HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_06.24.2010Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 6
June 24, 2010
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, June 24. 2010 at 6:00 p.m.
City Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members Present: Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Greg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley;
Ron Pergl 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
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Moore called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Chair Moore then explained that the regular
meeting was recessed to convene an Executive Session. Members of HARC, Elizabeth Cook and
Karen Frost met in an Executive Session. That session was adjourned at 6:23 p.m.
Chair Moore reconvened the Regular Session at 6:24 p.m.
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.)
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 regular meeting of May 27, 2010.
Motion by Firth to accept the minutes as presented. Second by Rapp. Approved 7 – 0.
Regular Agenda:
2. Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition of an accessory structure at Glasscock
Addition, Block 22, Lots 3 & 4, located at 1006 S. Church Street. (CDC-2009-018)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance
approval to demolish a circa 1914 detached garage. On June 25, 2009, the applicant applied
to HARC for CDC approval to demolish an accessory structure located on the northwest
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 6
June 24, 2010
corner of 11th and Church Streets. With a vote of 5 to 2, the Commission denied the request.
Per the UDC, if HARD denies the CDC for demolition, then a delay period of 175 days shall
be initiated from the date of the public hearing, allowing for an attempt to find an alternative
to demolition or relocation of the structure. The applicant is to work with staff and local
preservation groups to find a way to preserve the structure. If no alternative to demolition or
relocation has been found, a CDC for demolition shall be issued by HARC.
Since the original application denial, the applicant has not met with staff, and staff is
unaware of meetings with other groups or individuals to find an alternative solution. Staff
recommends approval of the CDC for the demolition of the accessory structure given the
applicant has met the 175-day waiting period.
Commissioners question the applicant, Tim Todd, whether he has sought other options. He
responded that because the structure is on partial slab and partial pier and beam, attempting
to relocate the structure would not only tear the building apart, it would damage the large
trees also on the lot.
Motion by Herriott to approve the CDC for demolition of this accessory structure. Second
by Moseley. Firth notes that she is disappointed in the lack of communication between the
applicant and the city and historian groups to discuss options. Approved 6 – 1. Rapp
opposed.
3. Certificate of Design Compliance for site layout and elevation design follow-up by the
applicant, as requested by HARC, at City of Georgetown, Block 24, Lot 9, to be known as The
Georgetown Off the Square, located at 405 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2010-011)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks final site layout and conceptual
elevation approval on a proposed mixed-use, three-story infill project. On May 27, 2010, the
applicant came to HARC seeking Certificate of Design Compliance approval for a multi -
story, mixed-use infill project. After the public hearing and discussion, HARC approved the
CDC for site layout and conceptual elevation, with the condition that the applicant consider
relocating the on-site dumpster, better define the articulation of the elevations, and consider
including a loading and unloading zone into the development.
Since the May meeting, the agent and developer have met multiple times with staff in an
effort to address HARC’s requests. Today, they come back to the Commission with their
results. Once approval has been given on these specific items, the developer can move ahead
to the next step of the project’s timeline.
Rapp questioned why the height measurements were not on the new elevations. Wyler
explained the height was already approved, the elevations were being reviewed for
articulation and how it looks with the new design. Mr. Sanders, the applicant, explained
that they had tried to address the comments made by the Commission and to address the
areas along the face of the building that were longer than 30 feet. They made changes in
material and color to address the comments of “flatness”.
Motion by Rapp to approve the CDC for the elevation as presented, with the on-site
dumpster location as originally planned, and with the new, more articulated elevations as
presented by the developer. Second by Pergl. Approved 6 – 1. Moseley opposed.
4. Certificate of Design Compliance for an amendment to the Tamiro Plaza, Phase One, Master
Sign Plan, at City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1 – 8, located at 501 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-
2010-013 / CDC-2008-034)
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 6
June 24, 2010
Wyler presented the staff report with the proposed amendments to the original Master Sign
Plan. The previously approved signs and amendments were shown also, along with the
proposed change to the Plan. The original Plan was approved by the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission (HARC) on November 20, 2008. The approved plan,
included window, door, and canopy signage, as well as a monument sign.
On April 9, 2009, the HARC Sign Subcommittee approved an A-frame sign for the fourth
floor restaurant. Following this application, approval for a projecting sign on the west face
of Tamiro Plaza was granted on May 28, 2009 after the owner of the fourth floor restaurant
requested additional signage for his business. The independent requests were not included
in the scope of the Master Sign Plan.
On August 27, 2009, a first floor tenant requested CDC approval for two new illuminated
wall-mounted signs. With a vote of 5 to 1, HARC denied the request for the new wall-
mounted signs, also not part of the original Plan. The applicant then appealed HARC’s
decision to City Council. On September 22, 2009, with a vote of 4 to 2, City Council reversed
the decision of HARC and granted approval for the installation of two wall-mounted signs
for the first floor tenant and directed staff, the building owner, and HARC to revise the
Master Sign Plan to include all approved signage and any possible future signage for Tamiro
Plaza.
On May 19, 2010, the owner submitted a revised Master Sign Plan for Tamiro Plaza, Phase
One, which includes the original Plan details as well as the A-frame sign, projecting sign and
wall-mounted signs that were approved for the building after the original plan was
approved. The details for all items have been included in the report for HARC’s
consideration. The owner has also included additional signage that he is asking be included
in the amended Plan for upper story tenants.
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance for the amendment of
the Master Sign Plan for Tamiro Plaza, Phase One, as proposed by the applicant, with three
exceptions.
The first is for the second and third floor banister signage. Staff suggests the applicant
utilize the first floor sign friezes, approved in the original Plan, that are currently only
partially being used rather than adding additional signage space on upper floor banisters.
These could provide advertisement space for both lower and upper-floor tenants while
maintaining a more uniform look to the building’s overall signage scheme. Similar to the
monument sign, the lower floor window lettering would be open to all tenants within the
building while having consistent size, color and placement of letters per the currently
approved Master Sign Plan.
Secondly, staff suggests the applicant change the “Merril Lynch” references in the amended
Plan to read “Northwest First Floor Tenant”, and for “Bull” to read “logo”. Additionally, the
currently approved sign dimensions and colors shall be applied to any future signage at that
location.
Finally, staff suggests the applicant change the “Silver and Stone restaurant” references in
the amended Plan to read “The fourth floor tenant”.
Commissioners began questioning the applicant, Mr. Choi and the applicant’s agent, Gordon
Baker. Baker explained that even with the addition of the requested balcony signs, the
building would not exceed the original amount of allowable square footage of signage. He
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 6
June 24, 2010
explained they were requesting a maximum of fourteen signs at 10” x 6’, 2 on each of the 7
available balconies.
Firth questioned the use of the first floor friezes that were to be used for tenant signs. Baker
explained that only one more tenant would be moving onto the first floor and that tenants on
other floors did not want their signage on the first floor. He explained that the tenants on the
second and third floors want the visibility acquired with having signage on the upper
balconies. Firth questioned why the tenants were not all listed on the monument sign. Ba ker
explained that not all tenants want that signage, that it has size limitations and it is more for
pedestrian use than for driving directions.
There was some discussion of the approved northwest tenant sign. Baker and Choi said they
were surprised at the submitted application and outcome of that sign approval. Choi says
the approved and installed sign is not what he originally agreed to. He was expecting
backlit channel letters.
Chair Moore pointed out that the Commission was to review the proposed remaining
signage, the additional balcony signs on the 2nd and 3rd floors, not the previously approved
signage on the building. Firth brought up the minutes of the city council meeting where the
Merrill Lynch sign was discussed and approved. There was discussion over the council
discussion at that meeting and the intent of the council and Mr. Choi, the son. Mr. Choi, the
father, stated there has been much miscommunication. His intent was to not ask for 14
balcony signs, stating he did not need the balcony signs facing 5th and 6th Streets or facing the
parking lot. He really only wants signs on the balconies facing Austin Avenue and Main
Street.
When questioned about the drawing of the monument sign in the Master Sign Plan, he stated
it was not built the way it was drawn and he would not be putting the limestone cap on the
top of the monument.
When questioned whether he would still consider using the frieze panels or the brick friezes
on the building as possible sign locations, Choi stated he only now wants 6 additional
balcony signs and would not be using those other locations. Moore commented that he felt
the balcony signs would cover up the architectural features of the balconies.
Johnson asked Choi if he would compromise with the commission and not request any
balcony signs. Choi said no, he felt he was entitled to those signs. Moseley voiced concern
that the 6 balcony sign locations that Choi had chosen were the most visible and therefore
the most objectionable. Choi explained the most visible locations were chosen specifically
for the signs. He wants signage for the smaller tenants.
Rapp suggests the commission may need time to develop a reasonable compromise and
review the information further. She pointed out the contradicting information that h ad been
given in the plan versus the discussion.
Chair Moore opened the floor for the Public Hearing. Being no speakers, the Public Hearing
was closed.
Motion by Rapp to move this item to the next Sign Subcommittee meeting to be reviewed
for compromise and submitted back the full commission. Second by Johnson. Moore
amended the motion by presenting a date of the special session of the Sign Subcommittee
as July 7th at 4:00 p.m. Second by Moseley. Vote on amendment, approved 7 – 0. Vote on
original motion, approved 7 – 0.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 6
June 24, 2010
5. Discussion and possible action on the temporary banner approval process in the Downtown
and Old Town Overlays.
Chair Moore brought this item for discussion. The Design Guidelines state that HARC
should approve all temporary banners in the Downtown District. However, the Unified
Development Code does not list that as an authority of HARC. Cook explained that
previously, banners were not brought to HARC but have been permitted through the
Inspections Department and review. This process is allowed to take up to 10 days, but rarely
does. Making banner permit processed through HARC, even the Sign Subcommittee would
add considerable time to the process. The reason this has been brought up is that some
banners that were permitted (by Inspections) for 45 days are not removed and that
sometimes banners in the Downtown District are not reviewed because a permit is never
applied for.
Moore asked whether this was just in Downtown or also in the Old Town District. Cook
explained that banners would be treated like all other CDC’s and that if a business or
commercial office were in Old Town instead of Downtown, we would still require the CDC
application. There was discussion of how to make the permitting process shorter for the
banner applic ants but still be reviewed. Options were discussed. It was stated that HARC
doesn’t want to make the process more cumbersome for the business owners but still want to
be in compliance.
Motion by Herriott to direct staff to draft language of the UDC to address banner review
by staff in the Old Town and Downtown Districts. Second by Rapp. Approved 7 – 0.
6. Discussion and possible action on the adoption of revisions to the Historic and Architectural
Review Commission (HARC) Bylaws and Chapter 2.50 of the City Code related to the HARC.
Cook opened the discussion and presented edits to the HARC’s Bylaws to add
Commissioners-in-Training positions and to require training for Commissioners twice a
year. This was at the request of the City Council. In addition, companion edits are proposed
to Section 2.50 of the code of Ordinances related to HARC. The proposed edits also update
both documents to reflect current practices.
Commissioners discussed the definition of registered voters and whether residents of city
limits and ETJ could both be registered voters, and whether HARC members should be
required to live within the city limits.
Motion by Rapp to edit Section 2.2 Eligibility to read “Commission Members shall reside
within the Georgetown city limits or extraterritorial jurisdiction (striking “and be
registered voters of Georgetown”) and must have resided within the City or ETJ for one
year preceding their appointment”. Second by Johnson. Approved 7 – 0.
Johnson commented that he disagrees with the term “mandatory” in mandatory trainings.
Motion by Johnson to amend Section 2.9 Training to read “A minimum of two (2) annual
training sessions shall be desirable (striking mandatory) for all members of HARC
including the Commissioners-in-Training and staff members who participate in design
review”. Second by Firth.
Rapp amended the motion to read “A minimum of two (2) annual training sessions will be
held for HARC members including Commissioner-in-Training and staff members who
participate in design review, with one (1) being mandatory”. Amended motion died for lack
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 6
June 24, 2010
of second.
Vote on original motion, 6 – 1. Herriott opposed.
Motion by Firth to approve the remaining Bylaws as presented with proposed
amendments. Second by Johnson. Approved 7 – 0.
Discussion was opened on the Code of Ordinances. Motion by Pergl to match the edits of
Chapter 2.50 with the edits that are to be made to the Bylaws. Second by Rapp. Approved
7 – 0.
7. Reminder that there is a Sign Subcommittee meeting on Wednesday, July 14th and that the
next regular HARC meeting will be held on Thursday, July 22nd.
The group was also reminded of the Special Called Meeting to address item 4 of this agenda,
to be held on Wednesday, July 7th at 4:00 p.m.
8. Adjournment
Chair Moore adjourned the meeting at 8:43 p.m.
__________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Will Moore, Chair Attest, Susan Firth, Secretary