HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_07.14.2010_Special SessionHistoric and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Page 1 of 3
July 14, 2010
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, July 14, 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 4:15 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. Review and possible approval of the minutes from the June 9, 2010, Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
Firth noted two corrections to be made, the first page should indicate June 9 was a
Wednesday meeting, not a Thursday. And on page 2, first line, should read, “out of
proportion”. Motion by Firth to approve the minutes as corrected. Second by Rapp.
Approved 3 – 0.
2. Discussion and possible action on an amendment to the Tamiro Plaza Master Sign Plan,
continued from the July 7, 2010 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting. (CDC-2010-013 / CDC-
2008-034)
Gordon Baker, the applicant’s agent, distributed a new Master Sign Plan proposal packet.
He stated he added the notes as previously requested and added the balcony panels with
colors and dimensions, asking for only four under the balcony signs.
The Commissioners clarified what was being discussed and decided to deliberate the
package in segments as presented. The first item discussed ws the signage for the northwest
corner, first floor tenant. Mr. Choi is proposing that if and when the present tenant moves
out, the same type of signage will not be replaced. It is proposed to be a frieze sign only.
There will not be any internally lit or backlit signage on the building. Commissioners and
applicant discussed that.
Motion was made by Rapp that the recommendation be made to the Commission that
excepting existing signage, there is to be no future internally lit or back-lit signage
anywhere on exterior of the building. Second by Pergl. Approved 3 – 0.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Page 2 of 3
July 14, 2010
Motion by Rapp that with the exception of the existing signage, there will not be any logos
allowed on the building, lit or unlit. Second by Pergl. Approved 3 – 0.
There was discussion of the current blade sign on the building. Mr. Choi expressed that he
did not like the internal illumination of that sign. There was discussion of future tenant
needs for that space and signage.
Motion by Rapp to recommend to the Commission that the existing blade sign shall remain
in the same location, retain the same colors and dimensions and shall be utilized only for
current or future restaurant tenants. If there is a new tenant, the updated sign shall not be
internally illuminated. If there is a new tenant that is not a restaurant, the blade sign will
be taken down. Second by Pergl. Approved 3-0.
The monument sign was discussed and the possibility of allowing more tenant names on the
sign. Mr. Choi will work this out with the tenants through the lease agreements. There was
no change made to the original proposal of the monument sign so no approval was needed
for a recommendation to the Commission. The Master Sign Plan will use the original
language.
Motion by Firth to retain the original monument sign plan as approved in the original
Master Sign Plan. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
The four proposed balcony frieze signs were discussed. Rapp suggested adding in two more,
for a total of six additional signs, in case more tenants came forth with requests. Firth stated
she still opposes any additional signage, stating she did not feel it was appropriate for
downtown. Baker discussed this with the Commissioners, stating he believes that the
Downtown Guidelines do not regulate signage to be like it was historically, but to be
approved and installed based on what the citizens want Georgetown to look like now and in
the future. Firth reiterated that she felt the signs were not locational based on the location of
the tenants in the building.
Motion by Rapp to recommend the addition of balcony frieze signs as presented, but to
increase the number of signs allowed from four to six, with the additional two facing the 6th
Street side of the building for future tenants. Second by Ron. Approved 2 – 1. (Firth
opposed.)
3. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
window signage at Sparks Addition, Block 1, Lot 7, also known as Faith Impact Church,
located at 1905 S. Austin Avenue, Suite 102. (CDC-2010-014)
The applicant was present but had to leave prior to this item due to an appointment. Wyler
presented the application. The applicant seeks approval for window signage for the north
side of the structure, which faces the parking lot. The signage is currently installed on three
north-facing windows and requires Certificate of Design Compliance to bring the church
into compliance with the UDC. By definition, the messages on all three subject windos are
considered signage and exceed the maximum allowance. Staff suggests reducing the size of
the signage to the left of the entrance doors to meet the Guideline 9.6, and for HARC to
consider the purpose, location and style of the signage in the transom windows when
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Page 3 of 3
July 14, 2010
making their decision. The applicant is willing to reduce the lettering on the window to the
left of the door to become compliant with the 30% rule, but is asking to allow the transom
windows to be covered at 100%.
Commissioners discussed the options available to the church. Pergl stated the transom
signage looked like frosted glass, not like a sign. He could see allowing that to remain in
place. Firth concurred.
Motion by Firth to approve the window signage as requested, allowing the two transom
windows to remain as is with 100% coverage, and the signage on the window to the left of
the entrance must be reduced to 30%. Any other signage requests for the entrance doors
must come back to the Commission. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
4. Adjournment. Pergl adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m.
The Subcommittee is forwarding Item 2recommendations to the next meeting of the Historic
and Architectural Review Commission for its consideration. That meeting is scheduled for July
22, 2010.
__________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Ron Pergl, Chair Attest, Dee Rapp, Secretary