HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_11.17.2010_Special SessionHistoric and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Page 1 of 3
November 17, 2010
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Meeting
Minutes
Wednesday, November 17, 2010 4:00 p.m.
Georgetown Municipal Complex, Williamson Conference Room
300-1 Industrial Ave, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members present: Ron Pergl; Susan Firth; and Dee Rapp
Members absent: none
Staff present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Call to order by Pergl at 4:00 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 October 28, 2010 Sign
Subcommittee meeting on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at
City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lot 1 (w/pt), also known as Adi’s Italian Village, located at 119 W.
7th Street. (CDC-2010-023)
Wyler presented the following summary: On Thursday, October 28, 2010, CDC-2010-023 went to
the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) Sign Subcommittee. Because the
public notification sign for this item was not properly posted on location, the Subcommittee was
unable to take action on the item, which included approval on three signs for Adi’s Italian
Village.
Additionally, the sign agent representing the restaurant or the restaurant owner were not
present at the meeting so the Subcommittee could not address several questions and comments
they had. In the end, the Subcommittee and City staff scheduled a special meeting on
November 17, 2010 to address the questions and comments and to take final action on this item.
A few items the Subcommittee suggested be addressed before the November 17 meeting: The
Subcommittee considers the proposed window sign application nontraditional and asks that the
applicant use a more traditional method of window advertisement by applying the lettering
directly to the window rather than placing it on a transparent acrylic board and attaching it
with Velcro. If the applicant/agent was okay with this suggestion, he should have come back to
the November 17 special meeting with new renderings and details showing the suggested
application. No new renderings were submitted.
The lettering on the A-frame sign should match what is proposed on the flush-mounted wall
sign in color (gold leaf) and font. This will better match the sign with the remainder of the
signs. If the applicant/agent was okay with this suggestion, he should have come back to the
November 17 special meeting with a new proposal and details. No new renderings were
submitted.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Page 2 of 3
November 17, 2010
The color of the A-frame sign should match the color on the proposed flush-mounted wall sign.
This will better match the other signs. A decorative border should be placed around the
lettering on the flush-mounted wall sign. The border should match the color of the lettering.
The same type of border should be placed around the A-frame sign as well.
Bill Gottsman, his son Larry Gottsman, both of Aetna Design representing the tenant as the sign
agents, Kristen Gottsman, and Sam ____, the restaurant owner were present for questions,
comments and discussion. The Gottsmans explained their history with sign making and their
disagreements with the current Georgetown codes. They feel the codes should be reviewed and
updated to better serve small businesses, saying they are too restrictive for small businesses to
follow.
Chair Pergl explained that the Commissioners were not there to dispute the validity of the
current codes but to interpret and apply the rules as established by the City Council. He
directed the discussion back to the application.
Firth questioned Sam about his ability to address the previous comments. Sam expressed
concern about having to replace all the signage and the expense associated with that. Rapp
explained that the signs were not rejected at all and that the suggestions were to enhance the
signage, i.e. the existing Velcro took away from the beauty of the sign. Rapp explained the
commissioners try to compromise with the applicants to find a solution that works for both
parties. There was a discussion of possible solutions for hanging the window sign in a more
permanent looking fashion. It was decided an attached chain would work best for a solution.
Pergl suggested that the signs be discussed as before, in three parts. The A-frame sign was
discussed next. The Commissioners were concerned about the inconsistency of font types
among all the signs, and concerned about the inconsistency not providing a sense of “branding”
to the Adi’s signs. Mr. Gottsman did not agree and felt the different fonts were fine.
The next discussion was about the back wall-mounted sign. Mr. Gottsman brought out
examples of 3-D lettering that he had been working on. These were not indicated on the
original application. Sam stated he would accept the border color that would be the same as the
A-frame sign, but that the lettering should be vinyl or painted on the wall sign to reduce costs.
The background color and border color of the wall sign would be the same as the A-frame sign
and the font would be the same as the window sign – to provide consistency.
Pergl agreed that he likes the A-frame photo and encouraged the restaurant owner to consider
the “branding” issue in future endeavors.
Motion by Firth to approve the Certificate of Design Compliance application as submitted
with the exception of the window sign which must be hung from a chain, as resubmitted and
approved by staff; the A-frame sign to be approved as submitted but with a recommendation
to make the fonts consistent with the other signage; and the wall sign be approved with the
background green and border color to match those of the A-frame sign, and to include painted
or vinyl lettering – not 3-D lettering. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
2. Adjournment. Chair Pergl thanked the applicants for their attendance and adjourned the
meeting at 4:45 p.m.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Page 3 of 3
November 17, 2010
___________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Ron Pergl, Chair Attest, Susan Firth