Historic Review Board

HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD May 11th, 2021 Virtual Meeting 4:30 PM Live Viewing Online: Request Access by emailing before 4:00pm on Tuesday, May 11th, 2020 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 943-856-837 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. HRB Meeting: April 13th, 2021 [Pages 2-6] OLD BUSINESS 1. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) [Pages 7-21] 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 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 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. 1  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. 2 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 3  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. 4 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. 5 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 6  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. This request went before HRB on 04/13/21. At that meeting the HRB concluded that more information was needed to make a final decision on these replacement windows. Thus, action on this case was deferred. The HRB made this determination based on the design guidelines which indicate that vinyl replacement windows are not appropriate within the historic district. Specifically, the HRB requested that the applicant obtain product and pricing information on windows made of materials including composite and wood. The applicant has now provided this requested material which is attached to this report. This includes a price spreadsheet along with a window-material synopsis (by manufacturer). 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 stated that the existing double-hung windows have deteriorated in the form of wood rot and flaking paint. The original intent was to replace the existing windows with Pella 250 series vinyl units. The applicant indicated that this product would incorporate the color, size, detail, and lite pattern which will match the existing windows. 7 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 For review, below is the design guideline information that was presented at the last meeting in relation to this project: 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 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. 8 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 staff recommendation from the previous meeting is noted below in italics: 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. A T T A C HM E N T S • Submittal Narrative & Associated Information: Revised narrative information is highlighted in yellow. Other than highlighted sections, this material is the same from previous HRB Meeting. • Spreadsheet with Cost Data on Window Materials—New • Brief Outline of Material Specifications & Performance from Manufacturers—New 9  Historic Review Board Submittal Window Replacement for St. John's United Methodist Church Fort Mill, South Carolina Section Page Revised Submittal Narrative 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 10  Revised Submittal Narrative 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. Please find attached a spreadsheet with cost data on the various window materials and a brief outline of the material specs and performance from the manufacturers. We were unable to find a millwork contractor who might be able to rebuild windows although the Andersen window rep told me that there was a small shop in High Point, NC who would remove the windows, install a temporary window, and rebuild the windows in their High Point shop for about $4,000 to $5,000 per opening. This is significantly beyond our budget and financial ability. As the HRB can see, the Andersen windows constructed using their proprietary Fibrex product are more expensive than the Pella vinyl and yet are essentially an enhanced vinyl product. The others vary from fiberglass to wood covered in pre-finished aluminum, all providing a similar appearance. The Pella cost breakdown came from the manufacturer and the Andersen window contractor. Our goal was to use a window where we could have one source providing material and installation so that, should there be any water infiltration issues, we would have a single point of responsibility for resolution. Pella was the only manufacturer who met that requirement. While we recognize the importance of maintaining historic fabric, we feel that the Pella 250 windows will meet the intent of the historic goals for Fort Mill and provide a visual quality equal to that created by the builders of St. John's. Regards, Les Spencer for St. John's UMC Board of Trustees Project Description Window Replacement 2 ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9 11  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 12  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 13  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 14  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 15  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 16  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 17  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 18  Pella Andersen 250 Series Impervia Lifestyle Arch Series 100 Series 400 Series A Series 1 34.5" x 62.25" Unit Cost $487.45 $541.91 $739.84 $1,140.77 Qty 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 Subtotal $14,136.05 $15,715.39 $21,455.36 $33,082.33 2* 34.5" x 62.25" Unit Cost $566.96 $641.19 $839.26 $1,265.59 Qty 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Subtotal $1,133.92 $1,282.38 $1,678.52 $2,531.18 3 25.5" x 61.875" Unit Cost $416.98 $472.62 $605.60 $994.92 Qty 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Subtotal $833.96 $945.24 $1,211.20 $1,989.84 4 38.5" x 61.875" Unit Cost $493.65 $556.72 $752.87 $1,198.72 Qty 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Subtotal $4,936.50 $5,567.20 $7,528.70 $11,987.20 5 34.75" x 52.625" Unit Cost $488.36 $561.77 $785.68 $1,194.55 Qty 4 4 4 4 12 12 12 Subtotal $1,953.44 $2,247.08 $3,142.72 $4,778.20 Window $ $22,993.87 $25,757.29 $35,016.50 $54,368.75 $68,334.95 * $110,704.60 * $127,777.48 * Mat'ls + Tax $6,305.32 $6,498.76 $6,968.13 $6,370.23 $1,386.00 + $1,386.00 + $1,386.00 + Labor $20,330.00 $20,330.00 $20,330.00 $20,330.00 Total $49,629.19 $52,586.05 $62,314.63 $81,068.98 * $69,720.95 $112,090.60 $129,163.48 *Tempered Glass *Painting NIC * Includes Labor, Taxes, and Install Materials + Dumpster 19  Window Material Synopsis By Manufacturer PELLA WINDOWS 250 SERIES Unique Vinyl Formula Pella’s unique vinyl formula is performance-tested for excellent weathering, durability and color retention. Multi-Chambered Frames Improve your window’s strength and energy efficiency when you choose vinyl windows with multi-chambered frames. These pockets help slow the transfer of heat and provide extra support to your window. Dual-Color Frames Available on Pella® 250 Series windows, choose dual-color frames to make a design statement. Choose white frames for the interior of your home with a different color on the exterior. IMPERVIA SERIES Durable and Strong The best fiberglass windows for your home are incredibly strong and durable. This makes Pella's proprietary fiberglass a clear choice for long-lasting durability. Our fiberglass is stronger than a leading wood/plastic composite, conventional fiberglass, wood and vinyl. Our fiberglass windows are designed and tested for a lifetime of everyday use. Resisting dents, bends and breaks, our fiberglass window frames have virtually no expans ion and contraction to help improve energy efficiency, reduce the risk for seal failure and provide long -term stability for dependable operation. Weather Resistant Our proprietary fiberglass is a thermoset material, meaning it won’t melt or breakdown when exposed to environmental temperature swings like other materials can. Tested from -40ºF to 160ºF, our relentlessly durable fiberglass is designed to provide outstanding resistance to water, wind and outside noises. It can withstand subzero cold, the most extreme heat and the rigorous performance requirements of a commercial building. Maintenance-Free Our extremely durable fiberglass material will never rot or corrode and is naturally resistant to water and bugs. Our long-lasting powder-coat finish meets AAMA 624 which is the highest rated fiberglass coating among leading national competitors. Baked on in the factory, our heavy-duty powder-coat finish resists chipping, chalking and fading - so you never need to paint or refinish your Pella fiberglass windows Pella Impervia windows are created from our exclusive fiberglass formula. A structural mat places rovings in a specific, intricate order to meet our high strength standards. Additional layers of strategically placed rovings are added, then the materials are pulled through a machine, injected with polymer resin and heated. It creates an entirely new, thermoset material which won't break down when exposed to the elements or lose its shape in extreme heat — unlike other materials. LIFESTYLE SERIES AND ARCHITECTURAL SERIES Exterior Aluminum Cladding EnduraClad® aluminum cladding on the exterior of wood windows protects them from the elements. Available in a variety of colors, the exterior of your wood windows will look beautiful and match other parts of your home. More durable, extruded aluminum-cladding is available on Pella Reserve. 20 LIFESTYLE SERIES AND ARCHITECTURAL SERIES (CONTINUED) Customizable Designs Pella’s wood windows offer the most customizable designs. With more features and options than other materials, you can personalize a window to achieve your desired aesthetic. EnduraGuard® Wood Protection Get advanced protection from the effects of moisture, decay, stains from mold and mildew - as well as termite damage. EnduraGuard helps ensure strong protection on every exterior wood surface of our products. ANDERSEN WINDOWS 100 SERIES Made with Andersen-exclusive Fibrex®* composite material. Warranted not to flake, rust, blister, peel, crack, pit or corrode. Movable lower sash allows ventilation. Available as replacement insert window. 400 SERIES Our best-selling double-hung. Unfinished pine or prefinished White, Dark Bronze or Black interior protected by vinyl exterior . Extremely energy-efficient, durable and time-tested. A SERIES Our best-performing double-hung. Wood protected by fiberglass and Fibrex® composite material. Stained and painted wood interiors offer architectural authenticity. *FIBREX Fibrex is a combination of thermoplastic polymer and wood fiber. The thermoplastic polymer makes up 60 percent of the windows while the wood fiber is the remaining 40 percent. This wood fiber comes from other manufacturing processes through Andersen so no materials are ever wasted. When these materials fuse, what you get are windows that promise two times more strength than vinyl. Fibrex windows are also resistant to peeling, blistering, flaking, and fading. They handle temperature fluctuations well, too. Further, Fibrex is corrode-proof, and it won’t succumb to the growth of funguses. It also doesn’t decay or rot, instead maintaining its timeless look. There are even fewer volatile organic compounds or VOCs with Andersen Fibrex compared to other windows. This is because the company doesn’t paint the windows or use wood preservatives. Fibrex is available in Andersen window series such as Renewal by Andersen, the 100 Series, and the A -Series. 21