HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_10.22.2009Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5
October 22, 2009
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, October 22, 2009, at 6:00 p.m.
City Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members Present: Susan Firth; J.C. Johnson; Will Moore; Ron Pergl and Dee Rapp
Members Absent: West Short, Chair; Larry Moseley
Staff Present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community
Development Director; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Vice-Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and welcomed everyone and read the
following meeting procedures.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City Council,
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 and Unified
Development Code.
He explained that if anyone needs instructions of the process of the meeting to let him know
otherwise everyone else should know what they are doing.
This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for
consideration and possible action on the following:
Consent Agenda:
1. Review and possible approval of the minutes from the August 27, 2009 and September 24,
2009 regular meetings.
Johnson explained that the reason for the delay of the August minutes was that a member
asked for a more thorough transcription of a specific item, and that was now included.
Motion by Moore to approve both sets of minutes. Second by Rapp. Firth brought forth a
correction to the September 24 minutes. On Item 1 of the consent agenda, there is a
statement “Pergl stated he” that was not completed. Johnson asked the Recording Secretary
to see if that statement was needed or a typo. (RS Frost researched this partial statement and
discovered this was a typographical error and stricken from the finalized minutes.) Vote called.
Approved with the tentative correction, 4 – 0. (Pergl was not present yet for this vote.)
Regular Agenda:
2. Certificate of Design Compliance for an amendment to a Master Sign Plan at Lost Addition,
Block 65 (e/pt), located at 1102 S. Austin Avenue, Suite #102, also known as Texas State
Optical. (CDC-2009-035)
Moore first explained that the Sign Subcommittee asked that this item be forwarded to the
entire commission based on the fact that this was an requested amendment to a Master Sign
Plan and that recently that has created some conflicts. The Sign Subcommittee felt this
should be reviewed by the Commission.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5
October 22, 2009
Pergl entered the meeting.
Wyler presented the staff report. In October of 2005, HARC approved a Master Sign Plan for
the 1102 S. Austin Avenue building. This approval included conditions for each tenant
regarding signage placement and allowances. Today, Texas State Optical (formerly Patel
Eye Care), occupies Suite 102 and is given space for a hanging sign on each of two canopies
due to its location at the corner of 11th Street and Austin Avenue. This is in addition to
allowed window lettering.
Dr. Patel, the applicant, has stated that the awning sign facing Austin Avenue is completely
blocked by a Crape Myrtle tree when in bloom. The 11th Street side of the building can
physically accommodate a flush-mounted wall sign rather than just a hanging sign but that
this was not mentioned in the approved Master Sign Plan. The existing conditions of the
Master Sign Plan allow for only two hanging signs for this particular suite, which are
currently installed. Therefore, the applicant is asking HARC to consider an amendment to
the Master Sign Plan to replace the two hanging signs with two flush-mounted wall signs for
the corner suite that will be compatible with the building and provide better advertisement
for the business.
This item was originally taken to the October 8, 2009 HARC Sign Subcommittee. Because
there was one absent Subcommittee member and because the members at the meeting felt
that an amendment to a Master Sign Plan should be reviewed by the whole Commission,
they took action to forward the item onto the October 22, 2009 regular HARC.
The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval for a change in conditions for
the 1102 S. Austin Avenue Master Sign Plan due to visibility issues and design
appropriateness. Two types of signs are proposed that will replace the applicant’s existing
hanging signs. The first is for the addition of two flush-mounted wall signs. One of these
wall signs will face 11th Street. The oval logo proposed is a Moderate Density Overlay
(MDO) wood sign, the same type of material used on other signs located on the building.
The sign will be painted white with an Olympic Blue border around the edge and “TSO” in
black letters in the center. “Texas State Optical” will be in white, 1/2-inch raised letters
underneath the oval. The 11th Street sign will measure 42.1 inches high by 96 inches wide, a
total area of 28 square feet. Another flush-mounted wall sign will face Austin Avenue. It
will be smaller, measuring 21 inches high by 48 inches wide, a total area of seven (7) square
feet, and will utilize the same materials and design as the other sign. With both signs, the
applicant prefers the “Texas State Optical” be raised using the white acrylic lettering
mounted to the building with metal studs with no backdrop, as shown on the rendering for
the Austin Avenue sign, but states that if HARC is unfavorable to this design, the applicant
is open to using a rectangle MDO sign board, painted black or dark blue, with white vinyl
lettering, as shown on the 11th Street sign rendering.
Neither flush -mounted wall sign will be illuminated and the applicant has stated that the
canopy signs will be removed upon installation of the wall signs. The Master Sign Plan,
with proposed amended language for Suite 102, has been provided by the applicant for
HARC’s consideration detailing the new wall signs as part of the Master Sign Plan.
In addition to amending the Master Sign Plan, the applicant would like to place an A-frame
sign in front of the Austin Avenue entrance door. The two-sided wooden sign will measure
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5
October 22, 2009
24 inches wide by 36 inches high and will be made of MDO wood cut into the shape
provided with the rendering. The sign will read “TSO, Texas State Optical” in the same
design and colors as the proposed wall signs with an Olympic Blue arrow pointing to the
front door and “Accepting most Medical & Vision Insurance” in black lettering written
below.
Guidelines cited that support staff recommendation of approval are 9.4, 9.5, 9.11, 9.13, 9.15,
9.17. Wyler also provided written documentation of support from other businesses in the
area, and draft language of the proposed Master Sign Plan Amendment.
Johnson questions the tenant applying for the Master Sign Plan that was originally
submitted by the owner of the building. Wyler explained that he met with the applicant and
the owner of the building and that the owner is in full support of the amendment and his
choice that the agent/ tenant submit this application. Wyler pointed out the owner’s initials
of approval on the application. Commissioners requested either the owner’s attendance or
written letter of approval. Wyler stated he would require a letter of approval from owners
from this point forward.
Other questions, Rapp is concerned about Master Sign Plan amendment and the affect of the
changes on the other tenants. Wyler stated the reason the applicant is bringing this forward
is that this building was built to accommodate signs like the one being applied for, but in
2005, the Master Sign Plan that was requested and approved was only for hanging signs and
window signs. This amendment would not actually change the amount of signage allowed,
nor the materials or colors, just the types. Rapp says her concern is that the owner is not
communicating the restrictions of the master sign plan to his tenants. Others agreed.
Firth voiced concern over the Austin Avenue facing signage shown. Clarification was given
that the applicant was giving two choices to the commission to pick which one they wanted.
The applicant wants the signs to match, preferably with the raised lettering style. Firth also
voiced concern over the placement difference in height. The agent, Ray Shawley, of
Affordable Signs, says this is because of the height of the awning. There was further debate
and discussion of the signage on Austin Avenue and the disproportionate placement. Wyler
proposed putting in the pitch of the roof on the side of the building, which would balance
the Austin Avenue signage height. Shawley says the tenant has to make a choice about
which space they would like to use since they are limited in amount of signage, either wall
or awning signage, not both. Johnson questions whether the owner has a preference. Wyler
stated “no, Mr. McIntosh was fine with either type of sign and signed the application”.
Firth confirms the signage that is proposed. Mr. Patel explains the signage he wants to
address the different types of traffic on that corner, the pedestrian and the automobiles.
Moore reiterated the need for a letter from the owner that states he understands the
application and possible consequences to the other tenants.
Firth confirmed which signage they wanted to use. Shawley and Patel said they would
choose the raised lettering signs. Rapp questioned the thickness of the proposed signs and
the original master sign plan requirements. Shawley says the original plan restricted only
the thickness of the frame of the sign. This amendment would allow a thicker sign. Rapp
pointed out that this would affect all tenants. It was stated that this would apply only to
future tenants. Existing tenants fall under the original plan.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5
October 22, 2009
Motion by Firth to accept the revised Master Sign Plan to include the signage request for
Suite 102 with the stipulation that a letter is received from the owner agreeing to the Master
Sign Plan changes. Motion dies for lack of second. Cook explains that the owner currently
must sign all applications for tenant signage and is fully aware of all applications for his
property that are filed with the city, this is a requirement on the applications.
Firth moves to accept the revised Master Sign Plan as written. Second by Moore. Approved
5 – 0.
Moore moves to approve the CDC for Dr. Patel’s signs as written, including the A-frame
with the condition that it is taken in at night. Second by Rapp. Approved 5 – 0.
3. Certificate of Design Compliance for facade changes at Dimmit Addition, Block 83 (nw/pt),
also known as Wag-a-bag, located at 602 E. University Avenue. (CDC-2009-037)
Wyler presented the staff report. The owner of the property is asking for CDC approval for
exterior modifications that have been performed at the Wag-a-bag convenience store on
University Avenue, across from Williams Elementary. The building is not considered
historic according to the Georgetown Historic Resources Survey. Pictures of the recently
installed metal roof have been provided in the applicant’s packet and a sample of the Texas
Rib gauge acrylic coated galvalume, with 1/2-inch ribs on 6-inch centers, was presented to
the Commission at the meeting. There was no change in the height or span of the roof and
no other facade features on the building were changed during the project.
The Guideline used to support the staff recommendation for approval was 6.24.
Firth questioned how this work could have been done without coming before the
commission first. Wyler explained that this was a code enforcement “catch” and that many
times people state they didn’t know they needed to come to the city for approval.
Rapp questioned the “darkening” of the metal roof and how much it would darken. Wyler
gave an example of the Curves business roof that was painted black. Pergl explained that the
metal would darken some, but that painting the metal was not always the best option as a
lighter roof is more energy efficient.
Motion by Moore to grant the CDC for the application as presented. Second by Pergl. Rapp
stated the property owner should be warned to come to the City with any future proposed
changes before doing them. Approved 5 – 0.
4. Discussion and possible action to create a site visit process for Commissioners for demolition
and other applications prior to action being taken.
Wyler opened the floor for discussion, stating that several commissioners were requesting
site visits for certain types of applications, and asking for a process to do that consistently. It
was commonly agreed to that the commissioners would like to view items that were up for
demolition, relocation, or on staff recommendation.
Motion by Rapp to add site visits as a regular process of review for applications of
demolition, relocation, and at staff recommendation, to be held generally on the Tuesday
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5
October 22, 2009
before a regular HARC meeting, or as coordinated with the property owners. Second by
Pergl. Approved 5 – 0.
5. Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on December 10, 2009.
6. Adjournment
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
__________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, J.C. Johnson, Vice-Chair Attest, Susan Firth, Secretary