HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_10.18.2006_SubcommitteeHistoric and Architectural Review Commission Subcommittee Page 1 of 2
Meeting October 18, 2006
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Subcommittee Meeting
Minutes
Wednesday, October 18, 2006 at 2:00 p.m.
Glasscock Room, Georgetown Municipal Complex
300-1 Industrial Avenue Georgetown, Texas 78626
Attending Members: Mike Sparks, Chair; John Chapman, Clare Easley, Beebe Gray, Jim Keys,
Alternates present: Nancy Knight
Staff Present: Barbara Quirk, Acting City Attorney and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
This Special Meeting is held in accordance with Section 2.50.040(D) of the Georgetown Code of
Ordinances in order to render advice and guidance on new construction or the restoration, alteration ,
or maintenance of any historic resource or other building within the district. In accordance with the
determination of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission on July 24, 2003, the following
matter has been determined to be a sign application that can be reviewed by the Subcommittee.
Regular Session – Call to order at 2:00 p.m.
Chair Sparks called the meeting to order at 2:04 p.m.
There was a brief discussion of how this meeting would be run and a recommendation by the City
Attorney. Motion by Easley to follow an informal procedure for this meeting, allowing the
subcommittee to discuss advice and recommendations openly with the interested party, reserving
further vote for the full commission in its meeting on Thursday, October 26. Second by Chapman.
Approved 5 – 0.
A. Consideration and possible advice and guidance to the applicant regarding the Design Guidelines
and their applicability to the Certificate of Design Compliance application for signage for the
property located at 701 Main Street, City of Georgetown (Block 40, Lot 2, a 0.0826 acre tract in the
City of Georgetown Addition).
Chair Sparks asked the applicant to make a further presentation of the most recent proposed signage.
Tara Riley, one of the applicants, explained the need for a larger than allowed 15 square feet sign.
They are trying to attract people from outside the immediate area and want them to be able to find
the restaurant. They want illumination so that after 4:00 p.m., when their business picks up, and they
are on the dark side of the square at that time, that people can see them. The sign size they are
asking for is not 35.7 square feet and projecting from the corner of the building.
Chair Sparks asked whether the sign was encroaching into anyone’s air space. Ms. Riley responded
that no, now that the sign is angled out from the corner, it will be over the sidewalk and not hanging
over Heritage Office Supplies. She also stated it was the intent of Romeo’s to meet the Guidelines as
closely as possible, but the Guidelines did not work exactly with the configuration of the existing
building.
Chair Sparks discussed how the commission was originally “hung up” on the fact that there was no
definition of a blade sign in the Guideline definitions. He stated that in order for the commission to
accept this current sign, they must define and identify the exceptions to the rules that may possible
carry over and affect others. There was a discussion among the commissioners on how to change the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Subcommittee Page 2 of 2
Meeting October 18, 2006
ruling ordinances.
Chair Sparks called on Renée Hanson to give history of this project and suggestions on how to handle
the situation. Ms. Hanson reported that she heard about the blade sign at the last HARC meeting.
She conferred with Noré Winter, author of the Design Guidelines, who states that a blade sign is a
projecting sign, and that if the city changes the definition to include blade signs, it would be setting a
precedent for other future signs.
Ms. Hanson also stated she met with the applicants and that together they have redesigned the sign
to measure 35.7 square feet. She also discussed the issue with a local sign maker, Gordan Baker, who
identified a trade standard to define a blade sign that was 60% of the vertical height of a story of the
building, having a maximum width of 3 feet, and the outside edge shouldn’t be greater than four feet
from the edge of the building. The Romeo’s sign falls within these trade proportions. She stated the
typical blade sign is limited in height and designed for pedestrian sight, taking the place of the
allowed primary sign. However, because of the architectural details of this building, and the sign has
had to move to the second floor, she is recommending that the maximum height allowed for this sign
equal the top of the story from which it is installed.
Judith Manriquez, co-owner of the building, spoke and stated she has also done research and found
that the 60% height restriction may not necessarily be accurate depending on the circumstances.
Chair Sparks stated he wants some sort of restriction in place so that not every primary sign is
allowed to be a blade sign. There was further discussion of sign size and placement, justifying the
current discussed sign design. There was also a discussion of the thickness of the proposed sign. The
applicant stated the sign would be no more than 5 – 8 inches thick. Ms. Manriquez wanted the
commission to understand the color scheme. She stated that the printed pictures were graphic
printings and that the colors were not necessarily true. She stated the sign would consist of red,
yellow and black.
The applicant agreed to get extra materials to the city staff by Friday morning, for inclusion in the
information packets for the commissioners. This sign application will come before HARC next week.
No formal action was taken at this meeting.
SPECIAL NOTE:
A public hearing and any final action on an application, if timely received, relating to the above
matter will be held by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission on Thursday, October 26,
2006 at 6:00 pm in the City Council Chambers, 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626.
Motion by Knight to adjourn. Second by Chapman. Meeting adjourned at 2:57 p.m.
_________________________________ ___________________________________
Approved, Chair Mike Sparks Attest, Acting Secretary John Chapman