Loading...
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