HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_08.31.2006Historic and Architectural Review Commission Subcommittee Page 1 of 3
Meeting August 31, 2006
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Subcommittee Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 3:00 p.m.
Georgetown Municipal Complex
300-1 Industrial Avenue, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Attending Members: Mike Sparks, Chair; Rick O’Donnell; Vice Chair, John Chapman, and Chris
Damon
Alternates present: Nancy Knight and J.C. Johnson
Staff Present: Rebecca Rowe, Historic Review Planner
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission subcommittee is responsible for hearing and
taking final action on sign applications, by issuing Certificates of Design Compliance based upon
the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines. This is a subcommittee meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission, for consideration and possible action on the
following:
1. Meeting was called as a sign subcommittee. Mike Sparks and J. C. Johnson also attended so
a quorum of members was present. Called to order at 3pm.
2. Public Hearing and discussion and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design
Compliance for signage at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2, a 0.0826 acre portion located
at 701 Main Street. CDC-2006-034
Damon recused himself as the owner of the subject property and waited outside the
conference room.
Rowe presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing three under canopy signs, an
A-frame sign, window signage and a projecting sign. The hanging signs and window signs
meet the Design Guidelines as is while the A-frame sign will need to change its dimensions
slightly to meet the Guidelines. The applicant is requesting a size variance on the
projecting sign to reflect the fact that it will be there primary signage as there is no location
for an awning or flush mounted wall sign. Rowe recommends approval of the hanging
signs, window signs and A-frame sign with size adjustment; recommends denial of the
projecting sign based on non-compliance with Guidelines 9.1, 9.2 and 9.13.
The applicant presented their argument for the increased size for the projecting sign as the
primary signage. They also stated that they chose that location and type of sign to avoid
obscuring any architectural details on the facade of the building. They stated that they are
open to working with the commission to design a sign that will meet their needs as well as
meeting the Design Guidelines. Sparks expressed his concern over the increased size of the
projecting sign. Rowe commented that HARC does have the authority to grant size
variances when and where necessary and that the increased size was not a factor in the
recommendation of denial.
The applicant asked to be allowed to present a new design for the projecting sign. Sparks
stated that the subcommittee would not be able to consider the new design but that it could
be presented and discussed after the regular agenda.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Subcommittee Page 2 of 3
Meeting August 31, 2006
Chapman moved that the hanging signs, window signs and A-frame signs be approved
with the stipulation that the A-frame sign’s dimensions reflect what is called for in the
Guidelines and that the projecting sign be denied. The motion died for lack of a second.
Chapman moved approval of the hanging signs, window signs and A-frame sign with the
stipulation that the A-frame sign’s dimensions reflect the Guidelines. Second by Nancy
Knight. Approved 5-0.
Johnson moved denial of the projecting sign per the staff recommendation. Second by
Chapman. Approved 4-1. Knight opposed.
Damon rejoined the meeting.
3. Public Hearing and Discussion and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design
Compliance for signage at City of Georgetown, Block 42, Lots 3 and4 (pts) located at 716
Rock Street. CDC-2006-035
Rowe presented the application which included an under canopy hanging sign and two
flush mounted wall signs. Staff recommended approval based on compliance with the
Design Guidelines. Knight expressed concern that the red, white and blue color scheme
was perhaps too bold.
Damon moved approval per the staff recommendation. Second by O’Donnell. Approved 6-
0.
4. Public Hearing and discussion and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design
Compliance for signage at City of Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 4 located at 102 West 8th
Street. CDC-2006-036
Rowe presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing an awning sign, an under
canopy sing, window signage and a projecting sign. All meet the Design Guidelines and
staff recommends approval.
Johnson moves approval per the staff recommendation. Second by Damon. Approved 6-0.
5. Public Hearing and discussion and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design
Compliance for signage at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lots 2 and 3, a 0.3581 acre portion
located at 115 West 7th Street. CDC-2006-037
Rowe presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to add a second under canopy
hanging sign to advertise the second floor business located at that property. The proposed
sign meets the Design Guidelines and staff recommends approval.
Knight moves approval per the staff recommendation. Second by Chapman. Approved 6-0.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Subcommittee Page 3 of 3
Meeting August 31, 2006
6. Comments, questions and general discussion from Commission and/or staff.
The applicant from CDC-2006-034 presented a revised proposal for a projecting sign. The
proposed location was the same although lowered slightly and a size variance would still be
requested in accordance with their request to view the projecting sign as their primary
signage. The new design has a more vertical design to compliment the strong verticality of
the building. The new design also incorporates cut out letters with some backlighting.
Rowe states that the new design appears to be more in keeping with the Design Guidelines.
Rowe expresses that the lighting may be problematic, while it is allowed under the
guidelines the details of how it will be constructed and lit will be very important to making
the determination as to whether or not it would meet the guidelines. There is discussion to
whether or not the sign could be considered by a subcommittee. Sparks states that for such
an important building that the sign should be considered by the entire commission at the
next regularly scheduled meeting. Rowe states that accommodations can be made to accept
the application past the deadline for the September meeting.
Motion by Chapman to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
_______________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Chair Mike Sparks Attest, Vice Chair Rick O’Donnell