HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_01.28.2010
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 9
January 28, 2010
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, January 28. 2010 at 6:00 p.m.
City Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members Present: West Short, Chair; Susan Firth; J.C. Johnson; Will Moore; Ron Pergl and Dee
Rapp
Members Absent: Larry Moseley
Staff Present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community
Development Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Short called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
(Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the
request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for any purpose authorized
by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551.)
This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for
consideration and possible action on the following:
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 December 10, 2009 regular meeting.
Johnson stated he would like a correction made to the minutes in paragraph 2 of page 3 of 4,
that instead of stating, “Johnson spoke regarding the naming of the house. He stated there is
not a law on a double name house, but tradition has the name of the builder as the first name
given, and the second name is the name of the architect.” A correction should be made to
state that, “the second name is that of an owner that makes a significant architectural change
to the structure(s).” So noted.
Motion by Moore to accept the minutes as presented with the changes noted. Second by
Pergl. Approved 6 – 0.
2. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 4 (pt), to be known as Three Legged Willie’s
Restaurant and Bar, located at 708 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2009-045)
This item was forwarded from the Sign Subcommittee to this meeting so will be acted upon
as a regular agenda item.
Wyler presented the staff report as follows. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance
(CDC) approval for multiple new signs for the new restaurant, Three Legged Willie’s Restaurant and
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 9
January 28, 2010
Bar. They include a V-shaped canopy sign, a hanging sign, window signs, and an A-frame chalk
board.
First, a V-shaped canopy sign is proposed. The sign will be installed on top of the building’s Austin
Avenue canopy and will replace the canopy sign from the previous restaurant. The sign will have two
faces, diagonally installed and joined together near the edge of the canopy, creating a V-shaped sign, as
shown on the provided renderings. The applicant wishes to install the V-shaped sign to allow traffic
along Austin Avenue to safely read the sign when traveling both north and south. A similar style of
sign was recently installed a few doors down at The Williamson Museum. Together, the two faces will
measure 72 inches wide by 53 inches high, totaling 26.5 square feet. The aluminum sign will use a
combination of vinyl application and reverse channel lettering. As shown in the provided rendering,
the metal face, to be colored Behr’s Tibetan Red, will have a laminated graphic overlay mounted
directly onto the aluminum. Both images of “Three Legged Willie” and the sign’s backdrop will use
this application. Reverse channel aluminum lettering will be used for the name of the restaurant,
Three Legged Willie’s. “Three Legged” will use 5.5-inch high letters, while “Willie’s” will use 11.5-
inch high letters. The applicant also proposes placing “Restaurant & Bar” below the name of the
restaurant in 4-inch Black, vinyl letters, applied to the polished aluminum band across the bottom of
the face. The name of the restaurant will be illuminated using US LED point modules that will
provide reverse illumination for the “Three Legged Willie’s” only. “Restaurant and Bar” will not be
illuminated. All lettering will be in an Insignia Bold font. The sign will be attached to the canopy
using an iron frame and brackets painted in Behr’s Tibetan Red.
Next, the applicant proposes installing a hanging sign below the canopy and in front of the
restaurant’s entrance. The double-sided sign will be constructed of Medium Density Overlay (MDO)
wood, measuring 12 inches high by 36 inches wide, totaling 3 square feet. It will be attached to th e
canopy using black chains and S-hooks. As shown on the provided renderings, the hanging sign will
match in design and color to the V-shaped canopy sign. “Three Legged Willie’s” will be attached
using flat cut .25-inch thick aluminum letters. The letters for “Three Legged” will measure 3 inches
tall and the letters for “Willie’s” will measure 6 inches tall. Both will use an Insignia Bold font.
Window graphics are also proposed for the Austin Avenue display windows and door. There are a
total of 10 windows that will each receive an oracle-etched glass vinyl attachment. As shown in the
provided rendering, the application with have a height of 21.6 inches for all windows and will span the
entire building. The application will be 30% of each window, as allowed by the Design Guidelines.
The two outer windows will depict the restaurant’s logo and will read “Three Legged Willie’s,
Restaurant and Bar”. The entrance doors will simply have the name of the restaurant while two street
facing windows adjacent to the doors will read “Fine Dining & Catering”. All remaining windows
will receive the glazed application but will not have lettering.
Finally, the applicant would like to place a chalkboard A-frame sign along the Austin Avenue
sidewalk. The double-sided sign will measure 44 inches tall by 36 inches wide and will be in the same
colors and design as both the V-shape canopy sign and hanging sign. The MDO wooden sign will
have 1/4-inch flat cut polished aluminum lettering reading “Three Legged Willie’s” above a
chalkboard area. 2-inch lettering will be used for “Three Legged” while “Willie’s” will have 4 inch
letters, both in an Insignia Bold font. A black metal chain will be installed at the bottom of the A-
frame sign for support.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 9
January 28, 2010
Applicable Guidelines used to support staff recommendation of approval are: 9.2, 9.6, 9.7, 9.9,
9.11, 9.13, 9.15, 9.16, 9.17, 9.18, 9.20 & 9.21. Wyler then introduced Eric Visser, the building
owner and applicant, and Thomas Hobbs, the sign maker and graphic designer. They were
available for questions. Short asked if they had any comments.
Hobbs started by saying that they would like to change the graphic on the windows next to
the door to include a graphic of four gentlemen instead of the wording “Restaurant and Fine
Dining”. A rendering was presented on the overhead screen. It was four versions of Willie.
He also explained that the picture the Commission had received did not accurately depict
the proposed look. The white background shown on the picture would actually be an
opaque, frosted glass look, and the dark gray shown on the picture would be the clear glass,
not actually a color. Mr. Hobbs showed everyone a sample of the opaque vinyl film that
would be placed on the glass.
Moore questioned Wyler on the size of the sign on the canopy and the measurement of that
sign. Wyler reported the façade of the building is almost 27 feet across. The sign was
measured from looking straight from the middle of the sign, and since it is at an angle, the
width of the sign was not measured as the entire width of each sign. Hobbs presented the
drawing of the angle of the sign on the top of the awning looking down. Moore stated that
cannot possibly be accurate based on the drawing of how the sign will be displayed. Moore
stated the drawing of the angle indicates it is at least 120 degrees, versus the picture of the
sign at an angle. Moore asked Wyler to look at the UDC Section 10.06.020b and explain how
Wyler came up with the calculation of area of the sign, when the UDC states clearly how to
measure the sign. Wyler pointed out that the calculation given was for a back-to-back sign
and that the sign being presented was an angled sign with two faces. Moore stated that is
why he believes the two faces should be completely counted in the calculation, making this
sign too big. Short clarified he believes Wyler measured the sign from the area covered if
looking straight on at the sign. Moore stated he disagreed with the method of calculation and
has come up with the area of the sign at approximately 52 square feet. Pergl pointed out that
the figure of Willie actually causes the sign to be larger because the frame of the rectangular
necessary to include the figure is actually 53” x 72”. The sign would be much smaller if just
the lettering were calculated. Moore stated he still disagrees with Wyler’s calculation,
stating each side of the sign is still 26 square feet putting the total at 52 square feet, which is
twice the size allowed. Short stated if the signs were back-to-back, each side could be 26 feet.
Moore said that was right but the UDC states (quoting the UDC), “The sign area for a sign with
more than one face shall be computed by adding together the area of all sign faces visible from any one
point. When two identical sign faces are placed back to back, so that both faces cannot be viewed from
any point at the same time, and when such sign faces are substantially similar, and when such sign
faces are part of the same sign structure the sign area shall be computed by the measurement of one of
the faces.” He stated he personally thinks the sign is too big.
Firth questioned the height of just the lettering portion of the sign. Hobbs estimated around
four feet. Then she questioned the height of the existing Loading Dock sign. Wyler reported
the square footage of that sign was 9 square feet, and did not know the exact height. Firth
questioned the reason for the extra height of the proposed sign. Visser stated it was a
hospitality type business and he would like to have people drawn to the business. Firth
explained she could appreciate that but this is not a simple sign. Visser brought up the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 9
January 28, 2010
Romeo’s sign and the complexity of that sign that was presented a few years ago. He stated
that the city was going to have to decide that if it wants this type of business, it will have to
allow the signage that will draw the business to this type of business. Firth indicated that
she appreciated attracting business but questioned whether a smaller sign was considered.
Visser stated that with the expense of the type of sign that was proposed, LED backlit,
environmentally sensitive signs, the exposure must be justified by the cost. He wants to
catch the eye of the people driving on Austin Ave. Firth stated the scale seems to be out of
proportion with the other buildings on the Square. Visser countered with the fact that there
is a problem with the UDC that measures the size of the sign based on the width of the
storefront.
Pergl questioned the depth of the awning. Wyler reported that it covered the entire sidewalk
and was 9 1/2 feet from the building. Pergl pointed out that the sign could still be attached to
the building or projecting from the building and still not hang over the awning. All of the
drawings appeared to be out of scale and not an accurate representation of the placement of
the sign, and it was not clear what portion of the building would be obstructed by the sign.
Visser stated that was difficult to do without a three-dimensional, scaled model. Pergl was
more concerned that with the depth of the canopy, the location of Willie, closest to the
building would be obstructed from the drivers passing by. He suggested something above
the canopy might be more visible and appropriate. He even suggested a blade sign that
would be visible from down the street. Visser stated he looked at elevating the sign on the
awning and it would disproportionately obstruct the storefront so was not suggested. Visser
pointed out that even if the sign were smaller and elevated it would still obstruct part of the
building.
Firth pointed out that the Museum and Sweet Serendipity had placed signs at that level and
they were smaller. She questioned whether an option of Mr. Visser’s would be to place the
sign flush on the building. Visser questioned whether they wanted him to apply the sign to
the steel metal storefront. Firth stated the Museum did that. Visser stated he thought it
would be best not to do that in the long run. He was looking at the Guidelines that stated he
was to protect the building but that he was willing to explore those options, whatever was
best for the building. Firth asked if there were any other options considered for a street level
sign. Hobbs stated the original sign had three-legged Willie and the text without the words
Restaurant and Bar. They opted to add the extra wording and take off the proposed frame.
Hobbs felt this look was cleaner. He suggested narrowing the angle, keeping the current size
and using the calculation from the head-on view. Firth stated it was still difficult to visualize
based on the drawings.
Hobbs stated he was there to figure out how wide the angle was to be allowed, and he would
work within those guidelines. Rapp restated that Hobbs could work with the angle, but
stated that she felt the sign was still too tall and asked if they could work with that also.
Visser spoke to that and stated that this was a very expensive sign. Rapp stated it still feels
out of proportion and possibly too tall. Visser stated maybe it was because it was too red and
he felt the red jumped out at him also. He said he sent this signage to the State Historical
Commission and asked their opinions. They sent back several options and he chose this one
based on the red matching the red accents on the building. They were trying to keep the
integrity of the aesthetics. Firth felt the colors were okay with the building, but the drawings
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 9
January 28, 2010
were not accurate enough for a decision to be made. Moore suggested looking at the picture
differently. Look at the sign head-on, with the back of the V being only 6 feet wide, and only
reaching the trim of the center windows. The picture shows the sign(s) almost as wide as the
building. It was noted that it was not to scale. Moore stated that looking at it that way, he
still had an issue with the interpretation of the calculation of the allowable size of sign.
Short explained his interpretation. He agreed the UDC does not specifically address a V-
sign. But if you can have a sign that is back-to-back and only count one face, it seems
reasonable that you can spread one leg of it out and with some reasonable interpretation,
facing the front you can use the same calculation. Hobbs says that if that spread is six feet
then this fits within the limitation. Wyler concurred this was his interpretation of the
calculation. Firth questioned the height of the figure. Hobbs stated the height scale was
fairly accurate, just not the width, based on the size of the front door in the picture.
Visser stated that the red indicated in the picture was not representative of the actual red to
be used. The true color was explained as Tibetan Red, a less bright red than indicated. He
did not have a sample to show. The chosen red would more closely match the building
colors. Visser also stated that this side of the Square was challenging in drawing attention to
those buildings.
Moore stated he also felt this sign goes against the guideline that stated a sign was not
supposed to block an architectural feature. He stated he felt this was blocking the window
frames and this approval would set a precedent. Pergl stated this was not necessarily so
since the depth of the sign would only be three feet, and that this would leave approximately
six feet from the face of the building, not obstructing any architectural features.
There was continued discussion on how this was not presented to scale. Visser apologized
and stated there were not any other submissions that he could find as a sample that would
depict the actual proposal.
Rapp requested moving on to the other signs, and ask them to bring back scaled drawings of
the awning signs. She commented on the A-frame sign, thinking it was too large. Wyler
stated other A-frame signs on the Square vary in size and this one falls under the approved
size of 12 square feet. Hobbs stated that the pale gold on the picture is now proposed as
brushed metal and the red will match the red used in the other signs, a more orange red.
Johnson requested confirmation that the sign would be taken in during the closed hours.
Visser confirmed.
The hanging sign colors were clarified as a red background and the border the same brushed
metal as on the other signs. When questioned about the lack of hours of operation on any
signage, Visser stated he wanted the flexibility to change those hours and so did not want
them posted.
Chair Short asks for a motion. There was some discussion on what the Commission could
agree on to allow the owner signage for opening.
Motion by Moore to approve the CDC for the sidewalk sign, the hanging sign and the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 9
January 28, 2010
window signs. Second by Short. Moore amended his motion to include the changes to the
signs that were described by the applicant at this meeting. Second by Short. Moore
amended to include that the A-frame sign can only be displayed during hours of operation
and must be taken inside when the restaurant is closed. Second by Short. Original and
amended motion was approved 6 – 0.
Moore questioned Wyler on which interpretation of the calculation would be used to
determine the allowable size of the sign. Wyler stated he would get with the Director and
make a determination. Pergl also asked for a history of how the size of the sign for the
Museum was calculated. There was further discussion of actions the Commission could take
at this point. Cook suggested keeping the public hearing open and allow the applicant to
come back, after 72 hours notice of the meeting, with better renderings, samples and scaled
mock-ups of the sign in question.
Motion by Rapp to keep the public hearing open for the canopy sign of this item to
Monday, February 1 at 4:30 p.m. in the Georgetown Municipal Complex, to allow the
applicant to bring in paint samples, scaled drawings and pictures of the proposed sign in
place. Second by Johnson. Approved 6 – 0.
Moore questioned what the Commissioners could do if they were in disagreement with a
staff decision regarding the sign size calculation. Cook reported the Commissioners could
appeal the decision to the Director or further, to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. She also
reported that she would make a decision on the measurement and calculation of the sign
after speaking with the Building Official, and bring that to the Monday meeting. She also
stated the application form and CDC application checklist of submittals would be brought
for the Commissioners to see what should be submitted with each application.
Regular Agenda:
3. Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition of a structure at City of Georgetown,
Block 14, Lots 7(n/pt) and 8(w/pt), located at 214 W. 3rd Street. (CDC-2009-026)
Wyler presented the staff report. This CDC request originally came before the Commission
in July, 2009. The CDC was denied in hopes that the applicant could find another use for the
structure. A tour of the house by the Commission was made on September 30, 2009. Staff
recommends approval of the demolition permit.
Firth questioned the applicant whether there were attempts to find alternative uses for the
structure or whether the applicant had approached any preservationists. The applicant,
Matt Clark, stated that his intent now was to relocate the house to a site in Bertram where
older houses were “stored” until sold for another use. The application is now for relocation
of the house.
Motion by Short to approve the relocation of the structure at 214 W. 3rd Street. Second by
Moore. Approved 6 -0.
4. Certificate of Design Compliance for site and structural changes, including the demolition of
a garage, addition of on-site parking and changes to roofing material, at Lost Addition, Block
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 7 of 9
January 28, 2010
66(pt), also known as Photography by Kappy, located at 1112 Rock Street. (CDC-2009-046)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to remove an attached garage to
make way for two on-site parking spaces and to replace roof shingles due to weathering.
Because the two spaces will be added, although screened from view of University and Rock
Street, HARC is being asked to review the change in appearance of the property. A
walkthrough of the garage that is to be demolished was held on Tuesday, February 26 by
Commissioners as is customary for structures that are proposed for demolition. Staff
considers the request for CDC’s as appropriate and recommends approval based on
applicable Guidelines 6.24, 7.13, 8.19 and 8.25.
Commissioners questioned the removal of the existing picket fence, not shown on the site
plan. The applicant, Jeff Randall, stated the fence was to be removed between the neighbor
to the north and his parking spaces to accommodate the closeness of the spaces to the
property line and allow the shrubs to be placed near the property line for screening
purposes. The remaining fence would remain in place.
There was also discussion of existing concrete and what would remain. Mr. Randall stated
he would like to keep and use all existing concrete and only add the two additional spaces to
the pad, but that will depend on the engineer’s test of the concrete and what is required for
code. He will also be extending the screening shrubs on the property line to further screen
the two new spaces. He is also replacing the decking at the back of the house and replacing
that with stairs.
Motion by Moore to accept the changes for site and structural changes as described. Second
by Rapp. Approved 6 – 0.
5. Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior changes, including the installation of new
doors and windows and the addition of a handicap ramp at the rear of the building, at City
of Georgetown, Block 50, Lot 1(s/pt), located at 824 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2009-047)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks CDC approval to make some minor
alterations to the exterior of the building, including adding new doors, windows, light
features and a handicap ramp at the rear of the historic building. These exterior changes are
part of a larger renovation to both the inside and outside of the building. There is not a
tenant for this building at the time of application. Wyler presented more details that were
noted in the printed staff report. Staff is in support of approval with the following
considerations.
1) HARC should take into consideration the installation of the new front door. The
Guidelines state that it is not appropriate to create new openings to historic buildings if
they are not original. It also states that if the installation of a door is necessary, it should
be pedestrian friendly, which the proposed front door is. Staff considers the relocation of
the front door appropriate as it enhances the appearance and because major architectural
features are not altered. In addition, this alteration could be changed later. However,
HARC may consider the creation of a new opening to the front of a historic building
inappropriate.
2) Staff suggests, if feasible, the applicant use heavy wooden doors, as this is more typical to
historic buildings around the square.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 8 of 9
January 28, 2010
3) Staff is in support of Option 2 for the rear of the building and its suggested light feature,
as this option elevates and maintains the existing awning over the door that
complements other awnings seen on the building. This creates a visual connection
between all sides of the building.
Staff recommends approval based on the applicable Guidelines 5.1, 5.3, 5.5, 5.9, 6.3, 6.12, 6.20,
7.8, 8.1 & 8.22
The applicant, Matt Webb, the architect was available for questions by the Commission. He
commented that the owner would like to keep the awning over the back door, move it up to
be compliant and have the light fixture under the awning. There was discussion with the
Commissioners that the bead board around the front door area was not really paneling and
they he and the Commission would prefer the bead board material instead. Mr. Webb
reported the historical type of bead board is easier to locate than the paneling that is in the
entryway now, which he believes is from the 1980’s.
Chair Short questioned the possibility of having a double door instead of the single door.
Mr. Webb explained that because of the cost of having to reconstruct that entire front area,
the owner had opted to replace the single door with a very nice single door. Firth questioned
the choice of metal door versus the wood door. Mr. Webb explained the client wanted the
more expensive metal door. Firth questioned the current handrails being up to the current
building code. Webb explained that there is an exception granted for the current building
code because of the age of the building. The handrail is up to the code under which it was
installed.
Motion by Johnson to approve the application for a CDC as submitted with the provision
that the applicant use lumber instead of paneling when the bead board is called out.
Second by Short. Approved 6 – 0. Mr. Webb estimated the building would be available for
occupancy in April.
6. Discussion with staff on code enforcement matters in the Downtown and Old Town areas.
Cook made a report of the code enforcement department in response to Moore’s request and
concern that when the Commission puts a condition on an application for CDC, that the
condition is not enforced. Cook explained that code enforcement officers work very closely
with Wyler and other staff to determine which rules apply to which properties and whether
there are special circumstances. However, code enforcement officers do not go out in search
of violations in most cases. They wait for citizen or staff complaints. Their job is to enforce
the codes adopted by the city. Cook explained the reality of code enforcement is that a
complaint will be made, the officers make phone calls and review the complaint in the field,
then try to resolve the issue with the owner of the property. The officers are then accused of
selective enforcement and complaints come from higher level officials to stop “picking on”
those individuals. Code enforcement officers attempt to work with people to solve an issue
rather than going to court or forcing fines, with the end result of fixing the violation in mind.
Moore expressed his appreciation for knowing that all codes could be enforced, including
Certificates of Design Compliance.
7. Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on February 25, 2010.
8. Adjournment
Chair Short recessed the meeting at 8:15 p.m., to be continued on Monday, February 1, 2010
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 9 of 9
January 28, 2010
at 4:30 p.m. in the Williamson Conference Room of the Georgetown Municipal Complex.
__________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, West Short, Chair Attest, Susan Firth, Secretary