HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_09.27.2006Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5
Meeting September 27, 2006
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting
Minutes
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
103 E. 7th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626
Attending Members: Mike Sparks, Chair; John Chapman, Chris Damon, Clare Easley, Beebe
Gray, Jim Keys, Linda McCalla, and John Truehardt
Alternates present: Nancy Knight and J.C. Johnson
Members absent: Rick O’Donnell
Staff Present: Rebecca Rowe, Historic Review Planner; Barbara Quirk, Acting City Attorney;
Bobby Ray, Planning Director and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Chair Sparks called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission 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. This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1. Chairman may appoint alternate(s) to serve at this meeting.
Chair Sparks asked Nancy Knight to serve for absent Rick O’Donnell, and J.C. Johnson to
serve for Beebe Gray. Sparks then reviewed the procedures of the meeting.
2. Review and possible approval of the minutes from the July 27, 2006 regular meeting.
Corrections were noted on the minutes: Nancy Knight should have been marked absent and
a paragraph on the first page was duplicated. Motion by John Chapman to approve the
minutes with the noted corrections. Second by Johnson. Approved 8 – 0 – 1. Abstention by
Easley.
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.
3. Discussion and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
signage at Lot 1 – 4 (parts), City of Georgetown, Block 39, also to be known as Rufina’s
Pottery and Decor, located at 107 East 7th Street. CDC-2006-039
4. Discussion and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
signage and paint colors at Lot 1, City of Georgetown, Block 50, also to be known as Been
Around the Block designs, located at 820 South Austin Avenue. CDC-2006-040
5. Discussion and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
signage at Lots 5, 6, and the south 1/2 of Lot 7, Glasscock Addition, Block 04, also to be
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5
Meeting September 27, 2006
known as West Short and Associates, located at 313 West 10th Street. CDC-2006-042
No discussion. Motion by Truehardt to approve the consent agenda items. Second by
Johnson. Approved 9 – 0.
Beebe Gray came in at 6:15 p.m. and took the dais. J.C. Johnson stepped down.
Regular Agenda:
6. Discussion and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
signage at Lot 2, City of Georgetown, Block 40, located at 701 South Main Street. CDC-2006-
034
Chris Damon recused himself from the dais for this issue and J.C. Johnson was called back.
Staff report was given by Rebecca Rowe. The subject property was originally constructed
and used as a Masonic Temple and the “signage” was a part of the stone faćade. The
building was not intended for commercial use and so no obvious location for signage
currently exists on the structure. Traditional placement of a wall sign would obscure
architectural details. Additionally, the possible placement of signage is further complicated
by the mature oak trees existing at 7th and Main Streets. Rowe stated that some of the
guidelines for review of signage, specifically 9.1, 9.2 and 9.14 are subjective and open to
interpretation. The proposed sign is backlit, with only the text and outline of the heart to be
lit. It is easy to read and has three colors; red, yellow and black that compliment the existing
limestone. The recommendation is based on staff’s interpretation of the signage and its
relation to the building as a whole. Staff recommends approval of the CDC for flush
mounted wall signs as presented.
Johnson questioned whether this is one sign or two signs. Easley questioned the definition of
faćade versus primary faćade and the allowable, contributable length and the calculation of
the allowable sign size. Rowe stated she calculated the total linear sign footage allowed
based on the UDC allowances of both facades, because the Design Guidelines are lacking in
applicable definitions. She conducted her analysis using the Design Guidelines and then the
UDC as a guide where the Design Guidelines were lacking definition. Commission further
discussed architectural details of this building and its history.
The applicant, Terra Riley, presented the justification of the sign. She stated the signage for
this restaurant is very critical to the business model and that it must be visible to be effective.
The proposed sign would be visible from the 8th Street side of the square and Main Street. It
is to be internally lit. She sated that they had originally requested a blade sign, but that the
blade sign, or projecting sign, was not given in the Design Guidelines so they were advised
to apply for the wrap around sign that is presented. She stated she would rather have the
blade sign and gave a picture to the commission. Chair Sparks stated he appreciated her
bringing this forward, but that the commission must vote on the application before them for
the flush-mounted, wraparound sign. Riley stated she was just asking for a CDC for a sign
that they could have for the opening of their business in November. Riley stated signage
makes a large difference in the success of the business and she presented facts and reports to
back her statements. The size of the proposed sign was discussed after the Chair’s question.
The proposed sign is 12’4” x 2’11” on each side for a total sign face size of 36.004 square feet
per side. This will project a few inches from the limestone to avoid the existing gutter and
the roughness of the limestone.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5
Meeting September 27, 2006
Commissioner Knight questioned not being allowed to discuss the alternative sign that was
provided. Attorney Quirk stated the option is open to the Commission if staff is able to make
a recommendation or review and that if the alternative sign is deemed as not being a
substantive change, then the alternative sign can be voted on. Chair Sparks says he thinks
the alternative sign is a different type of sign and is therefore not open for discussion.
Commissioner McCalla left the meeting at 6:50 p.m. Chair Sparks opened the public
hearing.
Judith Manriquez, 1708 S. Olive. Ms. Manriquez spoke as the owner of the building that
wants this business to succeed. She urged the commission to please consider the blade sign
and further urged approval of any sign.
Bob Weimer, 118 W. 8th Street. Mr. Weimer is owner of another business on the square and
stated he was therefore aware of the importance of signage to business. He supports
Romeo’s and welcomes them and hopes they succeed in putting “feet on the street”.
Harold Steadman, 101 Yucca Cove. Mr. Steadman stated appreciation for HARC watching
out for the historic integrity of Georgetown. He is looking forward to having dinner on the
Square for his anniversary. He asked for approval of the CDC, stating that HARC should
listen to staff since they were paid to know what was in compliance and what was not.
Robert Phipps, 1404 Elm Street. Mr. Phipps appreciates the charming square and stated that
if this sign is allowed then HARC would be setting a precedent. He stated he didn’t want a
garish sign on a historic building that already had charm.
Pat Kucler, 316 E. 7th Street. She offered her time to Renee Hanson.
Barbara Meyer, 705 E. 3rd Street. Ms. Meyer stated she has lived downtown and been a
member of the Heritage Society for many years. She stated Georgetown is unique and has
received much acclaim for its historic character. She wants to maintain these standards and
use the Design Guidelines to keep them. She asked for denial of the garish sign.
Karen Lee Davis, 915 E. 3rd Street. Ms. Davis is a resident of Windridge Village and stated
she chose to live here not for the commercialism, but for the historic district’s character. She
requested that staff work for the people that want the historic success of Georgetown and not
for a city that looks like Round Rock.
Margie Ranc, 1310 E. 3rd Street. Ms. Ranc stated she is a new resident of Georgetown and has
a marketing and tourism background. She said there are other ways to market a business
with Georgetown style, without ruining the ambience of the square. She asked for denial of
the CDC.
Rick Williamson, 204 Holly Street. Mr. Williamson stated he came to Georgetown to get
away from the commercialism and because he likes the downtown ambience. He stated he
wants the historic character to prevail and he did not want the guidelines to change, setting
precedence for the area across the street from the renovated historic courthouse.
Roy Jones, 366 Sedro Trail. Mr. Jones stated he was a frequent user of the square and he likes
the sign. He said beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that they need to accomplish
advertising and attract the eye. He urged for approval.
Mel Pendland, Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Pendland urged the Commission to exercise
their discretion to approve the blade sign, the second application that was received. He
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5
Meeting September 27, 2006
defended staff, stating people may disagree on an opinion, but that staff is trained and
qualified to interpret the code and guidelines. He urged for approval.
Len Lester, 713 S. Main Street. Mr. Lester introduced himself as another business owner on
the square. He stated he has been in their shoes and that the guidelines are difficult to
interpret and apply. He stated that downtown is the heart of Georgetown, but that people
have many other options now. He wants downtown to be successful and made relative to
today’s way of life. He urged approval of the sign for the new business to be successful.
Margarite Holt, 719 S. Main Street. Ms. Holt is the owner of the Hill Country Bookstore on
the square and stated she almost chose Salado for her business, but she liked Georgetown
better. She followed the Design Guidelines and stated it doesn’t work. She stated she has
been there for 11 years and people still don’t know she’s there. She asked that HARC make it
easier to do business in Georgetown on the square.
Paul Fransek, 212 W. 7th Street, Abbey’s Barstools on the Square. He stated that his business is
suffering because he is competing with Wolf Ranch. He wants to keep the heritage too but to
gain some sort of competitive edge. He says his customers have a hard time finding him
because of the bad signage with which he has had to comply.
Linda Spiers, 351 Mason Court. Ms. Spiers stated that she chose Georgetown because of its
charm and remarkable job of keeping the town true to its roots. She thinks the other cities
can have chain stores but that the town square should remain true and it does not need the
flash that would compromise its integrity.
Renee Hanson, 1252 S. Austin Avenue. Ms. Hanson welcomed Romeo’s to Georgetown but
stated she wants them to respect the historic district that they are coming in to. She stated it
is what brings people to the downtown area and that tourism is important but so is integrity.
She stated the proposed sign is not compatible with the guidelines and asked for denial of
the CDC.
Chair Sparks closed the public hearing.
Motion by Easley to deny the application for Certificate of Design Compliance. The sign does
not meet the following guidelines: 9.1 Strip development commercial patterns or attention
getting signs do not fit in with the character of the square. 9.2 A sign shall be subordinate to
the overall building composition. 9.5 A flush mounted wall sign shall not exceed one square
foot for every one foot of linear facade width. 9.13 A sign should not in any way obscure or
compete with architectural details of an historic building facade. 9.14 Signs that are out of
character with those seen historically and that would alter the historic character of the street
are inappropriate. 9.15 Sign materials should be compatible with that of the building facade.
And 9.17 Use colors for the sign that are compatible with those of the building front.
Second by Johnson.
Commission deliberated the motion. Vote: 6 – 2. Knight and Truehardt opposed.
Commissioner Gray asked about the alternative plan that was submitted. Sparks stated he
thinks it is significantly different from the sign that was applied for and cannot be discussed.
He suggested calling a subcommittee meeting to address this as quickly as possible. Staff
reminded him that a new application requires 15 days notification posting.
Commissioner Damon came back on the dais. Johnson stayed as McCalla vacated her seat
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5
Meeting September 27, 2006
earlier.
7. Discussion and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
demolition of the house at Lot 5 and 6, Glasscock Addition, Block 9, located at 201 East 9th
Street. CDC-2006-038
Rowe presented the staff report. The applicant is requesti ng permission to demolish or
remove the historic structure. The subject property is a high priority structure according to
the City of Georgetown’s Historic Resource Survey. It is estimated to have been constructed
in 1890. In 1984, when the survey was conducted, the structure was listed in good condition.
Since then, the property has been written up by the City’s Code Enforcement office for
noncompliance with the Property Maintenance Code. This property is also in violation of
Section 4.06.010 (D) of the Unified Development Code – Demolition by Neglect. It has not
been declared a dangerous building by the Building Official. Staff is recommending denial
of this application based on Section 3.13.010 (D) (2) that states that a CDC for Demolition will
not be issued until there is an approved site plan addressing what will be developed on the
site after the demolition or removal. A denial would give the applicant 175 days before the
structure can be removed.
Discussion among commissioners about neglect.
Motion by Easley for denial of the Certificate of Design Compliance for demolition or
removal of 201 East 9th Street. Second by John Chapman. CDC denied 9 – 0.
8. Comments, questions and general discussion from Commission and/or staff.
A. Reminder of the next meeting of the Commission on October 26, 2006.
Sparks announced that the training sessions planned for October will be delayed until
after the first of the calendar year.
Rowe reported that property at Main and University is being renovated for property
maintenance and repair and may be painted. This is probably going to have a new
owner. Rowe asked for guidance on whether to stay with the blue color paint or to go
with new style. She was directed to let the new owner know that they would be
expected to come to HARC for any exterior changes.
Discussion of schedule and possible meetings for application submittal for Romeo’s
signage.
Motion by Easley to adjourn. Second by Chapman. Meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
_______________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Chair Mike Sparks Attest, Secretary John Truehardt