Historic Review Board

HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD MEETING 112 Confedera te S tree t March 14th, 2023 4:30 PM AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. HRB Meeting: February 14th, 2023 [Pages 2 - 9] NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) [Pages10 -17] Applicant Name: Fort Mill Whitakers LLC Owner Name: 215 N Main St, LLC Property Address: 215 Main Street Purpose: Certificate of Appropriateness request to change color of trim on façade and entirety of rear elevation to Peppercorn by Sherwin Williams Property information: Town of Fort Mill Historic Preservation District LC, Local Commercial Zoning District 2. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) [Pages 18-28] Applicant Name: Casco Signs, Inc. Owner Name: Fort Mill BBCS, LLC Property Address: 314 N. White Street Purpose: Certificate of Appropriateness request for exterior signage package 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, WSOC, 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 February 14th, 2023 112 Confederate Street 4:30 PM Present: Vice Chairwoman Megan Brinton, David Booth, Scott Couchenour, Elizabeth Leventis, Jessica Scarlett, Nikki Todaro, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Senior Planner Alex Moore Absent: Chairman Louis Roman Guests: Derick Moyle (Sign Techniques), Chris Pettit (Assistant Town Manager), Jonathan Fortes (Fortes Mill Eatery), Chris Melton (Fortes Mill Eatery) CALL TO ORDER Vice chairwoman Megan Brinton called the meeting to order at 4:35 PM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice chairwoman Megan Brinton entertained a motion to approve the minutes from the December 13th, 2022, HRB meeting. Scott Couchenour made a motion to approve the minutes. Jessica Scarlett seconded the motion. Then, by a vote of 6-0, the minutes for the December 13th, 2022, meeting were approved. Vice chairwoman Megan Brinton entertained a motion to approve the minutes from the January 10th, 2023, meeting. Elizabeth Leventis made a motion to approve the minutes. Jessica Scarlett seconded the motion. Then, by a vote of 6-0, the minutes for the January 10th, 2023, meeting were approved. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) The first item on the agenda included a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) submitted by the Town of Fort Mill for the installation of new playground equipment, and a poured-in-place, rubberized surface to replace the existing playground equipment and base material at 345 N. White Street (Walter Y. Elisha Park). Senior Planner Alex Moore gave a brief overview of the application and associated materials for this COA request. Vice chairwoman Megan Brinton asked why the project was now coming before HRB since it appeared construction had already begun. Assistant Town Manager Chris Pettit responded to this question and noted that speed has been a priority for the project in trying to minimize the time that the playground would be unavailable for use. He added that no building 2 permits have been issued for the project and that what was currently taking place at the playground was demolition rather than construction. David Booth stated that construction for this type of project would take six to eight weeks. Mr. Pettit responded that actual construction would be several weeks out with demolition and site preparation occurring in the meantime. Scott Couchenour asked if the footprint of the playground would be enlarged. Mr. Pettit responded that the footprint would generally stay the same. He noted that when the town took over the park from Springs that it was understood that it was an open space park and that it would essentially remain that way. Mr. Booth asked if the playground manufacturer was providing the design bid build. Mr. Pettit indicated that the playground manufacturer would be providing all the specs and would be doing the installation. Mr. Booth then noted that inclusive, accessible elements were being provided but that there was no connection from the existing paved path to the playground. Mr. Pettit responded that there was an ADA parking space close to the playground on Ardrey Street. He then noted that much of what the town was doing at Walter Y. Elisha Park would be a phased approach. Currently, the town is not taking on the existing paths. It is the town’s plan to eventually widen the existing paths at the park and including lighting. At that juncture, the town would then improve the existing grades in terms of accessibility and include a concrete connection from the playground to the path that rings the park. Jessica Scarlett thanked Mr. Pettit for providing shading within the new plan. She then noted that currently, the material surrounding the surface of the playground causes an issue of inaccessibility from an ADA perspective. She asked what the elevation of the new playground surface would be. Mr. Pettit responded that there would remain a step-up from the grass to the playground surface, but that an ADA accessible entrance would be provided. Additionally, he noted that the town would investigate how to improve upon the current grade differential from the grass to the playground surface. Mr. Booth asked Mr. Pettit if drainage considerations would be addressed regarding the way the new playground ties into existing infrastructure so that the site drains properly. Mr. Pettit responded that there will be a subsurface design included which will improve the current drainage capability of the site so that there should be no issues. Vice Chairwoman Brinton noted that the illustrative drawing appeared to indicate that turf would be provided for the new playground surface. Mr. Pettit responded that it would be a pour-in-place, rubberized surface like what exists at Banks Athletic Park. Mr. Booth responded that he would recommend not doing a pour-in-place, rubberized surface. Rather, he stated that a synthetic turf should be implemented as the playground surface. Mr. Pettit responded that the town did consider synthetic turf for the playground surface. Ultimately, the poured-in- place, rubberized surface was chosen because the town has had good experiences in using this material at other park locations. Mr. Couchenour asked if the color would be green as shown within the illustration. Mr. Pettit indicated that the playground surface would indeed be green as illustrated. 3 Mr. Couchenour then asked about the width of the sidewalk in the area of the amphitheater and if the long-term plan was to extend this throughout the park. Mr. Pettit responded that the town intended to do a phased approach in upfitting the park with improved pedestrian paths as it would be a significant and delicate project due to the trees. He stated that the town may not be able to install an eight-foot-wide path in some areas due to trees, but that the intent is to maximize the width around the perimeter of the park. Mr. Booth stated that the swing structures will likely prohibit the implementation of an eight-foot path in locations where they have been installed. These will need to be removed, or the path will need to be adjusted to account for them. Mr. Pettit indicated that this issue would certainly need to be addressed. Mr. Couchenour stated that he has observed that the current pedestrian path is not appropriately accessible due to the damage that tree roots have done in expanding beneath it. He indicated that he would like the town to address this issue concurrently with the installation of the new playground equipment. Mr. Pettit responded that this would unfortunately be outside of the current scope of the project in that only the playground replacement has been budgeted for. Mr. Couchenour asked if hospitality tax funds could be used for replacement of the pedestrian path. Mr. Pettit responded that this project has not been budgeted this way but that it likely could be funded with hospitality tax funds. However, he again noted that pedestrian path issues were outside of the scope of the current project but that the town could look at trying to add this in. Mr. Booth asked Mr. Pettit what the budget is for the playground replacement. Mr. Pettit stated $450,000.00. Mr. Couchenour asked how this was funded. Mr. Pettit responded that it was funded via the general fund. Mr. Couchenour added that if hospitality funds could be used then this would be a good time to implement the pedestrian path phase into the current scope since the playground would already be closed. Mr. Booth asked Mr. Pettit where the staging area would be for construction equipment involved in this project. Mr. Pettit indicated that the construction site would be accessed from Ardrey Street. Mr. Booth then concurred with Mr. Couchenour thoughts on implementing the pedestrian path portion of this project concurrently with the playground replacement. Ms. Scarlett then noted that the Strawberry Festival in May could have an impact on the timeline of this project. Mr. Pettit stated that the festival would be on May 6th and that the town planned to have the playground completed prior to this. Mr. Booth asked Mr. Couchenour how far he estimated the length to be for a pedestrian path to connect to the playground. Mr. Couchenour stated he estimated 300 feet. Mr. Booth stated this could be a one day pour for a concrete company. He then also noted that the town would be relying on the contractor to place the equipment properly as there is no site plan. 4 Ms. Scarlett then asked if the picnic tables and the makeshift sandpit adjacent to the playground would be within the scope of the project. Mr. Pettit responded that the picnic structures would either remain or replaced with new tables. He indicated that he could not speak to the informal sandpit. Mr. Booth then noted that there was no proposed pedestrian path within this project to the restrooms. He stated that this was why he had previously noted in the planning for the restrooms that they should have been placed adjacent to the playground. He asked if there was a planned connection between the playground and the restrooms. Mr. Pettit responded that such a connection was not planned at this time. Mr. Booth indicated that this was poor planning and not understanding the accessible needs of others and that the town was opening itself up to liability issues in not including this. Ms. Scarlett then asked if the old drinking fountain that was nearby remained in use. Mr. Couchenour stated that this had been cut off for the winter. Ms. Scarlett said that there should also be a drinking fountain in closer proximity to the playground. Mr. Booth then stated that he felt the board could move to approve the new playground equipment, but they needed to have staff come back with a plan of action in understanding how the playground will be fully accessible and functional. Vice chairwoman Megan Brinton then stated that in the illustration, the wheelchair ramp looks as if it is too close to the perimeter edge of the playground. Mr. Pettit responded that each piece of playground equipment in fact has its own fall zone which is an area surrounding it showing that various requirements are met, such as what Vice chairwoman Brinton had noted. Thus, this would be accounted for within the fall zone plan. Ms. Scarlett then asked for clarification from Mr. Pettit on whether the manufacturer of the playground structures had been awarded a bid. Mr. Pettit responded that they have indeed been awarded the bid. Vice chairwoman Brinton asked if there were any other questions from the board. Mr. Couchenour responded that he liked the idea of moving ahead with approval of the playground replacement but that he still had concerns with ADA accessibility issues. Mr. Pettit responded that the town’s building official and staff would review the project for ADA compliance. Vice chairwoman Brinton stated that she wanted the town to make the HRB aware earlier before such a project was made known to the public. There being no other discussion, Vice chairwoman Brinton entertained a motion. Mr. Booth made a motion to approve removal of the current playground equipment and replacement thereof with new playground equipment and a poured in place rubberized surface based upon the attached schematic illustration, with the condition that town staff return to the HRB with a plan of action to be reviewed which addresses accessibility and connectivity from the playground to and from restrooms and parking facilities. Scott Couchenour seconded the motion. 5 By a vote of 6-0, the HRB voted to approve the application for a COA at 345 N. White Street with the condition as noted. 2. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) The second item on the agenda included a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a replacement canopy, using the existing support system, at 217 Main Street. This application was submitted by Jon and Amy Fortes, owners of the Fortes Mill restaurant at this location. Senior Planner Alex Moore gave a brief overview of the application and associated materials for this COA request. He noted that the applicants had originally come before the HRB in October 2022 for several exterior improvements, one of them being the installation of a black, exterior canopy. However, since that time, the applicants had determined that they did not like the look of the black canopy as it contrasted with the dark blue façade. Thus, they requested that a COA be granted to allow them to replace the black canopy with a new one which would consist of a grayish, tweed color branded as “Seagrass.” He also stated that the new awning would have no signage as part of the design. He then noted that staff recommended that the COA request be approved as submitted. Vice chairwoman Brinton asked if the style of the awning would be the same on the sides as before. Jon Fortes responded that it would be the same. Ms. Scarlett asked Mr. Fortes if the triangular endcaps on the awning would remain. Mr. Fortes responded that they would remain. There being no other questions or comments from the HRB, Vice Chairwoman Brinton entertained a motion. Ms. Leventis made a motion to approve the COA request. Mr. Booth seconded the motion. By a vote of 6-0, the HRB voted to approve the application for a COA at 217 Main Street to replace the canopy. 3. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) The third item on the agenda included a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a projecting sign and a wall sign at 124 Main Street. This application was submitted by Morgan Lashley, the owner of Vestique, which is the business at 124 Main Street. Senior Planner Alex Moore gave a brief overview of the application and associated materials for this COA request. He noted the two signs for which the application was submitted. He stated that the proposed projecting sign would use the existing bracketing on the façade of the building and that the wall sign would be attached to the wall facing Confederate Street. Senior Planner Moore then indicated that staff recommended approval of both signs with the condition that the signage meet all zoning criteria at the time of permitting. Vice Chairwoman Brinton noted that the application indicated that the wall sign would consist of the company name painted onto the wall. Senior Planner Moore replied that the applicant originally did intend to have a painted, wall sign but that she changed her mind and now wished to use drilled-in lettering to comprise this sign. 6 Vice Chairwoman Brinton asked how deep the drilled holes would be to attach the letters to the building. Derick Moyle with Sign Techniques was at the meeting representing Ms. Lashley. He indicated that the studs used on such a project would be quarter-inch studs, and they would go into the wall approximately two inches. He stated that he expected to use three studs per letter and that they would go into both the brick and mortar depending on the location. Mr. Couchenour asked Mr. Moyle what the profile of the respective lettering would be. Mr. Moyle replied that the letters are one-quarter inch thick, aluminum composite material and that they would be flush-mounted to the building. Ms. Scarlett asked if there were any other examples of this type of signage system in downtown Fort Mill. Senior Planner Moore responded that much of the signage downtown consisted of projecting signs. He then asked Mr. Moyle if he had used this type of signage on older buildings in other locales. Mr. Moyle indicated that he had done this in other places. Mr. Booth stated that there were concerns he had about drilled studs being placed into the brick and the damage that might be left if or when they are removed. Vice Chairwoman Brinton expressed concern about this as well. Ms. Scarlett stated that this type of sign with individual letters would create a pattern on the wall which she indicated would not be optimal. Vice Chairwoman Brinton asked Mr. Moyle if the applicant could do a vinyl sign. Mr. Moyle responded that if she did vinyl then it would stick to the paint. If the paint chipped off the wall, then the sign would be compromised and need repairing. He added that with the stud mounted signage, they filled the holes with silicone. This should prevent moisture or water from getting into the holes. Additionally, he stated that at such time the signage is removed from the building, they will fill the holes with silicone or a masonry product. Then these areas can be painted over. Ms. Leventis indicated that there was nothing in the historic district guidelines that addresses a stud mounted signage system. She stated that perhaps it’s not such a big deal in this instance since the wall is painted. However, in situations where someone is proposing stud mounted signage on an unpainted brick wall within the historic district it would be much more of an issue since the HRB has previously stipulated that unpainted brick remain unpainted. She asked that if this case was approved, should there then be an amendment to the historic district guidelines to clearly establish what would be expected for the next similar project that comes before HRB. Vice Chairwoman Brinton noted that page 42 of the agenda, as taken from the historic district guidelines, included an example of a wall sign, like that being proposed at 124 Main Street, which perhaps is pin mounted to a brick wall. Scott Couchenour noted that there was artwork at 100 Main Street which was most likely pin mounted to the brick wall. 7 Ms. Leventis interjected that her previous point was that it is just not clear within the historic guidelines whether signage can be attached to brick in this manner. Ms. Scarlett indicated that she was a bit hung up on the current wall sign proposal because it was individually mounted letters rather than a single signage piece. David Booth stated that he would like to make a motion to approve the COA request with the condition that the application is adjusted to indicated that the wall sign will be comprised of pin mounted lettering and flush mounted to the building and that it meets town building code and zoning requirements. Mr. Booth added that this motion to approve is brought forth due to the brick of this building being already painted and that any repair to the brick that is necessary after removal of the pin mounted signage shall include repair of this wall section with the filling of holes in the brick with an appropriate material, and then covering the repaired section with a like-kind paint. This condition shall be placed into the approval language of the zoning permit for this wall sign at such time it is reviewed by the town zoning administrator. It is understood that the HRB intends for this motion to be referred to when considering similar wall sign applications in the future. Mr. Booth indicated that this motion also includes a recommendation for approval of the proposed projecting sign with the stipulation that the signage area not exceed 12 square feet in area. Ms. Leventis seconded the motion. By a vote of 6-0, the HRB voted to approve the application for a COA at 124 Main Street for a new wall sign and projecting sign with the conditions as noted in the motion. Vice chairwoman Brinton then noted that a business has opened at 105 Clebourne Street without obtaining approval from the HRB for window signage. Planning Director Penelope Karagounis stated that staff would investigate this. Vice chairwoman Brinton then asked if there was an update on the demising wall issue at 219 and 221 Main Street. Senior Planner Moore stated that staff would do their best to have Mr. Kuester at the meeting in March to discuss the findings that HRB had previously asked him to research involving removal of materials from the demising wall. Planning Director Karagounis then noted that she had sent board members information on the South Carolina Historic Preservation conference to be held in Columbia on April 28th. She indicated that the town would pay for any HRB members who wished to attend. This conference would provide HRB members with their required continuing education credits. She asked the board members to contact her if they were interested in attending this conference so that she could register them. Ms. Karagounis also noted that there would be a virtual continuing education session available on March 9th which would be hosted by Charlie Barrineau who is with the Municipal Association of South Carolina. The subject of this virtual session will be development agreements in South Carolina. Planning Director Karagounis then noted to Ms. Leventis that she needed a half of an hour credit more of continuing education by April 14th, 2023. Ms. Karagounis then noted to Ms. Todaro that her continuing education reporting period for the required three hours of credit begins on April 25th, 2023 and goes through April 24th, 2024. Ms. Karagounis noted to Ms. Scarlett that she needed 1.5 hours of continuing education credits by April 13th, 2023. Ms. Karagounis stated that Mr. Booth has completed his required continuing education credits and that his continuing education reporting period starts April 14th, 2023 and goes through April 13th, 2024. She then noted that Mr. Couchenour needs 1.5 hours of continuing education credit by April 11th, 2023. Ms. Scarlett then asked about the agenda for the historic preservation conference in April. 8 Ms. Karagounis stated that the agenda had not yet been published and that it is a one-day event and would last until approximately 4:00 PM. Mr. Booth asked if some of the credits that he is required to obtain as a registered landscape architect might qualify for the historic review board continuing education. Ms. Karagounis replied that she would check on this with the Municipal Association of South Carolina. Ms. Scarlett asked Ms. Karagounis to check on this for her as well since she must also obtain continuing education credits with her work as an engineer. Mr. Couchenour then noted that he had previously inquired with Ms. Karagounis about the possibility of increasing the amount available to recipients of façade improvement grants in Fort Mill. Additionally, he noted that he had inquired about the possibility of painting benches and poles downtown along with fixing drainage issues which have resulted in a muddy area adjacent to Hobos. Ms. Karagounis noted that she had forwarded these requests on to the town manager and assistant town manager. Mr. Couchenour then asked if it would be effective for the HRB to make resolutions to town council for such items. Ms. Karagounis stated that the way in which Mr. Couchenour had inquired about these items was the correct way. Mr. Couchenour asked if it might carry more weight if the HRB provided resolutions in such instances. Ms. Karagounis replied that typically only town council establishes resolutions and the way that Mr. Couchenour had brought these items to her attention was good. But she did indicate that if the board members wanted to get together and put requests in writing that would also be acceptable, though it would not be termed a resolution. Ms. Leventis stated that the west side of Main Street was looking really good with the projects going on there such as the Fortes Mill restaurant. Mr. Couchenour then reiterated that the current $5,000 amount for façade improvement grants could perhaps be increased. Ms. Karagounis noted that any consideration for an increase in the $5,000 amount would be part of the overall town budget preparation which would begin in the July/August timeframe. Vice chairwoman Brinton then noted that the historic plaque located by the caboose was looking really worn and in need of attention. Ms. Karagounis stated that she would investigate this. There being no further business or discussion, Vice chairwoman Brinton adjourned the meeting at approximately 5:45 PM. Respectfully submitted, Alex J. Moore, AICP Senior Planner February 23rd, 2023 9  H I S T OR I C R E V I E W B OA R D Applicant: Fort Mill Whitakers LLC Subject Property: 215 Main Street Property Owner: 215 N Main St, LLC Tax Map # 020-02-01-006 Zoning District: Local Commercial, LC/Historic District Zoning Case: 2023-010 REQUEST The Planning Department has received an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from Fort Mill Whitakers LLC to change the exterior paint color on a portion of the façade, and on the rear elevation, at 215 Main Street from white to Sherwin Williams Peppercorn. See below. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Two previous requests have come before HRB for 215 Main Street. These include preliminary Bailey Bill certification on April 12th, 2022, along with a COA request on June 14th, 2022, for a wall sign and projecting sign. The Bailey Bill preliminary certification request consisted of a significant interior upfit project. Upon full completion of the interior upfit, the property owner must come back before HRB for final Bailey Bill certification. This property is located within the downtown historic district and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This building was constructed in 1911. Additional information on the history of this building may be found at this link Fort Mill 215 Main St — TBHH. The photos found within the website link seem to indicate that historically, the trim on this building has been white. DISCUSSION The Fort Mill Historic District Design Guidelines include parameters for painting buildings. Original unpainted masonry should remain unpainted. In this instance, the masonry on the rear of this building which is proposed to 10 be painted has previously been painted. The attachments indicate the existing conditions of the façade and rear elevation of 215 Main Street. Sherwin Williams describes Peppercorn as a versatile dark gray, evenly balanced between warm and cool, which can create a rich and timeless exterior. The town’s historic district design guidelines indicate that grayish paint schemes would be appropriate for buildings constructed between 1890 to 1930. See below information taken from page 82 of the design guidelines: STAFF RECOMMENDATION While the available evidence suggests that paint color of the façade trim at 215 Main Street has historically been white, the applicant’s request to paint the trim a grayish shade (Peppercorn by Sherwin Williams) is in keeping with the colors of the era as noted above. Thus, staff recommends that the COA be granted to paint the façade trim and rear elevation Peppercorn. Staff also recommends that a condition be included regarding the rear elevation that the shared wall with 213 Main Street (Hobo’s) not be painted. Additionally, staff recommends that a condition be included which indicates that the shared wall with 217 Main Street (FM Eatery), as illustrated within the attachments, not be painted unless the property owner of 217 Main Street is amenable to this being done. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. COA application 3. Exterior photographs 4. Shared wall with 217 Main Street illustration 11 Location Map: 215 Main Street 12 13 14 The applicant wishes to change the color of the existing trim at 215 Main Street to Peppercorn (Sherwin Williams) 15 The applicant wishes to change the color of the rear elevation of 215 Main Street to Peppercorn (Sherwin Williams) 16  Shared Wall with 217 Main Street 17  H I S T OR I C R E V I E W B OA R D Applicant: Casco Signs, Inc. Subject Property: 314 N. White Street Property Owner: Fort Mill BBCS LLC Tax Map # 020-04-04-004 Zoning District: Local Commercial, LC/Historic District Zoning Case: 2021-0669 REQUEST The Planning Department has received an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from Fort Mill BBCS, LLC for exterior signage at 314 N. White Street. BACKGROUND INFORMATION This property at 314 N. White Street is currently being developed as a Bossy Beulah’s fast-casual restaurant. Two previous requests have come before HRB for this project. These include an application for a COA for extensive exterior improvements and a preliminary Bailey Bill certification application, both on October 12th, 2021. The Bailey Bill preliminary certification request consisted of a significant interior upfit project. Upon full completion of the interior upfit, the property owner must come back before HRB for final Bailey Bill certification. The developer of this project, Durban Development, have been made aware, and acknowledged, that final certification must occur prior to October 12th, 2023. At the October 12th, 2021, HRB meeting, signage was briefly discussed. However, no decision was made by HRB as the COA application did not include, nor anticipate, a request for signage approval. Thus, HRB determined that the application would be left open for the project’s signage to be vetted on a future date. This property is located within the historic district but is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This building was constructed in circa 1956. DISCUSSION The Fort Mill Historic District Design Guidelines include parameters for signage design. Generally, these include the following: • Establish objectives for signage -- Signs should provide clear, legible information about a business while also appealing to prospective customers. A signage plan should demonstrate forethought in the 18  design, size, placement, and graphic format of each sign to ensure an integrated signage strategy and design. Every proposed sign should have a purpose. • Limit impacts on character defining features -- A building’s historic architecture, such as its pilasters and decorative banding, is important to protect. These features may also be a major draw to customers and provide a unique business identity. Plan signage to highlight, rather than cover or physically impact, these elements. • Find original sign locations on a building -- Step back and examine a building from across the street. Does it have a recessed or framed horizontal band over the storefront or below the roof parapet? Does the building have large shop windows? Many historic and even modern buildings are designed with sign bands. Similarly, large shop windows were intended for pedestrian-scale advertising. Use of these originally designed sign spaces will ensure that new signage is well integrated into a building’s architecture. • Ensure compatibility with the building and site -- Consider what type and size of signage would best fit the architecture and scale of a historic building. What signage would best relate to a building’s original vertical and horizontal patterns? Are the proposed signs made of high-quality materials that correspond with the building and its surroundings? Appropriately placed and sized signage, crafted of durable materials, can reinforce the architecture of a historic building and its surroundings, and attract customers. Conversely, maximizing signage may often lead to visual clutter that does not promote business activity. • Consider impacts on the block -- Is the building located in a historic district next to other historic buildings? Is the building in a residential setting? Consider placing signs at the same height and similar façade locations as adjacent commercial buildings to provide an integrated block appearance. When located next to residential uses, consider the visual impact, as well as the potential “light spray” impacts, of signage. • Create graphic interest -- A generic sign box does little to acknowledge a business’ location in a unique historic district or on a historic landmark site. Ensure that any proposed signage lives up to its historic landmark or district location and is distinctive. In most cases, this translates into signage that is creative and visually interesting, providing pedestrians with a sense of curiosity and delight. The specific signs which are proposed for the property at 314 N. Main Street include the following: 1. South face of canopy: “Hot Chicken Now” sign consisting of reverse, back-lit aluminum fabricated letters. This sign is categorized as a wall sign. The applicant indicates that this sign is within 15% of the canopy face area. See attached schematic drawing for further details. 2. East & West face of canopy: “Chicken Shack” painted lettering. This sign is categorized as a wall sign. The applicant indicates that this sign is within 15% of the canopy face area. See attached schematic drawing for further details. 3. North face of canopy: “Thanks for Visiting” painted lettering. This sign is categorized as a wall sign. The applicant indicates that this sign is within 15% of the canopy face area. See attached schematic drawing for further details. 4. Double-sided monument sign: “Bossy Beulah’s Chicken Shack Since 1906” applied graphic lettering. This lettering on this sign is proposed to be 13.5 square feet. The total copy area is within 40% of the allowed space. See attached schematic drawing for further details. 5. Painted wall mural on west elevation, with associated “Bossy” copy. Murals are not specifically regulated by the historic district guidelines or the zoning ordinance. The associated copy area within this 19  mural is a wall sign and consists of 52 square feet. The applicant indicates that this sign is within 15% of the wall face area See attached schematic drawing for further details. 6. Painted, heart-shaped graphic on the north elevation, architectural fin consists of 9 square feet and is categorized as a wall sign. The applicant indicates that it is within 15% of the wall face area. See attached schematic drawing for further details. 7. The larger painted graphic on the north elevation is categorized as a wall sign. The applicant indicates that it is within 15% of the wall face area. See attached schematic drawing for further details. 8. The smaller painted graphic on the north elevation is categorized as a wall sign. The applicant indicates that it is within 15% of the wall face area. See attached schematic drawing for further details. 9. Painted, heart-shaped graphic on the west elevation, architectural fin consists of 9 square feet and is categorized as a wall sign. This sign, as illustrated will have to be reduced as it indicated that it comprises 47% of the fin area. See attached schematic drawing for further details. 10. Painted, heart-shaped graphic on the east elevation, architectural fin consists of 9 square feet and is categorized as a wall sign. The applicant indicates that it is within 15% of the wall face area. See attached schematic drawing for further details. 11. Painted, heart-shaped graphic on the south elevation, architectural fin consists of 9 square feet and is categorized as a wall sign. This sign, as illustrated will have to be reduced as it indicated that it comprises 47% of the fin area. See attached schematic drawing for further details. 12. Painted, heart-shaped graphic at the center of the south elevation consists of 12.48 square feet and is categorized as a wall sign. See attached schematic drawing for further details. 13. Painted lettering on the south elevation, “Chicken Sandwiches ·Bites · Wings”, The applicant indicates that this sign is within 15% of the wall face area. See attached schematic drawing for further details. The copy area of each respective wall sign must not exceed 15% of the area of the wall to which it is affixed. The copy area of a monument sign must not exceed 40% of the sign area and must not exceed eight feet in height. The applicant indicates that the proposed signage comprises 38% of the sign area and will be five feet in height. See the attached schematic drawing for more details. Signage within the historic district may not be internally illuminated. However, signage may be illuminated via back-lighting. One sign as proposed will be back-lit. This will be the “Hot Chicken Now” sign on the south canopy elevation. The attached signage schematic illustrates the design. The balance of the signage for this project will either be illuminated via exterior, up-lighting, or will not be lighted. See the attached schematic drawings for more details. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The signage plan as submitted appears to meet the Town of Fort Mill Historic District Guidelines for signage in general. Thus, staff recommends that this application for a COA be approved with the stipulation that all signage conform to Town of Fort Mill zoning standards, such as but not limited to, maximum square footage allowances. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. COA Application 3. Signage schematics 20 Location Map: 314 N. White Street 21 22 23 30" tall x 65" Total copy area is with in 40% of allowed space 24  Front elevation 738" x 14'-4 1/2" 3' wide Heart sign on building is with in 15% of wall area 3' tall 25  Wall is 14-4 1/2" x 55 1/2' long 3' x 3' 3' x 3' Sign will be within 15% of wall area Bossy text is 52 sq feet and is with in BB logo will be with in 15% of wall area 15% of wall area 3' wide 3' wide 3' tall 3' tall 26  3' x 3' Sign logo will be with in 15% of wall area. As shown in below elevation sign appears larger than below image at bottom of page. This is only for viewing purposes, not production sizes. Sign copy is with in 15% of wall area 27  Sign area is with in 15% of canopy Sign area is with in 15% of canopy Sign area is with in 15% of canopy 28