HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_07.22.2010Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
July 22, 2010
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, July 22. 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;
and Ron Pergl.
Members Absent: Dee Rapp
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 6:02 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.
Consent Agenda:
1. Review and possible approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of June 24, 2010.
Firth points out a typographical error on page 2, HARD should be HARC. Motion by Firth to
approve the minutes with the correction. Second by Johnson. Approved 6 – 0.
Regular Agenda:
2. Discussion and possible action on an item forwarded from the July 14, 2010 HARC Sign
Subcommittee regarding an amendment to the Tamiro Plaza Master Sign Plan.
Wyler gave a short summary of the discussion of this item that occurred at previous
meetings. He explained that the Sign Subcommittee has reviewed this item and made
recommendations for approval based on those many discussions. The Master Sign Plan was
divided into separate sign types for discussion and approval by the subcommittee. Chair
Moore suggested reviewing the application with the same method as used by the
subcommittee, one sign type at a time.
Gordon Baker, the owner applicant’s agent, explained the parts of the Master Sign Plan. The
owner’s proposal is: no internally lit signs or backlit signs will be allowed after the current
tenants leave the building; the 4th floor tenant blade sign may be used by another tenant if
that tenant is a restaurant, and then it will not be internally lit; the monument sign will
remain the same as proposed and will have businesses in the building listed, but no logos
will be allowed; and no logos will be allowed on the signs or the building.
Mr. Baker discussed the proposed frieze signs. He explained that the signs on this building
were not built to be historical, but to fit in with the character of the Historical District.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
July 22, 2010
Chapter 9 of the Design Guidelines explains that should be the intent of the signs, to fit in
with the proportion, and scale of the building and emphasize the design elements of the
building. He pointed out that historically, entire buildings in the downtown area would be
painted for signage, but he does not feel that is appropriate now. He also pointed out that
according to the Guidelines and UDC, the owner of the building was allowed a lot more
signage that he was asking for. They feel that all the signs on the building, both current and
proposed, with the exception of the Merrill Lynch sign, meet the criteria and intent of the
Design Guidelines.
Johnson makes a motion to accept and approve the first four items recommended by the
Sign Subcommittee, as presented in the minutes of that meeting and in the proposal.
Second by Herriott. Approved 6 – 0.
Pergl explained the last item brought forth from the Sign Subcommittee. The item of the
signs proposed on the friezes below the second floor were controversial for some
commissioners, and different than the original Master Sign Plan. Firth explained that she
felt the frieze signs were not in character with the rest of downtown and that other
downtown buildings do not display multiple tenant signs on their buildings. She suggested
and encouraged Mr. Choi (owner) to consider a directory sign, stating it would be more
helpful for the general public to locate the tenants inside the building, and listed Section 9.10
(she thought) of the Design Guidelines to support her opinion. She also brought forth UDC
Section 10.06.050 citing that it calls for a multi-tenant building to have a single-structure sign
for the tenants, and gave examples of buildings that she felt met this ordinance.
Moore asked Cook to address the issues raised by Firth. Cook explains that that section of
the sign ordinance was taken out of context and addresses the signs applicable to businesses
located on the same lot upon which the sign is located as well as to businesses located upon
different lots within the development, and this reference does not address signage that is on
the building. She pointed out that Section 10.06.050 also allows for an additional monument
sign on the lot for purposes of directing traffic to businesses within the development. Firth
stated she felt approval of this type of sign would be setting a precedent. Cook explained
that each case submitted before the Commission is different, with multiple sign types
allowed and that this Master Sign Plan approval would not be setting a precedent of any
type.
Pergl explained that the Subcommittee discussed the location of the friezes and felt this was
the best location and compromise to allow extra signage for the tenants that requested more
identification on the building, but to still maintain a good look to the building. There was
further discussion of meeting the needs of the tenants versus “sign pollution” and trying to
find the compromise for all parties.
Motion by Moseley to deny item five of the Master Sign Plan, the frieze signs, and the
amendment of the Master Sign Plan. Second by Johnson. Tie vote: 3-3. Herriott, Moore
and Pergl voted against the denial.
Motion by Johnson to table this item to the next regular meeting for futher discussion and
when the tie could be broken. Second by Firth. Motion amended to table this item to
Thursday July 29th, a special called meeting. Second by Firth. Approved 6 – 0.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
July 22, 2010
3. Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for minor exterior
changes, including new paint and the replacement of a door, at City of Georgetown, Block
39, Lots 1 (pt) and 4 (pt), also known as Mecca Hair Salon, located at 113 & 117 E. 7th Street.
(CDC-2010-015)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks approval for new paint colors for the
building as well as the replacement of a door facing 7th Street. Color samples were provided
in the packets. Staff recommended approval of the application based on Guidelines 5.9 and
6.13.
Marla Boydston, the owner’s agent was present and introduced. She explained she was the
tenant and appreciated the owner allowing them to expand into the entire building and
painting it all one color.
Motion by Moseley to approve the CDC application as submitted. Second by Pergl.
Approved 6 – 0.
4. Reminder that there is a Sign Subcommittee meeting on Wednesday, August 11th and that
the next regular HARC meeting will be held on Thursday, August 26th.
The Commissioners were also reminded of the special called meeting of Thursday, July 29.
5. Adjournment
Chair Moore adjourned the meeting at 7:02 p.m.
__________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Will Moore, Chair Attest, Susan Firth, Secretary