HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_08.27.2009Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 12
August 27, 2009
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, August 27, 2009, at 6:00 p.m.
City Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members Present: West Short, Chair; J.C. Johnson; Will Moore; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; and
Dee Rapp
Members Absent: Susan Firth
Also in attendance: City Council members Pat Berryman, Dale Ross and Bill Sattler.
Staff Present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; and
Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission is responsible for hearing and taking final
action on applications, by issuing Certificates of Design Compliance based upon the City
Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines. This is a regular scheduled meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission, for consideration and possible action on the
following:
Regular Session: To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Short called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Consent Agenda:
The Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that the Commission may act
on with one single vote. A Commissioner or any member of the public may request that any
item from the Consent Agenda be pulled in order that the Commission discuss and act upon it
individually as part of the Regular Agenda. The Historic and Architectural Review
Commission's approval of an item on the Consent Agenda will be consistent with the staff
recommendation described in the report, unless otherwise noted.
1. Review and possible approval of the minutes from the July 23, 2009 regular meeting.
2. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for an
amendment to a Master Sign Plan at City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1 - 8, also known as
Tamiro Plaza, located at 501 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2009-030)
Commissioner Moore, Chair of the Sign Subcommittee requested that item number two be
considered by the entire commission as a regular agenda item. Item number two was
discussed as a regular agenda item.
Motion by Moore to approve the minutes as written. Second by Rapp. Approved 6 – 0.
Regular Agenda:
At the request of a Commissioner, Item number two is presented here as a transcription, a complete
account of the meeting.
Short: That takes us to Item 2, which is consideration and possible action on a request for a
Certificate of Design Compliance for an amendment to the Master Sign Plan at Tamiro Plaza.
Robbie why don’t you go through that with us?
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 12
August 27, 2009
Wyler: Okay, and once again this is the item that was forwarded from the sign subcommittee.
And on October 30, 2008, HARC approved a Master Sign Plan for Tamiro Plaza, for all
tenants within. The master sign plan had set conditions per floor per tenant as to where they
could put signage. The applicant Merrill Lynch was given sign on the existing monument
sign as well as space above their current windows for white lettering. And at this time
because of corporate regulations, the applicant Merrill Lynch is asking for an amendment to
the Master Sign Plan. That way they can propose a sign that they feel is still appropriate and
better advertises the building and they are, they have restrictions on what they can and
cannot put with their corporate signage. Within your packet I have detailed the two LED
illuminated signs that they’re bringing in front of you. This is what they are asking via the
amendment to the Master Sign Plan. Instead of having the white lettering above the window
on the green frieze, they are asking to place these brackets above the windows, the details in
terms of size is provided and would be a soft white glow to the signs. And the location is
provided in the pictures and I have provided a picture and a sample of what that red . . .and
it should focus here soon. The red behind the white that was mentioned is a sample of the
actual of the actual color that will be used. Will be matching to the brick . . . and I don’t
know if we can turn down the lights it’s sunny and there’s nothing we can do about that.
That’s what we are talking about. It will not exactly match but closely match the red brick
on Tamiro Plaza.
And the guidelines that staff used on its recommendations are as follows. One is Guideline
9.4 which is - A flush-mounted wall sign may be considered. Guideline 9.5 – A flush-
mounted wall sign shall not exceed one square foot for every one linear foot of facade.
Guideline 9.13 – A sign should not in any way obscure or compete with architectural details
of an historic building facade. Guideline 9.14 – Signs that are out of character with those seen
historically and that would alter the historic character of the street are inappropriate.
Guideline 9.15 – Sign materials should be compatible with that of the building facade.
Guideline 9.17 – Use colors for the sign that are compatible with those of the building front.
Guideline 9.18 – A simple sign design is preferred. Guideline 9.20 – If internal illumination is
used, it should be designed to be subordinate to the overall building composition. Guideline
9.21 – Sign brackets and hardware should be compatible with the building and installed in a
workman-like manner. And I’m here to answer any questions you may have as well as the
applicant.
Pergl: OK Robbie I have a question. This that was included in our packet is part of the Master
Sign Agreement.
Wyler: Yes, and I brought . . .I know that one of the members asked that I bring what was taken
to HARC with the Master Application. This is what was approved for the monument sign
and there is Merrill Lynch at the top. But for the building this is one sheet. This is kind of
above their windows. This is what was approved in addition to that monument sign. It is a
certain size, a certain color, a certain font. And that was just one of the conditions that was
part of that Master Sign Plan. So, in this case if the applicant wants to sway or do something
other than that the applicant will have to come back before you guys which is what the
applicant is doing today because of the different type of signage. So they are asking to not
use this type of signage because of corporate regulations and to put what they have in front
of you, what the application states. And outside of those, is their, they were, they were not
given any other signage on the building.
Short: And Robbie, let me ask this as well. The Merrill Lynch sign would be actually above the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 12
August 27, 2009
window on the brick. Would they also be allowed to use the green frieze in the window
below it?
Robbie: They are not asking for that and they do not intend to do that but I mean you could just
make it a condition.
Someone from the audience is speaking outside of the microphone area. No audio was available.
Short: OK.
Berryman (?): talking, still not at microphone.
Short: If you are going to address us, please come to the microphone.
Berryman: . . . just a few items that might clear things up.
Short: State your name.
Berryman: Robert Berryman. I manage the Merrill Lynch office here in Georgetown. Been here,
as of this month, we’ve been in Georgetown for 16 years. Um. And I’ve thought it might be
helpful to cover a couple of things. One of these items on the lease, we had to ask for both
signage and I guess that the folks working on the lease thought that that had been approved,
the signage on the window. And as I pointed out earlier, the restrictions not only by
corporate logo but also because the logo has to be approved through the industry. The
securities industry actually has to approve what Merrill Lynch can put on signage. The bull,
Merrill Lynch bull has to be a certain size and the lettering following the bull has to be a
certain size. And the spacing above and below the signage has to be a certain size and that
would really relegate us to inch lettering of less than three inches high on that green frieze
panel. And that’s why we had no intention of doing that after looking at it. And we had
thought we would be able to then put the signage on the brick. And as we found out
obviously that is going to require an amendment because he had only applied for the green
frieze to be signage. The illumination that was talked about, in the industry is low lumens,
LED illuminations. It has about a hundred thousand hour life expectancy. It will probably
not burn out in our lifetime, if that’s a consideration. The other thing, if one light fails in the
system, they all fail. So it’s not like we will end up with a bad signage problem.
Short: Robert, is the monument sign also being lit in a similar manner?
Berryman: I’m not sure, it’s bright blue. The building owner would have to speak to that. We
don’t have any lighting on that monument sign.
Short: Does anyone else have any more questions for the applicant?
Rapp: I do. Mr. Berryman, in the picture in the rendering we have which is this one here that
has the writing in it that shows what was originally approved. Does that not meet corporate
standards? It doesn’t have the bull but it has Merrill Lynch, looks like the font and the
lettering. Does that not meet your corporate standards?
Berryman: No it would have to have the bull, it couldn’t just say Merrill Lynch. And as I said,
the lettering would be so small it wouldn’t be legible unless you were standing on that
corner. The lettering would be less than three inches high.
Rapp: But if you had. If this green space was that restrictive and you knew that going in,
because it says that as of October of 2008 when the Master Sign Plan was approved that all
the conditions were spelled out for each tenant. Is that not correct?
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 12
August 27, 2009
Berryman: In the original lease that we had, we had requested both and I was not in on the
negotiations for the signage. And to be honest with you that was during a period when
Merrill Lynch as being acquired by Bank of America. So I don’t know if the confusion came
about because of that. We were under the impression, locally anyway, that we had that
signage in our lease and did not realize we hadn’t until later. And that’s when we
approached the building owner. And in our lease agreement it’s exhibit K, I think you may
have that, as to the signage. It talks to our corporate id.
Short: I don’t believe we do.
Rapp: I don’t believe we have.
Berryman: You don’t have that?
Rapp: No, we’re not the same HARC commission so we don’t have all of that here.
Shuffling and rustling.
Moore: Question that kinda goes along with this, in the letter that we got that has your Merrill
Lynch at the bottom. I assume it came from you. It’s a signage request for the HARC
Commission.
Berryman: Right.
Moore: In the fourth paragraph, there’s a sentence in there about two-thirds down that says
lettering that small would likely require a variance from our regulating authorities.
Berryman: That’s what we were told by our signage company.
Moore: I understand. What that refers to is that the lettering is very small and I infer from that
that there are variances to these regulations that you are referring to.
Berryman: It would be pretty impossible to get the New York Stock Exchange to give us a
variance.
Moore: They are available?
Berryman: They are the governing body on this. And I mention that because that’s how difficult
the variance would be. You would have to go that far off.
Moore: I understand that that is difficult. But maybe it is difficult to get it through the city
historic and architectural review commission. But there are, all I’m trying to establish is,
there are ways you can get variances.
Berryman: I don’t think it would be effective signage and it would not be worth our trouble to
do. Also, on the raceway that you have that matches the brick. The spacing between the
lettering would only be a quarter of an inch so whatever’s going to show is going to be
minimal. We will match it as closely to the brick as possible, but it’s probably not going to be
noticeable anyway.
Short: Robert, which actual suite in this building is Merrill Lynch going to occupy? Is it where
the sign is proposed?
Berryman: We are on the first floor on that side of the building where the signage is proposed.
We are basically that lower half of the building. So, there are a few hundred feet on the back
of that side of the building that do not belong to us right now. This would be our side of the
building and we would occupy, all the way back to . . . .or at least most of the way back . . .
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 12
August 27, 2009
there are a few hundred feet in the back that we don’t occupy.
Short: And I have not seen your lease with Tamiro, but is it Tamiro that has the right to place
signage or is it the tenant? For example, you put this Merrill Lynch sign up and Tamiro gets
some other tenants in there and they would like to put signage in the green friezes in the
space that you are firm occupies, would you have, is that something that Merrill Lynch gets
to control or is that Tamiro that gets to make that decision?
Berryman: Well, it is my understanding that we would control that. But I brought somebody
from the building ownership to speak to some issues like that. And do you know how that
works? (He addresses someone behind him)
Wyler: In this case it would be Tamiro coming forth because they are the ones that brought and
got that approved a master sign plan, so if anyone would be to amend this it would be
Tamiro’s decision. So if somebody else wanted to come in and put signage there, they would
have to get Tamiro’s okay. They are the owners of the property. In this case, Merrill Lynch is
coming forward with the application, but that is because Tamiro is allowing them to do so.
So it’d Tamiro’s decision whether or not a sign could go there and it would be an
amendment to the master sign plan as well.
Short: So from a process stand point, and let’s just take the hypothetical, that other tenants come
into the building and the building owner would like to put the signs of those tenants on the
windows of the space that is actually, physically being occupied by Merrill Lynch. Is that
something that can be done without coming to HARC or is that something that has to come
to us?
Wyler: What you would do in that case is just make that a condition of the approval that no
other signage can go right there. Because technically signage can go in there unless you state
it can’t because it’s part of the master sign plan. This is in addition to the master sign plan.
You could just make a condition to prevent something like that from happening.
Short: OK. And Robbie, a question for you. In the summary, staff had sorta a cryptic
recommendation.
Wyler: Yes.
Short: Normally it’s either recommend approval or denial, and this one was to recommend
“consider”. I don’t recall seeing that before so can you, from a staff’s standpoint, state what
you were thinking as staff.
Wyler: The reason that it’s like that is because you make your decision based on the guidelines.
The guidelines, no guidelines really go against this sign. And there is one guideline that
made us uncomfortable and that was the whole “is it appropriate for this building?” Is it
appropriate that the building has a master sign plan for a reason? I tried to describe that.
And it’s up to you guys to decide whether it is appropriate to amend this set master sign
plan that if there no master sign plan and they were just coming forward would otherwise be
appropriate for the building. It’s just now they have something that says what they can and
cannot do where in any other case it would just be like another sign coming forward. That’s
why we didn’t give a yes or a no. We just kinda gave our opinion as to there are no
guidelines going against it but it’s a matter of whether you want to against the master sign
plan or not.
Short: Okay.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 12
August 27, 2009
Johnson, J.C: Well it seems to me. If all it were ever going to be was Merrill Lynch’s sign on the
outside of the building, I think it’s not an unattractive sign. And I would think yea, that
would be okay. But you have a master plan for signage for the building. And if Silver and
Stone decided that they wanted to come and have a sign on the exterior of the building as
they have already done and they are wanting to put an extra sign. And you have a whole
flock of tenants in there. Each one of whom could perhaps conjure up some corporate
requirement for signage on the exterior of the building. And the next thing you know,
what’s the point of having a master sign plan for the building? You would have it dotted
with not Merrill Lynch, but Merrill Lynch and assorted other signs all over the outside of the
building. Which doesn’t sound like to me a good prospect.
Short: Robbie, that brings up an important question. Is the plan here to amend the master sign
plan to allow this type of sign or is it to allow this sign as an exception to the master sign
plan?
Wyler: It is this specific sign. If anything else was to come in it would have to go through the
same process.
Short: Okay.
Moseley: I want clarification, are we talking about one sign or two signs?
Wyler: It’s two signs.
Moseley: One on each corner.
Wyler: Yes. Both are the same size, design everything..
Moseley: Both on the same corner?
Wyler: Yes.
Rapp: But there nothing stopping any other tenants from coming back and asking for the exact
same thing. Right?
Wyler: Actually not. You are allowed to ask for an amendment to a master sign plan.
Moore: There is however a limit to how much signage can go on each face of that building total.
Wyler: A maximum signage follows the one per one rule. One square foot of signage per one
lineal foot of building.
Moore: So now it’s whoever comes first. Once we reach that limit it would be no more.
Wyler: Then it would be part of the rule that says this guideline is going against it. Right now
that guideline is not going against it.
Moore: Okay.
Rapp: Okay, then I have another question then. So, will this signage proposed on the one with
the exterior corporate id, up here where it shows the clearest view of that. It’s above the first
floor, but is actually on the second floor, so isn’t the tenant on the second floor, I mean it
sorta looks like, that, that, the office is on the second floor not the first floor.
Wyler: That was just . . .. they didn’t want to cover the design features of the building and they
wanted to put it on the brick and most signage is above a window rather than below the
window. And when you advertise, they felt this was the most appropriate place for a
signage like this.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 7 of 12
August 27, 2009
Rapp: Okay.
Voices in the background.
Wyler: Yeah. Go ahead.
Johnson, Troy: I’m Troy Johnson, and I work at Merrill Lynch and I’ve been working with the
corporate in New York on the signage, the contact. One of the designs on the plan, if you see
in that brick, is a square facade. It was actually designed in for a sign to go right there. So,
Signs for Success out of New York that works with us has already looked there. They are the
ones that tested. It’s actually designed to go right in there at the facade where a physical sign
would go on the building, the way it would be designed.
Pergl: This, this, this picture here where we can actually see that brick detail. It does not match
this at all. And the one we see up on the projector.
Berryman: It would be the side of the delineated brick area.
Pergl: So, this one that we are seeing here where Merrill Lynch is superimposed on the brick
detail is much larger than the actual . . . .
Berryman: It’s probably going to fit inside of that designated brick rectangle.
Pergl: So the bull would actually fit inside that brick outline or just the lettering itself?
Johnson: It’s exactly the, it’s exactly, on, as you would see it on our presentation with the
dimensions, what, the way it work again as Robert had stated earlier, our limitations with
our trademark and our logo is the bull would be from the top of that window down and then
the Merrill Lynch would be right across there, so it would be half of that, that brick. The way
that brick is designed is the way Sign for Success, our representative, said they would put the
facets in there. That’s how it would hold it.
Pergl: So it looks like you are obscuring the major portion of that brick detail.
Johnson: It will be built right under the brick detail, brick detail right underneath the window
there. It wouldn’t obscure the second floor.
Pergl: Would that brick framework, you are mounting to the face of that? It looks like . . .
Johnson: (talking at same time as Pergl so jumbled) . . . Well part of the top of the brick ring, the top
part of the brick ring you’d be able to see because of the lettering, because of the limitations,
so you would see as part of that on the bottom, but this is going to be flush. The way we tried
to design them, the way they tried to design the sign as he said, it’s a small sign that would
be right in there. The lettering is less than on the caps, about one foot, 12 inches top is the
height of the lettering on each side. And that’s why they gave us the signage and asked us to
do the signage on each side. Technically for our corporation it’s a small sign. And again, not
every, not all of our offices are main street offices that we design and try to have signage like
this.
Moseley(?): So let me ask the question if I could in terms of dimension. The thirty inches, fifteen
and sixteen, so it’s got thirty one inches nominal, that fits inside that brick inset on the
building? Or not?
Wyler: And that might be a question for you guys. What I think . .. (shuffling) is what you guys
are talking about and are asking if it will fit in that actual. . . . .
Moseley: I ask the question because I think that’s what you are telling us. Or are trying to tell us
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 8 of 12
August 27, 2009
that it will fit inside that brick detail, that inset detail. (Wyler and Johnson are talking at the
same time in the background.)
Johnson: . . . the dimensions we gave you is the exact dimensions of the signs that would fit on
the building.
Moseley: No, I’m talking about the dimensions of the brick detail, the brick detail on the
building. Do you know if the sign would fit exactly inside that brick detail?
Johnson: It would be exactly as you see in this picture, so I don’t understand the question.
Moseley: Well
Berryman: Okay, would it fit inside or how much overlaps the rectangle. Yeah.
Johnson: The brackets if you take a look at the brackets, if you look at the brackets in this part of
the photo. These brackets here that attach the sign would fit inside that rectangle. So that
the sign itself would be flush with the rectangle. It wouldn’t fit inside the rectangle but
would be flush with it. Is that, do you understand the answer then?
Moseley: No, No what I think I hear you saying is the bull, the height of the bull, will fall outside
that brick detail, that inset.
Johnson: That’s correct. (All talk at the same time.)
Moseley: It will not fit inside the brick inset. The height of the bull will not fit inside that brick
inset.
Johnson: That is correct.
Moseley: Okay.
Rapp: And if I’m looking at this correctly, neither will the words, the bottom portion of Merrill
Lynch, because if it’s flush, and the brackets are inside the detail, then the bottom part of the
Merrill Lynch actually obscures the brick detail all the way across the front. It does have or
allow the brick detail at the top to show.
Johnson: That is correct.
Rapp: Is that correct?
Johnson: Yes, ma’am. The bottom of the y, if you take a look again at this sign, you have the
brick detail, then you have the solid white brick they come to that bottom. With the logo.
Again, the way our design is, it would come to that and come across. My confusion is I was
telling you the building is where we would put in the brackets to hold it so the sign would be
flush against the building and wouldn’t be stuck out.
Rapp: Okay, I have a separate question. (Others were talking behind the microphone.) When I look
at the . . . . I saw a rendering on the monument. I can’t find that picture. But you had the
Merrill Lynch and the bull logo and that of course was smaller but of course appropriate for
the monument sign is that correct Robert? That logos on that monument sign?
Berryman: Yes.
Rapp: Okay. Why, I understand why it can’t fit inside the green, but where that green frieze is. If
we were to give you a, an approval to go outside of that green that is over in that general
space, on the first floor in your area, that would overlap the green onto that brick that would
make it larger so that you have room on your first floor. Would that not be a compromise?
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 9 of 12
August 27, 2009
Berryman: It would not overlap the brick, it would overlap a window.
Johnson: We have windows there that we use.
Rapp: Yes, it’s not the big window, not the big window down below; it would overlap sort of the
transom looking part of the windows.
Johnson: Yeah, we have the skylighting design in our office that comes through the way our
office is designed on the inside that’s our lobby where this is gonna be over that area in the
office. (mumbling and talking in background)
Short: Robbie, just for the benefit of the members of the public that are here. Eac h one of us,
when we came in received a not from the absent member, Susan Firth. And since we’ve had
a chance to look at it and no one else has had a chance to look at it, I think it’s appropriate,
since chances are we are going to consider the comments, rather than be silent comments, I
think it would be good for you to read those into the record more or less so at least the
members of the public that are hear can hear what the comments of absent person would be.
Wyler: Do you want me to read it or do you want to read it because I don’t have a copy in my
hand right now? (He was handed a copy.)
Short: If you don’t mind. Once again for the sake of the members of the public that have not had
a chance to see this.
Wyler: Okay. And this is directed towards HARC and is written by commission member Susan
Firth who could not attend tonight. For item number 2 and her comment states: “The Design
Guidelines allow HARC to consider the building front as part of an overall sign (Chapter
9.1). It also states that ‘a typical strip-commercial development pattern is inappropriate in
the Downtown Overlay District’. The complexities of the Tamiro Plaza with its multiple
tenants make wall-mounted signs inappropriate. Just imagine the appearance of the Plaza if
every tenant placed an illuminated sign on the building! Care and foresight must be taken
when developing signage for downtown buildings. Those signage plans must be reviewed
with every tenant to ensure complete understanding of what is allowed and what is
restricted. The approved Master Sign Plan and downtown Sign Guidelines must be
respected by every tenant and building owner to maintain the visual integrity of the historic
area.
I would encourage the commission to deny the CDC for an amendment to the Master Sign
Plan for Tamiro Plaza and the CDC for approval of additional exterior signage for the Tamiro
Plaza.” That’s the end of the letter.
Short: Thanks Robbie. Do we have any public comment on this? Is anybody signed up for
public comment Robbie?
Robbie: No, I don’t think so.
Frost: No, the two people that signed up are the applicants that have already spoken.
Short: Okay. Are there any other questions?
Berryman: I would just add that we’ve been at our present location for sixteen years; we’re not a
company that moves around a lot. So, the signage issue is very important to Merrill Lynch.
And we are very important to the community. We have over a thousand clients, and manage
over several hundred million dollars in this community. So, I’ll leave you with that.
Short: Thank you Robert. Alright, I think I have a motion. I will move that. . . well let me say
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 10 of 12
August 27, 2009
this before I make the motion. You know I live in the downtown and I have an office in
downtown and I um kind of follow JC in the sense that I don’t find this an unattractive sign.
It’s not the same as the signs we’ve approved for the building, but it’s not an unattractive
sign. And I think that if some discretion was used in how the sign was placed on the
building this would not be a bad sign to add to the building. And so I would move that the
Certificate of Design Compliance for these signs be approved with the condition that no
other signage be permitted on the first story windows of the space that is occupied by Merrill
Lynch. And that’s the entire motion.
Pause.
Short: Any second? Pause. Does anyone else have a motion?
Johnson: I move that the application for Certificate of Design Compliance be denied and that the
Master Plan for the building signage be reaffirmed.
Moore: I second that.
Short: And it was seconded. Is there any discussion? Pause. Let’s call for a vote then. All in
favor? And all opposed? Vote was 5 – 1, Short opposed. General discussion among the audience
could be heard.
Short: Thank you for your presentation. The applicants left the council chambers.
3. Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition of an accessory structure at Clamp’s
Addition Revised, Block A (nw/pt), located at 803 S. College Street. (CDC-2009-028)
Wyler presented the staff report. The owner of the property is asking for CDC approval for
the demolition of a detached guest house and carport. The 837 square foot, two-story
structure may not be original to the 1880’s John Leavell House. A concrete slab and
aluminum windows suggest it was constructed post World War II, but an exact date could
not be found.
The owner and agent state the condition of the structure prevents it from being used
residentially. A letter from an engineering company has also been included with the packet
that confirms the condition of the slab. The property owner would like to expand the guest
house as part of the overall renovation project to allow for additional living space. Due to
the condition of the structure, this cannot be accomplished.
Based on its location, the structure is considered by the City to be existing non-conforming
and Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 14.04 limits what can be done to it. These
limitations include restricting the expansion of the structure to no more than 50% of its
original size without special approval of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The applicant
proposes demolishing the existing structure to allow for an expansion to the main house that
will meet all current City regulations.
Staff suggests the Commission refer to the Special Considerations section of this report when
making their decision. While the structure complements the historic main house, the
applicant would benefit more from the proposed expansion. If the structure is not historic,
there is not substantial cause for preservation considering the intentions of the applicant. If
the structure is historic, it would be contrary to Guideline 7.13 and approval may not be
appropriate. The Commission should also take into consideration the proposed expansion.
Although the expansion itself does not require HARC approval, it may be considered in
determining if demolition of the subject structure is needed.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 11 of 12
August 27, 2009
Short opened the floor for Commissioner questions. He asked whether the building being
proposed for demolition was serviceable. Wyler reported that the condition of the building
is not dire, but it is not usable in its present condition. Curtis Janis, the agent for the
property, stated they originally wanted to repair the building, but the engineer’s report says
the building and slab are not structurally sound.
Commissioners discussed the proposed size of the addition. Rapp questioned the scale of the
addition in regards to the surrounding properties. Wyler stated the commission will not see
the building permit application, but has the option placing restrictions on the replacement.
Moseley stated he thinks the existing building is disproportionate and the new drawings are
projecting a much better scaled building. There was further discussion of the history of the
accessory structure. It was determined that the structure was built after 1984 so is not
considered historic.
Motion by Moore to approve the Certificate of Design Compliance for demolition as
proposed. Second by Moseley. Short requested Wyler read Commissioner Firth’s comments.
Wyler read the comment. Moseley said he appreciated her comments but he did not agree
with her recommendation to deny the demolotion and his second still stood. Moore
concurred. Vote was called. Approved 6 – 0.
4. Certificate of Design Compliance for faćade modifications and signage at City of
Georgetown, Block 39, Lots 2 & 3 (pts), to be known as Green Earth Energy Systems, Inc.,
located at 109 E. 7th Street. (CDC-2009-029)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant asks HARC to approve the CDC for
modifications to the building’s facade, windows and doors in addition to new signage. He
proceeded to itemize all the details on the application and that were included in the packet.
Staff recommends approval of this application based on compliance with Guidelines 4.2, 4.3,
4.7, 5.7, 5.9, 6.2, 6.10, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 6.20, 6.21, 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, 9.13, 9.14, 9.17, 9.18 and 9.21.
Commissioners complimented the package of materials and the project itself stating it would
be very good for that side of the square. Tom Norrell, applicant, stated he would like to
install a sign bracket that matches the one used on the adjacent building, not using the
existing bracket. There were no other questions by the commissioners.
Motion by Rapp to approve the Certificate of Design Compliance for the package of faćade
changes and signage as presented with the proposed pink granite sidewalk being brought
back for staff approval and changing the bracket of the hanging sign to match the bracket of
the building next door. Second by Pergl. Approved 6-0.
5. Discussion and possible action on an updated Agenda format.
Wyler presented the proposed draft agenda that was suggested at a previous meeting. The
change includes language to limit applicants addressing the commission a ten minute time
limit, unless otherwise agreed to before the meeting begins.
Johnson questioned the language and process to be used. He disagreed with the language
that states “unless otherwise agreed to before the meeting begins” and asked that the
language just be removed. Others agreed.
Motion by Moore to approve the agenda type with the proposed changes. Second by
Johnson. Approved 6 – 0.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 12 of 12
August 27, 2009
6. Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on September 24, 2009.
7. Adjournment
Chair Short adjourned the meeting at 7:17 p.m.
__________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, West Short, Chair Attest, Will Moore, Secretary