Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_02.01.2010 Historic and Architectural Review Commission - continuation Page 1 of 4 February 1, 2010 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, February 1, 2010 4:30 p.m. Williamson Conference Room, Georgetown Municipal Complex 300-1 Industrial Ave. 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; Tamera Baird, Commercial Plans and Sign Reviewer; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 4:30 p.m. Chair Short called the meeting to order at 4:35 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 continued meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration and possible action on the following: Regular Session 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. (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 continuation from the January 28 public hearing for: 1. 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) Chair Short introduced the item and explained that since this was a continuation, the staff report would not be given again. He reminded everyone that at the last meeting, the applicant was to bring additional renderings and color samples of the awning sign. Mr. Hobbs, the sign architect and installer, was introduced. Hobbs provided photos on the overhead screen of the building. He had produced a banner that was the actual size of the signs and stood with those on the awning to give a better representation of the angle and scale of the sign with the building. Several photos were taken from different locations across the street while he was on the awning. Hobbs also presented a color sample for the reddish color that was to be used on the sign. Historic and Architectural Review Commission - continuation Page 2 of 4 February 1, 2010 Firth questioned whether this was the same red on the building. Hobbs said no but would match closely. Hobbs presented a drawing and explained the illumination method for the sign and described the power supply of the LED lighting that would be projected behind the letters, backlit and illuminating just the lettering, giving a “halo” effect to the black letters. The power supply would be encased in aluminum housing on the back of the sign(s). He showed an example of another sign in Austin that was designed that way. He says this style of sign promotes a “classier, more modern look”. Commissioners asked about any other signs locally that had been approved, and the Curves business on Austin Avenue was mentioned. There was discussion of a bracket being shown on the original sign drawing to elevate it, and the bracket painted red to match the sign. There is also a depiction of a black frame on the sign. Hobbs said he would prefer to use the black frame and bracket. Hobbs presented the drawing that had been provided by a structural engineer to depict the angle of the sign to scale, showing the awning to be 9 feet wide, and the sign approximately two and a half feet from the building to the sign’s back edges. Firth questioned the difference in size of the sign presented the previous Thursday, versus the sign presented at the continuation meeting, 80’ x 48’. Hobbs explained that he rescaled the sign to have only 10.5 square feet for the text of the sign, which is now proposed to be less than three feet tall. Moore contested the size comparison, stating the sign was still measured 26 square feet on each side of the sign. Short asked if there were any changes in the staff recommendation at this time. Wyler stated he met with Tamera Baird, the Commercial Plans Reviewer that issues sign permits, to check the correct calculation of the sign area. He explained that he had interpreted the type of sign incorrectly. Ms. Baird would have interpreted this as two sign faces, in which each sign face would count separately, making the overall calculation of fifty- two square feet, or too large per the UDC. The Guidelines do not address how to measure this exact type of sign. The UDC allows one square foot of signage per lineal foot of building for a wall/ facade sign, with the sign area for a sign with more than one face computed by adding together the area of all sign faces visible from one point. He stated Mr. Moore was correct in his calculation on Thursday night, the proposed sign measures 52 square feet. He also went on to state that a projecting sign is allowed 15 square feet on each side of the projection, and a canopy sign is allowed to be 26.5 square feet on this building. A back-to- back canopy sign that measures 26.5 square feet would be considered compliant with the code, but a v-type sign is not addressed in either code. The definition of a projecting sign is that it is connected to the building in some manner. A canopy sign is attached only to the canopy. Hobbs stated he and his client would prefer the back-to-back sign option to allow for the lighting of the sign from the internal illumination. There was discussion of where to place the figure and how to manage the mirror image if the sign were made back-to-back. Hobbs felt the position of the figure would be towards the back of the sign, toward the building. Also options of placing the sign on the front of the building were discussed, with several options for lighting and angling slightly from the building to add some depth to the sign. Visser, the owner of the building, stated he did not want to consider the placement of the sign on the building because it would not be visible to those Historic and Architectural Review Commission - continuation Page 3 of 4 February 1, 2010 driving on Austin Avenue and he did not want to remove the figure of Willie which would not fit in the possible wall space, or block architectural features of the building. Rapp questioned when the sign would be lit. Visser responded that they would most likely be run by photocell so would only be on when it was dark enough outside. Short opened the Public Hearing. Herb and Reneé Hanson opted to pull their speaker requests. John Mahler, member of the Economic Development Board, spoke in favor of the sign as a two-sided sign stating he did not see anything wrong with it. Mr. Mahler also stated he is a staunch supporter of the downtown Square and is in full support of Mr. Visser. Ross Hunter, of 908 Walnut Street, stated he thought it was “wrong to not see anything wrong” with the sign. He noted that “we’ve” spent many hours and developed rules to safeguard our laws. He stated a respect for all, but felt a need to protect the Square. He stated that the staff’s mathematical error was a disservice to all and that it is sad that citizens have to come to the meetings to correct the situation. There were no more public comments and the Public Hearing was closed. Short called for any more comments or questions by the applicant. Hobbs asked the commission if they preferred a double-sided sign or the awning sign as presented. Rapp questioned whether a double-sided sign would meet the size limitations. Wyler said yes, if it were back-to-back. Moore asked for a definition of what type of sign this one is supposed to be. Wyler and Cook explained that this is an awning sign. Per the UDC, a projecting sign is shown and defined as affixed to the building in a non-parallel manner. A canopy sign is any type of building sign attached to, in an y manner, or made a part of a canopy. The Guideline maximum for an allowable projecting sign is 15 square feet. The Guidelines allows for an awning/ canopy sign up to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of building façade, in this case 26.5 square feet. Moore and Johnson argued that the Design Guidelines and UDC are inconsistent with each other and “don’t make sense”. There was further discussion of removing the figure of Willie from the sign to minimize the face area of the sign and try to make it fit the guidelines. Hobbs asked for a recess to discuss the possibilities with the client. Motion by Johnson to consider this sign as a projecting sign and limit it to 15 square feet. That motion was withdrawn. Rapp suggested allowing a banner sign to be displayed with the other approved signs so the business could open and continue to work on a solution that serves everyone. Cook stated the Commission had options and could 1. Make a motion to treat this as a projecting sign; 2. Suggest and approve the wall sign with the depth of the amount of space allowed between the sign and the building described specifically; or 3. Give Mr. Visser an exact detail of what is wanted by the Commission. Motion by Short to approve the sign as submitted, but with the angle closed and the sign considered double-sided. Motion died for lack of second. Historic and Architectural Review Commission - continuation Page 4 of 4 February 1, 2010 Motion by Moore to advise the applicant that any sign that is mounted perpendicular to the building be limited to 15 square feet, and that a sign that is mounted flush and parallel to the building be allowed 26.5 square feet. Second by Johnson. Approved 5 – 1 (Short opposed.) Short called for a 5 minutes recess. Short reconvened the meeting. Visser took the floor and stated he was very angry with the Commission for wasting everyone’s time. He stated the Commission did not understand all the things that were going on at the Square and he demanded a finding from the Commission. Firth stated that she was sorry that Visser felt that way, they had tried to work with him on a compromise to develop a sign that would meet the guidelines and that they are very interested in helping businesses succeed. Moore made a motion to deny the 2-sided 26.5 square foot awning sign as was presented at this meeting. Second by Johnson. The motion to deny was approved 5 – 1 (Short opposed). Short also stated that for the record he wanted to note that he felt the sign in question met the UDC and Guidelines parameters and would be acceptable. 2. Adjournment Short adjourned the meeting at 6:02 p.m. __________________________________ _________________________________ Approved, West Short, Chair Attest, Susan Firth, Secretary