Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_02.08.2010 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Meeting Page 1 of 3 February 8, 2010 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Called Meeting Minutes Monday, February 8, 2010 4:00 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; Paul Brandenburg, City Manager; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 4:00 p.m. Chair Short called the meeting to order at 4:03 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 Special Meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration and possible action on the following: 1. Discussion, reconsideration and possible action on the Commission’s decision regarding 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 opened the item and asked for the discussion by those that called the meeting. Moore stated he had the original request to reconsider this item with a called meeting because he was upset after the way the last meeting ended and felt that others were also. He stated that everyone seemed to leave with extreme differences of opinion and little or no compromises. He stated he wanted to keep this application and subsequent action at the Commission level and try to reach a compromise with the applicant. Moore went on to say that he took a closer look at the size of the sign with just the lettering considered as the sign area, and not including the figure since the figure of three-legged Willie was not to be lit, he did not feel it should be counted in the size of the sign. Eric Visser, owner/ applicant, stated he appreciates the passion and time given by the Commission but he does not understand the “horse-trading” principal that they seem to work under. He stated he still needs a minimum of 21.5 square feet for each side of the back-lit, channel sign that is proposed. He stated he could either have that application approved or he agrees to disagree. A new rendering of the sign was presented by staff, as submitted by Visser, which depicted the figure of Willie as only 42” not 48” as originally proposed. The size of the lettering portion only, without the figure, was measured as 16.5 square feet per side. This sign was proposed as a back-to- back canopy sign. Firth questioned whether this sign would be elevated. Visser explained that the canopy was not level and that the slight extra height of the sign frame was meant to level the sign as it was placed on the awning. It would not be elevated any more than was necessary to level the sign. Moore stated he would approve the back-to-back sign now that he understood the figure was not to be illuminated. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Meeting Page 2 of 3 February 8, 2010 Firth stated she still had an issue with the sign being considered a Canopy sign, and being this large, setting a precedent for other signs on the Square. Cook explained that just because this one might be approved, it would not lock the Commission into approving any other signs of this type, each sign is unique and is presented that way. She offered that the Commission could specify in the motion why this sign was approved in this way and why it is different. Moore said he understood it to be like the Romeo’s sign on the Square that did not fit any definition at the time of approval and the Commission had to work their way through that application also. Johnson questioned the extension length of the elbow of the figure. Visser stated it extends from the sign to 2 1/2 to 3 feet from the front of the building. He jokingly offered to cut the arm off if it would make the Commission happier. Visser stated that he really wants a v-sign or a two sided sign because he is concerned that having a sign flush with Austin Avenue will only be visible from the east side of the Square. He wants visibility from Austin Avenue. There was a question again regarding the type of sign that this was considered to be. Cook responded that according to the current definitions in the UDC, this is a canopy sign. Short opened the Public Hearing: Ross Hunter, of 908 S. Walnut, commended the Commission for its work on this application and others. He went on to say that he and other citizens were supportive of HARC and understood that they were human boards working with written laws. He appreciated their time and thought and what went into deciding what a sign will look like without clear direction. He also stated that he felt they were setting a precedent with this sign and he was interested in pursuing the rule of the law. There were no other speakers and Short closed the Public Hearing. Motion by Firth to reconsider the denial of the CDC application of the canopy sign for Three - Legged Willie’s. Second by Moore. Rapp stated she was still confused why the Commissioners voted their conscious previously but wanted to change that vote now. She stated she definitely wanted to see the application forms and checklists at the next meeting that were used by staff to determine what makes a complete application. Short called the vote. Motion approved 6 – 0. Motion by Firth that based on the fact that this sign was considered a canopy sign and not a projecting sign, that the Commission approve the CDC for the sign with the new design as presented at that meeting of 23.33 square feet per side. Second by Moore. Short stated that the only difference in the sign that is proposed now and the one proposed before is the size of the figure which is now six inches shorter. Short moves to amend the motion to allow the figure to be 48 inches tall instead of the new proposed 42 inches tall. Second by Johnson. It was discussed that the original figure was actually a proposed 53 inches tall. Commissioners also discussed the perception of the figure on the canopy and whether anyone would be able to tell the difference in the six inches, and whether it would look life-size from the perspective that people would be seeing it. Rapp asked Visser if he would be satisfied with a 42 inch figure. Visser stated he would prefer a 48 inch figure but in the spirit of compromise he would accept 42 inches. He went on to say that he was trying to bring a symbol of historical significance to the Square, including that symbols on the Square are valuable for the history of the Square. Firth disagreed with the idea that the figure is bringing any historical significance to the Square as a sign figure on a canopy. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Meeting Page 3 of 3 February 8, 2010 Short called for the vote on the amendment. Vote was 1 – 5, denied. Short was the positive vote. Short called for the vote on the original motion. Vote was 6 – 0, approved. Pergl asked Visser how he thought this process could be better. Visser started by saying that it was a tremendous consolidated effort to revitalize the Square and that HARC should reevaluate their standards and consider going to the City Council with a revision to the Guidelines and rules that must be followed. He stated HARC should get in “sync” with Main Street (Board) and Economic Development, that this is a market driven economy and that they should be developing incentives to increase the rents and make the downtown more viable. He went on to say that he received a remodeling permit in two weeks which he felt was phenomenal, but that HARC had this predisposed presumption that private enterprise is here to rape and plunder the downtown and that it was an adversarial relationship with businesses. Firth stated she felt that if Visser perceived the HARC as adversaries, then a huge hurdle must be overcome. She stated that a large number of people had worked on the Historic Preservation Commission, the Downtown Master Plan, and the Design Guidelines to make the downtown area the heart of Georgetown, a viable downtown and a place that people were proud of. She stated it was offensive that this Commission had met three times to come to an agreement with Mr. Visser and it was disheartening to be thought of as the enemy. She went on to say that the Commission does not make the rules, they enforce the rules the community wants. Moore stated a lot of people worked on the Guidelines when the “times were good” and now that there has been a reversal in business, the Guidelines should not be dismissed. He supports the Guidelines and the effort to make Georgetown unique and special. He stated that he did not like the way this application was handled and that he did not call the special meeting for the applicant, but because it was the right thing to do. Visser expressed his appreciation and said that the process had been expensive for everyone. Hunter spoke out and directed his comments to the City Manager and said that Visser was set up to fail with the original staff report, that the applicant was brought to the public hearing unprepared and citizens had to come out and right the wrong. He stated that when staff fails that there is a huge problem. Firth stated that she disagreed that staff was to blame for this problem. She said everyone makes mistakes but that the planning staff works incredibly hard to process the applications and uphold the Guidelines. No further comments were made. 2. Adjournment Chair Short adjourned the meeting at 4:52 p.m. ___________________________________ _________________________________ Approved, West Short, Chair Attest, Susan Firth, Secretary