Historic Review Board

MINUTES TOWN OF FORT MILL HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD November 14th, 2023 112 Confederate Street 4:30 PM Present: Chairwoman Megan Brinton, Vice chairman David Booth, Scott Couchenour, Hynek Lettang, Elizabeth Leventis, Jessica Scarlett, Joanne Walker, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Senior Planner Alex Moore Absent: None Guests: Chip Smith, Daniel Giroux, Robert Frotten CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Megan Brinton called the meeting to order at 4:31 PM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairwoman Megan Brinton entertained a motion to approve the minutes from the September 12th, 2023, HRB meeting. Elizabeth Leventis made a motion to approve the minutes. Vice chairman David Booth seconded the motion. Then, by a vote of 7-0, the minutes for the September 12th, 2023, meeting were approved. OLD BUSINESS 1. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) The first item on the agenda included old business involving a request for a certificate of appropriateness (COA) at 231 Main Street. Senior Planner Alex Moore gave a brief overview of the application and associated materials for this request. He noted that the application had been amended as requested by the Historic Review Board (HRB). The applicant, What’s Up Buttercup is located at 231 Main Street in downtown Fort Mill, and the property owner is Michael W. Chase. This building is zoned local commercial and located within the historic district. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and was constructed in 1900. Moore stated that the applicant was originally requesting a COA for approval of window signage at 231 Main Street. At the September 12th meeting, HRB requested that the application be amended to also include seasonal window decorations. The application was thus revised to reflect this request. He noted that the drawing and photograph as included with the revised application indicate a clear objective in that discernable and appealing graphics are used. Impacts upon the building’s character defining features are limited. The window signage is compatible with the building and surrounding businesses. Senior Planner Moore then provided the staff recommendation that HRB grant approval for the COA for the proposed window signage as submitted. This recommendation for approval includes the provision for temporary seasonal and holiday signage/artwork to be updated as desired by the applicant to coincide with calendar changes and holidays. The temporary, seasonal and holiday window signage/artwork shall be updated in a similar manner and scale as is illustrated within Attachment 2. Additional HRB review/approval shall not be required for temporary, seasonal and holiday window signage/artwork. However, all such temporary, seasonal and holiday window signage/artwork shall be reviewed by town staff as is necessary. Moore then noted the attachments as provided within the HRB agenda as including the amended application for the COA, the permanent window signage drawing (Attachment 1), the photograph of permanent window signage including an example of temporary, seasonal and holiday window signage/artwork (Attachment 2), and the historic district window signage guidelines (Attachment 3). He stated that Robert Frotten was in attendance representing his wife, the owner of What’s up Buttercup. Moore then opened the floor to questions and comments from HRB members regarding this amended COA application. Chairwoman Megan Brinton asked Mr. Frotten if he had any comments or questions of the HRB. Mr. Frotten indicated that he did not. Chairwoman Brinton noted that within the staff recommendation it stated that temporary, seasonal and holiday window signage shall be reviewed by town staff. Senior Planner Moore responded that with this it was envisioned that the applicant would submit a drawing to staff for review prior to installation, rather than being required to come before HRB for each respective holiday or seasonal window coverage desired. Such window coverage would be on the same scale as currently indicated within the photograph. With this, staff would ensure that the window coverage not exceed the historic district guideline recommendation to “minimize the amount of window covered.” Chairwoman Brinton asked if there was a maximum percentage of window coverage allowed. Senior Planner Moore responded that there was not a percentage provision for window coverage as with wall signage. HRB member Joanne Walker asked if there was a reason there was not a percentage provision for window coverage. Senior Planner Moore indicated that there had never been such a provision, but only the historic district guideline recommendation that window coverage should be minimized. HRB member Scott Couchenour noted that in general, the windows on Main Street were relatively small in comparison with the buildings so the coverage would normally be appropriate. There being no further questions or discussion, Chairwoman Brinton entertained a motion. HRB member Elizabeth Leventis made a motion to approve the amended COA application as submitted which included a request for permanent window signage and temporary, seasonal window artwork. Such temporary, seasonal window artwork will be reviewed and approved by town staff. Ms. Walker seconded the motion. The HRB then approved the COA application by a vote of 6-0. HRB member Hynek Lettang noted that he did not vote on this business item due to exterior maintenance issues at 231 Main Street. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) The first new business item included a request for a certificate of appropriateness (COA) at 204 Main Street for temporary, seasonal window signage. Senior Planner Moore stated that, while the applicant was not present at this meeting, he had spoken with Will Bigham, owner of the Improper Pig Restaurant located at 204 Main Street in relation to the seasonal, Halloween window art that had been placed here. Thus, he asked Mr. Bigham if he could attend the meeting to request approval of this window art. Senior Planner Alex Moore gave a brief overview of the application and associated materials for this request. He noted that the application had been submitted by The Improper Pig restaurant located at 204 Main Street. The property owner is Main Street-Fort Mill, LLC. This building is zoned local commercial and located within the historic district. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and was constructed in 1914. Senior Planner Moore then provided the staff recommendation that HRB grant approval for the COA for the temporary seasonal and holiday signage/artwork to be updated as desired by the applicant to coincide with calendar changes and holidays. The temporary, seasonal and holiday window signage/artwork shall be updated in a similar manner and scale as is illustrated within the application. Additional HRB review/approval shall not be required for temporary, seasonal and holiday window signage/artwork. However, all such temporary, seasonal and holiday window signage/artwork shall be reviewed by town staff as is necessary. HRB was amenable on moving forward with the COA request in the absence of the applicant. Chairwoman Megan Brinton entertained a motion on the COA request. HRB member Scott Couchenour made a motion to approve the COA request for temporary seasonal and holiday signage/artwork to be updated as desired by the applicant to coincide with calendar changes and holidays. The temporary, seasonal and holiday window signage/artwork shall be updated in a similar manner and scale as is illustrated within the COA application. Additional HRB review/approval shall not be required for temporary, seasonal and holiday window signage/artwork. However, all such temporary, seasonal and holiday window signage/artwork shall be reviewed by town staff as is necessary. Vice Chairman David Booth seconded the motion. The HRB then approved the COA application by a vote of 7-0. 2. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) The second new business item included a request for a certificate of appropriateness (COA) at 221 Main Street for window signage. Senior Planner Alex Moore gave a brief overview of the application and associated materials for this request. He noted that the applicant, Robert Frotten, currently operated The Sports Pub on Main at 221 Main Street. This building is zoned local commercial and located within the historic district. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and was constructed in 1900. Moore noted the signage design as submitted along with the proposed locations on the front and rear doors of 221 Main Street. This signage would be designed as a decal, type attachment to the respective glass doors. He pointed out the locations of these doors on the façade and rear elevation. Moore stated that once the signage was placed that the applicant would be removing the existing banner signage as shown in the photographs. Moore then indicated that staff recommended approval for the permanent window signage as submitted. He then stated that staff also recommends that HRB grant approval for the provision for temporary seasonal and holiday signage/artwork to be updated as desired by the applicant to coincide with calendar changes and holidays. Additional HRB review/approval shall not be required for temporary, seasonal and holiday window signage/artwork. However, all such temporary, seasonal and holiday window signage/artwork shall be reviewed by town staff as is necessary. Chairwoman Megan Brinton stated that she would be fine with staff approving temporary seasonal and holiday window signage/artwork on the doors and windows at this location. HRB member Jessica Scarlett asked if the permanent window signage had designated dimensions. Applicant Robert Frotten indicated that the signage would be centered on the upper portion of the glass doors at three locations. Two would be on the front doors and one on the rear door. Mr. Frotten stated that while he did not know the exact size of the signage at this juncture, it would be small enough to fit within the spaces as described. HRB member Scott Couchenour asked if the signage would be gray in color. Mr. Frotten responded that the signage would be white. He then noted that he planned to place a projecting sign on the front façade in the future. He asked if he would need to come back to the HRB to get the projecting sign approved. Senior Planner Moore indicated that Mr. Frotten would need to return to HRB to gain approval for the future projecting sign. Vice Chairman David Booth asked Mr. Frotten when he anticipated installing the window signage. Mr. Frotten stated that he would be installing the window signage as soon as possible, maybe in the next week, while the projecting sign would be installed a bit later, maybe in the next 90 days. Vice Chairman David Booth made a motion to approve the COA application with the stipulation that first it be noted that the vinyl window signage will be white and that the general sign dimensions be submitted, and second that the applicant return within 90 days to the HRB for review of the proposed projecting sign for the façade of the building. HRB member Joanne Walker seconded the motion. The HRB then approved the COA application by a vote of 7-0. 3. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) The third new business item included a request for a certificate of appropriateness (COA) at 100 Main Street for projecting signage, window signage, and wall signage. Senior Planner Alex Moore gave an overview of the application and associated materials for this request. He stated that the applicant is Daniel Giroux, owner of PI Pizza and Ice Cream. Moore noted that the building is zoned local commercial and located within the historic district. It was constructed in 1948 but is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places. He indicated that the applicant is requesting a COA for a projecting sign, window signage, and wall signage. Senior Planner Moore then provided the specifics of each request. The proposed projecting sign entails a change of the copy area only within the exiting signage cabinet. This cabinet was originally approved by HRB on December 8th, 2020, and at that time was proposed to consist of signage for Emmet’s Social Table. Secondly, Moore noted that the proposed window signage approval would include endorsement for existing signage on the front doors of 100 Main Street. The third component of the COA request included proposed wall signage on the southwest elevation of 100 Main Street, and a request to approve an existing wall sign in the form of an ice cream truck on a wall within the covered porch area of 100 Main Street. Moore stated that approval had not been given by the HRB for the existing window signage on the front doors of the building or the painted ice cream truck within the covered porch area. He indicated that planning staff did not learn of the painted ice cream truck until after the applicant had submitted the COA application for the balance of the request. At that time, staff informed Mr. Giroux that he would need to amend the application to include a request for review of the painted ice cream truck as well. Senior Planner Moore then noted that the town’s historic district guidelines state that unpainted masonry should not be painted since this can seal in moisture which can lead to damage over time. He stated that it is within the purview of the HRB to require the applicant to remove or modify both the window signage and the painted ice cream truck. Senior Planner Moore then provided the staff recommendations for this COA request: • Staff recommended that HRB approve the panel replacement within the existing projecting signage cabinet as shown within Attachment 1. • Staff recommended that HRB approve with modifications the existing window signage located on the front doors of the building. This modification shall generally include a reduction in size of all elements of this window signage. • Staff recommended that HRB approve the proposed wall signage consisting of approximately 19.6 square feet to be placed on the southwestern elevation of 100 Main Street. • Staff recommended that HRB deny the request for the approval of the painted wall sign consisting of an ice cream truck as illustrated within Attachment 3B. Staff recommended that this denial include the requirement that the painted ice cream truck be removed from the wall. Upon removal, the painting may be replaced with aluminum composite paneling containing the desired ice cream truck graphic. This may consist of the same design if the applicant so wishes, except that the desired design may not exceed 15% of the area of the wall to which it is attached. The revised outdoor wall graphic shall be reviewed by the planning, zoning, and building departments prior to installation with no additional HRB meeting required. • Moore then stated that if the applicant so chooses, he may implement temporary, seasonal window art on the front doors of 100 Main Street. This would be reviewed by planning staff prior to installation. Senior Planner Moore then listed the items within the staff report which included the following: • Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness • Attachment 1: Proposed projecting signage and guidelines for projecting signage • Attachment 2: Existing window signage and window signage guidelines • Attachment 3a: Proposed wall signage and wall signage guidelines • Attachment 3b: Existing, painted wall signage (ice cream truck) and guidelines regarding painting masonry Senior Planner Moore concluded his overview of the COA application by asking HRB if they had any questions or comments. HRB member Jessica Scarlett asked if it was known where the proposed circular wall sign would be placed. Senior Planner Moore indicated that this proposed wall sign would be placed on the southwestern elevation of 100 Main Street, where the current Emmet’s sign is located. He demonstrated this location via a photograph. Ms. Scarlett then asked about the composition of this signage. Moore responded that it would likely be composed of aluminum composite and then attached into the mortar joints of the wall. HRB member Scott Couchenour then asked if this sign would be lit. The applicant, Dan Giroux indicated that it would not be lit. HRB member Joanne Walker then noted that the window signage on the front doors of the building looked as though it covered more of the window area than would be recommended by the design guidelines. Senior Planner Moore agreed and noted that the staff recommendation did indicate that this window signage needed to be reduced in coverage area. Ms. Walker then asked what type of paint was used for the ice cream truck located within the covered porch area. The applicant, Dan Giroux then asked if he could speak to this. He first stated that he apologized for the painted ice cream truck being placed on the wall with no HRB approval. He noted that he also operated Emmet’s Social Table at this location and that he did not know this, or the window signage would require approval by the town prior to installation. Mr. Giroux then stated that he could look at reducing the window signage. His biggest issue at this location has been visibility. He noted that the Center Theatre signage on the building facade essentially overpowers the signage of whatever business is operating at this location. For the painted ice cream truck within the covered porch area, Mr. Giroux indicated he did not think to get approval since it did not directly front on Main Street. In response to the question from Ms. Walker, he stated that the painted ice cream truck was comprised of acrylic paint. His intention was for this to provide a “throwback” look, while also attempting to increase business traffic. HRB member Elizabeth Leventis then noted that in looking at the older pictures included in the packet from 1962 and the early 1970s illustrated that there was an attached building located where the current covered porch is. Thus, it is a bit uncertain as to whether the wall where the ice cream truck has been painted is historical in nature. Senior Planner Moore speculated that the subject wall was put in at such time the smaller, attached building was removed from the site. Mr. Chip Smith, owner of the building then addressed this issue. He stated that the brick wall in question is relatively new due to several fires that have occurred at this location. Mr. Smith then asked if that part of the building which is accessed from Academy Street is also considered part of the historic district. Vice Chairman David Booth responded that the entirety of the building is within the historic district. Ms. Leventis then returned to the discussion of the porch being an enclosed patio, and if that might have some bearing on their decision regarding the painted ice cream truck. Vice Chairman Booth noted that there had been a previous COA application for the covered porch. The enclosure of the patio is accomplished via temporary fabric. So, it was exposed and at any point it could be opened and re- exposed. In his view allowing the painted ice cream truck to remain on the brick wall would set a bad precedent. Ms. Leventis agreed that the board needed to be careful with the application of paint, but that she did want to bring it up for discussion. HRB member Hynek Lettang stated he believes the painted ice cream truck looks excellent and that it was an excellent idea, and that the business is excellent. He stated that he understands the consistency of having paint placed on unpainted brick, but he has trouble with this because if we are worried about this brick being eroded away in the next 100 years, and then we look at the condition of the brick at other locations on Main Street, it is night and day. Thus, he does not want to have someone blast the paint off the brick, or chemically remove it, while being so concerned in previous instances about chemically removing paint. Now, in this instance someone will have to remove the paint, discoloring the brick, which will cause the wall to have an inconsistent look. So, you are damaging the brick by removing the paint. This is a unique thing that warms the area and fits the business. In his opinion, it should remain rather than further damage the wall. Senior Planner Moore noted to Mr. Lettang that he appreciated this sentiment, but that he had been able to gain some information from the City of Columbia regarding a product which would safely remove paint from brick. They have used this within their historic district with good results. This product is called Prosoco and can be used to remove paint, graffiti, etc., from brick. Ms. Walker then noted that since the brick in question was somewhat newer, then it would be less likely to be damaged during the paint removal process. She stated that she certainly wanted to see the businesses downtown thrive, but she also said that she believes it is setting a bad precedent to allow the paint to remain as they did in a pervious instance. If they continue to do this, all the unpainted brick in downtown was going to end up painted. Ms. Scarlett then expressed her support for the applicant and his business, but from the historic preservation viewpoint she also felt it would set a bad precedent to allow the painted ice cream truck to remain. We are not only looking at the condition of the brick today, but we are also trying to be stewards of how to help maintain that brick for future generations. So, where do we draw the line for other applicants who are not aware of the process and do, we ultimately begin creating more inconsistencies within the town by not adhering to the historic district guidelines. Thus, her recommendation would be that the paint be safely removed to avoid damage to the brick. If the brick can be reasonably removed without damaging the brick, then it should be explored. Ms. Walker then asked when the brick was painted. Mr. Giroux stated that it was painted about five weeks earlier. Ms. Walker responded that it was still reasonably fresh. The longer you wait to remove the paint, the harder it will be. It is much better to address this now than five years from now, or even a year from now. Chairwoman Brinton then stated that the HRB is required to adhere to the standards as established by the National Park Service. Mr. Smith stated that at the time he originally rehabilitated his building at 100 Main Street, as part of the Bailey Bill process, the HRB required him to paint the façade. He stated that prior to that it was unpainted. This was approximately 10 years earlier. This caused him concern for the integrity of the building’s façade based on the discussion indicating that unpainted brick should not be painted. Vice Chairman Booth stated that he understood the concern that Mr. Smith expressed regarding the façade brick, however the board’s concern was that they not set a precedent by allowing the painted ice cream truck to remain. Mr. Giroux asked if there would be any consideration to allow the paint to remain on the wall since it was set back approximately 35 feet from Main Street. Planning Director Penelope Karagounis noted that the entirety of the building is within the historic district so the distance from Main Street is not a factor. Mr. Giroux then pointed out that when the town shuts down Main Street for downtown events which allow for alcohol consumption, his restaurant has not been allowed to participate because a barricade was placed which excluded his business. Planning Director Karagounis pointed out that the events that occur on Main Street do not include the entirety of the historic district. Mr. Couchenour related that there has been history in Fort Mill of buildings being painted in the downtown area. Thus, he stated that he would like for the painted ice cream truck to remain on the brick wall with the understanding that someday when PI Pizza and Ice Cream changes names that it be removed. His contention was that removing the paint would make the brick look worse. Mr. Smith then stated that when Kuester leases the building as a property management company, they are told they must have permits for signage, etc., from the town. Mr. Giroux concurred that he was informed that he would need permits for signage from the town, but that he truly did not know he would need approval to place the painted ice cream truck on the brick wall. Mr. Lettang then stated he wanted to make a comment on the door signs. He stated that he had visited this business a couple of times. He indicated that because the artwork on the doors was so large, and placed so high, there was some concern that it is hard to see if another person is coming out the door as you are entering the restaurant. While he thinks the signage looks nice, he perceives this as a possible safety issue. Ms. Scarlett asked for clarification on whether the signage on the door was temporary. Mr. Giroux responded that this signage was intended to be for marketing purposes as part of the rebranding from Emmet’s Social Table to PI Pizza and Ice Cream. He indicated that his plan was to absolutely modify this in the future. Vice Chairman Booth asked if this signage was a permanent or temporary application. Mr. Giroux indicated that the window signage was attached to the outside of the window and that it was not difficult to remove. Vice Chairman Booth stated that changes in the window signage, if it was going to be for temporary and marketing purposes, should be brought before staff to review rather than coming back to HRB. After some discussion, the HRB determined to group the items comprising the COA application into distinct, separate motions. First, Attachment 1 and Attachment 3a as included within the HRB agenda, would be considered for a motion(s). Second, Attachment 2 as included within the HRB agenda, would be considered for a motion(s). Third, Attachment 3b as included within the HRB agenda, would be considered for a motion(s). Mr. Couchenour made a motion to approve Attachment 1, the proposed projecting signage panels, and Attachment 3a, the proposed wall signage (with 5’ diameter) to be placed on the southwestern façade of the building. Ms. Scarlett seconded the motion. Then by a vote of 7-0, the HRB approved Attachment 1, the proposed projecting signage panels, and Attachment 3a, the proposed wall signage with 5’ diameter, as presented within the HRB agenda. After this vote, the HRB then took Attachment 2, the existing window signage on the front door, under consideration. Mr. Couchenour made a motion to approve Attachment 2 as presented. Ms. Leventis seconded the motion. The HRB then discussed this item. Ms. Walker proposed that if the current window signage is viewed as temporary, then when the applicant wishes to change this signage, that it be reviewed and approved by town staff. Mr. Couchenour accepted this amendment to his motion. Chairwoman Brinton then proposed that when the window signage change occurs that it also be reduced from its current size. Mr. Couchenour accepted this amendment to his motion. Then by a vote of 7-0, the HRB approved this motion to approve Attachment 2 with the amendments as noted. After this vote, the HRB then took Attachment 3b, the existing painted ice cream truck, under consideration. Mr. Lettang made a motion to approve the existing ice cream truck painting on the brick wall. Mr. Couchenour seconded the motion. The HRB then discussed this item. Mr. Couchenour noted that this was a tough issue for all involved. Ms. Leventis proposed as an amendment to the motion a notation that the wall on which the ice cream truck was painted was formerly an interior wall which was added after a fire which altered this building. This is currently an enclosed patio. Ms. Walker noted that this patio was partially enclosed. Senior Planner Moore noted that this patio has a permanent roof and that the sides can be altered depending on the weather, so it was really not a permanent enclosure. Ms. Leventis then stated that she would amend her proposed amendment to a covered patio with an enclosure. Ms. Walker then expressed her concern that the property management company involved with 100 Main Street was involved in an instance of paint being inappropriately applied to unpainted brick at another location in downtown. Additionally, she noted her concern that the painted ice cream truck was very specific to the current business in operation at this location. If this business ultimately does not remain at this location, then the painted ice cream truck will remain and permanently mar this wall. Thus, this is the reason to have the paint removed now as it will be much harder to remove later. Mr. Couchenour asked if the decision on the painted ice cream truck could be deferred to a later date until such time an area of the paint was tested via an appropriate removal procedure. Ms. Scarlett added that since the brick in question is not as old as that on other buildings in the downtown area, there is less concern that it may become damaged with potential removal. She noted that it might be good to see if it can be removed without damaging the brick. Mr. Lettang pointed out the façade of 204 Main Street. He noted that it appeared as if it had been abrasively cleaned at some point. He stated that this is an example of why he has a big problem with the inconsistencies with the brick in downtown. There being no further discussion, the HRB then voted on this motion to approve the existing ice cream truck on the brick wall. By a vote of 3-4, the motion failed. Ms. Walker then made a motion that a concerted effort be made to see what can be done to remove the paint within a small area on the wall, and then reassess once this has been completed. Ms. Scarlett seconded the motion. Chairwoman Brinton asked if a timeframe should be placed on this. After some discussion the HRB determined that 90 days would be reasonable. Mr. Lettang then asked who is going to make the official assessment on the brick and make the determination on whether the brick is being damaged by the proposed removal process. There being no further discussion, the HRB then voted on this motion. By a vote of 4-3, the motion carried. After the vote there was some discussion among the HRB, staff, and the applicant about the historic district and the guidelines as applied in the instance of the paint applied to the brick wall at 100 Main Street. The HRB and staff answered questions from the applicant about signage options to be placed on this wall in the absence of the painted ice cream truck. There being no further business, Chairwoman Brinton adjourned the meeting at 6:12 PM. Respectfully submitted, Alex J. Moore, AICP Senior Planner December 1st, 2023