HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_07.07.2010_Special SessionHistoric and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Page 1 of 3
July 7, 2010
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, July 7, 2010 4:00 p.m.
Georgetown Municipal Complex
300-1 Industrial Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Ron Pergl, Chair; Susan Firth; and Dee Rapp
Members absent: none
Staff present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development
Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Call to order by Pergl at 4:06 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee is responsible for
hearing and taking final action on sign applications, by issuing Certificates of Design
Compliance based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines. This is a
regular scheduled meeting of the Sign Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on
the following:
1. Discussion and possible action on an item forwarded from the June 24, 2010 Regular HARC
meeting regarding an amendment to the Tamiro Plaza Master Sign Plan.
Gordon Baker, applicant, opened the conversation. He stated that he and Mr. Choi looked at
several ideas and other city sign ordinances trying to develop an idea for signage to complete
the Master Sign Plan for Tamiro Plaza. They were trying to balance the need of the tenants
with the type of signs that everyone would be comfortable with on the building. They
looked at first floor friezes, as well as 2nd and 3rd floor friezes and balconies. The proposal is
to now use the frieze below the 2nd floor balconies in only four locations. These would be 10’
x 80’ aluminum panels painted to match the building color, with dark green lettering. The
idea is to architecturally place a sign where you would normally place a sign on this
building.
Rapp questioned the tenants on the 3rd floor not having any signs to correspond to those
tenants. Baker explained that they did not want or need the signs to match the location of
the tenants in the building and that not all tenants would want signage on the exterior of the
building. He explained that with the size of the building, regulations would allow them 300
square feet of signage and they are only requesting a total of 175 square feet.
Rapp questioned whether the first floor friezes would still be used. Baker and Francisco
Choi, owner of the building, explained that only the tenants that were on the first floor
would be using the first floor friezes and those would be a limited number.
Firth expressed continued concern that the tenant signs on the building did not match the
location of the tenant in the building and felt it was confusing for visitors.
Rapp asked to confirm that the other parts of the Master Sign Plan had been previously
approved and that only the frieze signage was still open for discussion. Baker confirmed
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Page 2 of 3
July 7, 2010
that and explained that also the Master Sign Plan explained that if the Merrill Lynch tenant
space was re-leased to another tenant, the lit sign would not be replaced by another lit sign.
And if the Silver and Stone tenant space was re-leased by another restaurant tenant, the
blade sign would remain but not be internally lit, and if the restaurant was just another
tenant space, the blade sign would be taken down and not replaced. Mr. Choi apologized for
these signs, stating he did not like the way they looked on his building either.
Rapp stated that is in the past and now look to the future signs. Baker explained any tenant
of Tamiro Plaza must follow the Master Sign Plan and any application for a sign permit, or
banner permit, must be signed and approved by Mr. Choi prior to the application being filed.
Mr. Choi is only asking for 4 additional signs, on the friezes, at this time.
Firth questioned how many tenants were currently in the building and how Choi decided
who would get the exterior signage. She expressed a concern with the number of tenants
that are now allowed signage and the ones that were to receive signage but not having
signage indicating the location of their business in the building. Baker explained that there
is a directory listing inside the building that gives the floor and location of each tenant, and
that the monument sign lists all the tenants that wanted to be on the sign. Pergl gave an
example of the Chase Bank building in downtown Austin. He says the Chase name is lit on
the top of the building, but everyone knows that the bank is the entire first floor of the
building. No one expects the bank to be on the top floor. He does not see this as a
disadvantage for Chase, but an opportunity for Chase to have its own identity on the
building. This is how he views the tenant signage on Tamiro Plaza.
Firth questioned how Choi would address additional tenants wanting to be on the
monument sign. Choi explained that would be addressed in future lease agreements, only a
certain number of tenants were allowed to have their name on the monument sign.
Firth stated she was still struggling with thinking that City Council did not want amymore
signage on this building. Cook explained that this was an idea that was stated, but the
motion for action was for Mr. Choi to work with HARC for an approved Master Sign Plan
before any other signs could be placed on the building.
There was discussion among the commissioners about the next steps. The Sign
Subcommittee must make a recommendation back to the entire Commission. Firth stated
she felt this proposal was better than the one made to the regular commission, but was still
not satisfied with the tenant signage not correlating with the location of the tenants and the
extra signage as proposed.
Rapp stated she felt the proposal was much better from a HARC and Design Guidelines
perspective, but was concerned about the strong possibility of additional tenants making
requests beyond the Master Sign Plan. Cook explained that tenants or Mr. Choi could make
application to amend the Master Sign Plan at anytime.
Rapp made a motion to table the final decision made by the Sign Subcommittee in
reference to the recommendation to be made to the Commission, until the next Sign
Subcommittee meeting of July 14, 4:00, to give the subcommittee time to review the new
proposals with the Guidelines. Second by Firth. Approved 3 -0.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Page 3 of 3
July 7, 2010
2. Adjournment. Pergl adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m.
__________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Ron Pergl, Chair Attest, Dee Rapp, Secretary