HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARC_Agenda&Minutes_2010Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, December 20, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Monday, December 20, 2010 at 04:00
PM in the Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300 Industrial Blvd, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Members:
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 04:00 PM
This is a continuation of the meeting and public hearing of Thursday, December 9, 2010 for
consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for infill at City of
Georgetown, Block 3, to be known as River Place, located at 100 S. Austin Avenue.
(CDC-2010-030)
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, December 20, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Monday ,
December 20, 2010.
Members Present:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Greg Herriott, J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie
Kreger, Principal Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Chair Moore called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m.
This is a continuation of the regular meeting of December 9, 2010 to follow-up the following
item and will begin no earlier than 4:00 p.m.
1. Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for infill at City of
Georgetown, Block 3, to be known as River Place, located at 100 S. Austin Avenue.
(CDC-2010-030)
Robbie Wyler did not present any more information from the continued item, but
introduced Cliff Whittingstall, the architect, to make the new presentation. Whittingstall
explained the changes that had been developed to address the previous commissioner
concerns. He said they extended the solid decomposed granite path all the way to Austin
Avenue to address the pedestrian needs. They added the decomposed granite to the entire
Plaza in front of the building, tying it into the rest of the sidewalks. The exchanged the
diagonal wood on the service access gate and now will use horizontal boards. They are
adding windows to the river side of the building and adding extra windows on the Austin
Avenue side of the building to open up the kitchen area.
The commissioners made comments about the new proposals. Pergl stated he likes the
trellis addition, stating it brought the feel of the inside to the outside patio. Pergl
questioned the lack of landscaping on the concrete retaining walls below the restaurant and
visible from the river. Whittingstall explained they had climbing vines that will grow along
the retaining walls and that the food pavilion was redone to save the existing heritage tree .
Moseley questioned the vegetative service wall, stating a different graphic was presented at
this meeting. Whittingstall explained that it was now a double vegetative wall providing a
more landscaped view. Moseley appreciates.
Rapp questioned the new size of the service gate. Whittingstall explained it was bigger but
would now slide open behind the landscaping and be less obtrusive. Parking was
questioned and Rusty Winkstern, the owner/ applicant, explained that when the building of
phase 2 was built, the parking in that area would be reallocated to the lots on 2
nd
Street and
Rock Street.
Firth questioned the awning width. Whittingstall explained it was about eight feet wide
and that it may be metal and wood due to wind loads. They are hoping to not need
columns for support to maintain an open area and feel.
Herriott expressed that he likes the concept and the building, just not the current /
temporary name. Winkstern said he was looking into the name and would bring signage
back to HARC at a later date .
Motion by Johnson to approve the Site Plan and elevations as revised and presented at
this meeting. Second by Rapp. Approved 7 – 0.
2. Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on January 27, 2010.
3. Adjournment. Chair Moore adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, December 9, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, December 9, 2010 at 06:00
PM in the Council Chambers, located at 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Members:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Gregg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; and Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 06:00 PM
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 September 23, 2010 Regular HARC
meeting.
2.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at
Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, also known as Main Street Baptist Church, located at
1001 S. Main Street. (CDC-2010-027)
3.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at
City of Georgetown, Block 39, Lot 1 (pt) & Lot 4 (pt), also known as Mecca Hair Salon,
located at 117 E. 7
th
Street. (CDC-2010-028)
4.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at
City of Georgetown, Block 50, Lot 1 (s/pt), also known as the Moksha Yoga on the Square,
located at 824 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2010-029)
Regular Agenda:
5. Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for infill at City of
Georgetown , Block 3, to be known as River Place , located at 100 S. Austin Avenue .
(CDC-2010-030)
6. Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on January 27, 2010.
7. Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, December 9, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
December 9, 2010.
Members Present:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
Greg Herriott
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie
Kreger, Principal Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Moore called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m. There was a slight delay due to technical
difficulties with the computer programs and projector.
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 September 23, 2010 Regular HARC
meeting.
Pergl stated the Sign Subcommittee approved the other consent agenda items and there
would not need to be another vote on those items. He then moved to approve the minutes
of the September 23 meeting as written. Second by Rapp. Approved 6 – 0.
2.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at
Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, also known as Main Street Baptist Church, located at
1001 S. Main Street. (CDC-2010-027)
3.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at
City of Georgetown, Block 39, Lot 1 (pt) & Lot 4 (pt), also known as Mecca Hair Salon,
located at 117 E. 7
th
Street. (CDC-2010-028)
4.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at
City of Georgetown, Block 50, Lot 1 (s/pt), also known as the Moksha Yoga on the Square,
located at 824 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2010-029)
Regular Agenda:
5. Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for infill at City of
Georgetown, Block 3, to be known as River Place, located at 100 S. Austin Avenue.
(CDC-2010-030)
Robbie Wyler gave background of the property and the applicants provided a summary of
the proposed site plan. Wyler: A prior applicant received CDC approval from HARC in
2005 on an infill project, to be called River Place, which was to occupy all of Block 3.
Simultaneously, that applicant went through the Site Plan review process and was granted
approval from both HARC and Staff. The project was to be constructed in phases, with
eventual office and retail in separate buildings where parking was originally planned.
Phase one included restaurant space in addition to some office and retail.
The new applicant returns to HARC requesting Certificate of Design Compliance approval
for a similar site layout and an updated building elevation. The new proposal, also
positioning the restaurant to overlook Blue Hole on the South San Gabriel River, will
contain approximately 7,000 square feet of interior space, a 4,200 square foot dining
courtyard and a 2,000 square foot deck with seating for approximately 300 people. As part
of the project there will be sidewalks, street furniture, landscaping and street parking on 2
nd
and Rock Streets. There are also future plans for traffic and pedestrian signals at 2
nd
and 6
th
Streets respectively, that will improve the pedestrian experience along Austin Avenue and
connect River Place to the Square.
Cliff Whittingstall with Overland Properties introduced himself and why Overland
Properties was doing this project, along with a brief history of their company. He stressed
that he and his company felt this property is a gateway site and is important to Georgetown
and they want to be a part of that .
Whittingstall introduced the Commission to Sketchup, the software that allowed him to
show 2-D images of the entire site plan. He started with a walk-through of the property,
beginning when the customer parks on the decomposed granite parking court and
continuing through the courtyard with a rammed earth wall. The restaurant building
design is contemporary, reminiscent of vernacular commercial buildings. The building will
be faced with antique old Chicago brick and high -efficiency aluminum windows modeled
after steel window systems used in commercial and industrial buildings. The single story
building will have a flat roof with parapets to fully conceal all rooftop mechanical systems .
A wrapping trellis system will be utilized at the outdoor seating area along the river and
water and landscape features will be incorporated for visual appeal. The building will be
oriented around a heavily landscaped central dining courtyard.
Mark Wood of Word Design from Austin designed the landscaping and explained their
ideas. They are attempting to unify the new and old elements of the property. They
designed a thin profile parapet over the courtyard and used stone encased columns
throughout. The sidewalk from Austin Avenue brings pedestrians through a garden and
green vertical trellis. They designed wire boxes along Austin Avenue that will have vines
growing on them and will separate the parking areas and traffic from the restaurant. A
wooden service gate has been designed that will help the back of the restaurant not look so
much as a service entrance on Austin Avenue. They have designed all the landscaping
with a focus on native and well adapted plants to reduce water usage, have low
maintenance and using plants that are drought and freeze tolerant.
Chair Moore thanked the presenters. He opened the Public Hearing at 6:42 p.m. and as
there were no speakers coming forth, closed the Public Hearing.
Moore invited the commissioners to make comments or ask questions.
Commissioner Susan Firth began by thanking the applicants for designing a beautiful
building. She asked about the back patio and whether it would be covered or not.
Whittingstall answered that they were still doing “sun studies” and that it could be
trellised, or maybe use trees and umbrellas for shading. Firth expressed concern over not
having a specific design in that area for review. She then went on to discuss the service
area gate, stating she felt it was not in character with the rest of the building.
Firth questioned staff on the use of parallel parking on Austin Avenue. Wyler responded
that it was under review by staff with the site plan and that it would probably not be
allowed. He also stated sfaff was concerned about the one point ingress and egress of the
parking lot.
Rusty Winkstern, the owner/ applicant, responded that as the property was built out, with
the additional office and retail spaces, the parking would be placed off-site. They have
already purchased the land for this purpose. He also stated that he is asking as part of the
Development Agreement with the city that the speed on Austin Avenue be reduced to 30
mph and that a pedestrian crossing light be installed along Austin Avenue .
Commissioner Larry Moseley expressed his concern about the building’s design being too
atmospheric. Winkstern stated he felt the design was appropriate with the history of the
site and the location of the restaurant.
Commissioner Dee Rapp expressed that she likes the concept and that this is exciting for
Georgetown. She expressed concern about the view from Austin Avenue. She stated that
the elements along the other sides of the property are very nice, but that the vines that will
be used on the Austin Avenue “screens” will not be evergreen and therefore not provide
the screening that is desired. Mark Word responded that seasonal plants will be switched
out on all sides of the building to keep the property well landscaped. He also explained
that the evergreen boxes/ screens will only be bare in the first couple of winters but that
other plants will be placed behind them to cover the brick walls and service area wall.
Rapp still expressed concern about the service area being unattractive from the Austin
Avenue side.
Commissioner J.C. Johnson questioned who will switch out the landscape once the
landscape architect was finished with the job. Winkstern stated he would be responsible
for that as he currently was doing at the Monument Café, his other restaurant property on
Austin Avenue. Johnson stated he did not like the decorative gate as well and felt it could
be plainer and fit in with the character of the building . He also questioned the flood plain
and whether the building could weather a high-rising river. Whittingstall explained the 500
year flood plain is listed at 697 feet and the building foundation is built to 698.5 feet, an
extra 18 inches.
Chair Will Moore stated he does not have any concerns about the building but that he
supports the idea of reduced speed on Austin Avenue. He is also concerned about the back
of the building facing Austin Avenue and the lack of the pedestrian quality that is trying to
be maintained in the Downtown area .
Commissioner Moseley questioned the parapet material. Whittingstall explained it is to be
a cast stone cap that will be the same color as the rammed earth wall. Moseley then
questioned the amount of parking needed for this restaurant and how that was calculated.
Wyler responded that per the Downtown Design Guidelines, 1 spaces was required per 500
square feet of restaurant seating area, meaning that 42 spaces are required for this
restaurant. 62 spaces are provided offsite at this time, and the applicant is looking into
valet parking during peak hours.
Commissioner Pergl stated he thinks the applicant is missing an opportunity to open up the
restaurant views to the water of the river. He expressed he felt the windows along the back
were a good idea, but that they are still closed and the applicants should look into that . He
suggested looking at the fenestrations and facades and open up the kitchen area with more
windows also. Whittingstall explained that phase 2 of the development project would
actually cover the service wall of the restaurant from Austin Avenue and place a building
along Austin Avenue, showing more urban and bringing the downtown “feel” closer.
Rapp questioned the timing of the project. Winkstern responded that his intent was to
have the restaurant built first to bring energy to the area and then bring in the retail and
office components.
There was discussion amongst the commissioners regarding the presentation being
different than the original submission.
Motion by Moseley to approve the CDC with the following conditions:
·That the applicant continue to work with staff and HARC on solutions to enhance
the street view for pedestrians and drivers along Austin Avenue,
·And continue to look at possible solutions for the river front to include features
of fenestrations or trellising on the patio.
Second by Pergl. Moseley then amended his motion to state that the applicant was to
work with staff to bring a presentation back to HARC for the features that were listed.
Amendment seconded by Pergl. Motion and amendment passed 6 – 0.
Discussion of timing of future meetings and the applicants need to apply for a building
permit in January.
Chair Moore called for a brief intermission for commissioners to check calendars.
Chair Moore called the meeting back to order at 7:50 p.m.
Elizabeth Cook pointed out that there is a decomposed sidewalk from Austin Avenue to the
restaurant that might not have been seen earlier but that is on the plan for pedestrian
access.
Motion by Pergl to continue this meeting on December 20, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. in the
Georgetown Municipal Complex and to keep this item open for further discussion,
looking at the two conditional items. Second by Rapp. Approved 6 – 0.
6. Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on January 27, 2010.
7. Adjournment. This meeting was not adjourned but ended at 7:58 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, December 9, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Thursday, December
9, 2010 at 05:30 PM in the Council Chambers, located at 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Members:
Ron Pergl; Dee Rapp; Susan Firth
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 05:30 PM
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the November 10, 2010 regularly
scheduled Sign Subcommittee meeting and November 17, 2010 Sign Subcommittee special
meeting.
2.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage
at Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, also known as Main Street Baptist Church, located
at 1001 S. Main Street. (CDC-2010-027)
3.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at
City of Georgetown, Block 39, Lot 1 (pt) & Lot 4 (pt), also known as Mecca Hair Salon,
located at 117 E. 7
th
Street. (CDC-2010-028)
4.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at
City of Georgetown, Block 50, Lot 1 (s/pt), also known as the Moksha Yoga on the Square,
located at 824 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2010-029)
5.Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, December 9, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Thursday , December 9, 2010.
Members Present:
Ron Pergl; Susan Firth; and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Pergl at 5:30 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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
regular scheduled meeting of the Sign Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on
the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the November 10, 2010 regularly
scheduled Sign Subcommittee meeting and November 17, 2010 Sign Subcommittee special
meeting.
Motion by Rapp to accept and approve both sets of minutes as drafted. Second by Firth.
Approved 3 – 0.
2.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at
Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, also known as Main Street Baptist Church, located at
1001 S. Main Street. (CDC-2010-027)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting three pole-mounted signs for
restricted parking on their property. Ray Shawley, the agent, explained that these three
parking spaces are on the church property and that at key points of the day they are
actually taken by customers of a nearby restaurant. The church is trying to find a friendly
solution.
Motion by Firth to approve the signs as submitted. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
3.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at
City of Georgetown, Block 39, Lot 1 (pt) & Lot 4 (pt), also known as Mecca Hair Salon,
located at 117 E. 7
th
Street. (CDC-2010-028)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance
approval from HARC for two new signs. The first is a flush-mounted sign that will read
“Mecca Hair Salon, Inc.” in the business’ beige decorative font. The sign will be
constructed of Moderate Density Overlay (MDO) wood and painted black with
Parchment/Beige colored vinyl letters. The sign will be mounted directly to the west-face
of the black corrugated metal awning.
The applicant also requests additional window advertisement in a currently empty
storefront window. The sign will read “Mecca Hair Salon, Inc.” in all caps and in the same
business font and color as the wall -mounted sign. It will be installed on the large 7
th
Street
window directly east of the entrance door as shown on the provided rendering and
photograph.
Ray Shawley, the agent, was available for commissioner questions. He commented that the
black of the awning sign would actually be the same black as the awning , not what the
color picture indicates.
Motion by Firth to approve the Certificate of Design Compliance for the two signs as
submitted. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
4.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at
City of Georgetown, Block 50, Lot 1 (s/pt), also known as the Moksha Yoga on the Square,
located at 824 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2010-029)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance
approval from HARC for four new signs. The first is a projecting sign that will read
“Moksha Yoga on the Square” in all caps and in a block font. The sign will be constructed
of Moderate Density Overlay (MDO) wood with digital printed vinyl faces on both sides. It
will be hung from a black wrought iron bracket. Colors will consist of a wine-red colored
backdrop with a golden yellow circle containing the depiction of a white lotus flower .
“Moksha Yoga” will be in black letters outlined in white and “On the Square” will be
centered below in a smaller black font with no outline.
Next, the applicant requests three secondary window signs. Two will utilize the same
design as the projecting sign with the exception that they will be all white. Each sign will
be centered on the lower sash of both the eastern most window facing 9
th
Street and the
other on the southern most window facing Austin Avenue. The third window sign will be
located on the north-facing vestibule window at the Austin Avenue entrance. It will
provide hours of operation and additional business information in a white Times font. No
logo is proposed at this time for the vestibule window sign.
Jeff Maurice , the applicant, was available for questions. Pergl questioned whether the red
on the sign is the same as the awning color of red. Maurice explained it is not exact, but
matches. Firth questioned the hours of operation listed as “45 minutes before class” being
enough information for the customers. Maurice says the owners discussed this at length
and decided that more information would be available on their website, as the times of the
classes were constantly changing. He explained the doors would be locked during class
with a “Class in Session” sign hung on the inside of the door. He also explained that they
were looking for some form of brochure holder to be placed just inside the door that would
give more information about their business and classes. They are looking for something
that would fit inside the door so that the brochures would not be picked up by everyone on
the street and possibly litter the Square. The Commissioners questioned the size and look
of the box. Wyler stated since it is not part of the application and it is not a sign, he will
review it and decide whether it should return to HARC for review. Firth and Rapp
cautioned Maurice about cluttering the windows. He commented that was not his
intention.
Motion by Rapp to approve the Certificate of Design Compliance as submitted, with the
brochure box to be reviewed by staff before being installed. Second by Firth. Approved
3 – 0.
5.Adjournment. Pergl adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 at
04:00 PM in the Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300 Industrial Blvd, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Members:
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 04:00 PM
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled
meeting of the Sign Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1. Discussion and possible action on an item forwarded from the October 28, 2010 Sign
Subcommittee meeting on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage
at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lot 1 (w/pt), also known as Adi’s Italian Village, located at
119 W. 7th Street. (CDC-2010-023)
2.Adjournment
The Subcommittee may forward these items to the next meeting of the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission for its consideration. That meeting is scheduled for December
9, 2010.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Wednesday
, November 17, 2010.
Members Present:
Ron Pergl; Susan Firth; and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Pergl at 4:00 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled meeting of the Sign
Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1. Discussion and possible action on an item forwarded from the October 28, 2010 Sign Subcommittee
meeting on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City of Georgetown,
Block 38, Lot 1 (w/pt), also known as Adi’s Italian Village, located at 119 W. 7th Street.
(CDC-2010-023)
Wyler presented the following summary: On Thursday, October 28, 2010, CDC-2010-023 went to the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) Sign Subcommittee. Because the public
notification sign for this item was not properly posted on location, the Subcommittee was unable to
take action on the item, which included approval on three signs for Adi’s Italian Village.
Additionally, the sign agent representing the restaurant or the restaurant owner were not present at
the meeting so the Subcommittee could not address several questions and comments they had. In
the end, the Subcommittee and City staff scheduled a special meeting on November 17, 2010 to
address the questions and comments and to take final action on this item.
A few items the Subcommittee suggested be addressed before the November 17 meeting: The
Subcommittee considers the proposed window sign application nontraditional and asks that the
applicant use a more traditional method of window advertisement by applying the lettering directly to
the window rather than placing it on a transparent acrylic board and attaching it with Velcro. If the
applicant/agent was okay with this suggestion, he should have come back to the November 17 special
meeting with new renderings and details showing the suggested application. No new renderings were
submitted.
The lettering on the A-frame sign should match what is proposed on the flush-mounted wall sign in
color (gold leaf) and font. This will better match the sign with the remainder of the signs. If the
applicant/agent was okay with this suggestion, he should have come back to the November 17 special
meeting with a new proposal and details. No new renderings were submitted.
The color of the A-frame sign should match the color on the proposed flush-mounted wall sign. This
will better match the other signs. A decorative border should be placed around the lettering on the
flush-mounted wall sign. The border should match the color of the lettering. The same type of border
should be placed around the A-frame sign as well.
Bill Gottsman, his son Larry Gottsman, both of Aetna Design representing the tenant as the sign
agents, Kristen Gottsman, and Sam ____, the restaurant owner were present for questions,
comments and discussion. The Gottsmans explained their history with sign making and their
disagreements with the current Georgetown codes. They feel the codes should be reviewed and
updated to better serve small businesses, saying they are too restrictive for small businesses to
follow.
Chair Pergl explained that the Commissioners were not there to dispute the validity of the current
codes but to interpret and apply the rules as established by the City Council. He directed the
discussion back to the application.
Firth questioned Sam about his ability to address the previous comments. Sam expressed concern
about having to replace all the signage and the expense associated with that. Rapp explained that the
signs were not rejected at all and that the suggestions were to enhance the signage, i.e. the existing
Velcro took away from the beauty of the sign. Rapp explained the commissioners try to compromise
with the applicants to find a solution that works for both parties. There was a discussion of possible
solutions for hanging the window sign in a more permanent looking fashion. It was decided an
attached chain would work best for a solution.
Pergl suggested that the signs be discussed as before, in three parts. The A-frame sign was
discussed next. The Commissioners were concerned about the inconsistency of font types among all
the signs, and concerned about the inconsistency not providing a sense of “branding” to the Adi’s
signs. Mr. Gottsman did not agree and felt the different fonts were fine.
The next discussion was about the back wall-mounted sign. Mr. Gottsman brought out examples of
3-D lettering that he had been working on. These were not indicated on the original application. Sam
stated he would accept the border color that would be the same as the A-frame sign, but that the
lettering should be vinyl or painted on the wall sign to reduce costs. The background color and border
color of the wall sign would be the same as the A-frame sign and the font would be the same as the
window sign – to provide consistency.
Pergl agreed that he likes the A-frame photo and encouraged the restaurant owner to consider the
“branding” issue in future endeavors.
Motion by Firth to approve the Certificate of Design Compliance application as submitted with
the exception of the window sign which must be hung from a chain, as resubmitted and
approved by staff; the A-frame sign to be approved as submitted but with a recommendation
to make the fonts consistent with the other signage; and the wall sign be approved with the
background green and border color to match those of the A-frame sign, and to include painted
or vinyl lettering – not 3-D lettering. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
2.Adjournment. Chair Pergl thanked the applicants for their attendance and adjourned the meeting at
4:45 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Wednesday,
November 10, 2010 at 04:00 PM in the Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300 Industrial Blvd,
Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Members:
Ron Pergl, Chair; Susan Firth; Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 04:00 PM
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled meeting of the Sign
Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the October 28, 2010 Sign Subcommittee Meeting.
2.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage
at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 3 (n/pt), also known as Kenz Guitars, located at 705 Main Street.
(CDC-2010-024)
3.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage
at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (n/pt), also known as Plus Four Dining, located at 110 E. 7th
Street. (CDC-2010-025)
4.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage
at Glasscock Addition, Block 2, Lot 45 and part of Lots 3 & 6, also known as the Main Street Baptist
Church Worship Center, located at 111 W. 10th Street.
5.Adjournment
The Subcommittee may forward these items to the next meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review
Commission for its consideration. That meeting is scheduled for December 9, 2010.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Wednesday , November 10, 2010.
Members Present:
Ron Pergl; Susan Firth; and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Pergl at 4:02 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled meeting of the Sign
Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the October 28, 2010 Sign Subcommittee Meeting.
Corrections were made to the minutes: On page 2, Rapp asked if the signs could be discussed
individually; Pergl thought that was a good idea; The Commissioners agreed they were okay with the
concept because the picture is similar to the one in the restaurant; and The Commissioners
suggested the fonts and border colors of each sign should be consistent.
Motion by Rapp to accept the minutes with the changes. Second by Firth. Approved 3 – 0.
2.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for new
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 3 (n/pt), also known as Kenz Guitars, located at 705
Main Street. (CDC-2010-024)
Wyler presented the Staff Report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval
from HARC for a flush-mounted wall sign that will read “Kenz Guitars” in a Cartoon font. The sign will
be installed on the west-facing facade as shown in the provided photo. Colors for the sign consist of
black and white for the name of the business and shades of tan and brown for the backdrop and two
crossed guitars.
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance for the flush-mounted wall sign
as proposed by the applicant with the following condition:
1)Staff recommends the applicant use a simpler and more traditional font for the
sign. A Times Bold or Standard Block font would be appropriate. This will
better tie the sign in with others around the Square. Attached is a sheet with
several different font types for HARC’s consideration.
The applicant was not available for comment. Rapp questioned the use of the font on the proposed
sign and whether it matched the font of the current logo on another location, asking if it was a
“corporate” type logo, shown on other items with the same logo. The answer was not available. Firth
questioned the use of gradient color on the sign and the inconsistency with other signs on the Square.
Pergl stated he did not mind the gradient, but agrees that the consistency should be considered. He
suggested a solid color in the middle range of the gradient which would allow the border and
shadowing to show more clearly.
The Commissioners also questioned the use and application of other signs for this business. Wyler
responded this is the only sign on the application and the applicant can come back for additional
signage.
Motion by Firth to approve the Certificate of Design for the sign with the condition that the
background of the sign be one color, which is to be approved by staff, and the color is to not
hide the border or lettering of the sign. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
3.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for new
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (n/pt), also known as Plus Four Dining, located at 110
E. 7th Street. (CDC-2010-025)
Wyler presented the Staff Report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval for
new restaurant signs. The first is a projecting sign that will read “Plus Four Dining” in the corporate
font and colors with “Landmark Tavern” and the address hanging below on separated tenant panels.
The panels will be hung by chain from an existing black, metal bracket and will have an 8.5-foot
clearance underneath.
Next, the applicant proposes signage on the windows and one door. The window advertise-ment will
consist of an eight-inch frosted band with cutout letters across the bottom of the windows that will read
“serving lunch and dinner”. Adjacent to each band will be the name of the restaurant in the same
colors and font as the hanging sign. Below the eight-inch band will be a smaller band that will provide
additional restaurant details. Together, the two bands will measure ten inches tall. There will also be
an additional vinyl decal on the main entrance door facing 7th Street. The sign will be in the same font
as the other signs but will be entirely white and will have “Main Entrance” in a cut out band below,
directing patrons to the main door.
The applicant also proposes utilizing an existing space where a hanging sign from the previous
business existed. The sign will be hung underneath the canopy at the corner of 7th and Main Streets.
In the same colors and fonts as the other signs, the sign will be diagonally hung by chains allowing
visibility from both streets and will provide just over an eight-foot clearance underneath. Staff
recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance for the projecting, window/door and
hanging signs as proposed by the applicant.
Judith Manriquez, building owner and agent for the restaurant was present for questions. Rapp
questioned the size of the brackets for the hanging sign. Ms. Manriquez explained that the brackets
were slightly different than before, but that the sign face would remain the same as before. There was
discussion of the reasoning for making the main entrance on 7th Street instead of at the door on Main
Street. The owner explained that it was meant to enhance the dining experience by having the
customers come through the hallway. The Commissioners questioned the lack of an A-frame
directional sign to direct customers to the 7th Street entrance and he explained that he did not want
that at this time but would come back if he changed his mind.
The commissioners and Ms. Manriquez discussed the colors of the signs. The printed color was
slightly different than the actual colors to be used. The actual colors were described as white, or an
etched glass color, deep red and purple.
Motion by Firth to approve the Certificate of Design Compliance as proposed by the applicant,
with an encouragement to request and install an A-frame sign for direction. Second by Rapp.
Approved 3 – 0.
4.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for new
signage at Glasscock Addition, Block 2, Lot 45 and part of Lots 3 & 6, also known as the Main Street
Baptist Church Worship Center, located at 111 W. 10th Street.
Wyler presented the Staff Report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval for
a projecting sign to be installed perpendicularly on the 10th Street side of the building. The sign will
read “Main Street Worship Center” in a black Times font and will match other signs currently installed
on the building.
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance for the projecting sign as
proposed by the applicant with the following condition: Staff recommends the applicant raise the
installation point of the sign slightly to comply with Guideline 9.8, providing the required 8-foot
clearance.
Jim Cummins was available for questions. He stated this sign would be the same as the existing sign,
but with changed wording.
Motion by Rapp to approve the Certificate of Design Compliance as submitted, including an eight foot
clearance as required by the Guidelines. Second by Pergl. Approved 3 – 0.
Adjournment. Pergl adjourned the meeting at 4:34 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Thursday, October
28, 2010 at 04:00 PM in the Williamson Conference Rm, located in the Georgetown Municipal Complex at
300-1 Industrial Ave Georgetown, TX 78626
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Members:
Ron Pergl, Chair; Susan Firth; and Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 04:00 PM
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled meeting of the Sign
Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the October 13, 2010 Sign Subcommittee meeting.
2. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at
City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lot 1 (w/pt), also known as Adi’s Italian Village, located at 119 W. 7th
Street. (CDC-2010-023)
3.Adjournment
The Subcommittee may forward these items to the next meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review
Commission for its consideration. That meeting is scheduled for December 9, 2010.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Thursday , October 28, 2010.
Members Present:
Ron Pergl; Susan Firth; and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Pergl at 5:30 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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
regular scheduled meeting of the Sign Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on
the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the October 13, 2010 Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
Motion by Firth to approve the minutes. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 - 0.
2. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lot 1 (w/pt), also known as Adi’s Italian Village,
located at 119 W. 7
th
Street. (CDC-2010-023)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance
approval from HARC for three new restaurant signs. The first is a flush-mounted wall sign
that will read “Adi’s Italian Village” in an Old English font. The sign will be installed on
the north side of the subject building where an existing sign from the previous business is
located. The existing sign will be refaced and placed back in the same location. Colors for
the sign consist of Behr’s Dolphin Green (PMS-3282-C) for the background and burnished
gold lettering for the restaurant name.
The second sign will be installed on the 7
th
Street window and will be installed using a clear
acrylic application. It will also read “Adi’s Italian Village” using the same font and gold
lettering as the flush-mounted wall sign.
The third proposed sign is an A-frame sign to be placed near the corner of 7
th
Street and
Austin Avenue. As shown in the provided picture, the double-sided sign will read “Adi’s”
in a white Cursiva Script font with “Italian Village” below a mural of an Italian village in an
off-white New Roman font.
Based on Design Guidelines 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.11, 9.15, 9.17, and 9.18 staff recommends
approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance for the flush-mounted wall sign, window
sign and A-frame sign as proposed by the applicant with the following conditions:
1)Staff recommends the applicant use the same color of green on the A-frame sign
that is proposed for the flush-mounted wall sign. This will better tie two signs
together.
2)Staff recommends the same font be used on the A-frame sign that is proposed on
both the flush-mounted and windows signs. This will better coordinate the three
signs.
3)Staff recommends a border be placed around the flush-mounted wall sign. This
will provide a more characteristic accent to the sign.
Wyler stated that the applicant did not post notice of this meeting in their window as
required by law and so no action could be taken at this time. The applicant will need to
post the notice for a minimum of 15 days before consideration. The applicant and agent
were notified of this and were not present at the meeting.
Firth asked if the signs could be discussed individually. Pergl through that was a good
idea. Rapp started the conversation by discussing the window sign. She did not approve of
the “gold leaf” that was proposed. An example was given to her of the material and
discussed. It is a reflective gold color but not “gold leaf” as described in the application.
Firth does not approve of the Velcro tape that is attaching the sign to the window. There
should be more permanence to a window sign. All agreed.
The A-frame sign was discussed including the photograph/ mural on the sign. Wyler
stated this was a new concept and outside the scope of the black and white with 3 color
policy that had been applied. The Commissioners agreed that they were okay with the
concept because the picture matches the one in the restaurant. They agreed the photograph
or picture on a sign should still be reviewed on a case by case basis.
The Commissioners suggested the fonts and colors of each sign should be consistent. This
includes the flush mounted wall sign too . They agreed that they liked the idea of the gold
border on the wall sign as suggested by staff .
Commissioners discussed the attachment of the A-frame signs on the Square to the
sidewalk. Wyler responded that City staff was looking into possibilities and what would
work best with the type of sidewalks. Firth asked that Wyler also look into the chef statue,
table and chairs in front of this restaurant.
Pergl announced that since there would be no action on this item at this time, the meeting
would be continued. An agreed upon date by the Commissioners was November 17, 2010
at 4:00 p.m. in the Georgetown Municipal Complex. Staff will make sure that the notice is
placed in the window by Wednesday Nov. 3.
3.Adjournment. Pergl adjourned the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Wednesday, October
13, 2010 at 04:00 PM in the Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300 Industrial Blvd, Georgetown,
Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Members:
Ron Pergl; Dee Rapp; Susan Firth
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 04:00 PM
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the August 26, 2010 Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
2. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 52, Lot 1 (w/pt) & Lot 2 (n/pt), also known as
Prudential Texas Realty, located at 110 E. 8
th
Street. (CDC-2010-021)
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2010-021.pdf
3.Adjournment
The Subcommittee may forward these items to the next meeting of the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission for its consideration. That meeting is scheduled for October
28, 2010.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Wednesday , October 13, 2010.
Members Present:
Ron Pergl; Susan Firth; and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Avery Craft, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Pergl at 4:01 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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
regular scheduled meeting of the Sign Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on
the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the August 26, 2010 Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
Motion by Rapp to approve the minutes. Second by Firth. Approved 3 – 0.
2. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 52, Lot 1 (w/pt) & Lot 2 (n/pt), also known as
Prudential Texas Realty, located at 110 E. 8
th
Street. (CDC-2010-021)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks approval of an A-frame sign to place
in front of the 8
th
Street storefront. The applicant seeks approval from HARC for an A-frame
sign to be placed on the 8
th
Street sidewalk. The Moderate Density Overlay (MDO)
double-sided wooden sign will measure two (2) feet wide by three (3) feet tall and will use
a vinyl application that reads “Prudential Texas Realty” in Olympic Blue in the corporate
font below a red arrow with black lettering reading “Agents on Duty”.
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance as proposed by the
applicant with the following conditions and based on Guidelines 9.11, 9.17 & 9.18: The
A-frame sign is taken indoors after business hours. The same color of green used on the
trim is used for the arrow and phone number. The logos at the bottom of the sign are not
used.
Discussion by the Commissioners. Rapp questioned the lack of use of “designated
corporate colors” on this sign. Rapp and Firth agree that red is not necessary and might
look better as the dark green. Firth stated the blue would be harder to read. Pergl points
out that the image they are reviewing is washed out and the actual blue will be easier to
read.
Firth is concerned about the amount of text and logos on this size of sign. Pergl asked
about the eye-bolt anchor and the possibility of a tripping hazard . Ray Shawley of
Affordable Signs and the owner’s agent, says the anchor will be below the surface, recessed
into the sidewalk. There was discussion of making this a new standard. Wyler will work
with the Streets Department to develop a safe, standard form of anchoring all A-frame
signs and will let the committee and applicants know what that is.
Rapp questioned the size of the A-frame sign. Wyler and Shawley responded that it is the
same size as others in the area. She questioned the width of the sidewalk and it being
narrower than others, along with the placement of the sign taking up too much space on
the sidewalk. Wyler will make sure that the signs on that sidewalk will all line-up with
each other to avoid any hazards on the street or sidewalk, and will make sure they are
visually in line.
Rapp asked Shawley if the applicant would agree to not having the logos on the bottom of
the sign. He suggested that they could have them but in a smaller font. Commissioners
stated they felt the logos made the sign too busy. Shawley stated he was okay going
without the real estate logos and turning the red arrow and phone number to dark green.
He asked about making the Prudential lettering in a darker blue, a “Georgetown Eagle”
blue.
Firth moves to approve the sign as recommended by staff, the A-frame sign is taken indorrs
after business hours, the same color of green used on the trim of the building is used for the
arrow and phone number and that the logos at the bottom of the sign are not used. In
addition, the method to secure the sign when it is displayed will worked out with the city
Streets Department, for a standard method of anchoring. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 - 0
3.Adjournment. Pergl adjourned the meeting at 4:23 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, September 23, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, September 23, 2010 at 06:00
PM in the Council Chambers, located at 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Members:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Gregg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; and Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 06:00 PM
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 August 26
th
, 2010 Regular HARC
meeting.
Regular Agenda:
2. Consideration and possible action on an item forwarded from the August 26
th
, 2010 HARC
meeting on a request for Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior changes at Lost
Addition, Block 14 (se/pt), also known as Dos Salsas, located at 1104 S. Main Street.
(CDC-2010-018)
3. Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on October 28
th
, 2010.
4. Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, September 23, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
September 23, 2010.
Members Present:
Susan Firth; Greg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
Will Moore
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie
Kreger, Principal Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Vice-Chair Rapp called the meeting to order at 6:00 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:
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 August 26
th
, 2010 Regular HARC
meeting.
Rapp asked that the minutes be changed to correct the location of the meeting, change the
name of the applicant’s agent to David Voelter, not John; and Item 3 should indicate that
the television boxes should match the color of the façade, not the front door. Motion by
Pergl to approve the minutes with the noted changes. Second by Johnson. Approved 5 –
0. (Herriott not in yet.)
Regular Agenda:
2. Consideration and possible action on an item forwarded from the August 26
th
, 2010 HARC
meeting on a request for Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior changes at Lost
Addition, Block 14 (se/pt), also known as Dos Salsas, located at 1104 S. Main Street.
(CDC-2010-018)
Wyler presented a memo stating he met with the applicant and the changes that the
commission had requested were made to the original application. The color of the boxes
and columns were to match the newly painted soffit color. And the two television boxes
were moved behind the corner columns.
Firth questioned the need for a CDC application to install the televisions prior to accepting
the boxes. Cook explained that the televisions are considered furniture by staff and not
physically attached to the building, and therefore the regulations did not address their
location or existence. The commission is only to review the placement and color of the
boxes as they were attached to the building and visible from the street . The commission
was not regulating televisions at this time. Firth argued that staff had originally stated the
televisions were equipment. Cook responded that after reviewing them further, it was
determined that the televisions were defined as furniture based on not being attached to
the structure. Firth requested that staff look into regulating televisions in outdoor areas in
the downtown area.
Johnson questioned the action to be taken setting precedence for future outdoor television
applications. Cook responded that depended on the wording of the motion but that it
could be made site specific and not affect other businesses or applications.
There was a discussion of the size of the boxes, including the depth and the amount of the
television screen that would be visible from the street. Once again, Cook reminded the
commissioners that the regulations did not address the televisions, just the boxes, and that
is what they were to take action on.
Motion by Firth to approve the CDC as presented for the color of the façade, stucco and
boxes, along with the location of the boxes as presented, for this location only. And to
direct staff to develop guidelines for outdoor dining areas, including televisions,
equipment, furniture, etc. Second by Moseley. Approved 6 – 0.
3. Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on October 28
th
, 2010.
4. Adjournment. Vice-Chair Rapp adjourned the meeting at 6:28 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Thursday, August 26,
2010 at 05:30 PM in the Williamson Conference Room, Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300
Industrial Blvd, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Members:
Ron Pergl, Chair; Susan Firth and Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 05:30 PM
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled meeting of the Sign
Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the August 11, 2010 Sign Subcommittee meeting.
2. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at
Morrow Addition, Block G (pt), also known as Whitestone Tire Center, located at 114 E. University
Avenue. (CDC-2010-016)
3.Adjournment
The Subcommittee may forward these items to the next meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review
Commission for its consideration. That meeting is scheduled for August 26, 2010.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Thursday , August 26, 2010.
Members Present:
Ron Pergl; Susan Firth; and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Pergl at 5:30 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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
regular scheduled meeting of the Sign Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on
the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the August 11, 2010 Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
Rapp asked that the typographical errors of the previous meeting minutes noted were
changed by Rapp not Firth, page 1, item 1 of the minutes. Motion by Rapp to approve the
minutes with this change. Second by Firth. Approved 3 – 0.
2. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
signage at Morrow Addition, Block G (pt), also known as Whitestone Tire Center, located at
114 E. University Avenue. (CDC-2010-016)
Wyler presented the staff report for the application. The applicant seeks approval of a new
A-frame sign along University Avenue in front of his business, that would read “Official
Vehicle Inspection Station”. The sign would be tied down during the hours of operation of
the business and would be brought indoors at night . Staff recommends approval of the
CDC as proposed by the applicant based on compliance with guidelines 9.11, 9.15 and 9.18.
Mat Canava, the applicant was available for questions. He stated that since making the
application he changed his mind and would actually like to post the signage on the existing
awning. He stated he submitted another application that he would like considered instead.
Wyler reported that he did not have the second application and the commission would
have to vote on the application in front of them. The second application can be reviewed at
the next sign subcommittee meeting.
Firth questioned who made the sign. She was concerned it was a hand painted sign. Mr.
Canava assured her it was professionally done and would consist of a plastic printed
overlay on plywood.
There was discussion about the process of approving one sign and then another to replace
that sign.
Motion by Firth to accept the CDC application for the A-frame sign as originally
submitted. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
Adjournment. Pergl adjourned the meeting at 5:48 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, August 26, 2010 at 06:00 PM
in the Williamson Conference Room, Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300 Industrial Blvd,
Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Members:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Gregg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; and Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 06:00 PM
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 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.)
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (limited to ten (10) minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording secretary before
the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission one time only
for a maximum of three (3) minutes.
This is a continuation of a regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for
consideration and possible action on the following:
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 July 22nd, 2010 Regular HARC meeting and July 29th,
2010 Special HARC meeting.
2. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at Morrow
Addition, Block G (pt), also known as Whitestone Tire Center, located at 114 E. University Avenue.
(CDC-2010-016)
Regular Agenda:
3. Consideration and possible action on a request for Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior changes at Lost
Addition, Block 14 (se/pt), also known as Dos Salsas, located at 1104 S. Main Street. (CDC-2010-018)
4. Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on September 23, 2010.
5. Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
August 26, 2010.
Members Present:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Greg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
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:
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 July 22nd, 2010 Regular HARC meeting and
July 29th, 2010 Special HARC meeting.
Motion by Pergl to approve the July 22 minutes. Second by Johnson. Approved 7 – 0. Motion
by Moseley to approve the July 29 minutes. Second by Rapp. Approved 7 – 0.
2. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at
Morrow Addition, Block G (pt), also known as Whitestone Tire Center, located at 114 E. University
Avenue. (CDC-2010-016)
Pergl stated the Sign Subcommittee reviewed this application and approved it at the earlier
meeting.
Regular Agenda:
3. Consideration and possible action on a request for Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior
changes at Lost Addition, Block 14 (se/pt), also known as Dos Salsas, located at 1104 S. Main Street.
(CDC-2010-018)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC)
approval for exterior changes to the restaurant, including the installation and staining of the canopy
soffit and the addition of two television enclosures. Staff recommends approval of the wood paneling,
stain colors and two painted television cases, as proposed by the applicant based on Guidelines 5.9,
8.4 & 8.22.
Matt Williams and John Voelter were available for questions as the applicant’s agents.
Firth began the questions with asking about the chosen color and whether it matches the front door
color. She stated she doesn’t think it is the same. (Greg Herriott came in at 6:10.) Williams explained
that he felt it was close and that the yellow was supposed to match the existing stucco upper columns.
Rapp suggested repainting the upper columns to match the soffit if it turns out the paint does not
match and allowing staff to make that determination.
Rapp questioned setting a precedent with the acceptance of the outdoor televisions. There was
further discussion of the appropriateness of the outdoor televisions in the historic district and whether
it could be considered signage if it was visible from the street. Voelter pointed out that this was a
unique situation in that this was the only restaurant in the district with an outdoor seating area visible
from the street. Johnson did not want to approve the exterior televisions based on the fact that they
are not listed in the Downtown Guidelines.
Rapp continued the discussion of setting a precedence but thinks the television enclosure boxes are
good in minimizing the effect of the televisions. Moore explained that each case is unique and he
agreed with Voelter that this is a special case. Voelter agreed he does not want to see televisions
across the square but that this one is set back far enough as to not be obtrusive.
Motion by Johnson to approve Item 2 on the applicant’s request letter. Item 2 would provide a
new stain finish on the existing exterior soffit. The proposed “field” color is Bright Tamra DP 528 and
proposed color for the center “accent” area is Royal Hayden DP 537. Second by Firth. Approved 7
– 0.
The televisions were discussed again and whether they were to be considered signage or not. Wyler
provided that if the television were on a regular broadcast station that it was not considered signage,
but that if the television was showing advertisement for the business in which they were located and
placed so that the television was visible from the street, then it would be considered a sign.
Moseley was more concerned about the location of the boxes. Herriott suggested moving the location
of the television boxes to be placed behind the existing columns, minimizing the effect and visibility
from the street. Voelter and Williams agreed that would be a possibility. They requested being able to
work with staff on the details.
Motion by Johnson to table Item 1 of the application, to install two televisions with enclosures on the
outside patio, until next month’s regular meeting to allow staff and the applicant the opportunity to
address the televisions and their locations. Second by Moseley. Pergl pointed out that it would be
allowed to approve the televisions in this unique situation without setting a precedent. Vote:
Approved 7 – 0.
4. Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on September 23, 2010.
5. Adjournment. Chair Moore adjourned the meeting at 6:44 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Wednesday, August
11, 2010 at 04:00 PM in the Georgetown Municipal Complex, Conference Room A, located at 300-1
Industrial Ave, Georgetown, TX 78626
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Members:
Ron Pergl, Chair; Susan Firth and Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 04:00 PM
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled meeting of the Sign
Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the July 7, 2010, Sign Subcommittee Special
meeting and July 14, 2010 Sign Subcommittee regularly scheduled meetings.
2. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at
City of Georgetown, Block 51, Lots 6 – 8 (pts), to be known as Garden Path Florist and Gifts, located
at 817 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2010-017)
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2010-017.pdf
3.Adjournment
The Subcommittee may forward these items to the next meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review
Commission for its consideration. That meeting is scheduled for August 26, 2010.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Wednesday , August 11, 2010.
Members Present:
Susan Firth; and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
Ron Pergl
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Rapp at 4:03 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled meeting of the Sign
Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the July 7, 2010, Sign Subcommittee Special
meeting and July 14, 2010 Sign Subcommittee regularly scheduled meeting.
Firth pointed out the two typographical errors in the July 14th minutes. Firth moves to approve
the minutes as corrected. Second by Rapp. Approved 2 - 0.
2.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at
City of Georgetown, Block 51, Lots 6 – 8 (pts), to be known as Garden Path Florist and Gifts, located
at 817 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2010-017)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks approval of a flush-mounted wall sign, a
projecting sign, an A-frame sign and language on the storefront windows and door. Color samples
and pictures were given to the commissioners in their packet. Wyler reported that after the application
was filed, the owner noticed that the street light outside the building may be enough light for the signs
and that they may not need the additional requested lighting. Staff recommends approval of the
application based on compliance with the Guidelines 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, 9.11, 9.15, 9.17, 9.18 and 9.19.
Paula Miller, the tenant/ applicant was available for discussion. Firth questioned the size of the
bracket used in the picture to hang the flush-mounted wall sign. She noted it extended beyond the
sign and was unattractive. Ms. Miller agreed and said that it would be cut down or matched to the size
of the sign and the stucco repaired if needed.
Firth further commented that she would like to give the tenant the option of changing the wording on
the sign if Pepper Passion, the other tenant in the lease space, moves out. There was a discussion of
colors being used. It was determined that the colors of the poppy flower would by considered one
color, red. And that hunter green, gold black and white would make the other colors compliant with
the three colors, plus black and white policy.
Firth requested that the A-frame sign say “Open” instead of “Now Open”. Rapp explained that the
A-frame sign would need to come in every night and should be anchored or weighed down when on
the sidewalk.
Motion by Firth to approve the CDC with the following conditions: 1. The co-tenant sign
lettering can be changed with staff approval, color and shape to remain the same; 2. The
flush-mounted sign brackets must be adjusted to not show and any damaged stucco must be
touched-up; 3. The A-frame sign should be changed to say “Open” with the arrow, but must be
weighted or anchored in a fashion as designed by the sign maker and with staff approval.
Second by Rapp. Approved 2 – 0.
3.Adjournment
Rapp adjourned the meeting at 4:32 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Called Meeting
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Called Meeting will meet on Thursday, July 29,
2010 at 06:00 PM in the Council Chambers, located at 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Called Meeting Members:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Gregg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; and Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 06:00 PM
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 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.)
This is a continuation of a regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review
Commission for consideration and possible action on the following:
Regular Agenda:
1.Discussion and possible action on an item forwarded from the July 22, 2010 Regular HARC meeting
regarding an amendment to the Tamiro Plaza Master Sign Plan.
2.Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, July 22, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 06:00 PM in
the Council Chambers, located at 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Members:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Gregg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; and Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 06:00 PM
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 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.)
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (limited to ten (10) minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording
secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the
Commission one time only for a maximum of three (3) minutes.
This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration
and possible action on the following:
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 June 24, 2010.
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.
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)
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2010-015.pdf
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.
5.Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, July 22, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
July 22, 2010.
Members Present:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Greg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; and Ron Pergl.
Members Absent:
Dee Rapp
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie
Kreger, Principal Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
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. 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.
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.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Wednesday, July 14,
2010 at 04:00 PM in the Conference Room A, Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300-1 Industrial
Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Members:
Ron Pergle, Chair; Susan Firth and Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 04:00 PM
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled meeting of the Sign
Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the April 8, 2010, Sign Subcommittee meeting.
2. Discussion and possible action on an amendment to the Tamiro Plaza Master Sign Plan, continued
from the July 7, 2010 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting. (CDC-2010-013 / CDC-2008-034)
3.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for window
signage at Sparks Addition, Block 1, Lot 7, also known as Faith Impact Church, located at 1905 S.
Austin Avenue, Suite 102. (CDC-2010-014)
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2010-014.pdf
4.Adjournment
The Subcommittee may forward these items to the next meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review
Commission for its consideration. That meeting is scheduled for July 22, 2010.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Wednesday , July 14, 2010.
Members Present:
Ron Pergl, Chair; Susan Firth; and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie
Kreger, Principal Planner and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Pergl at 4:15 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled meeting of the Sign
Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the June 9, 2010, Sign Subcommittee meeting.
Firth noted two corrections to be made, the first page should indicate June 9 was a Wednesday
meeting, not a Thursday. And on page 2, first line, should read, “out of proportion”. Motion by
Firth to approve the minutes as corrected. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
2.Discussion and possible action on an amendment to the Tamiro Plaza Master Sign Plan, continued
from the July 7, 2010 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting. (CDC-2010-013 / CDC-2008-034)
Gordon Baker, the applicant’s agent, distributed a new Master Sign Plan proposal packet. He stated
he added the notes as previously requested and added the balcony panels with colors and
dimensions, asking for only four under the balcony signs.
The Commissioners clarified what was being discussed and decided to deliberate the package in
segments as presented. The first item discussed ws the signage for the northwest corner , first floor
tenant. Mr. Choi is proposing that if and when the present tenant moves out, the same type of
signage will not be replaced. It is proposed to be a frieze sign only. There will not be any internally
lit or backlit signage on the building. Commissioners and applicant discussed that.
Motion was made by Rapp that the recommendation be made to the Commission that
excepting existing signage, there is to be no future internally lit or back-lit signage
anywhere on exterior of the building. Second by Pergl. Approved 3 – 0.
Motion by Rapp that with the exception of the existing signage, there will not be any
logos allowed on the building, lit or unlit. Second by Pergl. Approved 3 – 0.
There was discussion of the current blade sign on the building . Mr. Choi expressed that he did not
like the internal illumination of that sign. There was discussion of future tenant needs for that space
and signage.
Motion by Rapp to recommend to the Commission that the existing blade sign shall
remain in the same location, retain the same colors and dimensions and shall be utilized
only for current or future restaurant tenants. If there is a new tenant, the updated sign
shall not be internally illuminated. If there is a new tenant that is not a restaurant, the
blade sign will be taken down. Second by Pergl. Approved 3-0.
The monument sign was discussed and the possibility of allowing more tenant names on the sign .
Mr. Choi will work this out with the tenants through the lease agreements. There was no change
made to the original proposal of the monument sign so no approval was needed for a
recommendation to the Commission. The Master Sign Plan will use the original language .
Motion by Firth to retain the original monument sign plan as approved in the original
Master Sign Plan. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
The four proposed balcony frieze signs were discussed . Rapp suggested adding in two more, for a
total of six additional signs, in case more tenants came forth with requests. Firth stated she still
opposes any additional signage, stating she did not feel it was appropriate for downtown. Baker
discussed this with the Commissioners, stating he believes that the Downtown Guidelines do not
regulate signage to be like it was historically, but to be approved and installed based on what the
citizens want Georgetown to look like now and in the future. Firth reiterated that she felt the signs
were not locational based on the location of the tenants in the building.
Motion by Rapp to recommend the addition of balcony frieze signs as presented, but to
increase the number of signs allowed from four to six, with the additional two facing the
6th Street side of the building for future tenants. Second by Ron. Approved 2 – 1. (Firth
opposed.)
3.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for window
signage at Sparks Addition, Block 1, Lot 7, also known as Faith Impact Church, located at 1905 S.
Austin Avenue, Suite 102. (CDC-2010-014)
The applicant was present but had to leave prior to this item due to an appointment . Wyler
presented the application. The applicant seeks approval for window signage for the north side of the
structure, which faces the parking lot. The signage is currently installed on three north -facing
windows and requires Certificate of Design Compliance to bring the church into compliance with the
UDC. By definition, the messages on all three subject windos are considered signage and exceed the
maximum allowance. Staff suggests reducing the size of the signage to the left of the entrance doors
to meet the Guideline 9.6, and for HARC to consider the purpose, location and style of the signage in
the transom windows when making their decision. The applicant is willing to reduce the lettering on
the window to the left of the door to become compliant with the 30% rule, but is asking to allow the
transom windows to be covered at 100%.
Commissioners discussed the options available to the church. Pergl stated the transom signage
looked like frosted glass, not like a sign. He could see allowing that to remain in place. Firth
concurred.
Motion by Firth to approve the window signage as requested, allowing the two transom
windows to remain as is with 100% coverage, and the signage on the window to the left
of the entrance must be reduced to 30%. Any other signage requests for the entrance
doors must come back to the Commission. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
4.Adjournment. Pergl adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m.
The Subcommittee is forwarding Item 2recommendations to the next meeting of the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission for its consideration. That meeting is scheduled for July 22, 2010.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee and possible
attendance by other HARC members
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee and possible attendance by other
HARC members will meet on Wednesday, July 7, 2010 at 04:00 PM in the Georgetown Municipal
Complex, Williamson Conference Room located at 300 Industrial Blvd, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee and possible attendance by other
HARC members Members:
Ron Pergl, Susan Firth and Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 04:00 PM
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 Special Meeting of the Sign Subcommittee , for
consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Discussion and possible action on an item forwarded from the June 24, 2010 Regular HARC meeting
regarding 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) This item will
be returned with a recommendation to the regular Commission meeting on July 22, 2010.
2.Adjournment.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee and possible
attendance by other HARC members
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee and possible attendance by other
HARC members of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Wednesday , July 7, 2010.
Members Present:
Ron Pergl, Chair; Susan Firth; and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie
Kreger, Principal Planner and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Pergl at 4:06 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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
regular scheduled meeting of the Sign Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on
the following:
1.Discussion and possible action on an item forwarded from the June 24, 2010 Regular HARC
meeting regarding an amendment to the Tamiro Plaza Master Sign Plan.
Gordon Baker, applicant, opened the conversation. He stated that he and Mr. Choi looked
at several ideas and other city sign ordinances trying to develop an idea for signage to
complete the Master Sign Plan for Tamiro Plaza. They were trying to balance the need of
the tenants with the type of signs that everyone would be comfortable with on the building.
They looked at first floor friezes, as well as 2
nd
and 3
rd
floor friezes and balconies. The
proposal is to now use the frieze below the 2
nd
floor balconies in only four locations. These
would be 10’ x 80’ aluminum panels painted to match the building color, with dark green
lettering. The idea is to architecturally place a sign where you would normally place a sign
on this building.
Rapp questioned the tenants on the 3
rd
floor not having any signs to correspond to those
tenants. Baker explained that they did not want or need the signs to match the location of
the tenants in the building and that not all tenants would want signage on the exterior of
the building. He explained that with the size of the building, regulations would allow them
300 square feet of signage and they are only requesting a total of 175 square feet.
Rapp questioned whether the first floor friezes would still be used. Baker and Francisco
Choi, owner of the building, explained that only the tenants that were on the first floor
would be using the first floor friezes and those would be a limited number.
Firth expressed continued concern that the tenant signs on the building did not match the
location of the tenant in the building and felt it was confusing for visitors.
Rapp asked to confirm that the other parts of the Master Sign Plan had been previously
approved and that only the frieze signage was still open for discussion. Baker confirmed
that and explained that also the Master Sign Plan explained that if the Merrill Lynch tenant
space was re-leased to another tenant, the lit sign would not be replaced by another lit sign.
And if the Silver and Stone tenant space was re-leased by another restaurant tenant, the
blade sign would remain but not be internally lit , and if the restaurant was just another
tenant space, the blade sign would be taken down and not replaced. Mr. Choi apologized
for these signs, stating he did not like the way they looked on his building either.
Rapp stated that is in the past and now look to the future signs. Baker explained any tenant
of Tamiro Plaza must follow the Master Sign Plan and any application for a sign permit, or
banner permit , must be signed and approved by Mr. Choi prior to the application being
filed. Mr. Choi is only asking for 4 additional signs, on the friezes, at this time.
Firth questioned how many tenants were currently in the building and how Choi decided
who would get the exterior signage. She expressed a concern with the number of tenants
that are now allowed signage and the ones that were to receive signage but not having
signage indicating the location of their business in the building. Baker explained that there
is a directory listing inside the building that gives the floor and location of each tenant, and
that the monument sign lists all the tenants that wanted to be on the sign. Pergl gave an
example of the Chase Bank building in downtown Austin. He says the Chase name is lit on
the top of the building, but everyone knows that the bank is the entire first floor of the
building. No one expects the bank to be on the top floor. He does not see this as a
disadvantage for Chase, but an opportunity for Chase to have its own identity on the
building. This is how he views the tenant signage on Tamiro Plaza.
Firth questioned how Choi would address additional tenants wanting to be on the
monument sign. Choi explained that would be addressed in future lease agreements, only
a certain number of tenants were allowed to have their name on the monument sign .
Firth stated she was still struggling with thinking that City Council did not want amymore
signage on this building. Cook explained that this was an idea that was stated, but the
motion for action was for Mr. Choi to work with HARC for an approved Master Sign Plan
before any other signs could be placed on the building .
There was discussion among the commissioners about the next steps. The Sign
Subcommittee must make a recommendation back to the entire Commission. Firth stated
she felt this proposal was better than the one made to the regular commission, but was still
not satisfied with the tenant signage not correlating with the location of the tenants and the
extra signage as proposed.
Rapp stated she felt the proposal was much better from a HARC and Design Guidelines
perspective, but was concerned about the strong possibility of additional tenants making
requests beyond the Master Sign Plan. Cook explained that tenants or Mr. Choi could
make application to amend the Master Sign Plan at anytime.
Rapp made a motion to table the final decision made by the Sign Subcommittee in
reference to the recommendation to be made to the Commission, until the next Sign
Subcommittee meeting of July 14, 4:00, to give the subcommittee time to review the new
proposals with the Guidelines. Second by Firth. Approved 3 -0.
2.Adjournment. Pergl adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, June 24, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, June 24, 2010 at 06:00 PM in
the Council Chambers, located at 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Members:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Gregg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; and Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 06:00 PM
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 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.)
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (limited to ten (10) minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording
secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the
Commission one time only for a maximum of three (3) minutes.
This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration
and possible action on the following:
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.
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)
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2009-018.pdf
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)
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2010-011.pdf
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) http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2010-013.pdf
5.Discussion and possible action on the temporary banner approval process in the Downtown and Old
Town Overlays.
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.
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/Bylaw.revision.pdf
7.Reminder that there is a Sign Subcommittee meeting on Wednesday, July 9th and that the next regular
HARC meeting will be held on Thursday, July 22nd.
8.Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, June 24, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
June 24, 2010.
Members Present:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Greg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie
Kreger, Principal Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
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 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)
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 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. Baker 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 had 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.
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 applicants 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 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.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Wednesday, June 9, 2010 at 04:00 PM in
the Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300 Industrial Blvd, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Members:
Ron Pergl; Dee Rapp; Susan Firth
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 04:00 PM
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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
regular scheduled meeting of the Sign Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on
the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the May 12, 2010, Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
2.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for a
monument sign at Dalrymple Addition, Block G (ne/pt), to be known as Dunham Law Firm,
P.C., located at 402 W. University Avenue. (CDC-2010-012). For more information on this
item, click here: http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2010-012.pdf
3.Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Wednesday
, June 9, 2010.
Members Present:
Ron Pergl, Chair; Susan Firth; and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Pergl at 4:01 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled meeting of the Sign
Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the May 12, 2010, Sign Subcommittee meeting.
Rapp requested that the comment be inserted in Item 3, fourth paragraph that Mr. Moran was given
the option to come back to the committee with color options for the sign instead of choosing black for
the lettering on the sign.
Motion by Firth to approve the minutes as read. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
2.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for a monument
sign at Dalrymple Addition, Block G (ne/pt), to be known as Dunham Law Firm, P.C., located at 402
W. University Avenue. (CDC-2010-012).
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant, Jeff Casey of the Dunham Law Firm, seeks approval
to install a double-sided monument sign along University Avenue. He gave the exact dimensions and
colors were presented in the commissioner packets. Staff recommends approval of the CDC based on
the Design Guidelines9.2, 9.3, 9.14, 9.15, 9.17, 9.18, and 9.19.
Firth questioned the number of tenants in the building and any possible sharing of the sign by future
tenants. Mr. Casey stated there is only one tenant in the main building that will be listed on the sign
with no additional tenants expected . He mentioned that there was another tenant on the property
that was located in a building on the back of the property and that they were using another sign on
the side of the corner lot.
Firth then asked why the word Lawyers was larger than the name of the firm on the sign. Casey
explained that this was the choice of the tenants. Wyler explained that the Commissioners were not
reviewing the content of the sign, only the sign itself.
Rapp questioned the size of the sign and stated it appears our of proportion to the yard in front of
the office. She also questioned the site line from Forest Street turning onto University Ave. Wyler
responded that the size of the sign is in compliance with the Guidelines and that he ran the site
triangle calculations and that the sign location meets those requirements. Mr. Casey stated they
would put the sign wherever needed to be to meet the regulations. Pergl was concerned about the
number of feet the sign is located from Forest Street. Wyler suggested the commissioners can
include sign location measurements in the motion to address site line concerns.
Rapp wanted to discuss possibly lowering the height of the sign by removing part of the brick along
the bottom of the sign. Mr. Casey agreed that the sign could be shortened, but that the owner wants
to allow for landscaping at the bottom of the sign. There was a discussion of the size of the bricks
and it was established that two rows of bricks would equal approximately six inches. It was agreed
this would be a good compromise and make the sign more consistent with the height of the other
recently approved monument signs on University Avenue.
Pergl requested that the location of the lights be checked to insure that the light would not be
directed so as to shine in the oncoming traffic’s eyes from University. Wyler stated the lighting would
be inspected for compliance with the Unified Development Code’s regulations regarding lighting.
Motion by Rapp to accept the sign colors and details with the exception that the base be lowered by
two brick courses, approximately six inches, and that the lights be installed per the drawing and that
the distance of the sign from Forest Street be approximately 25 feet, or to work with staff to assure
compliance. Second by Pergl. Approved 3 – 0.
3.Adjournment
Chair Pergl adjourned the meeting at 4: 25 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 06:00 PM in
the Council Chambers, located at 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Members:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Gregg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; and Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 06:00 PM
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 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.)
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (limited to ten (10) minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the
recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be
permitted to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three (3) minutes.
This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for
consideration and possible action on the following:
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 April 22, 2010.
Regular Agenda:
2 Certificate of Design Compliance for site layout and conceptual elevation approval, 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)
3.Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on June 24, 2010 and that
there will be a HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting on W ednesday, June 9, 2010.
4.Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
May 27, 2010.
Members Present:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Greg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; David Munk,
Development Engineer; Mike Elabarger, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Moore called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration
and possible action on the following:
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 April 22, 2010.
Motion by Johnson to approve the minutes as presented. Second by Pergl. Approved 7 -0.
Regular Agenda:
2 Certificate of Design Compliance for site layout and conceptual elevation approval, 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 site layout and conceptual elevation approval
on a proposed mixed-use, three-story infill project. Final site layout, elevation, and material approvals
will come at a later time.
Centro Partners, LLC and HPD Cambridge, Inc., together are proposing a multi-story, mixed-use infill
project for the western half of Block 24, along South Austin Avenue. On March 25, 2010, the two
groups came before HARC to discuss the project and get feedback from both the Commission and
the public before making any official applications to the City. After taking the comments into
consideration, working with City staff, and addressing any concerns or issues, the applicants now
seek HARC approval of the site layout, including the structure’s footprint and parking, and the overall
location relative to adjacent residential structures.
Additionally, in the past few weeks, staff has been working with the applicant on site plan review to
ensure what is presented to the Commission is compliant with City regulations. Attached to this report
is a site layout that has gone through a staff review and, although not final, should require minimal
changes. Only upon final HARC approval of the overall project, will the site plan be finalized and
approved. A Courthouse View Protection Height Determination application has been submitted to
staff and is being reviewed. A final determination will be presented to HARC when the structure’s
elevation goes for final approval.
Currently, the applicant is seeking HARC approval for the overall footprint of the building and site
layout in addition to conceptual approval of the building’s appearance. The developer, after reviewing
the Unified Development Code, Downtown Design Guidelines, and Downtown Master Plan, is
proposing a three-story, mixed-use structure that they believe respects both the look of Downtown and
the economic vision of the City. The upper two stories will house 35 one and two bedroom units. The
ground floor will consist of the 39 required on-site parking spaces, a residential common area, 1,700
square feet of retail space, and 3,700 square feet of restaurant space. This is in addition to required
landscaping and outdoor covered seating to the east of the restaurant and common space.
The reason for splitting the approval up into an initial approval, followed by a final approval that will
occur further down the road, is to give the applicant assurance that the layout of the property and
conceptual look of the building is favored and that HARC has no issues with either before marketing
begins and final plans are developed. HARC is approving just the footprint of the building and on-site
features, such as location of outdoor seating space, parking, and utility locations, in addition to a
conceptual approval of the building’s appearance. Once project development is finalized, they will
come back to HARC for final approval on all remaining items. This will include final elevation approval
and any changes that may occur to the property layout.
Staff recommends approval of the site layout and conceptual elevation of the project, as proposed by
the applicant, with the consideration that the developer look into reducing the size of the modules,
should HARC find they are too large and if reducing the size is feasible for the developer. This
recommendation for approval is specific only to the layout of the property, including the building’s
footprint, and a conceptual approval of the elevation. The developer has worked closely with staff in
the past month to ensure all details are as close to final as possible, before bringing the item to the
Commission. As previously mentioned, this initial approval will make way for the next step on the
developer’s timeline. Once this has been completed, they will come back to the Commission for final
site and structural approval.
Chair Moore invited anyone that wishes to speak to complete the Speaker Registration Sheet and
submit it to the Recording Secretary. Commissioners were invited to begin their questions and
comments.
Moseley questioned the amount of parking required and whether that was enough for both the
residences and the restaurant. Wyler responded that 39 is the calculated requirement based on the
UDC requirements of the Mixed-Use Downtown Zoning District. There was discussion of whether
parking would be allowed in the private driveway and other options that would be available. Wyler
responded that the driveway at the front door was for loading and unloading only, not parking. Pergl
questioned the delivery of items for the building and restaurant, since there is not a designated loading
area. Dave Sanders, the applicant, responded that they planned to use the 5th Street parking spaces
or the main entry’s driveway for deliveries. He felt this was enough.
Rapp questioned the location of the trash pick-up, located in the middle of the lot. Wyler explained
that this was the only location that had been available based on other features of the site. Firth
pointed out that the doors used for the screening do not always stay closed and that the sight and
smells of the trash should not be visible to all the neighbors and patrons. They suggested looking for
other options. Mr. Sanders explained that they had looked at other options and were planning a
smaller dumpster that would have daily pick-up, hopefully avoiding the smells and overflow. He
explained that the townhome residents behind the property also received trash pick-up from the rear
access..
Moore asked Sanders if they had met with the neighbors. Sanders responded that they had met with
three of the eight neighbors and wanted to continue working with them. He understands their anxiety
about their views being blocked and rear access being reduced.
Sanders was asked to describe the articulation used on the building. Sanders responded that at the
request of the commission the dome has been removed from the west side of the building and they
removed the red sculpture. They have inserted plantings where they could in the recesses of the
building, giving a dimensional change as well as a color change at ground level. The south elevation
has been narrowed for fire truck access to the driveway. The east side elevation was provided in the
packet to show what would be seen from the townhomes.
Firth noted she disagrees with the landscaping elevation on the Austin Avenue elevation, stating the
amount of the landscaping being shown would not fit in that space. Sanders disagreed. He stated he
plans to work with the Urban Forester to place as many trees and plants as possible to replace the
existing stressed and sick trees that are on the lot.
Pergl expressed concern regarding the base floor being all one face, with no offsets on the Austin
Avenue side. He suggested breaking the plane. Moseley stated he thinks the building “reads well”
but that he does not believe it should be built on Austin Avenue, but in Austin. He likes the proportions
of the building, but not the proportions of this building compared with others in Georgetown.
Johnson and Herriott expressed agreement with Pergl, suggesting varied windows, recessed doors,
more articulation on the Austin Avenue (west) side of the building.
Moore opened the Public Hearing:
Andrew and Mandy Solin, 406 S. Main Street, feel the width of the alley is not sufficient to hold all the
traffic that will be generated by this development. They also complained that the parking garage will
have two 25’ openings, only 25’ from their home. They feel this will be a semi-public space right at the
back of their property that will have lights overflowing onto their property all night long. They are
concerned about the smell of garbage. And their main concern is the 40’ high garage wall that will be
at the corner of 4th Street and the access driveway, stating the entire building is out-of-scale for the
size and location of the lot.
Moore closed the Public Hearing as there were not any more citizens coming forth.
Rapp asked for confirmation that there will not be any long term parking allowed in the driveway. That
was confirmed by both Mr. Sanders and staff who explained it will most likely be posted or painted as
a fire lane, still to be determined.
Moore asked the developer to address the concern of the garage lighting. Sanders explained the
lighting will be recessed and enclosed in the garage. He stated most people are more concerned
about an open parking lot and those lights, not the enclosed variety.
Firth explained she is still concerned about the scale of the building and compares it to the two story
structure that will be built across Austin Avenue.
Elizabeth Cook asked the Chair to recess the regular meeting to convene an Executive Session.
Chair Moore recessed to Executive Session at 7:41 p.m.
Executive Session was adjourned and the Regular Session was reconvened at 7:56 p.m.
Chair Moore opened the Site Plan discussion and explained possible actions that can be taken.
Rapp stated in general she likes the site plan, but was not sold on the trash enclosure location, citing
the townhome owners have valid concerns over the noise of the pick-up, sight and smells. Pergl
stated a dedicated loading area is still needed outside the fire lane. There was discussion of possibly
putting the loading zone on 5th Street.
Motion by Moseley to approve the footprint of the building and on-site features with the
following exceptions: location of the trash, the aspect of the loading zone, directing the
developer to work with staff to develop a more acceptable solution to those two features as
indicated on this site plan. And based on their work with staff, we would like it returned to the
commissioners for approval. Second by Johnson. Approved 7 – 0.
Commissioners then sought clarification of the conceptual elevation and what is included in their
approval. Wyler explains that the conceptual elevation includes articulation and the look of the
building, not specific details. If the commission wants specific items changed, they need to make it
part of the motion.
Rapp questioned the height elevation of the building. It is listed as 39 ½’ from grade but the grade is
to be lowered almost two feet in some places. What is the amount of latitude that will be allowed for
the height of the building? Sanders responded that in some places, the average height of the grade is
used, but in Georgetown, the absolute worst/ highest grade is used to calculate the height of the
building. They went to the northwest corner of the lot and have shaved it down about a foot and a
half. Then they went up almost 40 feet from there, the rest of the lot is higher so many parts of the
building will be considerably less than 40 feet. If there were leeway given, Sanders would like to add
back to the parapets on the north side of the building. There was discussion of the height of Tamiro
Plaza (approximately 54 feet) compared to this building.
Motion by Pergl to approve the conceptual appearance of the building with the caveat that we
reserve the right to approval at a subsequent meeting of HARC for building penetrations,
building windows, fenestration areas and articulation of the building façade, along with more
detail information on the upper floors and roof details and any other information on materials
that will be provided. Second by Herriott.
Pergl amends the motion to include the reduction of the 60’ runs on the elevations to 30’
recommendations. Second by Herriott. Sanders asks for clarification, taking away part of the
building or using techniques to break up the run? Pergl understands that they can use the techniques
already in place, not reduce the square footage of the building.
Moore brings up the north end of the alley/ access easement and requests adding elements to break
up the massiveness of the wall. Sanders says they can add elements to break up the effect of the
wall on the east side townhomes.
Vote on the amendment, approved 7 – 0. Vote on the original motion, 6 -1, Moseley opposed.
Chair Moore appreciated the comments and the residents that have voiced their concerns.
3.Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on June 24, 2010 and that there will be
a HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting on Wednesday, June 9, 2010.
4.Adjournment
Chair Moore adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Wednesday, May 12,
2010 at 04:00 PM in the Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300 Industrial Blvd, Georgetown,
Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Members:
Ron Pergl; Dee Rapp; Susan Firth
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 04:00 PM
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled meeting of the Sign
Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the April 8, 2010, Sign Subcommittee meeting.
2.Consideration and possible action to elect a Chair and Secretary for the 2010-2011 Historic and
Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee.
3.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for a
monument sign at Sparks Addition, Block 1, Lot 7, also known as Faith Impact Church, located at
1905 S. Austin Avenue, Suite 102. (CDC-2010-010)
4.Adjournment
The Subcommittee may forward these items to the next meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review
Commission for its consideration. That meeting is scheduled for May 27, 2010.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Wednesday , May 12, 2010.
Members Present:
Susan Firth, Ron Pergl and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Mike Elabarger, Planner III
and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Pergl at 4:01 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled meeting of the Sign
Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the April 8, 2010, Sign Subcommittee meeting.
Motion by Pergl to accept the minutes as presented. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
2.Consideration and possible action to elect a Chair and Secretary for the 2010-2011 Historic and
Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee.
Rapp nominated Ron Pergl as Chair of the Sign Subcommittee. Second by Susan. Pergl accepted
nomination, approved 3 – 0.
Firth nominates Dee Rapp as Secretary for the Sign Subcommittee. Second by Pergl. Rapp
accepted the nomination, approved 3 – 0.
3.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for a
monument sign at Sparks Addition, Block 1, Lot 7, also known as Faith Impact Church, located at
1905 S. Austin Avenue, Suite 102. (CDC-2010-010)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting to replace a sign front on an existing
monument sign. The color swatches were shown and staff recommended approval based on
compliance with Design Guidelines 9.2, 9.3, 9.14, 9.15, 9.17 and 9.18.
The applicant, Charles Moran of Faith Impact Church was present and answered questions from the
commissioners. Firth questioned whether Curves, the other tenant in the building would also be
applying for a monument sign. The answer was no, they would not be allowed as a second
monument sign and they already have their maximum amount of allowable signage. Pergl confirmed
they were replacing only the sign face. Firth questioned why the sign lettering color was different than
that existing on the door. It was discussed that the sign on the door does not have HARC approval
and will need to come back as a separate application. The door signage could not be added to this
application since it was not published that way for the Public Hearing. Moran stated he didn’t realize
the colors needed to match or that he was supposed to bring in the door signage for approval. He
requested something be approved so he could put signage up for the church.
Firth recommends matching the lettering colors. Moran stated he would rather go with blue, instead of
black like on the door. Rapp and Firth expressed concern over the vibrancy of the green being used
on a sign that was on a gateway into the historic district. Firth suggested the bottom banner be black
with white lettering, stating the green banner was difficult to read and too bright. Moran stated he
would rather have a blue banner with white lettering. Kreger pulled the file from the existing approved
monument sign and it showed that the existing banner was blue with white lettering, so this proposed
change would not be a change from the existing sign face.
Motion by Firth to approve the CDC for replacement of the sign face on the monument sign, with the
green banner changed to a black banner with white letters across the bottom of the sign. Second by
Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
4.Adjournment. Chair Pergl adjourned the meeting at 4:27 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, April 22, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 06:00 PM in
the Council Chambers, located at 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Members:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Gregg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; and Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 06:00 PM
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 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.)
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (limited to ten (10) minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording
secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the
Commission one time only for a maximum of three (3) minutes.
This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration
and possible action on the following:
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 March 25, 2010.
Regular Agenda:
2 Certificate of Design Compliance for the relocation of an accessory structure in the Old Town Overlay
District, for Lost Addition, Block 75, located at 1256 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2010-008)
3.Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition of an accessory structure in the Old Town Historic
Overlay District, for Clamp’s Addition Revised, Block B (sw/pt), located at 601 E. 8th Street.
(CDC-2010-009)
4.Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on May 27, 2010.
5.Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, April 22, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
April 22, 2010.
Members Present:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Greg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie
Kreger, Principal Planner; John Hale, Code Enforcement Officer; Julie McCartney, Chief Code
Enforcement Officer and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Moore called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
(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.)
This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration
and possible action on the following:
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 March 25, 2010.
Motion by Johnson to approve the minutes as presented. Second by Rapp. Approved 5 – 0.
Regular Agenda:
2 Certificate of Design Compliance for the relocation of an accessory structure in the Old Town Overlay
District, for Lost Addition, Block 75, located at 1256 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2010-008)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks approval to relocate an accessory structure to a
neighboring property that is owned by the same person, making way for a new driveway that will lead
to a new accessory structure. The owner has provided pictures of the garage that was constructed in
1954 and has shown that the building is in poor condition but movable. Staff recommends approval
based on compliance with Design Guideline 7.13.
Commissioners made comments and asked questions. Rapp confirmed that the new UDC changes
being discussed at the City Council level would not affect this property. There was discussion of the
exact proposed location of the garage. It is to be moved approximately 130 feet directly west, to the
adjacent property. Johnson confirmed that the new location would still comply with rear and side
setbacks. Wyler confirmed.
Pergl arrived on the dais.
Motion by Johnson to approve the CDC as presented. Second by Rapp.
Moore asked the applicant if he had any comments. He stated he did not.
Motion approved by 6 – 0 vote.
3.Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition of an accessory structure in the Old Town Historic
Overlay District, for Clamp’s Addition Revised, Block B (sw/pt), located at 601 E. 8th Street.
(CDC-2010-009)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval for the demolition of a
detached garage that is no longer standing and has been partially rebuilt. In early February, 2010, the
agent came into the Permitting and Planning offices and discussed procedures for either demolishing
or renovating a detached garage in Old Town that was in extremely poor condition. Pictures were
provided of the structure. Soon after, the applicant obtained a roofing permit and proceeded with
remodeling the structure and stated that due to inclement weather and poor structural conditions, the
structure collapsed. Concerned with the deteriorated materials blocking an alley driveway, the owner
and agent proceeded with removing the materials and reconstructing the structure with as much of the
original material as possible. The agent stated that due to poor conditions, not much of the original
materials could be reused on the new structure.
A few days after the collapse, Code Enforcement put a stop work order on the project stating all
required permits and approvals were not obtained prior to commencing work. By the time Code
Enforcement noticed the demolition and reconstruction, the new detached carport was nearly finished.
Code Enforcement and Planning allowed the carport to be completed to a point where it would not be
affected by weather and for safety reasons. The applicant was directed to receive approval from the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) for the demolition of the original structure,
approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for the reconstruction of the structure on the
property line, and to obtain all required permits, before the project could recommence to ensure full
compliance with City regulations.
As mentioned, the applicant requires approval from both HARC and ZBA before work can be
completed on the carport. CDC approval from HARC is required for the demolition of the original
detached garage since it is located in the Old Town Historic Overlay. ZBA approval for a Special
Exception for Setback Modification is required because the new carport was reconstructed in the
same location as the original garage, which sat on the property line and within the required setback.
The applicant went to go to ZBA on Tuesday, April 20th, 2010 and they tabled any action until HARC
could make a decision.
Moseley arrived on the dais during the staff report.
Commissioners began asking questions. Patti White, agent for the Property Manager, Tom Pilgrim,
was present to answer the questions. White explained she was brought onto the project by being
asked to prepare an estimate for reconstruction of the structure and then was hired to provide
reconstruction. Firth questioned when Code Enforcement was involved. John Hale reported that he
first visited the residence in November 2009 for maintenance issues and gave them 90 days to make
repairs on the structure. He stated he also gave them an extension on this timeframe because they
were waiting for an insurance claim. He did not know when the roof collapsed. The roof collapse was
reported by a City Fire Inspector. A roof permit was pulled to replace the roof and eaves. Roof
repairs to the garage started in February.
Firth questioned what the structure was used for. Ms. White responded that the out-of-state owners
of the property used it for storage, that it was not big enough for a car. Firth questioned why Ms.
White did not pull a permit before rebuilding the entire structure. Ms. White stated they were trying to
get the fallen materials off the neighbor’s driveway but that she should have stopped work and come
to the city first.
There was further discussion of the process and possible repercussions of the applicant’s actions and
the options HARC had. It was explained by Cook that an approval of the demolition permit by HARC
was the first step of two steps in removing the existent stop work order. Disapproval by HARC would
mean that the applicant would have to wait for 175 days from the public hearing for any subsequent
action, but then come back to the next HARC agenda for Final Action, or approval. If ZBA denies a
Special Exception for this new structure to be on the property line, the structure will have to come
down. New permits will be needed and it will not be allowed to be rebuilt in the setbacks.
Firth stated she had a problem with the lack of maintenance of the property in the first place and that
they did not follow the proper steps in the process to remedy the situation. Moore stated as a
community member he does not approve of “demolition by neglect”.
Motion by Johnson for the denial of a CDC for a demolition. No second was forthcoming.
Motion by Pergl to accept the CDC for demolition of the garage that no longer exists. Second
by Herriott. Approved 4 – 2. (Firth and Rapp opposed.)
4.Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on May 27, 2010.
5.Adjournment. Moore adjourned the meeting at 6:57 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission walkthrough of proposed
relocation of an accessory structure
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission walkthrough of proposed relocation of an accessory
structure will meet on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 08:30 AM in the 1256 S. Austin Avenue
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission walkthrough of proposed relocation of an accessory
structure Members:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; J.C. Johnson; Greg Herriot; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 08:30 AM
Members of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission may or may not be in attendance for a
walk-through of the site on Tuesday, April 20, 2010. This is discovery action of a HARC agenda item that
will be discussed and action taken on April 22 The application for 1256 S. Austin Ave. is to relocate an
accessory structure to a neighboring property, making way for a new driveway that will lead to a new
accessory structure Commissioners have asked for a walk-through and further review of the property
before taking action. There will be discussion at the property, but no action will be taken at this time.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Thursday, April 8,
2010 at 04:00 PM in the Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300 Industrial Blvd, Georgetown,
Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Members:
Will Moore; Ron Pergl; and Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 04:00 PM
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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
regular scheduled meeting of the Sign Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on
the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the March 11, 2010, Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
2.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for a
new flush-mounted wall sign at Lost Addition, Block 13, Lots 3, 4, 7 & 8, also known as
Wonderful Things, located at 1003 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2010-007)
4.Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Thursday , April 8, 2010.
Members Present:
Will Moore, Ron Pergl
Members Absent:
Dee Rapp
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Chair Moore at 4:04 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled meeting of the Sign
Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the March 11, 2010, Sign Subcommittee meeting.
Motion by Pergl to approve the minutes as presented. Second by Moore. Approved 2 – 0.
2.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for a new
flush-mounted wall sign at Lost Addition, Block 13, Lots 3, 4, 7 & 8, also known as Wonderful Things,
located at 1003 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2010-007)
Wyler presented the staff report, briefly describing the proposed changes to the existing sign and
showing the colors and depiction of the proposed sign. The new sign will be the same size as the
existing sign, but will be vertically oriented instead of horizontally oriented before. Guidelines used to
support the staff recommendation are 9.2, 9.4, 9.5, 9.13, 9.15, 9.17 and 9.18.
Ray Shawley, the applicant’s agent, was introduced and stated that the building’s north wall is actually
130 feet long, not 132 feet as listed in the report. Moore stated he did not have any comments. Pergl
responded that he was concerned about “ghosting and fading” behind the new sign. The board that
the sign is painted on is to be re-oriented and Pergl is concerned that the shadow of the old sign will
remain if not power washed or the entire wall repainted. Shawley agrees that any shadows or
ghosting will be removed before installation of the new sign.
Motion by Pergl to approve the CDC for the new sign as proposed with the condition that the ghosting
either be power washed or repainted to remove signs of the previous sign before installing the new
sign. Second by Moore. Approved 2 – 0.
3.Adjournment
Chair Moore adjourned the meeting at 4:09 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, March 25, 2010 at 06:00 PM in
the Council Chambers, located at 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Members:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; Dee Rapp; Greg Herriott
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 06:00 PM
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.)
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (limited to ten (10) minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording
secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the
Commission one time only for a maximum of three (3) minutes.
This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration
and possible action on the following:
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 February 25, 2010.
Regular Agenda:
2.Consideration and possible action to elect a Vice-Chair and Secretary for the 2010-2011 Historic and
Architectural Review Commission.
3.Conceptual review and discussion with the developer of a proposed project at 405 S. Austin Avenue.
4. Discussion and possible action on the appointment of new Sign Subcommittee members.
5. Reminder there will be a site visit for 1256 S. Austin Avenue at 8:30am on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 and
that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on Thursday, April 22, 2010.
6. Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
March 25, 2010.
Members Present:
Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Greg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie
Kreger, Principal Planner and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Moore called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
(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.)
This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration
and possible action on the following:
Consent Agenda:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of February 25, 2010.
Rapp suggested corrections to the minutes. On page 4 of 5, Item 6 she does not remember the
statement by Short and wants the sentence struck from the record. “Short suggests adding the
statement “if feasible” to both of these requests.” Also, “sealed drawings” should be “scaled
drawings”. So noted.
Motion by Pergl to accept the minutes as amended. Second by Rapp. Approved 6 – 0 (Moseley
not in attendance for vote.)
Regular Agenda:
2.Consideration and possible action to elect a Vice-Chair and Secretary for the 2010-2011 Historic and
Architectural Review Commission.
Moore opened the floor for nominations for Vice-Chair. Firth nominated Rapp for Vice-Chair. No
other nominations were made. Approved 5 – 0. (Firth and Moseley did not vote.)
Rapp nominated Firth for Secretary. No other nominations were made. Approved 5 – 0. (Rapp
and Moseley did not vote.)
3.Conceptual review and discussion with the developer of a proposed project at 405 S. Austin Avenue.
Wyler introduced Dave Sanders of HPD Cambridge, Inc. who was present to introduce the concept of
a proposed project that he would like the Commissioner’s input on and his questions answered, to
apply for HARC approval at a later date. Chair Moore explained that this was a presentation, not a
public hearing so visitors were welcome to watch and listen to the presentation, but no public
comments would be taken at this meeting. The Public Hearing would be held at the meeting when the
formal application was made.
Mr. Sanders introduced Kent Collins and Allen Cowden of Centro Partners in Austin. He then offered
background of the project. He explained that his company has been developing retirement facilities
for the past 37 years. These facilities usually consist of 25 – 40 apartment units, and include a public
restaurant and are located near amenities such as other restaurants and stores. After over a year of
research, the location near Georgetown’s square was chosen. The developer’s intent is to promote
the project along with the community events, fairs, festivals, the public library events and the
intergenerational aspect of the community.
(Moseley arrived at 6:20 p.m.)
The concept of the building at this point is to have 36 living units, 39 parking spaces, a restaurant,
perhaps a retail space and to be forty feet tall. Drawings were distributed to the Commissioners and
for the file. Several details were discussed, including the alleyway/ driveway easement along the back
of the property, and the Commissioners asked many questions. It was determined that comments by
the Commissioners, regarding likes and dislikes of the project, would be emailed to Wyler who would
pass them on to the developers after the meeting.
4. Discussion and possible action on the appointment of new Sign Subcommittee members.
Chair Moore stated he would like to resign from the Sign Subcommittee. Firth had indicated interest
in serving but could not serve on Thursday afternoons.
Motion by Rapp to change the first meeting of the month time of the Sign Subcommittee to the
second Wednesday, from the present second Thursday, still at 4:00 p.m. Second by Moore.
Approved 7 – 0.
Rapp nominated Firth to serve on the Sign Subcommittee. Firth accepted the nomination.
Approved 7 – 0.
5. Reminder there will be a site visit for 1256 S. Austin Avenue at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, April 20, 2010
and that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on Thursday, April 22, 2010.
6. Adjournment. Chair Moore adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 04:00 PM in
the Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300 Industrial Blvd, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Members:
Will Moore, Ron Pergl, Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 04:00 PM
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled meeting of the Sign
Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the January 14, 2010, Sign Subcommittee meeting.
2.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for new
business signage, including both canopy and hanging signs, at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lots 2 &
3 (pt), also known as Book Pride, located at 109 W. 7th Street. For more information, please click on
the link: http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2010-005.pdf
3.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for new
business signage, including both canopy and hanging signs, at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 3
(c/pt), to be known as Poppy Tots, located at 711 S. Main St. For more information, please click on
the link: http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2010-006.pdf
4.Adjournment
The Subcommittee may forward these items to the next meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review
Commission for its consideration. That meeting is scheduled for March 25, 2010.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
March 11, 2010.
Members Present:
Will Moore, Ron Pergl and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Chair Moore at 4:05 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled meeting of the Sign
Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the January 14, 2010, Sign Subcommittee meeting.
Motion by Pergl to accept the Minutes as presented. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
2.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for new
business signage, including both canopy and hanging signs, at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lots 2 &
3 (pt), also known as Book Pride, located at 109 W. 7th Street. (CDC-2010-005)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC)
approval for two new signs. The first will be a canopy sign, installed atop the 7th Street canopy. The
sign will be constructed of light weight 1/8-inch thick polymetal, an aluminum veneered solid plastic,
and digitally painted with the book store’s name and logo. The name “Book Pride”, in a dark brown
Times New Roman font, will be centered inside a white oval and an image of a crown will be placed
above it in the business’s colors of gold, orange and the same dark brown, as detailed on the provided
sample. Measuring forty (40) inches tall by forty-eight (48) inches wide, the sign will have a total area
of 13.3 square feet. The total length of the bookstore’s facade is twenty-five (25) feet. The sign will
be attached to the canopy using two (2) steel L-brackets and bolts, all painted black, and will be
elevated to be vertically centered with an adjacent canopy sign located just to the east. The distance
from the top of the sign to the canopy will be about fifty (50) inches. The applicant is not proposing
any lighting for the sign at this time.
The second sign proposed will be made out of the same material as the canopy sign and will be
installed underneath the ten (10) foot canopy, perpendicular to the bookstore’s entrance door.
Measuring twelve (12) inches tall by sixty (60) inches wide, the two-sided sign will have a total area of
five (5) square feet. The colors and name of the business will match that of the proposed canopy
sign, but the crown will be located to the left of “Book Pride” rather than above it. A black border will
be printed around the name and logo as shown on the provided rendering. The sign will be attached
using two black S-hooks and chains and hung to provide a clearance of eight (8) feet from the
sidewalk to the bottom of the sign. Guidelines used to support Staff Recommendation are 9.7, 9.9,
9.13, 9.15, 9.17, 9.18 and 9.21. Wyler stated the only possible non-compliance with the application is
the use of too many colors, depending on the vote of the commission.
Paul and Marika Brown were introduced as the applicant owners. They are the owners of both Book
Pride and Poppy Tots, which is next door and the applicant for the next item on the agenda. Rapp
questioned the height of the handing sign. Wyler responded it is eight feet from the sidewalk and
consistent with the others on that same sidewalk. Moore spoke in regards to the color selections and
questioned the use of only three colors plus black and white. There was discussion of the practicality
of applying that rule and what it was based on. It was also discussed that the commissioners were
able to make exceptions to the guideline at any time they felt the exception was warranted. Moore
stated he wouldn’t mind if there were an extra color or two if the sign is well designed. Crown stated
that his marketing team suggested being “subtle” and that is why brown was chosen over stark black.
He prefers brown on the signs.
Motion by Rapp to approve the signs as presented allowing two shades of white to count as
one color. Second by Pergl. Approved 3 -0.
3.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for new
business signage, including both canopy and hanging signs, at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 3
(c/pt), to be known as Poppy Tots, located at 711 S. Main St. (CDC-2010-006)
Wyler presented a brief staff report, stating these proposed signs were the same size, type and
dimensions as those presented in the previous agenda item. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design
Compliance (CDC) approval for two new signs. The first will be a canopy sign, installed atop the Main
Street canopy. The name, “poppy tots”, in a dark brown, all lower case Bookman Old Style font, will
be centered inside a white oval and an image of three red poppies with green stems will be placed to
the left of the name, as shown on the renderings. The applicant is not proposing any lighting for the
sign at this time.
The second sign proposed will be made out of the same material as the canopy sign and will be
installed underneath the ten (10) foot canopy, perpendicular to the store’s entrance door. Measuring
twelve (12) inches tall by thirty-six (36) inches wide, the two-sided sign will have a total area of three
(3) square feet. The colors and name of the business will match that of the proposed canopy sign but
the poppies will be located in between “poppy” and “tot” rather than to the left of both. A black border
will be printed around the rectangular sign face, as shown on the provided rendering. The sign will be
attached using two black S-hooks and chains and hung to provide a clearance of eight (8) feet from
the sidewalk to the bottom of the sign. Guidelines used to support the staff recommendation of
approval are: 9.7, 9.9, 9.13, 9.15, 9.17, 9.18 and 9.21.
Rapp questioned the lack of a black border on the picture of the canopy sign. Paul Crown stated he
decided to leave the black border off that sign. Pergl suggests adding a border to that canopy sign
because it is a white background sign against a white building facade and needs the border to stand
out. Rapp suggested a brown border with green shading. Marika liked that idea. There was
discussion regarding the width the border should be. It was decided the border of the canopy sign
would be a 1 inch brown with a 1/2 inch green shadow. The hanging sign would have a 1/2 inch
brown border with a 1/4 inch green shadow. All shading would be on the inside of the border.
Motion by Pergl to accept the signs as presented with the stipulation that the signs both have a
border on them and that the maximum size of those borders be as described: the border of the
canopy sign would be a 1 inch brown with a 1/2 inch green shadow. The hanging sign would
have a 1/2 inch brown border with a 1/4 inch green shadow. All shading would be on the
inside of the border. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
4.Adjournment. Chair Moore adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 06:00
PM in the Council Chambers, located at 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Members:
West Short, Chair; Susan Firth; J.C. Johnson; Will Moore; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 06:00 PM
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 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.)
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (limited to ten (10) minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording
secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the
Commission one time only for a maximum of three (3) minutes.
This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration
and possible action on the following:
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 January 28 and February 1,
2010 and the special meeting held February 8, 2010.
Regular Agenda:
2 Certificate of Design Compliance for façade changes, including new paint, the replacement of light
fixtures and doors, re-exposing windows, and the addition of a handicap access button and
mechanical units, at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (s/pt), located at 703 S. Main Street.
(CDC-2010-001) For more information on this item, click here:
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2010-001.pdf
3.Certificate of Design Compliance for façade changes, including new paint, the replacement of light
fixtures, re-exposing windows, and the addition of a handicap access button and mechanical units, at
City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lots 3 (n/pt), located at 705 S. Main Street. (CDC-2010-002)
For more information on this item, click here:
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2010-002.pdf
4.Certificate of Design Compliance for façade and site changes, including new paint, the addition of
stone to the façade, the replacement of doors and windows, new light fixtures, the installation of an
exterior vehicle lift and tire rack, landscaping, and new signage, at Morrow Addition, Block G (pt), to
be known as Whitestone Tire Center, located at 114 E. University Avenue. (CDC-2010-003)
For more information on this item, click here:
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2010-003.pdf
5.Certificate of Design Compliance for façade and site changes, including an addition to the main
structure, a new stone floor in the courtyard, new courtyard railings, and the addition of tables and
umbrellas, at City of Georgetown, Block 39, Lots 1 – 4 (pts), also known as Galaxy Cupcakes, located
at 107 E. 7th Street. (CDC-2010-004)
For more information on this item, click here:
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2010-004.pdf
6.Review and discussion about the Certificate of Design Compliance application checklist.
7.Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on March 25, 2010.
8.Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
February 25, 2010.
Members Present:
West Short, Chair; Susan Firth; J.C. Johnson; Will Moore; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie
Kreger, Principal Planner and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Short called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
(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.)
This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration
and possible action on the following:
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 January 28 and February 1,
2010 and the special meeting held February 8, 2010.
Motion by Moore to approve all the minutes as presented. Second by Johnson. Approved 7 – 0.
Regular Agenda:
2 Certificate of Design Compliance for façade changes, including new paint, the replacement of light
fixtures and doors, re-exposing windows, and the addition of a handicap access button and
mechanical units, at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (s/pt), located at 703 S. Main Street.
(CDC-2010-001)
Short requested that items 2 and 3 be heard and considered at the same time since they are adjacent
properties, with the same applicant/ owner and receiving the same applications. Wyler presented the
staff report for both properties. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) approval
for minor alterations to the buildings’ exterior, including replacing light fixtures and doors, exposing two
rear windows, repainting, adding a handicap access button to the front of the building and installing
new rooftop mechanical units. These exterior changes are part of a larger building renovation of both
the interior and exterior. Wyler went on to describe the changes in detail as outlined in the written
staff report. The owner, Ken Horak was introduced and available for questions from the
commissioners.
Johnson questioned the working of the light fixtures in the back of the buildings. He indicated concern
over the amount of on and off action that the lights would have if they were on a motion sensor as
indicated. Mr. Horak explained that the lights were two-level lights. They would come on in the
evening at a low level light, run by light detectors made to determine a certain level of darkness, and
then the lights at night would be activated to a brighter light by motion detectors. Commissioners Firth
and Rapp expressed concern over other businesses being affected by the brighter lights. Horak
explained that the only window in the alley is from Amante’s and their window is covered by an electric
power source box and should not be bothered by the lighting in the alley. He also indicated their
window was located in a storage area on the inside of the building.
Horak confirmed for the commissioners that he was replacing the metal door at 703 Main Street with a
wood door that would be painted green, and refinishing the existing wood door at 705 Main Street and
painting it the same green. The windows at the back of the building are being replaced with fixed
windows, 6 over 6, not operable windows. Mr. Horak stated he was still working with the electric
department to determine the location of the power source for these buildings. There is concern about
the current location and the box could be moved to another location at the back of the buildings.
Discussion moved to the lighting at the front of the building. Firth and Johnson indicated concern over
the type of lights that were being requested. They did not like the proposed style or the placement.
Firth suggested using canopy lights as an alternative to lighting the sidewalk. Horak said that was too
expensive at this time. Johnson suggested the existing lights should look more authentic. Horak
agreed to clean and repair the existing fixtures and come back at a later time after a tenant has been
selected and further renovations may be done. Mr. Horak indicated he will also be recaulking the
windows and probably retouching painted areas with existing paint colors.
Johnson expressed concern over the location of the handicap buttons that are to be installed. Horak
stated the locations are dictated by the ADA laws and he did not have a choice.
Motion by Johnson to approve the items for Certificate of Design Compliance for both 703 and
705 Main Street, with the exception of the light fixtures at the front of the building. Second by
Short. Approved 7 -0.
3.Certificate of Design Compliance for façade changes, including new paint, the replacement of light
fixtures, re-exposing windows, and the addition of a handicap access button and mechanical units, at
City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lots 3 (n/pt), located at 705 S. Main Street. (CDC-2010-002)
See item above for action taken.
4.Certificate of Design Compliance for façade and site changes, including new paint, the addition of
stone to the façade, the replacement of doors and windows, new light fixtures, the installation of an
exterior vehicle lift and tire rack, landscaping, and new signage, at Morrow Addition, Block G (pt), to
be known as Whitestone Tire Center, located at 114 E. University Avenue. (CDC-2010-003)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks CDC approval to renovate a non-historic auto
repair station located at the southwest corner of Church Street and University Avenue. The
renovation includes repainting the façade and canopy, placing limestone along the bottom of the
building, replacing doors, windows and light fixtures, creating a new outdoor seating area, placing new
vehicular lifts and a tire rack outside the building, minor landscaping and new signage. Wyler went on
to describe the changes in detail as outlined in the written report.
Rapp begins by questioning the type of lighting that will be used on the front of the building and in the
parking lot. Mat Canava, owner and applicant, explains that the light fixtures are silver gooseneck
lights that were chosen to match the age and style of the building, to angle the lights away from
pedestrians, and to be high enough to not affect drivers on University Avenue. He also stated the
angled light will not shine into the nearby residences on Church Street. Commissioner Johnson
concurred that if the lights were too bright, the City code enforcement officers would address the
problem according to regulations.
Rapp questioned the location of the fence and the back door, stating if the property on Church Street
sells and the fence is put on the property line, the back door will not open. Wyler responded that the
Fire Inspector reviewed this and accepted it based on the fact that the back door is not the only way of
egress from the building.
Pergl questioned whether the canopy lights would be used. Canava stated they would, but the sign
letters on the front of the canopy would not be lit. The question was raised as to whether the existing
canopy lights are compliant with the code and Wyler stated they were.
Moore questioned the existing tire racks and whether those would be used. Wyler responded that the
owner has the option to use them since this is an existing use and they were installed before.
However, Mr. Canava has stated he would like to utilize mobile tire racks that could be rolled into the
garage at night and during non-business hours. Moore stated he would rather the mobile tire racks be
used and that they be displayed during business hours along the front wall of the building. Mr.
Canava concurs.
Moore stated he would still prefer a shield on the light fixture located at the corner of University Ave.
and Church Street. Moore questioned the need for a trash receptacle or dumpster and the placement
on the property. Mr. Canava stated a single green rolling canister would be enough and would be
placed in the garage until pick-up day.
Firth questioned any future plans for the canopy and expressed that she would like it to be taken down
since it is out of proportion to the building. Mr. Canava stated he has some ideas but nothing to bring
to the commission at this time.
Short opened the public hearing. Herb Hanson, of 1252 Austin Avenue, stated he has lived in the
neighborhood and been a client of this business and that Mr. Canava runs a very clean operation and
he is looking forward to his new location. Short closed the public hearing as there were no more
registered speakers.
Motion by Moore to approve the Certificate of Design Compliance as requested, with a waiver
for tire rack placement to include three mobile racks that must be brought in during
non-business hours, and that the outside lights should be shielded to comply with all UDC
regulations. Second by Pergl. Pergl asked to amend the motion to include that the mobile tire
racks be displayed against the front wall during business hours. Moore agreed to the
amendment, Pergl seconded. Approved 7 – 0.
5.Certificate of Design Compliance for façade and site changes, including an addition to the main
structure, a new stone floor in the courtyard, new courtyard railings, and the addition of tables and
umbrellas, at City of Georgetown, Block 39, Lots 1 – 4 (pts), also known as Galaxy Cupcakes, located
at 107 E. 7th Street. (CDC-2010-004)
Wyler presented the staff report. Due to expansion needs, the applicant seeks Certificate of Design
Compliance (CDC) approval to build an addition onto the side of the building as well as modify an
existing courtyard area to accommodate outdoor seating. Wyler read specific details of the project
from the written staff report.
Firth opened the discussion by stating she was thrilled the new business was doing so well on the
square that they needed to expand. Firth asked questions regarding gutters and the fence that is to
be installed. Cheryl Wilhite, owner and applicant, stated she had not intended to put in gutters on the
east side of the building but she will look into it if they are necessary. Wilhite also explained that there
would be a gate on the 7th Street side of the fenced in area. She also responded that the gated area
would be paved with the same pavers that are currently installed in the back of the property.
There was discussion regarding the driveway and curb cut that enters the property on the 7th Street
side of the property. Wilhite stated she would rather have a sidewalk there instead of a driveway that
doesn’t go anywhere. City staff stated they would look into the situation since the sidewalk
right-of-way is city property.
There was discussion about the proposed height of the fence of the courtyard. It is proposed at 40
inches high. Wyler and Wilhite explained that that was to promote a more open sidewalk seating
area. Wilhite stated the high fence felt more like a prison area than an outdoor seating area for her
shop. Moseley stated he liked the proportion of the higher fence to separate the parking area from the
outdoor seating, but could understand the desire for a more open area that still needed to be
enclosed.
Motion by Short to approve the CDC as requested. Second by Johnson. Approved 7 – 0.
6.Review and discussion about the Certificate of Design Compliance application checklist.
The checklist was opened for review. Rapp commented that although the applicant may have a vision
of what they want to accomplish, they many times need guidance in expressing and defining that
vision. She would prefer that the word “drawings” be changed to “sealed drawings” where referenced
so that a professional architect or engineer was developing the drawings. She also requested that all
color renderings be accurate and state when the color is not the true color. Short suggests adding the
statement “if feasible” to both of these requests.
Rapp also requested that in the instance of a submitted photo or drawing that the statement or note
be added to those documents that are not accurate, not to scale, not the exact color, etc. Kreger
stated all these changes can and will be made to the soon-to-be-updated checklists.
7.Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on March 25, 2010.
Short reminded everyone of the next meeting and stated he has enjoyed working with everyone.
Wyler stated that at the time of the meeting, there were not any applications for the March 25th
meeting and it will probably not be called.
Firth thanked Short for his service to the Commission and stated he will be missed. All concurred.
8.Adjournment
Short adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Meeting
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, February 8, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Meeting will meet on Monday, February 8,
2010 at 04:00 PM in the Williamson Conference Room, Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300
Industrial Blvd, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Meeting Members:
West Short, Chair; Susan Firth; J.C. Johnson; Will Moore; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 04:00 PM
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 4:00 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.)
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (limited to ten (10) minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording
secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the
Commission one time only for a maximum of three (3) minutes.
This is a Special Meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration and
possible action on the following:
1.Discussion, reconsideration and possible action on the Commission’s decision regarding a request for
a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 4 (pt), to be
known as Three Legged Willie’s Restaurant and Bar, located at 708 S. Austin Avenue.
(CDC-2009-045)
2.Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Meeting
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, February 8, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Meeting of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met
on Monday , February 8, 2010.
Members Present:
West Short, Chair; Susan Firth; J.C. Johnson; Will Moore; Ron Pergl and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
Larry Moseley
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Paul
Brandenburg, City Manager; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 4:00 p.m.
Chair Short called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m.
(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.)
This is a Special Meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration and
possible action on the following:
1.Discussion, reconsideration and possible action on the Commission’s decision regarding a request for
a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 4 (pt), to be
known as Three Legged Willie’s Restaurant and Bar, located at 708 S. Austin Avenue.
(CDC-2009-045)
Chair Short opened the item and asked for the discussion by those that called the meeting. Moore
stated he had the original request to reconsider this item with a called meeting because he was upset
after the way the last meeting ended and felt that others were also. He stated that everyone seemed
to leave with extreme differences of opinion and little or no compromises. He stated he wanted to
keep this application and subsequent action at the Commission level and try to reach a compromise
with the applicant. Moore went on to say that he took a closer look at the size of the sign with just the
lettering considered as the sign area, and not including the figure since the figure of three-legged
Willie was not to be lit, he did not feel it should be counted in the size of the sign.
Eric Visser, owner/ applicant, stated he appreciates the passion and time given by the Commission
but he does not understand the “horse-trading” principal that they seem to work under. He stated he
still needs a minimum of 21.5 square feet for each side of the back-lit, channel sign that is proposed.
He stated he could either have that application approved or he agrees to disagree.
A new rendering of the sign was presented by staff, as submitted by Visser, which depicted the figure
of Willie as only 42” not 48” as originally proposed. The size of the lettering portion only, without the
figure, was measured as 16.5 square feet per side. This sign was proposed as a back-to-back
canopy sign. Firth questioned whether this sign would be elevated. Visser explained that the canopy
was not level and that the slight extra height of the sign frame was meant to level the sign as it was
placed on the awning. It would not be elevated any more than was necessary to level the sign. Moore
stated he would approve the back-to-back sign now that he understood the figure was not to be
illuminated.
Firth stated she still had an issue with the sign being considered a Canopy sign, and being this large,
setting a precedent for other signs on the Square. Cook explained that just because this one might be
approved, it would not lock the Commission into approving any other signs of this type, each sign is
unique and is presented that way. She offered that the Commission could specify in the motion why
this sign was approved in this way and why it is different. Moore said he understood it to be like the
Romeo’s sign on the Square that did not fit any definition at the time of approval and the Commission
had to work their way through that application also.
Johnson questioned the extension length of the elbow of the figure. Visser stated it extends from the
sign to 2 1/2 to 3 feet from the front of the building. He jokingly offered to cut the arm off if it would
make the Commission happier. Visser stated that he really wants a v-sign or a two sided sign
because he is concerned that having a sign flush with Austin Avenue will only be visible from the east
side of the Square. He wants visibility from Austin Avenue. There was a question again regarding the
type of sign that this was considered to be. Cook responded that according to the current definitions
in the UDC, this is a canopy sign.
Short opened the Public Hearing:
Ross Hunter, of 908 S. Walnut, commended the Commission for its work on this application and
others. He went on to say that he and other citizens were supportive of HARC and understood that
they were human boards working with written laws. He appreciated their time and thought and what
went into deciding what a sign will look like without clear direction. He also stated that he felt they
were setting a precedent with this sign and he was interested in pursuing the rule of the law.
There were no other speakers and Short closed the Public Hearing.
Motion by Firth to reconsider the denial of the CDC application of the canopy sign for
Three-Legged Willie’s. Second by Moore.
Rapp stated she was still confused why the Commissioners voted their conscious previously but
wanted to change that vote now. She stated she definitely wanted to see the application forms and
checklists at the next meeting that were used by staff to determine what makes a complete
application. Short called the vote. Motion approved 6 – 0.
Motion by Firth that based on the fact that this sign was considered a canopy sign and not a
projecting sign, that the Commission approve the CDC for the sign with the new design as
presented at that meeting of 23.33 square feet per side. Second by Moore.
Short stated that the only difference in the sign that is proposed now and the one proposed before is
the size of the figure which is now six inches shorter. Short moves to amend the motion to allow
the figure to be 48 inches tall instead of the new proposed 42 inches tall. Second by Johnson.
It was discussed that the original figure was actually a proposed 53 inches tall. Commissioners also
discussed the perception of the figure on the canopy and whether anyone would be able to tell the
difference in the six inches, and whether it would look life-size from the perspective that people would
be seeing it. Rapp asked Visser if he would be satisfied with a 42 inch figure. Visser stated he would
prefer a 48 inch figure but in the spirit of compromise he would accept 42 inches. He went on to say
that he was trying to bring a symbol of historical significance to the Square, including that symbols on
the Square are valuable for the history of the Square. Firth disagreed with the idea that the figure is
bringing any historical significance to the Square as a sign figure on a canopy.
Short called for the vote on the amendment. Vote was 1 – 5, denied. Short was the positive
vote.
Short called for the vote on the original motion. Vote was 6 – 0, approved.
Pergl asked Visser how he thought this process could be better. Visser started by saying that it was a
tremendous consolidated effort to revitalize the Square and that HARC should reevaluate their
standards and consider going to the City Council with a revision to the Guidelines and rules that must
be followed. He stated HARC should get in “sync” with Main Street (Board) and Economic
Development, that this is a market driven economy and that they should be developing incentives to
increase the rents and make the downtown more viable. He went on to say that he received a
remodeling permit in two weeks which he felt was phenomenal, but that HARC had this predisposed
presumption that private enterprise is here to rape and plunder the downtown and that it was an
adversarial relationship with businesses.
Firth stated she felt that if Visser perceived the HARC as adversaries, then a huge hurdle must be
overcome. She stated that a large number of people had worked on the Historic Preservation
Commission, the Downtown Master Plan, and the Design Guidelines to make the downtown area the
heart of Georgetown, a viable downtown and a place that people were proud of. She stated it was
offensive that this Commission had met three times to come to an agreement with Mr. Visser and it
was disheartening to be thought of as the enemy. She went on to say that the Commission does not
make the rules, they enforce the rules the community wants.
Moore stated a lot of people worked on the Guidelines when the “times were good” and now that there
has been a reversal in business, the Guidelines should not be dismissed. He supports the Guidelines
and the effort to make Georgetown unique and special. He stated that he did not like the way this
application was handled and that he did not call the special meeting for the applicant, but because it
was the right thing to do. Visser expressed his appreciation and said that the process had been
expensive for everyone.
Hunter spoke out and directed his comments to the City Manager and said that Visser was set up to
fail with the original staff report, that the applicant was brought to the public hearing unprepared and
citizens had to come out and right the wrong. He stated that when staff fails that there is a huge
problem.
Firth stated that she disagreed that staff was to blame for this problem. She said everyone makes
mistakes but that the planning staff works incredibly hard to process the applications and uphold the
Guidelines.
No further comments were made.
2.Adjournment
Chair Short adjourned the meeting at 4:52 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Monday, February 1, 2010 at 04:30 PM in
the Williamson Conference Room, Georgetown Municipal Complex located at 300-1 Industrial Ave
Georgetown, TX 78626
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Members:
West Short, Chair; Susan Firth; J.C. Johnson; Will Moore; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 04:30 PM
Regular Session
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.)
This is a continuation from the January 28 public hearing for:
1.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 4 (pt), to be known as Three Legged Willie's
Restaurant and Bar, located at 708 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2009-045)
2.Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Monday ,
February 1, 2010.
Members Present:
West Short, Chair; Susan Firth; J.C. Johnson; Will Moore; Ron Pergl and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
Larry Moseley
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie
Kreger, Principal Planner; Tamera Baird, Commercial Plans and Sign Reviewer; and Karen Frost,
Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 4:30 p.m.
Chair Short called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
(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.)
This is a continued meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration and
possible action on the following:
Regular Session
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.)
This is a continuation from the January 28 public hearing for:
1.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at
City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 4 (pt), to be known as Three Legged Willie's Restaurant and Bar,
located at 708 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2009-045)
Chair Short introduced the item and explained that since this was a continuation, the staff report would
not be given again. He reminded everyone that at the last meeting, the applicant was to bring
additional renderings and color samples of the awning sign. Mr. Hobbs, the sign architect and
installer, was introduced. Hobbs provided photos on the overhead screen of the building. He had
produced a banner that was the actual size of the signs and stood with those on the awning to give a
better representation of the angle and scale of the sign with the building. Several photos were taken
from different locations across the street while he was on the awning.
Hobbs also presented a color sample for the reddish color that was to be used on the sign. Firth
questioned whether this was the same red on the building. Hobbs said no but would match closely.
Hobbs presented a drawing and explained the illumination method for the sign and described the
power supply of the LED lighting that would be projected behind the letters, backlit and illuminating
just the lettering, giving a “halo” effect to the black letters. The power supply would be encased in
aluminum housing on the back of the sign(s). He showed an example of another sign in Austin that
was designed that way. He says this style of sign promotes a “classier, more modern look”.
Commissioners asked about any other signs locally that had been approved, and the Curves business
on Austin Avenue was mentioned.
There was discussion of a bracket being shown on the original sign drawing to elevate it, and the
bracket painted red to match the sign. There is also a depiction of a black frame on the sign. Hobbs
said he would prefer to use the black frame and bracket.
Hobbs presented the drawing that had been provided by a structural engineer to depict the angle of
the sign to scale, showing the awning to be 9 feet wide, and the sign approximately two and a half feet
from the building to the sign’s back edges.
Firth questioned the difference in size of the sign presented the previous Thursday, versus the sign
presented at the continuation meeting, 80’ x 48’. Hobbs explained that he rescaled the sign to have
only 10.5 square feet for the text of the sign, which is now proposed to be less than three feet tall.
Moore contested the size comparison, stating the sign was still measured 26 square feet on each side
of the sign. Short asked if there were any changes in the staff recommendation at this time. Wyler
stated he met with Tamera Baird, the Commercial Plans Reviewer that issues sign permits, to check
the correct calculation of the sign area. He explained that he had interpreted the type of sign
incorrectly. Ms. Baird would have interpreted this as two sign faces, in which each sign face would
count separately, making the overall calculation of fifty-two square feet, or too large per the UDC. The
Guidelines do not address how to measure this exact type of sign. The UDC allows one square foot
of signage per lineal foot of building for a wall/ facade sign, with the sign area for a sign with more
than one face computed by adding together the area of all sign faces visible from one point. He
stated Mr. Moore was correct in his calculation on Thursday night, the proposed sign measures 52
square feet. He also went on to state that a projecting sign is allowed 15 square feet on each side of
the projection, and a canopy sign is allowed to be 26.5 square feet on this building. A back-to- back
canopy sign that measures 26.5 square feet would be considered compliant with the code, but a
v-type sign is not addressed in either code. The definition of a projecting sign is that it is connected to
the building in some manner. A canopy sign is attached only to the canopy. Hobbs stated he and his
client would prefer the back-to-back sign option to allow for the lighting of the sign from the internal
illumination.
There was discussion of where to place the figure and how to manage the mirror image if the sign
were made back-to-back. Hobbs felt the position of the figure would be towards the back of the sign,
toward the building. Also options of placing the sign on the front of the building were discussed, with
several options for lighting and angling slightly from the building to add some depth to the sign.
Visser, the owner of the building, stated he did not want to consider the placement of the sign on the
building because it would not be visible to those driving on Austin Avenue and he did not want to
remove the figure of Willie which would not fit in the possible wall space, or block architectural
features of the building.
Rapp questioned when the sign would be lit. Visser responded that they would most likely be run by
photocell so would only be on when it was dark enough outside.
Short opened the Public Hearing.
Herb and Reneé Hanson opted to pull their speaker requests.
John Mahler, member of the Economic Development Board, spoke in favor of the sign as a two-sided
sign stating he did not see anything wrong with it. Mr. Mahler also stated he is a staunch supporter of
the downtown Square and is in full support of Mr. Visser.
Ross Hunter, of 908 Walnut Street, stated he thought it was “wrong to not see anything wrong” with
the sign. He noted that “we’ve” spent many hours and developed rules to safeguard our laws. He
stated a respect for all, but felt a need to protect the Square. He stated that the staff’s mathematical
error was a disservice to all and that it is sad that citizens have to come to the meetings to correct the
situation.
There were no more public comments and the Public Hearing was closed.
Short called for any more comments or questions by the applicant. Hobbs asked the commission if
they preferred a double-sided sign or the awning sign as presented. Rapp questioned whether a
double-sided sign would meet the size limitations. Wyler said yes, if it were back-to-back. Moore
asked for a definition of what type of sign this one is supposed to be. Wyler and Cook explained that
this is an awning sign. Per the UDC, a projecting sign is shown and defined as affixed to the building
in a non-parallel manner. A canopy sign is any type of building sign attached to, in any manner, or
made a part of a canopy. The Guideline maximum for an allowable projecting sign is 15 square feet.
The Guidelines allows for an awning/ canopy sign up to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of
building façade, in this case 26.5 square feet. Moore and Johnson argued that the Design Guidelines
and UDC are inconsistent with each other and “don’t make sense”.
There was further discussion of removing the figure of Willie from the sign to minimize the face area
of the sign and try to make it fit the guidelines. Hobbs asked for a recess to discuss the possibilities
with the client. Motion by Johnson to consider this sign as a projecting sign and limit it to 15
square feet. That motion was withdrawn. Rapp suggested allowing a banner sign to be displayed
with the other approved signs so the business could open and continue to work on a solution that
serves everyone.
Cook stated the Commission had options and could 1. Make a motion to treat this as a projecting
sign; 2. Suggest and approve the wall sign with the depth of the amount of space allowed between the
sign and the building described specifically; or 3. Give Mr. Visser an exact detail of what is wanted by
the Commission.
Motion by Short to approve the sign as submitted, but with the angle closed and the sign
considered double-sided. Motion died for lack of second.
Motion by Moore to advise the applicant that any sign that is mounted perpendicular to the
building be limited to 15 square feet, and that a sign that is mounted flush and parallel to the
building be allowed 26.5 square feet. Second by Johnson. Approved 5 – 1 (Short opposed.)
Short called for a 5 minutes recess.
Short reconvened the meeting. Visser took the floor and stated he was very angry with the
Commission for wasting everyone’s time. He stated the Commission did not understand all the things
that were going on at the Square and he demanded a finding from the Commission.
Firth stated that she was sorry that Visser felt that way, they had tried to work with him on a
compromise to develop a sign that would meet the guidelines and that they are very interested in
helping businesses succeed.
Moore made a motion to deny the 2-sided 26.5 square foot awning sign as was presented at
this meeting. Second by Johnson. The motion to deny was approved 5 – 1 (Short opposed).
Short also stated that for the record he wanted to note that he felt the sign in question met the UDC
and Guidelines parameters and would be acceptable.
2.Adjournment
Short adjourned the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Thursday, January
28, 2010 at 05:30 PM in the Council Chambers, located at 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Members:
Will Moore, Ron Pergl, Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 05:30 PM
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled
meeting of the Sign Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
Review and possible approval of the minutes from the January 14, 2010 Sign Subcommittee 1.
meeting.
Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for 2.
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 4 (pt), to be known as Three Legged Willies
Restaurant and Bar, located at 708 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2009-045) For more
information on this item, click here:
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2009-045.pdf
Adjournment3.
The Subcommittee may forward these items to the next meeting of the Historic and
Architectural Review Committee for its consideration. That meeting is scheduled for January
28, 2010.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Thursday , January 28, 2010.
Members Present:
Will Moore, Ron Pergl and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
These are DRAFT minutes until approved by the Commission at it's next Sign Subcommittee
Call to order by Chair Moore at 5:32 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled meeting of the Sign
Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the January 14, 2010 Sign Subcommittee meeting.
Motion by Pergl to accept the minutes as presented. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
2.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at
City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 4 (pt), to be known as Three Legged Willie’s Restaurant and Bar,
located at 708 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2009-045)
Wyler presents the staff report. Moore stops Wyler and says he would like to send this item to the
regular agenda of the entire Commission, following this meeting. He stated that he felt there were too
many issues that he saw that should not be decided upon by the regular Sign Subcommittee. Rapp
agreed the items could not be handled in the time frame given during this meeting. They noted that
they had also received questions from citizens outside the commission and wanted to give them a
chance to come before the entire commission for the public hearing.
Motion by Rapp to send this item in it’s entirety to the entire commission at 6:00 this evening.
Second by Moore. Approved 3 – 0.
3.Adjournment
Moore adjourned the meeting at 5:38 p.m.
The Subcommittee may forward these items to the next meeting of the Historic and Architectural
Review Committee for its consideration. That meeting is scheduled for January 28, 2010
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 06:00 PM
in the Council Chambers, located at 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Members:
West Short, Chair; Susan Firth; J.C. Johnson; Will Moore; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 06:00 PM
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 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.)
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (limited to ten (10) minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording
secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address
the Commission one time only for a maximum of three (3) minutes.
This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration
and possible action on the following:
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 December 10, 2009 regular meeting.
2.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at
City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 4 (pt), to be known as Three Legged Willies Restaurant and Bar,
located at 708 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2009-045) For more information on this item, click here:
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2009-045.pdf
Regular Agenda:
3.Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition of a structure at City of Georgetown, Block 14,
Lots 7(n/pt) and 8(w/pt), located at 214 W. 3rd Street. (CDC-2009-026) For more information on
this item, click here:http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2009-026.pdf
4.Certificate of Design Compliance for site and structural changes, including the demolition of a garage,
addition of on-site parking and changes to roofing material, at Lost Addition, Block 66(pt), also known
as Photography by Kappy, located at 1112 Rock Street. (CDC-2009-046) For more information on
this item, click here:http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2009-046.pdf
5.Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior changes, including the installation of new doors and
windows and the addition of a handicap ramp at the rear of the building, at City of Georgetown, Block
50, Lot 1(s/pt), located at 824 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2009-047) For more information on this
item, click here:http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2009-047.pdf
6.Discussion with staff on code enforcement matters in the Downtown and Old Town areas.
7.Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on February 25, 2010.
8.Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
January 28, 2010.
Members Present:
West Short, Chair; Susan Firth; J.C. Johnson; Will Moore; Ron Pergl and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
Larry Moseley
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie
Kreger, Principal Planner and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Short called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
(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.)
This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration
and possible action on the following:
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 December 10, 2009 regular meeting.
Johnson stated he would like a correction made to the minutes in paragraph 2 of page 3 of 4, that
instead of stating, “Johnson spoke regarding the naming of the house. He stated there is not a law on
a double name house, but tradition has the name of the builder as the first name given, and the
second name is the name of the architect.” A correction should be made to state that, “the second
name is that of an owner that makes a significant architectural change to the structure(s).” So noted.
Motion by Moore to accept the minutes as presented with the changes noted. Second by Pergl.
Approved 6 – 0.
2.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at
City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 4 (pt), to be known as Three Legged Willie’s Restaurant and Bar,
located at 708 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2009-045)
This item was forwarded from the Sign Subcommittee to this meeting so will be acted upon as a
regular agenda item.
Wyler presented the staff report as follows. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance
(CDC) approval for multiple new signs for the new restaurant, Three Legged Willie’s Restaurant and
Bar. They include a V-shaped canopy sign, a hanging sign, window signs, and an A-frame chalk
board.
First, a V-shaped canopy sign is proposed. The sign will be installed on top of the building’s Austin
Avenue canopy and will replace the canopy sign from the previous restaurant. The sign will have two
faces, diagonally installed and joined together near the edge of the canopy, creating a V-shaped sign,
as shown on the provided renderings. The applicant wishes to install the V-shaped sign to allow
traffic along Austin Avenue to safely read the sign when traveling both north and south. A similar
style of sign was recently installed a few doors down at The Williamson Museum. Together, the two
faces will measure 72 inches wide by 53 inches high, totaling 26.5 square feet. The aluminum sign
will use a combination of vinyl application and reverse channel lettering. As shown in the provided
rendering, the metal face, to be colored Behr’s Tibetan Red, will have a laminated graphic overlay
mounted directly onto the aluminum. Both images of “Three Legged Willie” and the sign’s backdrop
will use this application. Reverse channel aluminum lettering will be used for the name of the
restaurant, Three Legged Willie’s. “Three Legged” will use 5.5-inch high letters, while “Willie’s” will
use 11.5-inch high letters. The applicant also proposes placing “Restaurant & Bar” below the name
of the restaurant in 4-inch Black, vinyl letters, applied to the polished aluminum band across the
bottom of the face. The name of the restaurant will be illuminated using US LED point modules that
will provide reverse illumination for the “Three Legged Willie’s” only. “Restaurant and Bar” will not be
illuminated. All lettering will be in an Insignia Bold font. The sign will be attached to the canopy using
an iron frame and brackets painted in Behr’s Tibetan Red.
Next, the applicant proposes installing a hanging sign below the canopy and in front of the
restaurant’s entrance. The double-sided sign will be constructed of Medium Density Overlay (MDO)
wood, measuring 12 inches high by 36 inches wide, totaling 3 square feet. It will be attached to the
canopy using black chains and S-hooks. As shown on the provided renderings, the hanging sign will
match in design and color to the V-shaped canopy sign. “Three Legged Willie’s” will be attached
using flat cut .25-inch thick aluminum letters. The letters for “Three Legged” will measure 3 inches
tall and the letters for “Willie’s” will measure 6 inches tall. Both will use an Insignia Bold font.
Window graphics are also proposed for the Austin Avenue display windows and door. There are a
total of 10 windows that will each receive an oracle-etched glass vinyl attachment. As shown in the
provided rendering, the application with have a height of 21.6 inches for all windows and will span the
entire building. The application will be 30% of each window, as allowed by the Design Guidelines.
The two outer windows will depict the restaurant’s logo and will read “Three Legged Willie’s,
Restaurant and Bar”. The entrance doors will simply have the name of the restaurant while two
street facing windows adjacent to the doors will read “Fine Dining & Catering”. All remaining windows
will receive the glazed application but will not have lettering.
Finally, the applicant would like to place a chalkboard A-frame sign along the Austin Avenue
sidewalk. The double-sided sign will measure 44 inches tall by 36 inches wide and will be in the
same colors and design as both the V-shape canopy sign and hanging sign. The MDO wooden sign
will have 1/4-inch flat cut polished aluminum lettering reading “Three Legged Willie’s” above a
chalkboard area. 2-inch lettering will be used for “Three Legged” while “Willie’s” will have 4 inch
letters, both in an Insignia Bold font. A black metal chain will be installed at the bottom of the A-frame
sign for support.
Applicable Guidelines used to support staff recommendation of approval are: 9.2, 9.6, 9.7, 9.9, 9.11,
9.13, 9.15, 9.16, 9.17, 9.18, 9.20 & 9.21. Wyler then introduced Eric Visser, the building owner and
applicant, and Thomas Hobbs, the sign maker and graphic designer. They were available for
questions. Short asked if they had any comments.
Hobbs started by saying that they would like to change the graphic on the windows next to the door to
include a graphic of four gentlemen instead of the wording “Restaurant and Fine Dining”. A rendering
was presented on the overhead screen. It was four versions of Willie. He also explained that the
picture the Commission had received did not accurately depict the proposed look. The white
background shown on the picture would actually be an opaque, frosted glass look, and the dark gray
shown on the picture would be the clear glass, not actually a color. Mr. Hobbs showed everyone a
sample of the opaque vinyl film that would be placed on the glass.
Moore questioned Wyler on the size of the sign on the canopy and the measurement of that sign.
Wyler reported the façade of the building is almost 27 feet across. The sign was measured from
looking straight from the middle of the sign, and since it is at an angle, the width of the sign was not
measured as the entire width of each sign. Hobbs presented the drawing of the angle of the sign on
the top of the awning looking down. Moore stated that cannot possibly be accurate based on the
drawing of how the sign will be displayed. Moore stated the drawing of the angle indicates it is at least
120 degrees, versus the picture of the sign at an angle. Moore asked Wyler to look at the UDC
Section 10.06.020b and explain how Wyler came up with the calculation of area of the sign, when the
UDC states clearly how to measure the sign. Wyler pointed out that the calculation given was for a
back-to-back sign and that the sign being presented was an angled sign with two faces. Moore stated
that is why he believes the two faces should be completely counted in the calculation, making this sign
too big. Short clarified he believes Wyler measured the sign from the area covered if looking straight
on at the sign. Moore stated he disagreed with the method of calculation and has come up with the
area of the sign at approximately 52 square feet. Pergl pointed out that the figure of Willie actually
causes the sign to be larger because the frame of the rectangular necessary to include the figure is
actually 53” x 72”. The sign would be much smaller if just the lettering were calculated. Moore stated
he still disagrees with Wyler’s calculation, stating each side of the sign is still 26 square feet putting
the total at 52 square feet, which is twice the size allowed. Short stated if the signs were
back-to-back, each side could be 26 feet. Moore said that was right but the UDC states (quoting the
UDC), “The sign area for a sign with more than one face shall be computed by adding together the
area of all sign faces visible from any one point. When two identical sign faces are placed back to
back, so that both faces cannot be viewed from any point at the same time, and when such sign
faces are substantially similar, and when such sign faces are part of the same sign structure the sign
area shall be computed by the measurement of one of the faces.” He stated he personally thinks the
sign is too big.
Firth questioned the height of just the lettering portion of the sign. Hobbs estimated around four feet.
Then she questioned the height of the existing Loading Dock sign. Wyler reported the square footage
of that sign was 9 square feet, and did not know the exact height. Firth questioned the reason for the
extra height of the proposed sign. Visser stated it was a hospitality type business and he would like to
have people drawn to the business. Firth explained she could appreciate that but this is not a simple
sign. Visser brought up the Romeo’s sign and the complexity of that sign that was presented a few
years ago. He stated that the city was going to have to decide that if it wants this type of business, it
will have to allow the signage that will draw the business to this type of business. Firth indicated that
she appreciated attracting business but questioned whether a smaller sign was considered. Visser
stated that with the expense of the type of sign that was proposed, LED backlit, environmentally
sensitive signs, the exposure must be justified by the cost. He wants to catch the eye of the people
driving on Austin Ave. Firth stated the scale seems to be out of proportion with the other buildings on
the Square. Visser countered with the fact that there is a problem with the UDC that measures the
size of the sign based on the width of the storefront.
Pergl questioned the depth of the awning. Wyler reported that it covered the entire sidewalk and was
9 1/2 feet from the building. Pergl pointed out that the sign could still be attached to the building or
projecting from the building and still not hang over the awning. All of the drawings appeared to be out
of scale and not an accurate representation of the placement of the sign, and it was not clear what
portion of the building would be obstructed by the sign. Visser stated that was difficult to do without a
three-dimensional, scaled model. Pergl was more concerned that with the depth of the canopy, the
location of Willie, closest to the building would be obstructed from the drivers passing by. He
suggested something above the canopy might be more visible and appropriate. He even suggested a
blade sign that would be visible from down the street. Visser stated he looked at elevating the sign on
the awning and it would disproportionately obstruct the storefront so was not suggested. Visser
pointed out that even if the sign were smaller and elevated it would still obstruct part of the building.
Firth pointed out that the Museum and Sweet Serendipity had placed signs at that level and they were
smaller. She questioned whether an option of Mr. Visser’s would be to place the sign flush on the
building. Visser questioned whether they wanted him to apply the sign to the steel metal storefront.
Firth stated the Museum did that. Visser stated he thought it would be best not to do that in the long
run. He was looking at the Guidelines that stated he was to protect the building but that he was willing
to explore those options, whatever was best for the building. Firth asked if there were any other
options considered for a street level sign. Hobbs stated the original sign had three-legged Willie and
the text without the words Restaurant and Bar. They opted to add the extra wording and take off the
proposed frame. Hobbs felt this look was cleaner. He suggested narrowing the angle, keeping the
current size and using the calculation from the head-on view. Firth stated it was still difficult to
visualize based on the drawings.
Hobbs stated he was there to figure out how wide the angle was to be allowed, and he would work
within those guidelines. Rapp restated that Hobbs could work with the angle, but stated that she felt
the sign was still too tall and asked if they could work with that also. Visser spoke to that and stated
that this was a very expensive sign. Rapp stated it still feels out of proportion and possibly too tall.
Visser stated maybe it was because it was too red and he felt the red jumped out at him also. He said
he sent this signage to the State Historical Commission and asked their opinions. They sent back
several options and he chose this one based on the red matching the red accents on the building.
They were trying to keep the integrity of the aesthetics. Firth felt the colors were okay with the
building, but the drawings were not accurate enough for a decision to be made. Moore suggested
looking at the picture differently. Look at the sign head-on, with the back of the V being only 6 feet
wide, and only reaching the trim of the center windows. The picture shows the sign(s) almost as wide
as the building. It was noted that it was not to scale. Moore stated that looking at it that way, he still
had an issue with the interpretation of the calculation of the allowable size of sign.
Short explained his interpretation. He agreed the UDC does not specifically address a V-sign. But if
you can have a sign that is back-to-back and only count one face, it seems reasonable that you can
spread one leg of it out and with some reasonable interpretation, facing the front you can use the
same calculation. Hobbs says that if that spread is six feet then this fits within the limitation. W yler
concurred this was his interpretation of the calculation. Firth questioned the height of the figure.
Hobbs stated the height scale was fairly accurate, just not the width, based on the size of the front
door in the picture.
Visser stated that the red indicated in the picture was not representative of the actual red to be used.
The true color was explained as Tibetan Red, a less bright red than indicated. He did not have a
sample to show. The chosen red would more closely match the building colors. Visser also stated
that this side of the Square was challenging in drawing attention to those buildings.
Moore stated he also felt this sign goes against the guideline that stated a sign was not supposed to
block an architectural feature. He stated he felt this was blocking the window frames and this
approval would set a precedent. Pergl stated this was not necessarily so since the depth of the sign
would only be three feet, and that this would leave approximately six feet from the face of the building,
not obstructing any architectural features.
There was continued discussion on how this was not presented to scale. Visser apologized and
stated there were not any other submissions that he could find as a sample that would depict the
actual proposal.
Rapp requested moving on to the other signs, and ask them to bring back scaled drawings of the
awning signs. She commented on the A-frame sign, thinking it was too large. Wyler stated other
A-frame signs on the Square vary in size and this one falls under the approved size of 12 square feet.
Hobbs stated that the pale gold on the picture is now proposed as brushed metal and the red will
match the red used in the other signs, a more orange red. Johnson requested confirmation that the
sign would be taken in during the closed hours. Visser confirmed.
The hanging sign colors were clarified as a red background and the border the same brushed metal
as on the other signs. When questioned about the lack of hours of operation on any signage, Visser
stated he wanted the flexibility to change those hours and so did not want them posted.
Chair Short asks for a motion. There was some discussion on what the Commission could agree on
to allow the owner signage for opening.
Motion by Moore to approve the CDC for the sidewalk sign, the hanging sign and the window
signs. Second by Short. Moore amended his motion to include the changes to the signs that
were described by the applicant at this meeting. Second by Short. Moore amended to include
that the A-frame sign can only be displayed during hours of operation and must be taken
inside when the restaurant is closed. Second by Short. Original and amended motion was
approved 6 – 0.
Moore questioned Wyler on which interpretation of the calculation would be used to determine the
allowable size of the sign. Wyler stated he would get with the Director and make a determination.
Pergl also asked for a history of how the size of the sign for the Museum was calculated. There was
further discussion of actions the Commission could take at this point. Cook suggested keeping the
public hearing open and allow the applicant to come back, after 72 hours notice of the meeting, with
better renderings, samples and scaled mock-ups of the sign in question.
Motion by Rapp to keep the public hearing open for the canopy sign of this item to Monday,
February 1 at 4:30 p.m. in the Georgetown Municipal Complex, to allow the applicant to bring
in paint samples, scaled drawings and pictures of the proposed sign in place. Second by
Johnson. Approved 6 – 0.
Moore questioned what the Commissioners could do if they were in disagreement with a staff decision
regarding the sign size calculation. Cook reported the Commissioners could appeal the decision to
the Director or further, to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. She also reported that she would make a
decision on the measurement and calculation of the sign after speaking with the Building Official, and
bring that to the Monday meeting. She also stated the application form and CDC application checklist
of submittals would be brought for the Commissioners to see what should be submitted with each
application.
Regular Agenda:
3.Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition of a structure at City of Georgetown, Block 14,
Lots 7(n/pt) and 8(w/pt), located at 214 W. 3rd Street. (CDC-2009-026)
Wyler presented the staff report. This CDC request originally came before the Commission in July,
2009. The CDC was denied in hopes that the applicant could find another use for the structure. A
tour of the house by the Commission was made on September 30, 2009. Staff recommends approval
of the demolition permit.
Firth questioned the applicant whether there were attempts to find alternative uses for the structure or
whether the applicant had approached any preservationists. The applicant, Matt Clark, stated that his
intent now was to relocate the house to a site in Bertram where older houses were “stored” until sold
for another use. The application is now for relocation of the house.
Motion by Short to approve the relocation of the structure at 214 W. 3rd Street. Second by Moore.
Approved 6 -0.
4.Certificate of Design Compliance for site and structural changes, including the demolition of a garage,
addition of on-site parking and changes to roofing material, at Lost Addition, Block 66(pt), also known
as Photography by Kappy, located at 1112 Rock Street. (CDC-2009-046)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to remove an attached garage to make
way for two on-site parking spaces and to replace roof shingles due to weathering. Because the two
spaces will be added, although screened from view of University and Rock Street, HARC is being
asked to review the change in appearance of the property. A walkthrough of the garage that is to be
demolished was held on Tuesday, February 26 by Commissioners as is customary for structures that
are proposed for demolition. Staff considers the request for CDC’s as appropriate and recommends
approval based on applicable Guidelines 6.24, 7.13, 8.19 and 8.25.
Commissioners questioned the removal of the existing picket fence, not shown on the site plan. The
applicant, Jeff Randall, stated the fence was to be removed between the neighbor to the north and his
parking spaces to accommodate the closeness of the spaces to the property line and allow the shrubs
to be placed near the property line for screening purposes. The remaining fence would remain in
place.
There was also discussion of existing concrete and what would remain. Mr. Randall stated he would
like to keep and use all existing concrete and only add the two additional spaces to the pad, but that
will depend on the engineer’s test of the concrete and what is required for code. He will also be
extending the screening shrubs on the property line to further screen the two new spaces. He is also
replacing the decking at the back of the house and replacing that with stairs.
Motion by Moore to accept the changes for site and structural changes as described. Second
by Rapp. Approved 6 – 0.
5.Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior changes, including the installation of new doors and
windows and the addition of a handicap ramp at the rear of the building, at City of Georgetown, Block
50, Lot 1(s/pt), located at 824 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2009-047)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks CDC approval to make some minor alterations
to the exterior of the building, including adding new doors, windows, light features and a handicap
ramp at the rear of the historic building. These exterior changes are part of a larger renovation to both
the inside and outside of the building. There is not a tenant for this building at the time of application.
Wyler presented more details that were noted in the printed staff report. Staff is in support of approval
with the following considerations.
1)HARC should take into consideration the installation of the new front door. The Guidelines state
that it is not appropriate to create new openings to historic buildings if they are not original. It also
states that if the installation of a door is necessary, it should be pedestrian friendly, which the
proposed front door is. Staff considers the relocation of the front door appropriate as it enhances
the appearance and because major architectural features are not altered. In addition, this
alteration could be changed later. However, HARC may consider the creation of a new opening
to the front of a historic building inappropriate.
2)Staff suggests, if feasible, the applicant use heavy wooden doors, as this is more typical to historic
buildings around the square.
3)Staff is in support of Option 2 for the rear of the building and its suggested light feature, as this
option elevates and maintains the existing awning over the door that complements other awnings
seen on the building. This creates a visual connection between all sides of the building.
Staff recommends approval based on the applicable Guidelines 5.1, 5.3, 5.5, 5.9, 6.3, 6.12, 6.20, 7.8,
8.1 & 8.22
The applicant, Matt Webb, the architect was available for questions by the Commission. He
commented that the owner would like to keep the awning over the back door, move it up to be
compliant and have the light fixture under the awning. There was discussion with the Commissioners
that the bead board around the front door area was not really paneling and they he and the
Commission would prefer the bead board material instead. Mr. Webb reported the historical type of
bead board is easier to locate than the paneling that is in the entryway now, which he believes is from
the 1980’s.
Chair Short questioned the possibility of having a double door instead of the single door. Mr. Webb
explained that because of the cost of having to reconstruct that entire front area, the owner had opted
to replace the single door with a very nice single door. Firth questioned the choice of metal door
versus the wood door. Mr. Webb explained the client wanted the more expensive metal door. Firth
questioned the current handrails being up to the current building code. Webb explained that there is
an exception granted for the current building code because of the age of the building. The handrail is
up to the code under which it was installed.
Motion by Johnson to approve the application for a CDC as submitted with the provision that
the applicant use lumber instead of paneling when the bead board is called out. Second by
Short. Approved 6 – 0. Mr. Webb estimated the building would be available for occupancy in April.
6.Discussion with staff on code enforcement matters in the Downtown and Old Town areas.
Cook made a report of the code enforcement department in response to Moore’s request and concern
that when the Commission puts a condition on an application for CDC, that the condition is not
enforced. Cook explained that code enforcement officers work very closely with Wyler and other staff
to determine which rules apply to which properties and whether there are special circumstances.
However, code enforcement officers do not go out in search of violations in most cases. They wait for
citizen or staff complaints. Their job is to enforce the codes adopted by the city. Cook explained the
reality of code enforcement is that a complaint will be made, the officers make phone calls and review
the complaint in the field, then try to resolve the issue with the owner of the property. The officers are
then accused of selective enforcement and complaints come from higher level officials to stop “picking
on” those individuals. Code enforcement officers attempt to work with people to solve an issue rather
than going to court or forcing fines, with the end result of fixing the violation in mind. Moore expressed
his appreciation for knowing that all codes could be enforced, including Certificates of Design
Compliance.
7.Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on February 25, 2010.
8.Adjournment
Chair Short recessed the meeting at 8:15 p.m., to be continued on Monday, February 1, 2010 at 4:30
p.m. in the Williamson Conference Room of the Georgetown Municipal Complex.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Walkthrough of proposed
demolition
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Walkthrough of proposed demolition will meet on
Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 08:30 AM in the 1112 Rock Street
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Walkthrough of proposed demolition Members:
West Short, Chair; Susan Firth; J.C. Johnson; Will Moore; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 08:30 AM
Members of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission may or may not be in attendance for a
walk-through of the site on Tuesday, January 26, 2010. This is discovery action of a HARC agenda item
that will be discussed and action taken on January 28. The application for 1112 Rock Street is for
demolition of the garage structure. Commissioners have asked for a walk-through and further review of
the property before taking action. There will be discussion at the property, but no action will be taken at
this time.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Thursday, January
14, 2010 at 04:00 PM in the Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300 Industrial Blvd, Georgetown,
Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Members:
Will Moore, Chair; Ron Pergl and Dee Rapp
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 04:00 PM
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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 regular scheduled
meeting of the Sign Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the December 10, 2009, Sign
Subcommittee meeting.
2.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance
for signage at Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lots 7 & 8, also known as La Maison, located
at 204 E. 8th Street. (CDC-2009-043) For more information on this item, click here:
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2009-043.pdf
3.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance
for a freestanding directory sign at Lost Addition, Block 66 (pt), located at 407 W.
University Avenue. (CDC-2009-044) For more information on this item, click here:
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2010/CDC-2009-044.pdf
4.Adjournment
The Subcommittee may forward these items to the next meeting of the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission for its consideration. That meeting is scheduled for January
28, 2010.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Thursday , January 14, 2010.
Members Present:
Will Moore, Ron Pergl and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; and Karen
Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Chair Moore at 4:02 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign 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
regular scheduled meeting of the Sign Subcommittee, for consideration and possible action on
the following:
1.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the December 10, 2009, Sign
Subcommittee meeting.
Motion by Pergl to accept the minutes . Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
2.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
signage at Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lots 7 & 8, also known as La Maison, located at 204
E. 8
th
Street. (CDC-2009-043)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant is seeking approval to reface an existing
freestanding sign. The materials frame and frame color will remain the same. Guidelines
to support the staff recommendation of approval are 9.3, 9.15, 9.17, and 9.18. Wyler
introduced Francois Oudomphong, the applicant. Francois stated the rendering of the
French flag was upside down and he would be turning it the correct way on the sign itself.
Commissioners discussed the colors of the sign. The proposal includes 5 colors with the
French flag having three colors. There was discussion of what was allowed if a flag was
included in a sign. Commissioners want to be consistent in their determinations. It was
determined that a flag was not to be considered a corporate logo so therefore the extra
colors of the flag would be allowed.
Motion by Rapp to accept the new sign for LaMaison as submitted . Second by Pergl.
Approved 3 – 0.
3.Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for a
freestanding directory sign at Lost Addition, Block 66 (pt), located at 407 W. University
Avenue. (CDC-2009-044)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant is seeking approval of a freestanding
directory sign to be situated in front of the business along University Avenue. Exact
dimensions and color samples were given. The sign will have four panels to allow for
advertisement of multiple tenants within the building. Each panel will have simple
lettering and a logo, like what is proposed for the first tenant. This is for a two sided sign
that will be identical on each side. Staff recommends approval of the sign with support
from Guidelines 9.3, 9.10, 9.15, 9.17, and 9.18.
Rapp wanted confirmation that each tenant that came forward would be limited to the
colors that were being used for the first tenant. That was confirmed. There are four colors
currently being used, including the black and white, and only one more color will be
allowed. That was confirmed.
There was discussion of the lighting options that were requested. Ray Shifley, the
applicant’s agent, stated the owner was requesting two options in case the first choice of
solar powered lighting did not work as well as expected.
Rapp questioned the size of the sign. Wyler responded that the proposed sign is within the
allowable size. The existing banner will be taken down upon approval and installation of
the permanent sign and the real estate sign that is in the front yard is allowed. Pergl talks
to the size of the sign and suggests bringing the sign to a better scale by reducing the height
by one foot, reducing the length from the bottom of the sign to the ground to 12 inches
instead of 24 inches. Shifley says that is agreeable.
Moore questioned whether the other tenants would have to come before the sign
committee for approval of their tenant panel. Rapp stated she was agreeable to
administrative approval of those panels using the existing agreement that the colors were
not to be changed or added to. Pergl and Moore concur. Shifley stated the owner has
agreed to file a Master Sign Plan for approval when he moves out of the building.
Motion by Pergl to accept the application for the sign design with the caveat that the 24”
height from the ground be reduced to 12 inches, reducing the overall height of the sign to
60 inches; and that staff may administratively approve future tenant sign panels ; and that
the lighting fixture choice be left to the applicant. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
4.Adjournment. The Meeting was adjourned by Moore at 4:45 p.m.