21 ZZUN4677 1 VERY BURIED INSERT Certified 17.97 470 2 0.25 0.00 1 22 ZZCH7087 1 CLIMBING SQUARES BLOCK CLIMBER (36in) Certified 129.12 437 2 4.00 0.12 1 23 ZZCH7439 1 ROCK CLIMBER (48in DECK) Certified 136.38 555 3 2.00 0.03 1 Tuesday, January 12, 2021 Page 1 of 3 Playworld.com 32 First Baptist Church Design Number: 21-4289A - Compliance and Technical Data Reference Document: ASTM F1487 Pre- Post- Unit Total Consumer CO2e Active Ref. ASTM Weight Recycled Content Footprint Install Concrete Play No. Part No. Qty. Description Status (lbs) (lbs) (kgs) Users Hours (Yds3) Events 24 ZZUN7140 2 STATIONARY BUTTONS (12in) Certified 54.24 179 2 1.50 0.26 2 25 ZZUN7146 1 STATIONARY BUTTONS (18in) Certified 27.92 92 1 0.75 0.13 1 26 ZZCH4409 1 ACCESSIBLE BELL PANEL Certified 22.16 211 1 0.50 0.00 1 27 ZZCH4649 1 POST MOUNT DRUM Certified 12.78 167 1 0.50 0.00 1 28 ZZCH9168 1 12in ACCESS STEPPED PLATFORM (DECK TO Certified 70.28 277 1 2.00 0.00 0 DECK) 29 ZZCH9170 1 24in ACCESS STEPPED PLATFORM (DECK TO Certified 135.24 296 1 2.00 0.00 0 DECK) 30 ZZUN1471 1 INSTALLER HARDWARE KIT N/A 57 31 ZZUN9930 1 PIPE SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE KIT W/ N/A 90 AEROSOL 32 ZZXX0678 1 LABEL KIT- COMPOSITE STRUCTURE - ASTM N/A 0.04 TBD 0 0.08 0.00 0 33 ZZXXGNGUID 1 GENERAL INSTALLERS GUIDE N/A 1 Totals: 4,241.65 586 642 13,064 47 59.33 2.69 15 1,908.74 Kg 264 Kg 289 Kg 13 Metric Tons 2.04 m3 Tuesday, January 12, 2021 Page 2 of 3 Playworld.com 33 First Baptist Church Design Number: 21-4289A - Compliance and Technical Data Reference Document: ASTM F1487 Pre- Post- Unit Total Consumer CO2e Active Ref. ASTM Weight Recycled Content Footprint Install Concrete Play No. Part No. Qty. Description Status (lbs) (lbs) (kgs) Users Hours (Yds3) Events ASTM F1487 The lay-out for this custom playscape, design number 21-4289A, has been configured to meet the requirements of the ASTM F1487 standard. In addition, each of the above components listed as "Certified" have been tested and are IPEMA certified. Components listed as "Not Applicable" do not fall within the scope of the ASTM F1487 standard and have not been tested. IPEMA certification can be verified on the IPEMA website, www.ipema.org. In the interest of playground safety, IPEMA provides a Third Party Certification Service which validates compliance. 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design The lay-out was also designed to meet the 2010 Standards published 15-Sep-2010, by the Department of Justice when installed over a properly maintained surfacing material that is in compliance with ASTM F1951 "Accessibility of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment" as well as ASTM F1292, "Impact Attenuation of Surfacing Materials Within the Use Zone of Playground Equipment", appropriate for the fall height of the structure. Installation Times Installation times are based on one experienced installer. A crew of three experienced individuals can perform the installation within the given time, each member working 1/3 of the given hours. [Eg. Installation Time = 30 hours. For a crew of three, each member will work 10 hours on the installation for a total of 30 hours on the project.] Carbon Footprint The CO2e (carbon footprint given in Kilograms and Metric Tons) listed above is a measure of the environmental impact this play structure represents from harvesting raw materials to the time it leaves our shipping dock. Playworld Systems nurtures a total corporate culture that is focused on eliminating carbon producing processes and products, reducing our use of precious raw materials, reusing materials whenever possible and recycling materials at every opportunity. Playworld Systems elected to adopt the Publicly Available Specification; PAS 2050 as published by the British Standards Institute and sponsored by Defra and the Carbon Trust. The PAS 2050 has gained international acceptance as a specification that measures the greenhouse gas emissions in services and goods throughout their entire life cycle. Pre-Consumer Recycle Content A measurement, in pounds, that qualifies the amount of material that was captured as waste and diverted from landfill during an initial manufacturing process and is being redirected to a separate manufacturing process to become a different product. E.g. 100% of our Aluminum Tubing is made from captured waste material during the manufacturing process of extruded Aluminum products such as rods, flat bars and H-channels. Post-Consumer Recycle Content A measurement, in pounds, that qualifies the amount of material that was once another product that has completed its lifecycle and has been diverted from a landfill as a solid waste through recycling and is now being used in a Playworld Systems' product. E.g. **20% to 40% of the steel in our steel tubing and sheet steel have been diverted from landfills. Automobiles are scrapped and recyclable steel is purchased by the steel mill that produces our raw product. ** The amount of Post-Consumer recycled steel fluctuates daily based on the availability of the recycled steel. Tuesday, January 12, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Playworld.com 34

Get email alerts for Fort Mill

A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.

Report an issue with this meeting