HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARC_Agenda&Minutes_2012Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, December 13, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Thursday, December
13, 2012 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:
Sarah Blankenship; Tim Urban; and Ray Wahrenbrock
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 action on the minutes from the November 14, 2012 Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
2.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City
of Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 4 (pt), for law offices located at 804 S. Main Street.
(CDC-2012-047)
3.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City
of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (pt), also known as All Things Kids, located at 703 S. Main Street.
(CDC-2012-048)
4.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City
of Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 4 (pt), also known as Edward Jones Investments, located at 102 W.
8th Street. (CDC-2012-045)
5.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at Lot
1, Old Fire Station Subdivision, also known as the Georgetown Art Center, located at 816 S. Main
Street. (CDC-2012-044)
6.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 13, 2012 at 6pm.
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 _________________, 2012, 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 13, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Thursday , December 13, 2012.
Members Present:
Tim Urban, Chair and Ray Wahrenbrock
Members Absent:
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Urban 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 action on the minutes from the November 14, 2012 Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
Motion by Wahrenbrock to approve the minutes as presented. Second by Urban.
Approved 2 – 0.
2.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City
of Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 4 (pt), for law offices located at 804 S. Main Street.
(CDC-2012-047)
Kreger presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval
from HARC for window signage for the Main Street entry door. As proposed, white vinyl letters will
be applied to the door glass. Per the applicant’s submission, the door measures approximately
14.18 square feet in size, and they propose to cover an area of approximately 2.24 square feet.
The sign includes the type of business and the names and telephone numbers of the tenants. At
this time, no additional signage has been proposed. Staff recommends approval of the signage
as presented.
Urban opened the Public Hearing at 5:36 p.m. and closed it with no speakers coming forth.
Motion by Wahrenbrock to approve the CDC for signage as submitted. Second by Urban.
Approved 2 – 0.
3.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City
of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (pt), also known as All Things Kids, located at 703 S. Main Street.
(CDC-2012-048)
Kreger presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval
for an A-frame sign to be placed on the sidewalk in front of the business. As proposed, the MDO
wood sign would be a rectangular shaped, top-hinged A-frame, measuring 4 feet in height by 3
feet in width, displaying the business logo and a white dry-erase area for daily messages. The
primarily white sign would have a ½ inch raised wooden boarder painted dark green. Staff
recommends approval of the CDC as presented by the applicant.
Urban opened the Public Hearing at 5:40 p.m. and closed it with no speakers coming forth.
Wahrenbrock questioned how the A-frame sign would be weighted, so it would not blow over.
Ray Shawley, the applicant’s agent, explained that this was the same signage material as that
used next door and that the existing sign was not moving. The owner explained that the sign was
to be constructed of solid wood, that would weigh a total of approximately 90 pounds.
Motion by Wahrenbrock to approve the CDC for the A-frame sign as submitted. Second by
Urban. Approved 2 – 0.
4.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City
of Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 4 (pt), also known as Edward Jones Investments, located at 102 W.
8th Street. (CDC-2012-045)
Kreger presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval
for signage to be added to the exterior of the new financial business. First, the applicant would
like to have one primary sign, a non-illuminated, single face, sandblasted cedar sign to be
installed on the canopy. This 15 square foot sign will be attached to a bracket set on the canopy
in the same manner as the previous sign. The message will be “Edward Jones Investments” in
white lettering on a dark green background with a 1-inch white border. The 15 square foot sign is
below the maximum allowed size of 21 square feet.
Two secondary signs are proposed. A hanging sign is proposed under the canopy facing 8th
Street and a projecting sign on the Main Street side of the building. These non-illuminated,
double-faced, MDO wooden signs will be mounted using the existing hardware from the most
recent signs. The Main Street projecting sign is proposed at 3 square feet and the 8th Street
hanging sign is proposed at 1.3 square feet (overall total of 4.3 square feet). Both signs meet the
minimum ground clearance requirement (8’ and 7’ respectively). At 2 feet wide, the 8th Street
sign will be approximately 25% of the canopy’s 8-foot width (maximum allowed 50%). The
projecting sign extends out 3 feet, less than half of the sidewalk’s width per the Design Guidelines.
The message portrayed on both signs will be “Edward Jones”, again in white lettering on a dark
green background with a white border.
Finally, the applicant proposes one window graphic located on the door, measuring approximately
1.75 square feet. The sign will occupy approximately 18.7% of the 9.7 square foot glass area,
well below the 30% maximum allowed per the Design Guidelines. The business name and
contact information in white vinyl lettering will comprise the message on this sign.
The applicant’s agent, for Liberty Signs was available for questions.
Urban opened the Public Hearing at 5:50 p.m. and closed it with no speakers coming forth.
Wahrenbrock asked if this was the same exact size as the existing signage, and the response
was yes.
Motion by Wahrenbrock to approve the CDC for the four signs as submitted. Second by
Urban. Approved 2 – 0.
5.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at Lot
1, Old Fire Station Subdivision, also known as the Georgetown Art Center, located at 816 S. Main
Street. (CDC-2012-044)
Kreger presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval
for wall signage for the new Art Center building. As proposed, a new wall mounted sign stating
“Georgetown Art Center” would be centered above the Main Street store front portion of the
building. It would be comprised of individual letters in a simple font, made from blackened steel
that is ground down, and then clear coated to preserve the patina. The capital letters are 21
inches in height and the lower case letters are 16 inches in height. These heights are based on a
Texas State Historical Commission requirement for the anchoring to be into masonry joints rather
than the limestone blocks, combined with the desire for the anchors to not be visible.
The entire Main Street façade is approximately 62 feet in length, divided into two equal modules,
which would allow a wall sign of up to 62 square feet. As proposed, the wall sign is approximately
40.25 square feet, well within the Design Guideline limits. Staff recommends approval of this
request.
Urban opened the Public Hearing at 5:56 p.m. and closed it with no speakers coming forth.
Urban asked the applicant, Gary Wang the architect, how the metal letters would be attached.
Mr. Wang gave an explanation of the metal rods that would be set into the mortar bed.
Motion by Wahrenbrock to approve the CDC as presented. Second by Urban. Approved 2
– 0.
6.Adjournment. Urban adjourned the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
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 13, 2012 at 6pm.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, December 13, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, December 13, 2012 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:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; David Paul; Raymond Wehrenbrock; Tim Urban; Jennifer Brown;
and Anna Eby
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.
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 November 1, 2012, regular HARC meeting.
2.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City of
Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 4 (pt), for law offices located at 804 S. Main Street. (CDC-2012-047)
3.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City of
Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (pt), also known as All Things Kids, located at 703 S. Main Street.
(CDC-2012-048)
4.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City of
Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 4 (pt), also known as Edward Jones Investments, located at 102 W. 8th
Street. (CDC-2012-045)
5.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at Lot 1, Old
Fire Station Subdivision, also known as the Georgetown Art Center, located at 816 S. Main Street.
(CDC-2012-044)
Regular Agenda:
6.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for a parking lot at City of
Georgetown, Block 49, Lot 4 (pt), located at 810 S. Rock Street. (CDC-2012-039)
7.Public Hearing and possible action to amend a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC-2010-030) for
the installation of a service yard gate at City of Georgetown, Block 3, Lots 1 - 8, also known as El
Monumento, located at 205 W. 2nd Street. (CDC-2012-035)
8.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for building façade changes
and signage at City of Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 4 (pt), to be known as Aubin Realty, located at 810
S. Main Street. (CDC-2012-040)
9.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for building façade changes
and signage at Lot 2, Old Fire Station Subdivision, to be known as ThunderCloud Subs, located at 814
S. Main Street. (CDC-2012-049)
10.Updates from staff and reminder about a possible January 9, 2013, HARC Sign Subcommittee
meeting at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and the January 24, 2013, HARC/HARC Sign
Subcommittee meetings at City Council Chambers.
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 _________________, 2012, 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 13, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
December 13, 2012.
Members Present:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Jennifer Brown; Anna Eby; David Paul; Tim Urban and Raymond Wahrenbrock;.
Members Absent:
Sarah Blankenship
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Elizabeth Cook, Planning
Consultant ; Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director; Eric Lashley, Library Services Director; and Karen
Frost, Recording Secretary.
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Rapp called the meeting to order at 6:10 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.
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 November 1, 2012, regular HARC meeting.
Wahrenbrock asked that paragraph 3 on page 2 include “a cantered or tilted window”, in addition to
“faceted” as stated. And on page 4, third paragraph, change the reverences from brick to rock.
Motion by Paul to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Eby. Approved 6 – 0.
2.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City of
Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 4 (pt), for law offices located at 804 S. Main Street. (CDC-2012-047)
3.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City of
Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (pt), also known as All Things Kids, located at 703 S. Main Street.
(CDC-2012-048)
4.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City of
Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 4 (pt), also known as Edward Jones Investments, located at 102 W. 8th
Street. (CDC-2012-045)
5.Consideration and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at Lot 1, Old
Fire Station Subdivision, also known as the Georgetown Art Center, located at 816 S. Main Street.
(CDC-2012-044)
Urban reported that all items on the consent agenda were approved at the Sign Subcommittee
meeting prior to this meeting.
Regular Agenda:
6.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for a parking lot at City of
Georgetown, Block 49, Lot 4 (pt), located at 810 S. Rock Street. (CDC-2012-039)
Kreger presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC)
approval from HARC to construct a free standing parking lot to serve as parking for the tenant at 304
W. 8th Street (RunTex is proposed tenant) immediately adjacent to this vacant property. This parking
lot is not required for the building, but will serve as ancillary parking for the lease space.
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance for a parking lot as proposed by
the applicant, with the condition that staff will continue to work with the applicant to refine site plan
design related to landscaping and final engineering.
Rapp opened the floor for questions by commissioners. She asked about the doors of the garage
across the parking lot opening onto two of the parallel parking spaces. Kreger explained that the
commission could make a condition that approves the plan with the fire safety review and approval of
the site plan. Wahrenbrock was concerned about the egress and ingress of another business’s door
into the parking lot. He suggested a strip of space to allow them access to the back of the buildings.
Wahrenbrock also voiced concern regarding the electrical pole in the location where the new driveway
is proposed. Kreger explained that the electrical department would review the site plan for possible
conflicts and address those as necessary.
Rapp opened the Public Hearing at 6:32 and closed it immediately with no speakers coming forth.
Rapp questioned the review of the landscaping and Kreger explained that would be reviewed by staff.
Motion by Eby to approve the CDC as proposed with the condition that staff will continue to
work with the applicant to refine the site plan design related to landscaping, fire safety, and
final engineering. Second by Paul. Approved 6 – 0.
7.Public Hearing and possible action to amend a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC-2010-030) for
the installation of a service yard gate at City of Georgetown, Block 3, Lots 1 - 8, also known as El
Monumento, located at 205 W. 2nd Street. (CDC-2012-035)
Kreger presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting to amend a previous CDC approval in
order to change the proposed design of the gate for the service yard at the El Monumento restaurant.
The CDC for the site improvements, including the El Monumento restaurant, was approved December
20, 2010 (see site layout below). As part of that approval, HARC approved the location and design of
a service area accessed via Austin Avenue, which included the design of the gate screening the area.
The east elevation representing this side of the building is shown below for visual reference; however,
the gate depicted in the image is not what was approved or is currently proposed. The approved gate
design included a metal frame with wooden slats laid in a horizontal pattern facing the street. The
wooden slats addressed the UDC’s requirements for screening of delivery areas and refuse. The
proposed the fence adjacent to the gate is anticipated to have vines going on it to help soften the
appearance.
Since that approval, the structure and site have been developed and a gate installed. As currently
designed and built, the gate has the horizontal wood slats facing the interior of the site versus the
exterior, and has a small grid design in the metal. The applicant has indicated that they believe the
current design is more in keeping with the use of metal gates at other locations on the site.
Rapp opened the Public Hearing at 6:40 p.m. and closed it immediately with no speakers coming
forth.
Commissioners asked questions. Wahrenbrock questioned why they could not switch the wood to the
outside of the gate as originally planned. It was explained that the applicant prefers to match the other
sections of the metal gates. There was further discussion of the options of both the applicant and the
commissioners, including redesign or possibly delaying approval.
Motion by Paul to approve the CDC as presented. Second by Urban. Approved 5 – 1,
Wahrenbrock opposed.
8.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for building façade changes
and signage at City of Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 4 (pt), to be known as Aubin Realty, located at 810
S. Main Street. (CDC-2012-040)
Kreger presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC)
approval from HARC to make exterior changes to the façade, as well as add new business signage.
The following building changes are proposed.
Brick: The applicant proposes to remove the paint from the lower brick façade and restore it to its
original condition, matching the unpainted brick above. A chemical process and light wash will be
used for the paint removal, a process recommended by the Texas Historical Commission. Any
replacement brick needed once the building is restored will be matched to the original brick.
Door: There are three doors on the building, a wood and glass double door and a single wood door
on the right side of the building. The wood panels in the right door will be removed, hopefully
revealing original glass pane as well, which will then match the main double doors. If there is no
original material remaining under the wood panels, the glass and recessed panels will be
reconstructed based on the pattern of the double door.
Paint: The right door trim and the window trim above the canopy will be painted cream (Behr White
Mocha) to match the double doors and other existing trim on the building.
Metal Canopy: The existing canopy has been modified over the years and is in poor repair. The
applicant proposes to replace the current canopy with a new canopy in the same location and with the
same dimensions (8’ x 30’). The new canopy will be a continuous metal canopy extending the length
of the façade installed with tie rods, like the existing canopy. A picture of a similar canopy as what is
proposed is provided within the attachments.
Signage: The business owner proposes to replace this site’s existing hanging sign with the hanging
sign from his previous location at 800 S. Austin Avenue. The message on the sign is “J. Paul Aubin
Real Estate”. The sign has a cream colored background with brown lettering and an orange border
and highlight over the words “Real Estate”. The dimensions of the existing sign are 14.5” x 72”. The
owner is proposing to cut the sign down to fit whatever the commission would require so that he can
use the same sign.
Commissioners were invited to ask questions. Wahrenbrock questioned the underside of the canopy.
It was explained that it would be the imitation bead board and framed in wood, with an aluminum
frame. It was also discussed that the roofing of the canopy would be a channeled metal roof. Mr.
Aubin, the applicant, explained that he intends to be a good steward of Main Street and to do it right.
Wahrenbrock asked Mr. Aubin to consider saving the unique gutters and downspouts of the building.
Aubin stated he would consider it, even though they were non-functioning.
Rapp opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m. and closed it immediately with no speakers coming
forth.
Rapp opened the discussion on each individual items, starting with the brick. The commissioners
expressed acceptance of the recommendation for the applicant to work with the Texas Historical
Commission to restore the brick façade.
Of the options for the door and window trim paint, the commissioners preferred the window trim to be
cream colored and the wood around the door and windows to be the sage/ olive green color.
The canopy was discussed next with the commissioners agreeing that the canopy should be encased
in wood, have the bead board exposed underneath the canopy and to allow recessed can lights
underneath for additional lighting.
The signage was discussed and it was determined that the existing sign would work temporarily, in a
reduced size, until the entire sign package would be developed and reviewed by HARC.
Motion by Rapp to approve the CDC with the following conditions: The applicant is to remove
the paint from the brick, working with THC to preserve the brick. The north door panel is to be
removed and the applicant is to work with staff to preserve the original glass door or mimic
the wood doors of the building. The paint colors will include the white mocha (cream) color
for the window trim, with the wood around the door and windows to be a sage/ olive green
color. The canopy is approved as presented with a metal canopy frame, bead board
underneath, recessed lighting, metal roof and wood trim encasing the canopy, as presented.
The hanging sign will be the existing business sign reduced to four feet as a temporary sign,
which may also be included in the packet for the sign subcommittee at a later date. Second by
Urban. Approved 6 – 0.
9.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for building façade changes
and signage at Lot 2, Old Fire Station Subdivision, to be known as ThunderCloud Subs, located at 814
S. Main Street. (CDC-2012-049)
Kreger presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC)
approval from HARC to make exterior changes to the old fire station bays, as well as add new
business signage.
Originally, the building was actively used as parking bays for fire trucks and most recently as general
equipment storage for the Fire Department. Now, the new use of the building will be for a restaurant,
and the applicant has sought to create a renovation design that respects the past use of the building
while making adaptations for the new use.
Currently, the building is comprised of four bays with glass and metal overhead doors, which were
constructed in the mid 50’s, and have a Low Priority designation in the 2007 historic survey and no
designation in the 1984 Survey. The façade consists of beige colored brick with grey metal
downspouts and an aged light fixture above each bay for exterior lighting.
The following changes are proposed. Garage Doors: As proposed, the doors in the garage bay
openings would be replaced with a storefront window and door system installed in the same location,
which is recessed within each bay. The new doors and fixed glass lights are designed to resemble
the look of garage doors, and will be finished, unpainted, mill-finished aluminum.
Metal Canopy: A continuous metal canopy extending the length of the façade will be installed with tie
rods and will provide pedestrian cover, as well as adding an architectural element to the façade. This
new canopy will be located below the first light of the window/door system. The canopy will be made
of a steel c-channel frame, steel double angle-iron under supports, steel tie-back rods, exposed wood
soffit, and a TPO (thermoplastic polyolefin) roof. The existing gutters will remain and the tie rods for
the canopy will be located on each side of the three center downspouts.
Lighting: The existing lights above each bay will be replaced with four wall-washer lights that sit on top
of the canopy and shine back onto the façade above each bay opening. These lights will have an
aluminum finish. Four surface-mounted can lights and exposed metal conduit will be fixed under the
canopy and will shine down in front of each door.
Signage: A new wall sign is proposed to be added to the façade above what is considered to be the
primary entrance with the business name “ThunderCloud Subs”. It measures approximately 26.58
square feet in size, well within the Design Guideline maximum allowance of 57 square feet. The sign
will be made of painted aluminum and attached directly to the brick via a hidden bracket. The sign
background color will be Benjamin Moore “Cottage Red” and the lettering is intended to match the
façade brick and will be Benjamin Moore “White Dove OCD-17”. Cooper Black will be the font type.
No other signs are requested at this time.
David Cohen, the agent for the owner, was available for questions and explained that the signage
would also be backlit with LED lighting.
The Commissioners asked questions. Wahrenbrock questioned the material of the underside of the
canopy. Mr. Cohen stated it would be a wood finish. They also discussed the signage and Mr. Cohen
explained that the light of the sign would shine onto the rock of the building, in a reverse channel type,
giving a halo effect. There is also a proposed floodlight from the top of the canopy, shining onto the
brick, and recessed lighting underneath the canopy.
Rapp expressed concerns that the style of the canopy was not consistent with other canopies on that
same block of the square.
Rapp opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. and closed it immediately with no speakers coming
forth.
Rapp stated she felt the applicants had done an excellent job in keeping the look of the fire bay doors.
And the metal canopy could be considered in keeping with the same “industrial” look. It was agreed
the lighting was appropriate and would bring people in. The conduit for the lighting was discussed and
it was determined that the conduit for the lights would need to be placed on top of the canopy to not be
visible from the sidewalk. There was discussion of the applicant wanting more signage and he stated
that the one sign on the front façade was enough for this application. Wahrenbrock requested that the
applicant work with the sign company to minimize the damage to the brick as the sign was installed.
Motion by Rapp to approve the application for the CDC as proposed for the garage style
doors, for the canopy, and for the signage, and the lighting as proposed with the condition
that the exposed metal conduit be placed on top of the canopy to reduce the visual impact of
it. Second by Eby. Approved 6 – 0.
10.Updates from staff and reminder about a possible January 9, 2013, HARC Sign Subcommittee
meeting at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and the January 24, 2013, HARC/HARC Sign
Subcommittee meetings at City Council Chambers.
11.Adjournment. Rapp adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Wednesday,
November 14, 2012 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:
Sarah Blankenship; Tim Urban; and Ray Wahrenbrock
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 action on the minutes from the September 27, 2012 Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
2.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at City of
Georgetown, Block 41, Lots 6-7 (pts.), also known as Articine Health, located at 215 W. 8th Street
(CDC-2012-043)
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 13, 2012.
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 _________________, 2012, 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 14, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Wednesday , November 14, 2012.
Members Present:
Sarah Blankenship; Tim Urban; and Ray Wahrenbrock
Members Absent:
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Urban 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 action on the minutes from the September 27, 2012 Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
Motion by Wahrenbrock, second by Blankenship to approve the minutes as written.
Approved 3 – 0.
2.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at City of
Georgetown, Block 41, Lots 6-7 (pts.), also known as Articine Health, located at 215 W. 8th Street
(CDC-2012-043)
Kreger presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval
from HARC for window signs for the 8th and Rock Street windows. As proposed, the graphic will
be a combination of white cut vinyl for the text and digitally printed vinyl for the medical related
logo. The logo is designed with tan and two shades of green, in addition to white and black. Both
windows measure approximately 28 square feet in size, and as presented in the submittal
materials, the applicant proposes to cover approximately 7.7 square feet (27.5%) of each. The
signs include the snake and leaf graphic, business name, Articine Health; the doctor’s name;
telephone number; web address; and a description of the service provided, integrative medicine.
At this time no other signage is included in the CDC application. Staff recommends approval of
the window signage.
There was discussion among the commissioners and Kreger regarding the methods used to
measure the lettering and signage and how to calculate the overall signage. Wahrenbrock had
estimated the size of the letters and the window and estimated that the signage was
approximately 9.2 square feet which is close to the allowable 30% signage per window. He stated
he was okay with the estimated size of the sign since it had pleasing proportions, but would like to
see the maximum height from the bottom of the lettering to the top of the lettering to be no more
than 18 inches. Kreger had calculated the height of the lettering would be 20 inches.
Urban opened and closed the Public Hearing at 4:14 p.m. with no citizens coming forth to speak.
Motion by Wahrenbrock to approve the CDC for window signage as presented with the
restriction that the lettering of the signage from the bottom of the bottom lettering to the
top of the top lettering, not exceed 20 inches on the bottom half of the window, and the
logo will be calculated separately in the overall window coverage calculations. Second by
Urban. Approved 3 – 0.
3.Adjournment. Urban adjourned the meeting at 4:22 p.m.
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 13, 2012.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, November 1, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, November 1, 2012 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:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; David Paul; Raymond Wehrenbrock; Tim Urban; Jennifer Brown;
and Anna Eby
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.
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 27, 2012 Regular HARC meeting.
Regular Agenda:
2.Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance to change façade features at
City of Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 5 pt., to be known as the Georgetown Art Center, located at 816 S.
Main Street. (CDC-2012-041)
3.Public hearing and possible action to amend a Certificate of Design Compliance to change façade and
site features at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lot 4, to be known as Grape Creek Winery, located at
614 S. Main Street & 101 W. 7th Street. (CDC-2012-042)
4.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for a parking lot at City of
Georgetown, Block 9, Lots 7-9 (w/pts.), located at 215 W. 3rd Street (southeast corner of Rock and 2nd
Streets). (CDC-2012-038)
5.Updates from staff and reminder about a possible November 14, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee
meeting at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and the December 13, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign
Subcommittee meetings at Council Chambers.
6.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 _________________, 2012, 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, November 1, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
November 1, 2012.
Members Present:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Jennifer Brown; Anna Eby; David Paul; Raymond Wehrenbrock;
and Tim Urban
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Elizabeth Cook, Planning
Consultant ; Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director; Eric Lashley, Library Services Director; and Karen
Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Rapp called the meeting to order at 6:01 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.
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 27, 2012 Regular HARC meeting.
Commissioners gave corrections. Pages 4 and 7, should read Rapp instead of Dee. Page 7, under
Mr. Johnson’s comments, his statement was that he felt the accordion doors look tacky, specifically
not the entire venue. Page 9, last paragraph, strike the word “any” in the first line. Strike Elizabeth
Cook from being present at the meeting, she was not. And on page 3, Wahrenbrock asked that it be
clarified that his calculations were based on Guidelines 9.4 and 9.5, and that both calculations exceed
the maximum size of the allowable signage.
Motion by Paul to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Blankenship. Approved 7 – 0.
Regular Agenda:
Rapp moved item #4 to this position on the agenda, but minutes will be shown under the item.
Blankenship recused herself from items 2 and 3.
2.Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance to change façade features at
City of Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 5 pt., to be known as the Georgetown Art Center, located at 816 S.
Main Street. (CDC-2012-041)
3.As this was the second presentation for this application, Gary Wang, Wang Architects, presented the
application. The application is to make façade changes to a previously modified east facing storefront
and make an addition of a new glass door in an existing opening in the south facing façade under the
staircase, as part of the City’s proposed art center project. The art center will occupy the first floor of
the historic fire station and include a small pocket park outside. HARC is being only asked to approve
the façade changes, as the pocket park is considered landscape features, which are administratively
approved.
Mr. Wang summarized the previous meeting of HARC on August 23rd, explaining the commission
had given an overwhelming positive response after he gave a history of the building and outlined the
different proposed schemes. The intent is to still have a gallery and art studio, along with offering
public restrooms. He is presenting for approval the schematic option that was most well received by
the commissioners, along with the city staff that had reviewed it. He explained that they intend to still
use the bell tower, and to include a water feature /splash pad. They looked at other options but felt
this would give the most cost efficient and best use.
He explained the revolving door that was suggested was too expensive. The mister for the water
feature, that was also suggested, would blow water onto the historical limestone and cause marking
so that was not considered further. They do plan to install a glass door under the staircase on the
south facing wall. And they will add setback glass on the storefront. The suggested faceted (cantered
and angled) windows were deemed too expensive. They plan to use brick patterns on the sidewalk to
draw people into the space. Mr. Wang showed color samples of the accent colors.
Rapp opened and closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. with no citizens coming forth to speak.
Commissioners discussed the colors and placement of those colors on the building façade. Wang
explained they plan to clean the limestone of the building and add a warmer palette of colors. Rapp
questioned the color of the anodized metal doors and windows. There was further discussion of using
the dark bronze colored metal door and window surrounds. Wahrenbrock expressed a like of the
surrounding design of the front door.
Motion by Paul to approve the CDC as applied and presented. Second by Urban. Approved 6
– 0, Blankenship recused.
Commissioners took a 10 minute break.
4.Public hearing and possible action to amend a Certificate of Design Compliance to change façade and
site features at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lot 4, to be known as Grape Creek Winery, located at
614 S. Main Street & 101 W. 7th Street. (CDC-2012-042)
Kreger presented the staff report. The applicant seeks to amend a previously approved Certificate of
Design Compliance (CDC) to change the exterior wall finish for the north facing wall of the former
Visitor Center building, which is the back wall of the future winery. As requested by the applicant,
HARC approved this wall to be the existing stone. However, once the wall was revealed after
demolition of the adjoining building it became apparent the condition of the stone made reuse in its
current form impractical and that massive patching, repointing, and installing of some new stone
would be required. A large area of the wall had to be secured immediately with a gunite in-fill patch to
help stabilize the wall and preserve the building. This patch is shown on the applicant’s submission
materials. This stone wall has not been carefully maintained overtime and has been patched and had
items bolted into it over the years.
Based on budget and time constraints and after consultation with the Texas Historical Commission,
the applicant is proposing to use the same materials that comprise the back wall of the courtyard
facing Main Street, brick veneer and stucco, to complete the repair work to this wall. HARC approved
the Main Street facing wall to be brick with a cornice trim, and gave staff the ability to work with
applicant to finalize the wall finish after demolition to address any construction issues. There were
some structural limitations to that wall that limited the ability for the brick to continue the entire wall.
Stucco was used to complete the wall, when to be painted soft green to match the Main Street facing
building façade color. The recently painted stucco (green) on the Main Street facing wall will be
repainted to match the existing green on the Main Street façade as it is not the correct color.
In addition, the applicant would like HARC to consider allowing options for the structure surrounding
the Grape Creek Courtyard to be either the previously approved wrought iron fencing and planters or
partial stucco walls with a height of 2.5 to 4 feet facing Main Street and 3 to 6 feet facing the alley. As
originally proposed, the courtyard would be confined by installing five concrete planters (4’ by 4’) along
the outside edge of the courtyard as shown on the applicant’s Option 1 illustration. A black wrought
iron fence (42” in height) would be installed in between the planters and pedestrian access to the
courtyard would be through a double 6-foot wide gate off Main Street. An additional lockable double
gate will be added to the northwest (alley-facing) corner of the courtyard that will be used for shipping
and receiving for the winery. The stucco used for the planters or wall is proposed to be the same light
cream as the trim on the building. Color samples are included in the applicant’s submission materials.
Also, an optional pergola and fireplace are now requested, budget permitting. The additional
requested wall height at the alley would allow for the potential of a fireplace. The pergola and
fireplace might be added overtime rather than with the initial construction project.
The applicant has provided several illustrations of their various options for HARC’s consideration.
Option 1 represents their currant approved design, with the proposed pergola added. They would like
a broad approval that would let them decide which materials and features are feasible for them based
on costs. Again, they would like the ability to add the pergola and/or fireplace at a later date without
having to return to HARC for that additional approval.
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager, was available for questions as the applicant. Wahrenbrock
stated he like the combination of option 1 on Main Street and option 3 on the alley side. He likes the
look of more wrought iron and plants. Wahrenbrock also questioned whether the stucco applied to
the existing rock is reversible. Brewer explained that the rock must be stabilized first, and then the
stucco wall will be installed in front of the wall. Since the brick and rock wall is already deteriorated,
the stucco will probably not be reversible in that the rock’s integrity cannot be saved.
Wahrenbrock questioned the need for a six foot gate at the alley. Paul stated he did not see the need
but they could leave it as an option for the owner.
Rapp opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. and closed it with no citizens coming forth.
Motion by Rapp to approve the amended CDC for 614 S. Main Street as proposed with the
following conditions: The north facing wall is be to brick veneer and stucco as proposed by
the applicant, with the ability to work any final design issues with staff. The courtyard
fence/wall shall be a combination of wrought iron and stucco with a wrought iron gate, and
include planters to soften the wall (Option 1 example). Stucco and wrought iron shall be used
for the fence/wall facing the alley with a maximum height of six (6’) feet (Option 3 example). A
six foot (6’) tall wrought iron gate facing the alley is optional. The fence/wall facing Main
Street shall include a 42” tall iron gate, wrought iron fencing, and 4’ tall stucco planters. The
maximum height of the planter portions of the wall is four (4‘) feet with a maximum width of
four feet (4’), the balance of the fencing shall be iron. The maximum wrought iron fence and
gate height is 42 inches (3.5‘). A wooden pergola and/or a fireplace located in the stucco
wall, as proposed by the applicant, may be installed at any time, with proper City permits
without returning to HARC. Staff may work with the applicant on the final design as long as it
is similar to that proposed. Second by Urban. Approved 6 – 0, Blankenship recused.
5.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for a parking lot at City of
Georgetown, Block 9, Lots 7-9 (w/pts.), located at 215 W. 3rd Street (southeast corner of Rock and 2nd
Streets). (CDC-2012-038)
Kreger presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC)
approval from HARC to construct a free standing parking lot to serve as overflow parking for the El
Monumento restaurant immediately across Rock Street from this vacant property. As proposed, only
a portion of the larger tract will be developed as parking, and the undeveloped portion (the northeast
corner of 3rd and Rock Streets) will be available for future development.
The parking lot design is relatively straight forward with 21 spaces accessed via Rock Street. A Type
II sidewalk (brick pavers at outside edge concrete walk) and a Type III sidewalk (scored concrete in
2-foot modules) will be placed along Rock and 2nd Streets, respectively. Landscaping, including
parking lot screening and trees, will be placed along Rock and 2nd Streets. No landscaping is
proposed adjacent to the existing developed property. An existing 24 inch Pecan Tree at the interior
eastern corner of the project site will remain and be protected during construction. Staff will work with
the applicant to finalize the site plan details, which include the landscape plan. Kreger explained that
the Commission will be looking at the effect of the parking lot on the site and staff will be looking at the
smaller details and making changes as needed for code compliance.
Sam Pfeister, owner of El Monumento restaurant and applicant, requested the commissioners allow
them to install decomposed granite on the parking lot, as opposed to the concrete that is proposed on
the application. Kreger stated the Development Engineer has not approved the decomposed granite
because there are still issues with the existing parking lot that is made of decomposed granite.
Urban expressed concern about pedestrian access only existing through the parking lot.
Rapp opened the Public Hearing at 6:19 p.m. and closed it with no citizen comments being offered.
Wahrenbrock and Paul asked questions about drainage issues and existing trees. Kreger explained
those issues would be reviewed by staff.
Blankenship expressed liking the appearance of the granite and is in support of that material that
matches the adjacent parking lot and surrounding land.
Rapp moves to approve the CDC as requested with the following conditions: The applicant will
work with staff to finalize the site plan with landscaping and final engineering, the applicant
will focus on pedestrian access within and around the parking lot, and the applicant has an
option of materials, stabilized crushed granite or concrete, with the city development
engineer’s approval. Second by Paul. Approved 7 – 0.
6.Updates from staff and reminder about a possible November 14, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee
meeting at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and the December 13, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign
Subcommittee meetings at Council Chambers.
Kreger gave reminders and stated there would be a November 14th Sign Subcommittee meeting.
7.Adjournment. Rapp adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, September 27, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, September 27, 2012 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:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Jennifer Brown; Anna Eby; David Paul; Raymond Wehrenbrock;
and Tim Urban.
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.
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 23, 2012 Regular HARC meeting.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at Lost Addition, Block 14 (nw/pt), also known as Wells Fargo Bank, located at 1111 S. Austin
Avenue. (CDC-2012-033)
3.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for a new sign at
Hughes Addition, Block 6 (ne/pt), also known as the First United Methodist Church Youth House,
located at 1302 Ash Street. (CDC-2012-036)
4.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (n/pt), also known as Gumbo’s North, located at 701
Main Street. (CDC-2012-037)
Regular Agenda:
5. Discussion and possible action on an appeal to HARC on the denial of a Certificate of Design
Compliance by the Sign Subcommittee for the installation of transom lettering at City of Georgetown,
Block 40, Lot 7 (nw/pt), also known as Georgetown W inery, located at 715 S. Main Street.
(CDC-2012-030)
6.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for site and façade changes to
an historic structure/site at Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lots 1 & 2, to be known as The Union on
Eighth, located at 224 E. 8th Street. (CDC-2012-034)
7.Updates from staff and reminder about a possible October 10, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee
meeting at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and the October 25, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign
Subcommittee meetings at Council Chambers.
8. 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 _________________, 2012, 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 27, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
September 27, 2012.
Members Present:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Jennifer Brown; Anna Eby; David Paul; Raymond Wehrenbrock;
and Tim Urban
Members Absent:
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Elizabeth Cook, Acting
Planning Director and Stephanie McNickle, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Rapp called the meeting to order at 6:21 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.
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 23, 2012 Regular HARC meeting.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business signage at Lost
Addition, Block 14 (nw/pt), also known as Wells Fargo Bank, located at 1111 S. Austin Avenue.
(CDC-2012-033)
3.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for a new sign at Hughes
Addition, Block 6 (ne/pt), also known as the First United Methodist Church Youth House, located at 1302 Ash
Street. (CDC-2012-036)
4.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business signage at City
of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (n/pt), also known as Gumbo’s North, located at 701 Main Street.
(CDC-2012-037)
No comments or corrections on the minutes. The other consent items were approved at the Sign
Subcommittee. Motion by Paul to approve the minutes of the August 23, 2012 regular HARC meeting.
Second by Wahrenbrock. Approved 5 - 0, 2 abstentions by Brown and Urban.
Regular Agenda:
5. Discussion and possible action on an appeal to HARC on the denial of a Certificate of Design Compliance by
the Sign Subcommittee for the installation of transom lettering at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 7 (nw/pt),
also known as Georgetown Winery, located at 715 S. Main Street. (CDC-2012-030)
The staff report and procedures to follow were given by Valerie Kreger. On July 26, 2012, the applicant sought
Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) approval from the HARC Sign Subcommittee for new business signage.
There were two types of signage proposed. The first was for display window lettering and the other for larger
individual letters to be installed in the transom windows above the canopy in replacement of the existing canopy
sign. The staff report for that application along with the minutes from the meeting has been attached to this
report. The display lettering was approved as proposed but the individual transom letters were denied.
Because of this, the applicant wishes to appeal the subcommittee’s decision to deny the transom lettering to
HARC. A person aggrieved by a final action on a Certificate of Design Compliance from the Sign Subcommittee
may appeal to the full HARC. When an appeal is taken to HARC, the Sign Subcommittee’s action is presumed
to be valid. The person filing the appeal shall present sufficient evidence and have the burden to justify a
reversal of the action being appealed. All findings and conclusions necessary to the appeal decision shall be
based upon reliable evidence. HARC shall review the applicant’s justification and reasoning for appeal, the staff
report, conduct a Hearing in accordance with HARC’s established procedures and state law, and take final
action on the appeal. It shall require a concurring vote of a majority of the Commissioners members present to
overturn the Sign Subcommittee’s decision on a CDC. If all seven members of HARC are present, it shall take
four (4) votes to overturn the decision and approve the transom lettering.
For the matter of this appeal, HARC shall review only those items being appealed using the Sign
Subcommittee’s basis for denial when deciding whether to uphold or overturn the decision. Below is the final
action and justification from the Sign Subcommittee as it relates to this matter.
Motion to Deny (Approved 2-0[Blankenship & Urban]) Based on the following Design Guidelines:
Design Guidelines:
9.1 - Consider the building from as part of an overall sign program ... The sign subcommittee determined the
transom lettering is not proportionate to the building and dominates the appearance. Lettering in transom
windows is disproportional and there are no other building signs like it Downtown.
9.4 - A flush-mounted wall sign may be considered ... the lettering exceeds the size requirement per glass
panel. The sign could be considered both a window sign and flush-mounted sign.
The Subcommittee then recommended the owner utilize the existing canopy sign and not block the transom
windows.
Based on only the above Design Guidelines, HARC shall review and take action on the appeal. Should HARC
uphold the Sign Subcommittee’s decision to deny the transom lettering, the applicant can then appeal the
Commission’s decision to City Council as permitted and detailed in the CDC appeals process found in Unified
Development Code Section 3.13.0110.
Rapp asked if the procedures of a regular item applied to this appeal procedure. Kreger explained that yes, but
the Commission must determine that the Sign Subcommittee misinterpreted a Guideline. Urban pointed out that
the minutes should reflect the additional Guideline 9.14 to the two guidelines also represented.
Dan Marek, the owner applicant was asked to speak to the Commission. Mr. Marek explained that the original
ruling by the subcommittee determined that the transoms were not windows. He explained that the dictionary
defines a transom as a window above a door, which these are. He would like to install letters onto those
windows and the size he is proposing fits into the windows. He also explained that he did not want to take that
size letters and apply them to the building which would require him to drill holes into the historical structure. He
does not want to place a sign on the canopy like everyone else.
Rapp asked about the size of the letters. Mr. Marek explained that the “W” letter would take up 38% of the
window, but that the other letters only take up 26% percent. He would be willing to reduce all the letters by one
inch to make them all fit into the 30% allowance. He has already requested 12” letters from the sign company.
Rapp opened the Public Hearing.
William Gotzman came forward. He stated he has been making signs for 80 years and would like the style of
the signage on the Square to change and this is a good opportunity to start that change. He wants approval of
this sign.
Rapp closed the Public Hearing with no further comments.
Blankenship gave an overview and statement from the Sign Subcommittee. She explained that the
Subcommittee did not think the size of the letters in the transom were appropriate, that they were over the 30%.
She said she had not stated that a transom was not a window. She agreed that it is a window, in fact several
windows. She does agree with Mr. Marek in the fact that by placing the letters on the window, he does not
damage any of the historic fabric of the building and they are removable. She states the Guidelines are not
clear on the total window area definition of the window, and the sign subcommittee chose to define each
individual window’s area for the total area of 30% calculations. She was open for further discussion of this
signage. She would like to ask the owner to consider an off-white color to match the trim, and to consider the
reduction of size of the letters.
Urban would like to see the size impact of the lettering, in context to the windows in a rendering. He also stated
that they would be setting precedence and that he felt that the way it is currently portrayed the signage
overwhelms the building.
Wahrenbrock explained that he calculates the entire set of transom windows as the total window area, and the
letters together as one word. Blankenship argued that each individual square is measured separately and each
letter is measured separately. Kreger stated that was correct calculation to use.
Rapp reiterated the suggestions and asked if the commission could alter the application. Eby explained that
with the third option for consideration, they are able to modify the decision of the Sign Subcommittee based on
compliance with the Design Guidelines.
Rapp explains that with the new information of the flexibility of the applicant on the color and with the additional
information of a possible reduction in size of the lettering, the Sign Subcommittee might have voted differently.
The Commission will have to overturn the original decision.
Motion by Dee to overturn the original decision of the Sign Subcommittee with the following conditions:
Based on Guideline 9.7, the applicant will consider the coloring of the sign to be ivory or off-white
instead of the stark white. And according to Guidelines 9.6, the lettering will comply to no more than
30% maximum coverage of the total window area, per pane. Second by Brown. Approved 5-2. Urban
and Wahrenbrock opposed.
5.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for site and façade changes to an
historic structure/site at Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lots 1 & 2, to be known as The Union on Eighth, located
at 224 E. 8th Street. (CDC-2012-034)
Blankenship recused herself due to involvement of this project with her work.
The staff report was read by Valerie Kreger. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC)
approval from HARC to make changes to a Medium Priority historic structure located in Area 2 of the Downtown
Overlay. The building is in near original condition and has aged significantly over the years. Because of this,
the applicant would like to address some maintenance issues in order to bring it into to an operational condition
while at the same time making some minor façade and site updates that will better serve the proposed event
center.
The following changes are detailed in the applicant’s letter of request but are considered maintenance so do not
require HARC review and action:
1. Exterior: Roofing & Siding will be kept but tacked down / caulked where needed.
2. Building Trim/Paint: Fix / replace (in-kind) rotten trim around the building where needed and paint back to
existing color (Behr’s Moonlit Beach ).
3. Windows/Trim: Fix / replace (in-kind) damaged windows / trim. Trim will be repainted to match the
building trim (Behr’s Moonlit Beach ).
4. Existing Exterior Doors: Will be repaired / replaced in-kind if needed.
The following changes are also detailed in the applicant’s letter of request and are considered exterior changes.
They do require HARC review and action:
1. Waterproofing the Roof: New waterproofing / elastomeric paint to be placed over existing galvanized
metal roof (Behr’s Elephant Skin ).
2. New Downspout: A new downspout (where one once existed) will be installed on the northeast corner of
the building to match one currently found on the northwest corner.
3. New Paint on Existing Doors: Three existing exterior doors will be painted from the current white to Behr’s
Spring Stream .
4. New Courtyard Doors: One existing (boarded up) window on the building’s west side will be removed and
replaced with a larger 30’ metal/glass folding door for access to the proposed courtyard.
5. New Courtyard Wall: An eight (8) foot brick and concrete block perimeter wall will be installed around an
area where an undeveloped side yard exists. This will then serve as the outdoor space for private events.
6. New Courtyard Gates: Two rusted metal gates will be installed on the 8th Street side of the courtyard wall
for emergency/ADA purposes and to add additional character to the perimeter wall.
7. Canopy Expansion: Existing canopy on the east side of the building will be repaired and extended to
cover the entire doorway area for patrons during inclement weather. The canopy (including the added
span) will maintain the tin roof, tie rods and angle. The trim will be painted to match the remainder of the
building.
Kreger continued with the Guidelines used to describe the proposal changes and how they would be
applied.
Guideline 4.1 – Avoid removing or altering any significant architectural detail.
The applicant will keep the existing metal façade intact and will replace rotted or missing materials in-kind
as needed.
Guideline 4.3 – Protect and maintain significant stylistic elements.
The industrial looking metal façade will remain. This style of façade can be found on other historic
structures in Georgetown and holds historical significance to the community.
Guideline 4.4 – Repair only those features that are deteriorated.
Only elements in need of repair will actually be repaired. The applicant has stated he would like to keep as
much of the original building, including its aged industrial appearance, as possible. If an item is not
repairable or is missing, the applicant has stated it will be replaced in-kind.
Guideline 4.7 – Remove only that which is deteriorated and must be replaced.
Materials will be matched in composition, scale and finish when being replaced.
Guideline 4.9 – Replacement of missing or deteriorated details shall be based on original features.
The applicant would like to install a downspout that was originally an element of the building but has since
been removed. The new downspout will match an existing one found on the other side of the building.
Guideline 5.1 – Maintain existing wall materials and textures.
Materials that are in good condition will not be removed. Aged / deteriorated materials will be repaired or
replaced in-kind as needed.
Guideline 5.6 – Historic building materials or features shall not be covered.
It is stated that no material shall be applied as a covering to historic materials. The applicant has proposed
applying an elastomeric waterproofing paint to the metal roof versus replacing the damaged and leaking
metal. This would also allow the aged, rusted look to be preserved on the inside of the structure while
having a protected seal on the outside. This method of waterproofing on metal materials should be
discussed amongst the Commissioners as to whether or not it is appropriate for this project. The applicant
has stated if a protectant is not applied, the roof will need to be replaced.
Guideline 5.8 – Protect wood features from deterioration.
Wood features (trim & doors) will be repainted to ensure proper protection.
Guideline 5.9 – Plan repainting carefully.
Existing trim and doors are aged and the original paint is hard to see in many areas. The applicant
proposes protecting that which can be saved by repainting these features. The doors will be painted a
different color to add an appropriate contrast to the building.
Guideline 5.14 – Preserve architectural metal features that contribute to the overall historic
character of the building.
It is stated within this guideline that one should maintain protective coatings, such as paint, on exposed
metals. Although the subject metal roof does not appear to have any sort of past paints applied, the
applicant would like to preserve it rather than replace it by adding a protective coating. Other metal
buildings in Georgetown have had paint applied to their facades.
Guideline 6.12 – Preserve the position, number, size and arrangement of historic windows and
doors in a building wall.
Enclosing an historic opening in a key character-defining façade is inappropriate, as is adding a new
opening. The 30’ folding door will be installed on a non-character-defining façade. It will also be located
behind a privacy wall. Due to this, staff considers the addition of the door on the west side of the building
appropriate. It would also provide a means of entry to and from the courtyard.
No other windows/doors will be added or altered.
The addition of the gate on 8th Street provides appropriate contrast to the privacy wall while also serving a
safety purpose.
Guideline 6.15 – Repair wood features by patching, piecing-in, consolidating or otherwise
reinforcing the wood.
Salvageable wood materials will be repaired and maintained.
Guideline 6.16 – Glass in doors and windows should be retained.
Broken or missing glass will be replaced in-kind as needed.
Guideline 7.1 – Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.
HARC should take into consideration the addition of the 30’ folding door on the west side of the structure
and should determine whether or not it alters any significant historical features on the structure when
making a decision on appropriateness. Staff considers the alteration appropriate given that it only removes
a portion of the siding but adds an element needed to ensure the use within can fully function. Also, it is not
a character-defining façade and will be hidden behind a privacy wall.
Staff considers the addition of the privacy wall appropriate for this site. It masks a non-character-defining
wall and allows the future business to function properly.
Guideline 7.2 – Properties designated by the City as a High, Medium, or Low Priority historic
Structure should be preserved and their historic character retained.
The proposed project undoubtedly preserves the historic character of the building.
Guideline 8.4 – Avoid materials that are incompatible with the character of the district.
Brick, concrete and metal are being used for the new privacy wall. The applicant has incorporated
materials commonly seen around Downtown. This not only ties in with the aged, industrial look of the
building but connects the building and site to the remainder of Downtown with a visually appealing and
characteristic feature that also serves an important role for the business within.
Upon final approval from staff, a landscape buffer will be placed between the wall and existing 8th Street
sidewalk. This will help soften the wall. The wall feature has also been designed in a way that provides
contrast (setbacks and materials), another way to soften the appearance.
The applicant worked with the Texas Historical Commission and this design was deemed appropriate given
the uniqueness of the structure and lack of pedestrian connectivity between it and the Square.
Guideline 10.1 – An awning compatible in material and construction to the style of the building is
encouraged.
An increase in the span of the existing east canopy is proposed. Staff considers this an appropriate change
given the reason and because it does not mask any significant architectural details on the building.
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance request to make exterior and site
changes as proposed. Only the following items should be reviewed by HARC and action taken:
1. Waterproofing the Roof
2. New Downspout
3. New Paint on Existing Doors
4. New Courtyard Doors (West Side of Building)
5. New Courtyard Wall
6. New Courtyard Gates
7. Canopy Expansion
All other items will either be brought back at a later time or approved administratively. The applicant has
met with staff on several occasions and even received design assistance from the Texas Historical
Commission. Staff considers the project proposal appropriate and it is clear there has been significant
consideration to historic preservation implemented into the design. The privacy fence and gate, although
unique in design to Georgetown, provides a sense of character and ties the site in with the remainder of
Downtown where a vacant lot currently sits.
Chair Rapp invited the applicant, Justin Bohls, to speak. He explained that he and his wife were excited
about finding this building. He met with Mr. Conway, the original owner and learned the history of the
building, including the penny in the foundation marking the date of origination. He has been working with
the city and is excited about turning this building into an event center that will host a lot of private events
and public events for the downtown area.
He explained that over the years there has been deterioration and needs paint. He wants to keep the
character of the transmission company, but make it functional. They want a perimeter wall for private
events. They worked with the Texas Historical Commission to keep the industrial feel, utilizing the cinder
blocks that are seen on other buildings in the area. Also, incorporating brick into the courtyard brings in the
neighborhood brick types. The rusted gates will keep the industrial, rustic feel, but also allow access to and
from the courtyard. They are working with First Presbyterian Church to arrange a parking agreement for
valet parking during special events held at the venue, so parking does not flow over into the neighborhood.
The doors will be a light blue to break up the white trim. The 30’ door will be an accordion style door with
aluminum panels that which will allow access from the inside to the outdoor courtyard.
Rapp opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 p.m.
Larry Olsen, registered architect in the State of Texas. Complained about their website that discusses the
“one badass venue” and downgrades the neighborhood. He takes offense to the language and states the
venue will cause so much traffic in their neighborhood that EMS and the fire department will not be able to
access their streets and homes. He explained this has already happened during big events on the Square,
listing the Red Poppy Festival as an example. He requests HARC deny the canopy that would allow valet
parking to drop off 200 people into their neighborhood. He also asked that the lighting that would be
reviewed by staff, be required to be discussed in open HARC sessions. He requested that the action by
HARC be postponed until the significant zoning issues can be addressed by City Council.
JC Johnson (Ed Olsen gave his allotted 3 minutes to Mr. Johnson for 6 minutes total), 303 E. 9th Street,
owns all property along Myrtle Street across from this property. He has reviewed the plans and has no
significant quarrel with the improvements. Mr. Johnson looked at the drawings and feels it looks tacky. He
explained that he was friends with Mr. Conway and has many fond memories of the building. He explained
that Mr. Conway was not able to get insurance and Johnson researched the zoning of the area. This
property was zoned commercial in the early 1990’s. The surrounding structures were zoned residential. He
stated they were all listed as non-conforming properties. He says they met with the city planning
department and were told that this would be fixed and Mr. Conway got insurance. Now he discovers that
the zoning is Mixed-Use- Downtown. He feels that is a mistake and doing research with the city to discover
what happened. He asked for a delay in action until the zoning issues are resolved. He also had concerns
about the preservation of the Glascock addition homes and the future of those homes. He asks HARC to
consider the event venue and its effects on the neighborhood.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. with no further comments coming forward.
Rapp asked Mr. Bohls if he would like to respond. Mr. Bohls explained that his parents are backing this
venture and that they have a vested interest in Georgetown and that he does respect the surrounding
neighborhood. There will be an on-site manager that will insure oversight of the traffic situation and the
neighborhood. He apologized for the language on the website. He explained that he is excited about the
new addition to the younger generation of Georgetown. He hopes to bring in people from all areas.
Rapp questions HARC’s response to the zoning questions. Kreger explained that she is not aware of the
zoning issues but that HARC should only review the seven items that are presented. They agreed to
discuss each item individually.
Waterproofing of the roof was discussed. Mr. Bohls came back to the podium. He explained that the
elastomeric coating product that was proposed would insure the roof was sealed for at least 15 years. He
agreed that if the roof has to be replaced, it would be replaced with like materials. Wahrenbrock asked if
the product has been tested in this area. Bohls says he hopes so, that the roofing company has guaranteed
it. Wahrenbrock asked about the slope of this roof being different than the example given and whether that
will make a difference. Bohls and Urban both stated they felt it would work as it has worked on many other
metal roofs in this area. Wahrenbrock then asked about removing the product, and was informed it was
permanent and not reversible. Bohls stated this is his first choice instead of a new metal roof. Urban
reminded others that the roof is not seen from the street.
They then discussed the new downspout. Bohls explained that the new downspout would be identical to
the existing, and made of galvanized metal.
New paint on the existing doors was discussed. Rapp explained that this color would be used on all the
doors. Urban asked about the original color. Bohls explained that the doors were bright white and they
would like to tone that down. The trim would be painted an off-white and the doors a light green.
Commissioners questioned the existing window air conditioning units and the proposal of that change.
Bohls explained those would be removed and original siding would be replaced over those areas.
New courtyard doors were explained by Bohls. The 30’ accordion door will be on the west-facing wall. The
other three doors will remain the same or will be repaired with like materials, and repainted light green.
Rapp questions access to the courtyard without using the entire 30 foot door. He explained that there is a
“pane” that opens as a regular door to allow ingress and egress.
Rapp asked if they considered other door styles or sizes. Bohls explained they originally looked at three
smaller doors but the track systems would extend too deep into the building. The swing type doors were
considered but that would be obstructed by the existing tree. Rapp questioned the requirements of the fire
department for the doors. Bohls explained that they do not have specific requirements of these doors and
because the structure is less than 5000 square feet, no sprinklers are needed. He is adding the gates to
the courtyard at the request of the fire department.
Wahrenbrock asked if the glass of the accordion door goes all the way to the ground. Bohls explained that
the aluminum frame surrounds the glass and it sits on the ground.
Rapp asked questions about the material of the courtyard wall. She asked if that was going to be brick,
concrete blocks or wood. Bohls responded that where there is brick, wood would be placed to look like
brick, a more modern interpretation of the existing wall. The wall will be broken up visually by variations of
materials in the wall. They will set it back to from the walkways to allow the vertical plantings, adding more
visual interest. And the Texas Historical Commission suggested window features be added to the wall that
allowed a more open view into the courtyard. Rapp asked about the garage behind the property that
belongs to the previous Chantal’s Restaurant. She asked if his intent was to soften the look, by the
plantings and various materials, for the restaurant property that he referred to as the house.
Wahrenbrock asked about the large tree by the garage. Bohls explained that the tree is question belongs
to Chantal’s. Wahrenbrock asked Bohls if he would consider limestone block instead of the concrete
blocks. Bohls like the block and brick since they are more industrial, matching the style of the building.
Wahrenbrock pointed out that the style of the building matched that from the 1920’s and concrete blocks
were not used during that time. He suggested using just bricks and/or limestone. Bohls stated he does not
want a solid wall along the street, but is not opposed to using all brick. Commissioners asked if he intended
to use new or used bricks. Bohls has some existing old bricks on the property and prefers to use those and
other used bricks if budget allows.
Rapp opened the discussion of the courtyard gates. She asked whether it was one gate or two. He
responded that there would be one on the 8th Street side and one on the south side of the property. It would
be a rusted metal, built into the courtyard wall on both sides, to match the existing rusted metal building.
Rapp opens the discussion on the canopy expansion. Bohls responds it will be in the same place as the
existing canopy, just extended out further to cover the entrance. The materials will be the same as the
existing also. The window underneath it will remain intact.
Commissioners made comments. Paul asks that the motion include the any recommendations from the
commission. Rapp asked for comments on the 30’ door. Urban stated he likes the door and it will not be
visible from the street. Wahrenbrock does not like the fact that he is removing the 30’ section of the original
building and would prefer a smaller door section. He feels it would be visible from 8th Street over the top of
the courtyard wall. There was discussion of the height of the window/ door. They also discussed the CDC
allowance of a certain range of sizes for the door. The architect, Rick O’Donnell, responded that the height
of the door would be the same height as the windows, a consistent line.
Motion by Rapp to approve the following items as noted:
Item 1, waterproofing the roof: Since the applicant is still researching, the material is approved as
presented with the condition that if the applicant’s further research finds this is too expensive or
results are not as promising as expected, he may replace the roof with in-kind material.
Item 2, new downspout: Approval of the additional downspout with the condition that it matches as
closely as possible to the existing downspout.
Item 3, new paint on the existing doors: Approval of the paint colors for the doors and trim as
presented.
Item 4, new courtyard doors (west side of bldg): Approval of the repair of 3 existing doors with the
condition that they be replaced only as a last resort. With regard to the 30’ proposed accordion
door, and with the understanding that the applicant has not made a final decision on this door, the
proposed door is approved with the condition that the span be no more than 30’ and the applicant
has the option to opt for less (range of 15’ – 30’) in an effort to save as much of the building siding
as possible and with the condition that the height of the doors stay consistent with the height of the
existing doors.
Item 5, new courtyard wall: Approval of the wall as proposed (windows, niches, etc.) with the
condition that the materials be new brick, used brick, limestone or a combination as shown in the
drawings, but no concrete block AND with the understanding that used brick is HARC’s first
preference.
Item 6, new courtyard gates: The 2 gates are approved as presented.
Item 7, canopy expansion: Approval of the addition of the new canopy, with the understanding the
existing canopy stays in place and is preserved and the new addition matches the existing as close
as possible.
Second by Paul. Approved 7 - 0.
Motion by Rapp to request the applicant bring the lighting plan and other items with approval
needed to the entire Commission for consideration. Second by Paul. Approved 7 - 0.
7.Updates from staff and reminder about a possible October 10, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting at the
Georgetown Municipal Complex and the October 25, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign Subcommittee meetings at
Council Chambers.
Kreger stated the Sign Subcommittee meeting on October 10 was cancelled with no applications. Urban asked
Kreger to check on the time of those meetings, stating he felt the times had been adjusted.
Staff is proposing the regular meeting of October 25th be pushed back a week to November 1st. An email will be
sent asking everyone to check their calendar for availability.
8. Adjournment at 8:12 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, September 27, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Thursday, September
27, 2012 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:
Sarah Blankenship; Tim Urban; and Raymond Wehrenbrock
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 September 12, 2012 HARC Sign
Subcommittee meeting.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request to update the
property’s business signage at Lost Addition, Block 14 (nw/pt), also known as Wells Fargo Bank,
located at 1111 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2012-033)
3.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for a new sign at
Hughes Addition, Block 6 (ne/pt), also known as the First United Methodist Church Youth House,
located at 1302 Ash Street. (CDC-2012-036)
4.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (n/pt), also known as Gumbo’s North, located at
701 Main Street. (CDC-2012-037)
5.Election of Sign Subcommittee officers (Chair & Secretary).
6.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 6pm on September 27, 2012.
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 _________________, 2012, 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, September 27, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Thursday , September 27, 2012.
Members Present:
Sarah Blankenship; Tim Urban; and Ray Wahrenbrock
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner and Stephanie McNickle, Planning Specialist.
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Call to order by Urban 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 September 12, 2012 HARC Sign
Subcommittee meeting.
Motion by Blankenship to accept the minutes from the September 12, 2012 HARC Sign
Subcommittee meeting as presented. Second by Wahrenbrock. Approved 3-0.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request to update the property’s
business signage at Lost Addition, Block 14 (nw/pt), also known as Wells Fargo Bank, located at
1111 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2012-033)
The staff report was presented by Valerie Kreger. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design
Compliance approval from HARC to update the property’s signage. These revisions are intended to
bring the bank into compliance with the new corporate image in a manner that respects Georgetown’s
regulations. Staff stated the signs are clear and simple to read with no more than two colors. Most
signs will be replacing existing signs. Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design
Compliance as proposed to update several signs at 1111 S. Austin Avenue. The applicant has made
a clear effort to respect both the Georgetown Design Guidelines and Wells Fargo’s updated corporate
image.
Chair Urban opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to address the
Commissioners and the Public Hearing was closed.
Wahrenbrock suggested the caution sign be placed half way above both drive-thru lanes. The
applicant stated there have not been any complaints regarding confusion of the caution sign in the
past. Wahrenbrock withdrew his suggestion. Wahrenbrock made suggestions to the automatic teller
machine signage with different “arrows”. Applicant agreed to the suggestion.
Commissioner Wahrenbrock asked about the hours of towing. Staff nor the applicant did not recall the
hours of towing.
Commissioner Blankenship suggested the double face monument signage only aluminate the letters
and not the entire panel. Applicant stated they are only replacing the panel, but if it will work
logistically, they will be glad to consider the suggestion.
Motion by Commissioner Blankenship to approve the CDC for Wells Fargo with the
amendment to the double face monument sign that the red will not be lit, only the letters and
with the consideration to amend the arrows on the ATM signs. Second by Commissioner
Wahrenbrock. Approved 3-0.
3.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for a new sign at
Hughes Addition, Block 6 (ne/pt), also known as the First United Methodist Church Youth House,
located at 1302 Ash Street. (CDC-2012-036)
The staff report was presented by Valerie Kreger. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design
Compliance approval from HARC to install a flush-mounted sign on the east-facing side of the Youth
House. The ¾” thick wooden sign measures 4’ wide by 1.9’ tall, a total of just less than 8 square feet
in area. It will read “Youth House” in black recessed lettering with a natural pine backdrop and a clear
varnish protectant. The sign will be mounted to the white brick with anchor bolts and located to the
right (north) of the front door. At this time, no additional signage has been proposed. Staff
recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance as proposed to install the
flush-mounted sign at 1302 Ash Street with the consideration that the applicant a) place some sort of
black border around the sign and b) paint the backdrop to match the shutters, should HARC agree.
Chair Urban opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to address the
Commissioners; the Public comment session was closed.
Commissioner Blankenship stated she will compromise on the design which is a handmade sign by
the parents of the youth, if a black frame is added. Commissioner Wahrenbrock asked if the property
is zoned Commercial due to the sign design guidelines for Commercial property. Staff stated the
property is zoned residential.
Motion by Commissioner Blankenship to approve the signage for First United Methodist
Church Youth House with the addition of a black framed border and with consideration to
paint it to match the shutters left up to the applicants. Second by Commissioner Urban
Approved 3-0.
4.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (n/pt), also known as Gumbo’s North, located at 701
Main Street. (CDC-2012-037)
The staff report was presented by Valerie Kreger. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design
Compliance approval for signage to be added to the exterior of the new restaurant. First, the
applicant would like to place vinyl window lettering on the windows and entrance doors. The applicant
proposes to place the red, white and black business logo on several windows. Starting on the north
(7th Street) side of the building, “Gumbo’s Bar” will be placed on two glass panels to the left (east) of
the entrance door. “Gumbo’s North” will then be placed on two glass panels to the right (west) of the
same set of doors. On the northwest (7th/Main Street) corner of the building, the same logo will be
installed on the entrance door. The crawfish image will be duplicated on the adjacent display windows
with business information and a contact numbers below in white vinyl lettering. Moving south along
the building front, the Gumbo’s logo will be installed on the first (northern most) display window facing
Main Street. The sign will be installed higher up on the window with “Steak & Seafood” at the bottom
in white vinyl lettering. The final window lettering application will be on a second set of doors on the
south end of the building. This set of doors takes patrons to the upstairs bar so the logo will read
“Gumbo’s Bar” like what is found on a previously mentioned set window on the north side of the
building. Secondly, the applicant would like to install three double-sided hanging signs under the
canopy. All having the same dimensions, the signs will help direct patrons to the entrance doors from
the sidewalk. The first sign will be located on the north side of the building at the edge of the balcony.
The second sign will be installed directly in front of the restaurant’s main entrance where a previous
hanging sign was located. The third will be installed in front of the bar entrance on Main Street. The
only difference between the three signs is that the one depicting the bar entrance will read “Gumbo’s
Bar” rather than just “Gumbo’s” like the other two. All three will include the top hat crawfish figure and
will have a black backdrop with red border around the edge. Next, a portable sign for daily specials is
proposed along the Main Street sidewalk. The MDO wooden sign with vinyl overlay will be white with
a black border. At the top of the sign it will read “Gumbo’s North,” in black with the business crawfish
logo above. “Steak & Seafood” will then be placed below in a red font. A space will be left open for
the daily specials. At the bottom of the sign will be business information in black lettering with red
bullet points. Lastly, the applicant would like to install a blade sign on the southwest corner of the
upper story. Two previous businesses received HARC approval (in 2006 & 2009) for the same sign
but only one ended up installing it. Detailed further in the applicant’s supporting materials, the same
cabinet and hardware used for the previous signs will be used for this one. The only difference will be
the sign face. “Gumbo’s” will be vertically positioned in large white letters with a red backdrop. “Steak
& Seafood” will then be placed at the bottom in white letters with a black backdrop. Internal
illumination will once again be used but only the letters will be visible at night. Staff recommends
approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance as proposed to install several signs at 701 S. Main
Street, also known as Gumbo’s North. The applicant has made a clear effort to respect the
Georgetown Design Guidelines while keeping with their business scheme.
Chair Urban opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to address the
Commissioners; the Public Hearing was closed.
Chair Urban invited the applicant to answer questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner
Wahrenbrock questioned the height of the letters on the blade signage and voiced concern for the
dominant visibility and feels the letters on the sign may be too big and overpowering. Commissioner
Urban stated previous businesses at this location included a blade sign to the building. Commissioner
Urban also stated this business will not be adding a new blade sign or additional holes to the building.
Commissioner Wahrenbrock asked and staff stated the blade sign will not affect the neighboring
building or property, due to the height restrictions for signage. Commissioner Blankenship appreciates
that only the letters on the blade sign will only be lit.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the Certificate of Design Compliance for 701 S. Main Street
for all signage proposed for Gumbo’s. Second by Wahrenbrock. Approved. 3-0
5.Election of Sign Subcommittee officers (Chair & Secretary). Motion by Blankenship to nominate
Commissioner Urban to serve as Chair of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Sign Subcommittee. Second by Commissioner Wahrenbrock. Approved 3-0.
Motion by Commissioner Urban to nominate Commissioner Blankenship to serve as Secretary
of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee. Second by
Wahrenbrock. Approved 3-0.
6.Motion to adjourn at 6:14 p.m.
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 September 27, 2012.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, August 23, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, August 23, 2012 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:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; David Paul; Raymond Wehrenbrock; Tim Urban; Jennifer Brown;
and Anna Eby
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
Public Wishing to Address the Commission :
Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of
three (3) minutes.
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can
be found on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber . Clearly print your name and the
letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the Recording Secretary on the
dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the
Commission considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Person may add an item to a future City Council
agenda by contacting the HARC Liaison no later than noon on the Thursday prior to the
Thursday meeting, with the subject matter of the topic they would like to address and their
name. The HARC Liaison can be reached at 512/930-3581.
1.Dan Marek, Georgetown Winery, regarding a recently denied transom sign by the HARC
Sign Subcommittee.
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.
2.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the July 26, 2012 Regular HARC
meeting.
Regular Agenda:
3. Conceptual review and discussion with the architect of a proposed project at 9
th
and Main
Streets, to be called the Georgetown Art Center. (no action will be taken)
4.Updates from staff and reminder about a possible September 12, 2012 HARC Sign
Subcommittee meeting at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and September 27, 2012
HARC/HARC Sign Subcommittee meetings at Council Chambers.
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 _________________, 2012, 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 23, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
August 23, 2012.
Members Present:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Jennifer Brown, Anna Eby, David Paul, Tim Urban, and Raymond
Wahrenbrock
Members Absent:
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; and Karen Frost,
Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
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.)
Rapp called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
Public Wishing to Address the Commission:
Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three (3)
minutes.
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found
on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on
which you wish to speak and present it to the Recording Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start
of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Commission considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Person may add an item to a future City Council agenda by
contacting the HARC Liaison no later than noon on the Thursday prior to the Thursday meeting, with the
subject matter of the topic they would like to address and their name. The HARC Liaison can be reached
at 512/930-3581.
1.Dan Marek, Georgetown Winery, regarding a recently denied transom sign by the HARC Sign
Subcommittee.
Mr. Marek decided not to speak and withdrew his request to address the commission.
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.
2.Review and possible approval of the minutes from the July 26, 2012 Regular HARC meeting.
Motion by Paul to accept the minutes as written. Second by Wahrenbrock. Approved 5 – 0.
Regular Agenda:
3. Conceptual review and discussion with the architect of a proposed project at 9th and Main Streets, to
be called the Georgetown Art Center. (No action will be taken.)
Rapp explained that this item was for discussion only and that no action would be taken by the
commissioners. Blankenship recused herself to the audience because she had worked on this project
and did not want to influence the commissioner’s discussion.
Wyler introduced Gary Wang, Wang Architects. Wyler explained that the presentation was an overall
concept, the focus was not to include the small details on the benches, water features, etc. They
would be looking at the overall building, doors, paint, windows, and signage.
Gary Wang explained that when he and his wife came to the area and saw the Square and the
character of the town, they chose to live here instead of Austin. He is excited about this project and
feels that it is at the heart of the vitalization of the downtown area. He met with several community
groups to determine what they envisioned for the Arts and Culture Center and for the downtown area.
He stated that Georgetown needs to be the fullest expression of what Georgetown can be. He has
worked on defining the program. Georgetown Artworks wants to have rotating art in the center, mixed
media types, performance arts, a studio component and hands-on art for children and adults. They
determined that it is not the time for just a children’s museum.
Wang explained that the center needs to be historical, but at the same time new and playful for
families. He went on to provide a history of the building up to its current use. The large bell created in
1882 in Missouri, and the plinth that it rests on, moved several times, along with the standpipe that
was erected in 1884 before the current building was built. Wang presented several pictures of the
structure throughout history. The plan is to maintain the outdoor iron staircases, and replace the
aluminum and glass storefront windows and doors. They plan to remove the internal walls, keeping
the original plaster on the interior walls, and keeping the existing circular stairway. They want to
emphasize the character of the original building and open up the front of the building by replacing the
storefront windows.
The wooden windows are being restored, not replaced with modern windows. Rapp explained that
when the applicant came back for HARC approval, all renderings must be complete and accurate,
including paint samples, exact window examples, materials, etc.
There was much discussion of the three proposals for the outdoor park area and front door and
windows. The commissioners discussed the different bell location options, understanding that they
will not have final review authority on that. Wahrenbrock provided additional water feature ideas that
Wang said he would consider. Wahrenbrock also suggested canting the front glass from top to
bottom, not just the north to south angled orientation as in one of the proposals. Eby expressed that
she preferred directional scheme option number 2 but felt it clashes with the historic feel of the
building. Rapp agreed and chose directional scheme option number 1 with the splash pad. Paul
appreciated the design keeping the open space in this area.
Brewer explained that the inspiration for the splash pad and the open area is from the Round Rock
museum in downtown Round Rock; it has an open, great feel that draws people to that area. They
wanted to have that same type of area in Georgetown. She thanked the Commissioners for their
comments. They expect to bring back the final design soon.
4.Updates from staff and reminder about a possible September 12, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee
meeting at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and September 27, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign
Subcommittee meetings at Council Chambers.
5. Adjournment
Rapp adjourned the meeting at 7:22 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Presentation
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Presentation will meet on Wednesday, August
15, 2012 at 06:00 PM in the Georgetown Public Library - Friends Room 402 W. 8th Street, Georgetown,
TX 78626
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Presentation Members:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Jennifer Brown; Anna Eby; David Paul; Tim Urban; and Raymond
Wehrenbrock
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
Members of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission may or may not be in
attendance for a special presentation by Noré Winter of Winter & Company on Wednesday,
August 15, 2012. There may be discussion with the presenter and group regarding design
guidelines and downtown master plans but no action will be taken.
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 _________________, 2012, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, July 26, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Thursday, July 26,
2012 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:
Sarah Blankenship; and Tim Urban
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 action on the minutes from the June 28, 2012 Sign Subcommittee meeting.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 7 (nw/pt), also known as Georgetown Winery,
located at 715 S. Main Street. (CDC-2012-030)
3.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 2, Lots 1 – 8, also known as El Monumento, located at 205
W. 2nd Street. (CDC-2012-031)
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 26, 2012 at 6:00 pm.
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 _________________, 2012, 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, July 26, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Thursday , July 26, 2012.
Members Present:
Sarah Blankenship and Tim Urban
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; and Karen Frost,
Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Tim Urban, Acting Chair called the meeting to order 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 action on the minutes from the June 28, 2012 Sign Subcommittee meeting.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the minutes as presented. Second by Urban. Approved
2 - 0.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 7 (nw/pt), also known as Georgetown Winery,
located at 715 S. Main Street. (CDC-2012-030)
Wyler presented the application. The applicant seeks to install white vinyl lettering on the transom
windows above the winery’s canopy and on two display windows. An existing canopy sign will be
removed and individual letters reading “WINERY” will then be installed on six of eight transom
windows. The applicant states the size of some of the letters exceeds the allowed 30% coverage
per glass panel but when including the two unused transoms, the percentage remains compliant.
He asks that HARC take this into consideration when making their determination of
appropriateness.
White vinyl lettering is also proposed on two display windows. The window to the left (north) of
the entrance door will read “Georgetown Winery, Wine Tasting / Wine Bar / Gift Shop” and the
window to the right (south) will read “Heart of Texas Olive Oil Co., Olive Oil and Balsamic Vinegar
Tasting Bar”. Staff recommends approval of the application.
Jonathon Moorhead, of Robert’s Printing was available for answering questions. Blankenship
asked if the vinyl lettering would be applied on the inside or outside of the glass. Moorhead
explained it would be on the exterior of the windows.
Urban opened the Public Hearing at 5:36 p.m. and with no speakers coming forth, immediately
closed it.
Blankenship stated that the transom glass appears to be wavy glass and asked if that would be a
problem when applying the vinyl. Moorhead replied it would not be a problem. He was also asked
why the business was asking to remove their primary signage. His response was that the owners
felt the canopy sign could not be seen from Austin Avenue and around the Square and felt that
the current sign was taking away from the overall front of the building.
Urban expressed that he felt the transom lettering was disproportional and that it does not match
the style of the surrounding buildings. Blankenship voiced concern about signage on the transom
window because there are not currently any other transom window sign around the Square, and
historic photos do not show signage on transom windows. Blankenship also commented that
mounting signage on the front edge of the canopy is very common on the buildings on the Square.
Blankenship agreed with Urban and quoted Design Guideline 9.4: “A flush-mounted wall sign may
be considered. And in many cases, turn-of-the-century building types common in Georgetown
have a sign frieze. This is the ideal location for the primary building sign. The sign frieze is
typically located above the transom and below the second-floor windows. When feasible, place a
wall sign such that it aligns with others on the block.” And Guideline 9.1, “Consider the building
front as part of an overall sign program.” And Guideline 9.14, “Signs that are out of character with
those seen historically and that would alter the historic character of the street are inappropriate.”
Motion by Blankenship to approve the window signage below the canopy. Second by
Urban. Approved 2 - 0.
Motion to deny the CDC for the signage on the transom windows based on Guidelines 9.4
and 9.14, with a recommendation to place a sign on the canopy with a logo and to bring a
new proposal for this sign back to the commission. Second by Urban. Denial approved, 2
- 0.
3.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 2, Lots 1 – 8, also known as El Monumento, located at 205
W. 2nd Street. (CDC-2012-031)
Wyler presented the application. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval
from HARC to install reverse neon lettering on the existing monument sign. The double-sided
sign will read “El Monumento” in the restaurant’s business font. Measuring roughly 29” tall by 72”
long, the 16 gauge (rusted and clear-coated) steel lettering will be horizontally centered on each
side of the sign and positioned near the top. The ruby red neon tubes will then be placed behind
the lettering offering a halo affect at night when the lights are on.
Additionally, two wall-mounted signs in the same style will be installed on the restaurant. The
applicant is requesting a 4’ tall by 10’ sign on both the southeast corner (facing south) and
northeast corner (facing north). The lettering and ruby red neon reverse lighting will be identical to
that on the monument sign, just larger.
Wyler introduced Stratton Hrncir was introduced as the applicant’s agent, along with Savon Joyls
of the Neon Jungle sign company. The Commissioners discussed other options for the neon
installation and other sign designs. It was discussed that some of the other options would be
more expensive and time consuming in manufacturing and would not have the same results that
the owner was requesting. Hrncir explained that this type of neon signage would not be as bright
as the neon on the Monument signs because it was to be applied to a darker brick on the building
and compressed earth on the monument sign, non-reflective materials versus the reflective white
stucco of the Monument.
Blankenship pointed out that the font and color combination seemed to have macabre feel. She
suggested alternate colors for the neon and possibly adjusting the edges of the font so that it is
not so wavy. Urban agreed.
Urban opened the Public Hearing at 5:52 p.m. and closed it with no speakers coming forth.
There was further deliberation of the font no being consistent with other signs in this area. Wyler
explained that the commission and applicants have more leeway with signage in area 2.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the CDC for the requested signage with the suggestion
that other fonts and neon colors be considered with approval by staff. Second by Urban.
Approved 2 - 0.
4.Adjournment
Urban adjourned the meeting at 5:58 p.m.
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 26, 2012 at 6:00 pm.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, July 26, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, July 26, 2012 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:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; David Paul; Raymond Wahrenbrock; Tim Urban; Jennifer Brown;
and Anna Eby
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.
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 June 28, 2012 Regular HARC meeting and July
2, 2012 Special meeting.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 7 (nw/pt), also known as Georgetown Winery, located at
715 S. Main Street. (CDC-2012-030)
3.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 2, Lots 1 – 8, also known as El Monumento, located at 205 W. 2
nd Street. (CDC-2012-031)
Regular Agenda:
4. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for the construction of a
playground pergola in Old Town’s Outlot Division B, Block 10 (pt), also known as Grace Episcopal
Church, located at 1314 E. University Avenue. (CDC-2012-028)
5.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for the relocation of an
historic accessory structure in Old Town’s Snyder Addition, Block 9 (pt), located at 1102 E. University
Avenue. (CDC-2012-029)
6.Election of a third Sign Subcommittee member to join Blankenship and Urban.
7.Election of a third Demolition Subcommittee member to join Paul and Wahrenbrock.
8.Updates from staff and reminder about a possible August 8, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting
at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and August 23, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign Subcommittee
meetings at Council Chambers.
9. 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 _________________, 2012, 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, July 26, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
July 26, 2012.
Members Present:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Jennifer Brown, Anna Eby, David Paul, Tim Urban, and Raymond
Wahrenbrock
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; and Karen Frost,
Recording Secretary.
Minutes
Regular Meeting
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.)
Rapp called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
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 June 28, 2012 Regular HARC meeting and July
2, 2012 Special meeting.
Blankenship asked that extra notes regarding item number 3 be added to clarify comments by herself
and Wahrenbrock. Rapp had several additions and corrections regarding item number 5 and
additions to the public comments. Frost explained she would be able to make the corrections for
clarification as noted, but that the public comments are supposed to be summarized, not detailed
items of who stated exactly what. The audio recording of the meeting is kept for an exact record of
the meeting should anyone have any questions.
Motion by Paul to approve the minutes of the June 28 meeting and the July 2 special meeting
as amended. Second by Urban. Approved 5 - 0 -2. (Brown and Eby abstained as they were
not present for the July 2 meeting.)
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 7 (nw/pt), also known as Georgetown Winery, located at
715 S. Main Street. (CDC-2012-030)
3.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 2, Lots 1 – 8, also known as El Monumento, located at 205 W. 2
nd Street. (CDC-2012-031)
Urban reported that both items, 2 and 3, were discussed and action taken at the Sign Subcommittee
meeting at 5:30. Item number 2 was partially approved, and Item number 3 was completely approved
as submitted.
Regular Agenda:
4. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for the construction of a
playground pergola in Old Town’s Outlot Division B, Block 10 (pt), also known as Grace Episcopal
Church, located at 1314 E. University Avenue. (CDC-2012-028)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval from
HARC to install a freestanding cedar pergola on site within an existing playground area. The
playground is located immediately to the east/southeast of the church, just north of a parking area.
The agent has designed an 11’ by 12’ cedar pergola that will be used to provide shade for the
church’s preschool and miscellaneous events. Atop the pergola will be an 8mm (1/2”) polycarbonate
material that will be screwed down. This material is also known as polygal. The polygal will act as
another shade source as well as a protective barrier from the sun and inclement weather.
Wyler stated the addition met Guideline 7.8 – An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials and
character with the main building. The applicant has designed the pergola such that it blends in with
the property and surrounding neighborhood. Many residential properties in Old Town have wooden
pergolas. The main building is not affected and the size of the canopy remains relatively small
compared to the church and playground area. The pergola will have low visibility from University
Avenue.
Wyler presented the applicant’s agent, Mathew Channel of Southern Outdoor Appeal for
commissioners to ask questions.
Commissioners did not have any questions and responded that they agreed with staff that this met the
Guidelines. Rapp opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. The public hearing was closed immediately
with no speakers coming forth.
Motion by Urban to approve the CDC as presented. Second by Paul. Approved 7 - 0.
5.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for the relocation of an
historic accessory structure in Old Town’s Snyder Addition, Block 9 (pt), located at 1102 E. University
Avenue. (CDC-2012-029)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC)
approval from HARC to move an accessory structure to the south portion of his lot to make way for a
circular driveway in the side/rear yard. The 12.25’ wide by 20.20’ long historic wooden frame
shed/garage will be moved approximately 50 feet from its current location near Olive Street to the
back yard as shown on the provided survey. In its place, a circular driveway will be constructed to
allow on-site parking. At the new location, the structure will be used as a shed but will maintain a
garage appearance.
Wyler cited Guideline 7.13 – Only as a last resort should an historic structure be considered for
demolition. Rather than demolishing the structure to make way for the driveway, the applicant wishes
to relocate and continue using it. All required permits will be obtained prior to the relocation. Staff
recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance as proposed. The historic accessory
structure is being saved, just moved elsewhere on the property to make way for a driveway.
Suzanne Grove was introduced as the applicant and available for questions. Ms. Grove explained that
the reason for moving the structure was for safety reasons. In its present location the homeowners
have to back out of their driveway into the busy street and close to a busy intersection.
Rapp explained that this property is across the street from her residence and fully supports this
application, stating the neighbors had worked very hard to preserve and save the original structure.
Blankenship asked about a driveway to the proposed location of the structure. Ms. Grove explained
that the structure would be moved off their current driveway to the back of a vacant lot which they
own, behind their lot. Then their driveway will be extended onto the second lot to create a circular
driveway, eliminating the need to back onto Olive Street and providing access to the structure.
Urban questioned the foundation plan for the structure. Ms. Grove explained that the structure was
originally on a concrete slab. It was elevated onto runners to allow moving. She said she and her
husband would put the runners onto whatever surface the commission recommends. Wyler explained
that the city will inspect the foundation for the building and it will be built to code.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the CDC as presented with the condition that the
foundation of the structure be appropriate for the protection of the building. Second by Urban.
Approved 7 - 0.
6.Election of a third Sign Subcommittee member to join Blankenship and Urban.
Rapp welcomed Eby to the commission, explaining Susan Firth had resigned and therefore we
needed a third member on the Sign Subcommittee. Wahrenbrock volunteered.
Rapp nominates Wahrenbrock for the Sign Subcommittee. Second by Urban. Approved 6 - 0 -1.
(Wahrenbrock abstained.)
7.Election of a third Demolition Subcommittee member to join Paul and Wahrenbrock.
Rapp nominates Eby for Demolition Subcommittee. Second by Paul. Approved 6 - 0 - 1 (Eby
abstained.)
8.Updates from staff and reminder about a possible August 8, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting
at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and August 23, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign Subcommittee
meetings at Council Chambers.
Wyler reported that there will not be an August 8 Sign Subcommittee meeting, but probably an August
23 meeting. He also reported the proposed, amended Design Guidelines were approved at First
Reading by City Council on July 24. The Second Reading will be August 14th.
Wyler reported that Noré Winter, author of the Downtown Master Plan and Design Guidelines, will be
making a presentation on the downtown “pedestrian friendly” area on August 15, 2012. All HARC
Commissioners are invited. More information will be sent as to exact time and location.
Wahrenbrock questioned the recent action by City Council in regards to the new absentee policy for
boards and commissions. Brewer explained that the recent changes will be sent via email by the city
secretary’s office. That will be forwarded to the commissioners.
9. Adjournment
Rapp adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, July 2, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Monday, July 2, 2012 at 03:30 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 Members:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Susan Firth; David Paul; Raymond Wehrenbrock; Tim Urban; and
Jennifer Brown. Commissioner in Training: Anna Eby
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 03:30 PM
Session - To begin no earlier than 3:30 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 special meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration and
possible action on the following:
Regular Agenda:
1.Discussion and possible recommendation to City Council on proposed revisions to the Design
Guidelines for the Downtown and Old Town Overlays. *Continuation from the June 28, 2012
meeting.
2. 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 _________________, 2012, 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, July 2, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Monday ,
July 2, 2012.
Members Present:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Susan Firth; David Paul; Raymond Wahrenbrock; Tim Urban
Members Absent:
Jennifer Brown and Anna Eby
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney; Skye Masson, Legal
Assistant; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Session - To begin no earlier than 3:30 p.m.
Rapp called the meeting to order at 3:32 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 special meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration and
possible action on the following:
Regular Agenda:
1.Discussion and possible recommendation to City Council on proposed revisions to the Design
Guidelines for the Downtown and Old Town Overlays. *Continuation from the June 28, 2012
meeting.
Wyler explained that the Design Guidelines should be ready for recommendation at this meeting, after
the discussion of Chapter 9 for signage at this meeting.
Chapman explains that the language she distributed to the commission was for legal clarification of
the sign contents. Firth distributed suggested guideline language for sign content. Rapp explains that
the commission is not trying to restrict words and content, but how these words and content are
placed aesthetically on the sign. The Sign Subcommittee would like more defined language to help in
the decision making process for sign CDC’s.
There was further discussion with the attorneys regarding the ability to alter federally approved
trademarks and what constitutes a federally approved trademark. There was also discussion of how
to regulate primary and secondary signs and working on the appropriate language for that.
Chapman suggested adding definitions to the appendix glossary of terms for primary sign, secondary
sign, window sign, and A-frame or sandwich sign. Firth asked for additional definitions for lines per
sign, limiting the primary and secondary signs to three lines each to be consistent with the Guideline
styles. She also asked for additional sign types in Guideline 9.3 and further clarification in the
introduction of Chapter 9.
Chapman explained that the parameters that were given were based on the UDC requirements for
signs. Wyler explains that in this case, the UDC is the code used for review and the Design
Guidelines do not need to be as specific for size and exact specifics.
The changes to be made in Chapter 9 are:
·Add definitions to the appendix per Chapman’s list.
·The note on Firth’s handout would be added to the Chapter introduction paragraphs.
·“Well-designed” paragraph from Firth’s handout should be added to 9.3 after the policy statement
but before the paragraph.
·Pull “window signs” from the secondary sign section and make it a stand-alone section.
·Add a section 9.3 with 5 types of window purposes, from Firth’s handout.
·Use legal format for the bullets in the new section 9.3.
·Add appropriate pictures in the final version.
·Adding window signs as a separate type of signage, change 9.1 from 4 types to 5 types of signs.
Wahrenbrock asked that several other small word changes be considered throughout the documents.
Each one was discussed and changes noted if necessary.
A five minute recess was given at 5:35 p.m.
Rapp reconvened at 5:40 p.m.
Motion by Firth to recommend to City Council the approval of the Design Guidelines as
amended at this meeting. She amended her motion to include the name of the document be
changed to Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. Second by Wahrenbrock. Approved
5 - 0. (Blankenship left at 4:20 prior to the vote.)
2. Adjournment.
Rapp adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, June 28, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, June 28, 2012 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:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Susan Firth; David Paul; Raymond Wehrenbrock; Tim Urban; and
Jennifer Brown.
Commissioner(s) in Training: Anna Eby
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.
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 May 24, 2012 Regular HARC
meeting.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new
window signage at City of Georgetown, Block 50, Lots 6 & 7 (pts), also known as the Palace
Annex II, located at 216 W. 8th Street. (CDC-2012-023)
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2012/CDC-2012-023.pdf
Regular Agenda:
3. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for a street-facing
addition to a residential structure in Old Town at Shell Addition, Block 6, Lot 2, located at
809 E. 4th Street. (CDC-2012-025)
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2012/CDC-2012-025.pdf
4.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for the
relocation/reconstruction of an historic accessory structure in Old Town at Shell Addition,
Block 19 (e/pt), located at 502 Walnut Street. (CDC-2012-026)
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2012/CDC-2012-026.pdf
5.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for site and
building design approval as part of the Hat Creek Burger Company infill project at City of
Georgetown, Block 24 (replat), located at 405 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2012-017) *This
item was tabled at the May 24, 2012 HARC meeting to allow the applicant time to address
design questions from the Commissioners before final action is taken.
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2012/CDC-2012-016.pdf
http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/HARC/2012/CDC-2012-016revised.pdf
6.Discussion and possible recommendation to City Council on proposed revisions to the
Design Guidelines for the Downtown and Old Town Overlays.
7.Questions or comments from Commissioner(s)-in-Training about the actions and matters
considered on this agenda.
8.Updates from staff and reminder about the July 11, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee
meeting at the Georgetown Municipal Complex, the July 26, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign
Subcommittee meetings at Council Chambers, and the July 10 City Council Workshop &
First Reading of the Design Guidelines.
9. 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 _________________, 2012, 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, June 28, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
June 28, 2012.
Members Present:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Jennifer Brown, Susan Firth, David Paul, Tim Urban, and
Raymond Wahrenbrock.
Commissioners in Training present: Anna Eby
Members Absent:
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City
Manager; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.
Minutes
Regular Meeting
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.
Chair Rapp called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
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 May 24, 2012 Regular HARC
meeting.
Brown pointed out that the names on item 3 should be Mr. and Mrs. Clark, not Mr. and
Mrs. Brady. So noted.
Motion by Paul to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Wahrenbrock. 6 - 0 - 1
(Blankenship abstained as she was not present for that meeting.)
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new
window signage at City of Georgetown, Block 50, Lots 6 & 7 (pts), also known as the Palace
Annex II, located at 216 W. 8
th
Street. (CDC-2012-023)
Regular Agenda:
3. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for a street-facing
addition to a residential structure in Old Town at Shell Addition, Block 6, Lot 2, located at
809 E. 4
th
Street. (CDC-2012-025)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance
(CDC) approval from HARC to build a screened porch on the east side of the house. Per
Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.09.030.B.1, additions shall not be made to the
street facing façade of an existing Single-family or Two-family residential structure within
the Old Town Overlay District, unless a CDC is approved by HARC in accordance with the
adopted Design Guidelines. The house is listed as a Low-Priority Historic Structure in the
Historic Resources Survey and is located on the eastern edge of the Old Town Overlay
District. The 12’ x 15’ porch will be accessed from an extended breakfast area (immediately
north of proposed porch shown in the photo below) and three east-facing exterior windows
and a door would then face the inside of the porch but remain intact. The porch will follow
the existing roof line above and remain within the City’s required setbacks, behind an
existing 6’ privacy fence and trees.
Commissioners began questions to the owner, Nichole Chigoy. Rapp questioned whether
the porch would fit within the required setbacks. Wyler responded the Plans Reviewer
would check that. She stated that she felt it looked nice but was out of scale with the house .
Blankenship questioned whether there would be any damage to the existing siding. Owner
and contractor explained that it would remain on the inside, they were not removing
anything, just adding on. There was discussion about how the porch would be attached to
the house, through extending existing joists and “marrying” the new to the old. The
addition would be painted to match the house color.
Rapp opened and closed the Public Heating at 6:22 p.m. with no speakers coming forth.
There was further discussion and clarification of the view that would be seen from the
street. Rapp pointed out that the application was missing the elevation as viewed from the
street. Wahrenbrock pointed out that the picture of the porch in the packet was not how the
porch would look and he explained the roofline. Firth pointed out that the view would be
twelve horizontal feet of a screened porch with the roofline extending from the existing and
over the screened porch.
Blankenship said we can look a this two ways: It meets the guidelines because of 7.5
“Design a new addition such that the original character can clearly be seen”. And this
application meets that guidelines, clearly seeing the new structure. Or this application can
be denied because it does not meet guideline 7.8, “An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials and character with the main building”, which does not work with the new
proposed roofline.
Motion by Urban to approve the CDC for the application as designed and proposed.
Second by Firth. Approved 6 - 1. Wahrenbrock opposed.
4.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for the
relocation/reconstruction of an historic accessory structure in Old Town at Shell Addition,
Block 19 (e/pt), located at 502 Walnut Street. (CDC-2012-026)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance
(CDC) approval from HARC to move an accessory structure three (3) feet to the north to
make way for a walkway in the backyard. The structure will be rebuilt using as much of
the original materials as possible. Per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section
3.13.010.B.4, A Certificate of Design Compliance is required for the demolition or relocation
of any building or structure on the List of Priority Structures. The main house is listed as a
High-Priority Historic Structure in the Historic Resources Survey but the exact age of the
subject structure is unknown. It is believed to be historic, however. The owner states the
shed is in bad shape and needs maintenance. She would like to continue using it and plans
to do some maintenance while at the same time moving it slightly to allow for the backyard
walkway as shown on the provided site layout. She will use existing siding as well as
purchased siding to match the house and the shed will again be painted yellow. The
corrugated tin roof will be replaced with a new version of the same style.
Wyler explained that this application was for a relocation but would be handled as a
demolition application because the materials were being reused.
Larkin Tom, the applicant was available for questions. Rapp asked several questions to
determine that the materials would be re-used, as possible; the interior poles would have to
be replaced with new lumber ; the shed might actually be smaller than the original but not
larger, and the roof and siding materials would be reused. The metal siding on the back of
the structure will be replaced with wooden siding to match the existing. Urban questioned
the actual proposed location. Tom explained that it was to be moved three to six feet to the
north and would not be visible from the front of the house.
Rapp opened and closed the Public Hearing at 6:37 p.m. with no speakers coming forth.
Motion by Firth to approve the CDC application as presented. Second by Paul.
Approved 7 - 0.
Rapp called a 5 minute recess at the request of commissioners.
Rapp reconvened the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
5.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for site and
building design approval as part of the Hat Creek Burger Company infill project at City of
Georgetown, Block 24 (replat), located at 405 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2012-017) *This item
was tabled at the May 24, 2012 HARC meeting to allow the applicant time to address design
questions from the Commissioners before final action is taken.
Wyler introduced the applicant, John Kiltz, developer, who would present the items that
were requested from the Commission at the previous meeting. Kiltz gave a presentation on
the following items:
1.A more detailed site plan was presented with dimensions included.
2.Door and window details were given with dimensions included.
3.The building was taken from two stories to one story, and they included a variance
request for the height difference.
4.A complete, detailed list of materials was provided.
5.Traffic flow was addressed. They worked with city engineers and staff and have now
ceded control of the access easement, cutting off 25 feet of the back of the Hat Creek
property for total access of the homeowners, and adding a separation fence along the
easement.
6.Showed all access points.
7.Showed queuing line of traffic by reconfiguring the drive-thru.
8.Identified the trash collection and delivery areas.
9.Removed the cupola so that the building matches the context of the townhomes.
10.Revised the dimensional drawing to include the alley and townhomes.
Mr. Kiltz then went on to explain that they felt they were meeting the intent of the Design
Guidelines 12.1 through 12.14. They feel they met 12.1 by aligning the building at the front
of the property line at the northwest corner of Austin Avenue, while site walls and fencing
supplement the building edge. 12.2: Defined the edge of the lot, where a portion of the
building is set back, with landscaping, sidewalks and fencing. 12.3: Consider dividing a
larger building into modules, they divided the building into three dimensional modules.
12.4: Building heights of larger projects should provide variety, provided scale and variety
in rooflines, stepping down to the playground area. 12.5 Large sites should be developed
with several buildings, rather than a single structure, 3200 square feet broken into three
elements. 12.6: Divide the large building into modules that reflect the traditional size of
buildings, they don’t think they have a large building, only 25 and 27 feet modules and use
materials to match traditional buildings. 12.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of
scale are preferred, using local limestone materials that match other buildings in the area
including the courthouse. 12.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large expanse
of wall plane, they don’t feel they have a large wall but they have used a variety of
materials to break up any large façade areas. 12.10 Develop the ground floor level of a
project to encourage pedestrian activity and avoid a blank wall or vacant lot appearance,
the building is raised at grade and uses “balconies” of the retaining wall to step the wall
into the building area and the playground area is designed to promote pedestrian activity.
12.11 Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street, there is an eight foot
grade change at the northwest corner which is not pedestrian accessible so they worked
with the site as well as they could to accommodate pedestrian access. 12.12: Clearly
identify the road edge and project entrances for both automobiles and pedestrians, they
developed an internal sidewalk that separates the parking and pedestrians as much as
possible and have three pedestrian entrances into the site. 12.13 Minimize the number of
entrances along a street edge, they don’t have any driveways on Austin Avenue and only
one each on 4
th
and 5
th
Streets. 12.14 Place parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible or
disburse throughout the site, they placed parking on one side of the site only and did not
place parking near the access easement in deference to the homeowners behind them.
Mr. Kiltz was available for questions.
Rapp opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m.
Andrew Solin, 406 S. Main Street: agrees with Nancy Knights comments of the City council
meeting of June 26, 2012 that Downtown Georgetown is an a pedestrian area and the
drive-thru is not pedestrian friendly.
Nancy Knight, 205 Tallwood: believes that Hat Creek customers will want to stay at the
restaurant for a meal and the playground and not drive-thru. She reminded them that they
will not have access to their parking lot or drive-thru during city special events. She
expressed concern about the metal roof facing the west and the glare that will occur, and
the high maintenance of the siding. She stated that the Design Guidelines are not met when
you pick and choose the ones that you want to apply, it has to meet all the Guidelines.
Ross Hunter, 908 S. Walnut Street: concerned about the flow of pedestrian traffic from the
Square to the river and the building edge is not aligned at the sidewalk edge, citing the
large masonry wall at 4
th
Street is not pedestrian friendly. He supports the guideline that
encourages shops and store fronts along Austin Avenue, not a parking lot and masonry
wall. He also stated this was not an extraordinary contribution to the Square as is called for
in the Downtown Master Plan and should not be considered.
Clark Lyda, 601 S. Austin Ave: expressed appreciation of the Commissioner’s service. Gave
slide presentation of historic buildings in the downtown area that have been torn down and
those that are current buildings in the downtown area, citing those that were and are
“extraordinary”. Quoted UDC Section 4.08.020.B.2 and expressed that the Hat Creek
development was not an extraordinary development and did not support the height
exception that they were requesting.
David Romine, 426 S. Main: currently a physician but has background in historical
architecture and appreciates the beauty of Georgetown. He believes the commission
should be good conservators of the heritage and quality of life of the downtown area and
that Hat Creek is inappropriate for this block.
Renee Hanson, 1252 S. Austin Ave: recalled the history of the downtown and how the
Design Guidelines were established with Noré Winter, along with the Downtown Master
Plan. She does not believe that Hat Creek is a contributing development to the value of
downtown. It is not pedestrian friendly with Austin Avenue stairs and the driveway and
parking lot crossing. She does not feel the development is aesthetically pleasing. She
stated these were good people and a good product, just a wrong location .
Rick Williamson, 204 Holly Street: stated there was a frontage problem and that an active
edge meant that pedestrians must be able to walk off the street sidewalk and directly into
the building. The front door of the building does not face the street, but the parking lot . He
stated this development was not pedestrian friendly and raised concerns that it was not
ADA compliant.
Richard Kutz, 1312 Elm Street: questioned the length of six cars from the call box to the
sidewalk. He also said that the attraction for children and families is the playground and
that this is not how the site is setup. He thinks the developer can design a better site.
Rapp closed the Public Hearing at 7:47 p.m. with no more speakers coming forth.
Mr. Kiltz came back for Commissioner questions. Wahrenbrock asked questions about the
sidewalks and site line from 4
th
Street onto Austin Avenue. Kiltz stated the traffic engineers
approved the design. Wahrenbrock also expressed concern over glare from the metal roof.
Blankenship discussed site possible changes; flipping the entire site, bringing the
playground inside, or adding building room for a retail element. Firth questioned the
delivery times and transformer access. She too was concerned about the retaining wall
height. Mr. Kiltz stated the plan at this point is still conceptual and that they will work
with grading and are adding a step -planter box. Wyler explained that if they change any of
the design features, the applicant must come back before the commission. Kiltz stated he
thinks this is still a well-designed quality building that may contribute to the Square based
on what they offer to the public.
The Commissioners deliberated. Blankenship stated that because the building does not
support Guideline 12.1 and is not aligned along the property edge, there is not a main
entrance on Austin Avenue, she cannot support the development as proposed.
Rapp agreed with Blankenship and added that the UDC and Downtown Master Plan and
Design Guidelines do not support this type of development. And compared to other
developments in the area, pointing out Monument and El Monumento specifically, that this
property is not extraordinary in any way. UDC Section 4.08.020 states that applications
“shall comply” and be extraordinary. She feels this is not consistent with the Town Square
District and this is not the best use for that lot, expressing concern for the connection
between the downtown area and river area . This does not meet criteria A.1, B.1,B.2, B.3, C,
D and E of UDC Section 4.08.020. She will vote against the project.
Paul stated he likes the project but the location is wrong and he is not supportive of it in
this location.
Firth feels the location is misused and agrees with the guidelines and UDC sections that
have been quoted. She cites the Downtown Master Plan that limits auto-oriented
businesses to north of the river . She feels this business could be redesigned to be a
successful stay-and-dine business, but not a drive-thru and small parking lot business on
Austin Avenue. She feels this should be a safe, pedestrian oriented business and not an
auto-oriented business, and it is not.
Urban pointed out that less than 50% of the building is at the sidewalk edge and that it
should be oriented to the street, not the parking lot.
Brown supports the project but agreed with the other commissioners.
Wahrenbrock stated he appreciated the developer addressing the previous concerns of the
commission and they did that very well, but he also feels this is the wrong location for this
business.
Motion by Blankenship to deny the Certificate of Design Compliance for Hat Creek
Burgers, located at 405 S. Austin Avenue based on the following Guidelines:
8.25: Locate a surface lot such that it will be subordinate to other site features. It is
upfront and the size of the parking lot is as large if not larger than actual built area.
8.26: Site a parking lot so it will minimize gaps in the continuous building wall of a block.
Staff says the design guidelines state the preferred location of a parking lot that shares a site
with a building is behind the building itself but if there are no other options, a side lot is
acceptable. Commissioners believe there are other options available.
12.1: Locate a new building at the front property line.
•Align the building front at the sidewalk edge. The front is not at the sidewalk edge, the
main entrance of this proposed development is to the rear of this building.
·A minimum of 50% of the street frontage of a property shall have a building wall at the
sidewalk edge. This proposal appears to have less than 50% of the frontage, based on the
aerial photo and drawings.
12.10: Develop the ground floor level of a project to encourage pedestrian activity. The
Staff report says the south side of the property is the most level with the street and would
be more contusive to street -level activity.
•At least one of the following should be provided along the primary pedestrian ways:
storefront, display cases, landscaping, and courtyard/plaza. Only landscaping is really
provided.
•Avoid a blank wall or vacant lot appearance. The large retaining wall along Austin
Avenue creates a large blank wall.
12.11: Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street.
The site plan is essentially designed around the drive -thru. The main entrance is near the
rear of the lot. There is no main entrance from Austin Avenue to the building. There is not
even an entrance to the buildings at the street side.
•A primary building entrance should be at or near street level (it is not!).
12.14: Place parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible or disburse throughout the
site. The parking is not located at the back. The clause, when feasible, makes it difficult to
objectively gauge.
12.16: Buildings shall convey a sense of human scale. The buildings that have the
traditional historic commercial appearance are not at street level. That does not convey
human scale if humans are looking at a giant wall.
This plan does not meet the design goals of Area 2 for the Design Guidelines (Chapter 12,
page 2);
The Design Goals of Area 2 are defined as:
•To define the sidewalk edge with elements that are amenities for pedestrians (not
done)
•To establish a sense of scale in buildings and streetscapes design that can be understood
by pedestrians. The building is on an elevated wall with not a single entrance from Austin
Ave. This is not understandable to a pedestrian as a typical building model like this has an
entrance for pedestrians and there is none here.
•To minimize the visual impacts of automobiles. There is an attempt to screen and
shade the vehicles which goes along with Guideline 8.30, but the parking is still in a
primary location that is adjacent to downtown and breaks the building wall, when parking
should go in the rear as per Guidelines: 12.1, 8.25, and 8.26.
•To strengthen the pedestrian network of sidewalks , plazas and paths.
The Downtown Master Plan Introduction , page 3:
·Refers to limiting further development of auto-oriented businesses.
·Also suggests auto-oriented business be developed north of the river.
·And continues to say with such development (i.e. auto-oriented) “there is a risk that the
character of the area (Area 2) will remain fragmented”.
The Downtown Master Plan Introduction , page 10:
·Reiterates the comment regarding negative impacts on downtown with the
development of “new businesses that are more auto-oriented than is desirable for a
traditional downtown core”.
·Continues to say “these tend to fragment the area and weaken its perception as a single,
destination shopping experience”.
The Downtown Master Plan Chapter 2, page 29, Basic Framework, a Vision for
Downtown:
·Foresees downtown as an “exciting, attractive place to work, live and visit”and a place
that is family oriented, Hat Creek accomplishes this goal well with the casual dining and
playground concept. but contradicts the purpose with the in -and-out nature of the
drive-thru.
The Downtown Master Plan Chapter 2, page 35, Basic Framework, Automobile Systems:
·Designs should focus on improving access into the core, not through it, as the
drive-through concept implies.
The Downtown Master Plan Chapter 2, page 37, Basic Framework, Design Character:
·Again refers (specifically) to the “activity center” concept and downtown core north of
the Courthouse Square, the Master Plan refers to the need to “provide mini-destinations”
and this project is not seen as a destination.
·Each activity center should include uses that will attract people to downtown and
encourage pedestrian activity and areas where people can gather.
The Design Guidelines are met to a certain degree in certain instances. But several basic
principles & fundamental issues outlined in the Design Guidelines and the Master Plan are
glaring omissions as listed above.
The request for the Height Exception is denied based on Unified Development Code Section
4.08.020 B.1.c. The proposed building shall be an extraordinary contribution to the
aesthetic and economic goals of the Downtown Master Plan. The Commission does not
believe this project is “extraordinary” based on the Master Plan Goals that are not met or
captured in the plan.
Second by Firth. Denial approved, 7 - 0.
Commissioners asked for a five minute recess at 8:52 p.m.
Rapp reconvened the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
6.Discussion and possible recommendation to City Council on proposed revisions to the
Design Guidelines for the Downtown and Old Town Overlays.
Wyler read and presented the new text for sign content and there was follow-up
discussion. Ms. Chapman, Acting City Attorney, explains to the commission they can
regulate what goes on the primary sign in regards to font, size of font, color, number of
lines, but not actual wording. Commissioners decided they would like to consider the
language that was given to them and discuss the Guidelines one more time before they
recommend the amendments to City Council.
Motion by Rapp to postpone this item to Monday, July 2, 2012 at 3:30 in the Georgetown
Municipal Complex. Second by Wahrenbrock. Approved 7 - 0.
7.Questions or comments from Commissioner(s)-in-Training about the actions and matters
considered on this agenda. Eby did not have any questions but said she thought the
commissioners handled the cases well.
8.Updates from staff and reminder about the July 11, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee
meeting at the Georgetown Municipal Complex, the July 26, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign
Subcommittee meetings at Council Chambers, and the July 10 City Council Workshop &
First Reading of the Design Guidelines.
9. Adjournment
Rapp adjourned the meeting at 8:57 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, June 28, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Thursday, June 28,
2012 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:
Susan Firth; Sarah Blankenship; Tim Urban
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 action on the minutes from the May 24, 2012 Sign Subcommittee meeting.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new window
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 50, Lots 6 & 7 (pts), also known as the Palace Annex II,
located at 216 W. 8th Street. (CDC-2012-025)
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 June 28, 2012 at 6:00 pm.
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 _________________, 2012, 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, June 28, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Thursday , June 28, 2012.
Members Present:
Susan Firth, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; and Tim Urban
Members Absent:
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Firth called the meeting to order 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 action on the minutes from the May 24, 2012 Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
Motion by Urban to approve the minutes as written. Second by Blankenship.
Approved 3 - 0.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new
window signage at City of Georgetown, Block 50, Lots 6 & 7 (pts), also known as the
Palace Annex II, located at 216 W. 8th Street. (CDC-2012-025)
Wyler presented the staff report, explaining that the applicants were applying for
window signage only at this time. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design
Compliance approval from HARC to install white vinyl lettering on an 8th Street
display window. The subject window is directly to the right (west) of the entrance door
and measures 5.5 feet tall by 5.5 feet wide , totaling 30.25 square feet . The lettering will
read Palace Education & Performance Center in the theater’s block font. Totaling 800
square inches, the lettering will be centered on the glass and cover approximately 20%
of the window.
Firth opened the Public Hearing at 5:34 and closed it immediately with no speakers
coming forth.
Bob Koska, representing the Palace, explained where the proposed signage would be
placed - which window. Blankenship asked if the Palace representatives had noticed
that the acronym for the new sign would be PEPC. Koska stated that was intentional.
Motion by Urban to approve the application as presented. The motion was not
seconded.
Blankenship expressed concern regarding the lack of balance with the signage being
located on only the second window, leaving the second half of the windows un-signed.
She felt this led to confusion about which door belonged to the Palace. Koska explained
that the seond “door” feature did not operate and acted as a window.
Koska and the commissioners discussed options and placement of the window signage.
Koska was agreeable to placing the signage on a different window.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the CDC for window signage, with modifications
to which window would be used, placing the lettering on the far left window, leaving
options open for future window signage. Second by Urban. Approved 3 - 0.
3.Adjournment. Firth adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m.
The Subcommittee did not forward these items to the next meeting of the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission for its consideration. That meeting was scheduled for
June 28, 2012 at 6:00 pm.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, May 24, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, May 24, 2012 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:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Susan Firth; David Paul; Raymond Wehrenbrock; Tim Urban; and
Jennifer Brown.
Commissioner(s) in Training: Anna Eby
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.
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 April 26, 2012 Regular HARC meeting.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at Lost Addition, Block 64 (pt), also known as Avalon Monuments, located at 1004 S. Austin
Avenue. (CDC-2012-020)
3.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at Lost Addition, Block 66 (s/pt), also known as Mustang Heritage Foundation, located at
1112 Rock Street. (CDC-2012-022)
Regular Agenda:
4. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for site and building
design approval as part of the Hat Creek Burger Company infill project at City of Georgetown, Block
24 (replat), located at 405 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2012-017) *This item was originally scheduled to
go to the April 26, 2012 HARC meeting but was pulled from the agenda at the request of the
applicant.
5.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for exterior changes
and signage at City of Georgetown, Block 49, Lot 1 (w/pt), also known as the Co-op, located at 308
W. 8th Street. (CDC-2012-021)
6.Discussion and possible direction to staff on proposed revisions to the Design Guidelines for the
Downtown and Old Town Overlays.
7.Updates from staff and reminder about the June 13, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting at the
Georgetown Municipal Complex and the June 28, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign Subcommittee meetings at
Council Chambers.
8. 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 _________________, 2012, 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, May 24, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
May 24, 2012.
Members Present:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Jennifer Brown, Susan Firth, David Paul, Tim Urban, and Raymond Wahrenbrock.
Commissioners in Training present: Anna Eby
Members Absent:
Sarah Blankenship
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City
Manager; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
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.
Chair Rapp called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
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 April 26, 2012 Regular HARC meeting.
Rapp asked that changes be made for incorrect spellings on page 2, “windows” and “pane”. On page
3 of the motion for approval of the CDC, she wants it noted that this was for a transitional home, and
not to be used for an office or business of any kind.
Motion by Paul, second by Wahrenbrock, to approve the minutes as amended. Approved 5 - 0
- 1. (Firth abstained because she was not present for that meeting.)
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at Lost Addition, Block 64 (pt), also known as Avalon Monuments, located at 1004 S. Austin
Avenue. (CDC-2012-020)
3.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at Lost Addition, Block 66 (s/pt), also known as Mustang Heritage Foundation, located at
1112 Rock Street. (CDC-2012-022)
Firth reported that the items 2 and 3 were addressed and approved by the Sign Subcommittee earlier
that night.
Regular Agenda:
4. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for site and building
design approval as part of the Hat Creek Burger Company infill project at City of Georgetown, Block
24 (replat), located at 405 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2012-017) *This item was originally scheduled to
go to the April 26, 2012 HARC meeting but was pulled from the agenda at the request of the
applicant.
Rapp explained that the Commissioners were reviewing this project based on the information packets
that had been distributed for the April 26 meeting. Wyler then explained that the Commissioners
would be reviewing the site layout and the building based on the Design Guidelines. He explained that
the City Council had approved the Special Use Permit on First Reading and would be reviewing it
again for the Second Reading, as required for an ordinance of this type.
The owner, John Kiltz, presented new drawings of the site using handouts and a PowerPoint
presentation. He explained that he had attempted to address the commissioners concerns from a
prior meeting and comments that were made. They revised the parapet to be a square shape instead
of the round; the cupola changed per the request to square it up; pedestrian access was from 4th
Street by designing an internal sidewalk and stairwell to Austin Avenue for pedestrian access from the
sidewalk; dimensions were given clarifying auto access, an eight foot tall screening wall between the
drive through lane and menu board and the townhomes, and a six foot retaining wall on 4th Street; a
masonry retaining wall was designed for Austin Avenue; a wrought iron security fence was added
around the playground; the car queuing area was developed to allow 12 cars from the window to the
roadway, including 8 cars from the menu board that would not block access to the parking area;
addressed the 4th Street screening of the dumpster area; and addressed the concern about the site
line of Austin and 4th Street by insuring that the required sidewalk will cut the property back enough to
have visibility.
The Commissioners began asking questions. Rapp started by asking that the alley be made one-way.
Kiltz responded that was not up to him, the city traffic engineers would make that determination. Firth
questioned what was being done to improve access and the entryway for the owners of the
townhomes that would be trying to access their garages from this access. Kiltz explained they would
do everything they could with signage to direct the restaurant visitors to the restaurant and away from
the townhomes. Wahrenbrock asked about the tree protection of the large tree at the entranceway.
Wyler explained that the Urban Forrester would address the tree issues.
Trey Hailey, architect, gave examples of proposed materials that would be used on site. He showed a
buff colored brick, double-paned windows, galvanized roof material and a gray neutral Hardiplank that
would be used as siding on the north side of the building. The playground and parking fencing will be
masonry and limestone with black metal pickets. He explained the retaining wall would be cut
limestone and the parapet would be cut stone at the top. He explained all the windows would be
bronze colored and that in the picture when it showed larger windows, those were actually smaller
windows placed together to form the larger glass wall, giving more character and depth.
Chair Rapp opened the Public Hearing at 6:50 p.m.
Bob Mullins, 402 S. Main Street, expressed concerns about the narrow driveway being split 50/50
between the homeowners and the restaurant customers. He was worried about parking in the alley,
the kids playing in the yards and their safety, restaurant odors, and stated this was lowering the
townhome owners’ quality of life.
Clark Lyda, 601 S. Austin Ave., explained that it was critical that the applicant follow the same process
as everyone else for approval, allowing for public notification and review. And it seems that the site
plan that was submitted on this night was different than the one approved by council, showing it was
not submitted in time for public review and comment. He also cited UDC Section 4.08.020.a.2 stating,
that this proposed building did not meet the requirement of two usable stories in height or an overall
building height of not less than 20 feet. They can request an exception to this ruling if HARC
determines they are an extraordinary contribution to the goals of the Downtown Master Plan. He also
cited Design Guidelines 12.1 and 8.25, stating that this site would not be compliant. He requested the
Commissioners not approve this plan this way.
Reneé Hanson, 1252 S. Austin Ave., shared a concern about the proposed one story building on
Austin Avenue and felt that the entire site was not in keeping with the character of downtown.
Andrew Solin, 406 S. Main Street and spokesperson for the townhome owners, expressed that they all
felt the drive through was not appropriate for this site and that it would hinder the access to their
driveways, citing that the original agreement granted them “free and uninterrupted access to cars and
pedestrians” from this easement.
PJ Stevens, 1978 S. Austin Ave. providing a technical analysis for the townhome owners, stated the
access and queuing shown on the original plan do not meet the UDC requirements and that a full
application should be submitted and public review allowed before approval is granted for this plan.
Leonard Van Gendt, 502 S. Walnut Street, stated he likes to walk a lot around downtown and he has
heard there will be many cars involved with this restaurant and that he does not believe that matches
the character of downtown.
Ross Hunter, 908 Walnut, stated he felt there was a conflict with the public information and
discrepancies of the documents that were presented.
Darwin Britt, ceded his time to Carolyn Britt who was speaking for Heather Britt, 418 S. Main Street,
asked that the homeowners be considered and asked the commissioners to put restrictions on the
property and approve design criteria as if they were living behind the property.
Rapp closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m. with no other speakers coming forth.
Rapp stated that the Commissioners were going into Executive Session at 7:21 p.m. for legal counsel
with the city attorney, authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551.
Commissioners returned and Rapp reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Rapp spoke for the Commission. She stated they appreciate all the work that the owner has done to
address the original Commission comments, but they also felt that the citizens had valid concerns
about the application. The concerns are that if the information that was presented at this meeting is
not what was approved by City Council, and the information that was presented here was not available
for public review, they could not take full action on this CDC. The Commission was postponing action
on this item until the following items were returned by the developer/ owner and proper notice was
given of the meeting and the documents for review.
·An accurate elevation with 2 dimensions and details on all side of the property.
·A dimensioned site plan to include the alley, easement and garages.
·The Variance Request, submitted in writing as according to the UDC Section 4.08.020.
·An accurate list of materials and where those materials will go exactly. Also material and
color samples must be provided, that exactly match the plan.
·A clean and accurate parking design showing traffic flow, exact dimensions of the driveway,
and queue lines as defined in the UDC.
·An exact depiction, with dimensions of where deliveries will be made.
·A site plan showing the removal of the cupola.
Rapp gave the commissioners and public one more chance to identify a need. Firth asked that the
applicant consider the public safety of the pedestrians in the alley. PJ Stevens asked that a lighting
plan be submitted for review with the site plan. The existing submittal stated the lighting plan would
be submitted separately. Wyler explained that the commissioners would review the light fixture style,
but the engineered lighting, including lumens, spillage, etc. would be addressed during the site plan
review by technical staff. Mr. Kiltz stated they could submit pictures and styles of the lighting fixtures.
Rapp postponed this item for further discussion until the items listed above were submitted.
5.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for exterior changes
and signage at City of Georgetown, Block 49, Lot 1 (w/pt), also known as the Co-op, located at 308
W. 8th Street. (CDC-2012-021)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC)
approval from HARC to make exterior changes to their building. They also propose new business
signage advertising the Co-op. The structure, built circa 1950, is not listed in the 1984 Historic
Resources Survey but is referenced as a Medium-Priority Structure in the 2007 Survey. The following
changes are proposed to the exterior of the building:
1. New Exterior Paint Colors: The stucco façade (on all sides) will be repainted from the current gold
to white. All trim, including canopy trim, will be painted “Bitter Chocolate”.
2. Addition of Horizontal Slats: The slats will be attached to the north (front) façade with a metal
frame to reduce the amount of façade drilling.
3. New Sign: A custom metal black and white projecting sign with painted lettering and inset lighting
will be installed to the front of the building, centered above the canopy. The sign will measure 3.3’ tall
by 10” wide by 3.8’ deep, totaling 12.76 square feet and will read “The Co-op, 78626”.
No other changes or signs are proposed to the building at this time. The applicants, Brady and Faith
Clark were available for questions. They explained that they wanted to paint the stucco building white
as it was originally. They showed the signage and slat examples.
Firth asked about the color of the casing. Ms. Brady explained that it would be the same “bitter
chocolate” color as the slats and fascia color. The gutters would remain natural galvanized metal, to
match the building on the corner’s galvanized metal siding and parts of the library. They were trying to
carry through the theme.
Rapp opened and closed the Public Hearing at 8:17 with no speakers coming forth.
Rapp questioned why the applicants chose such a bright white, stating she felt it was a little too
contemporary for the character of that area. Ms. Brady explained that they were trying to match the
original color of the building and felt that the color would fade some. They still want to be able to see
the white through the proposed slats. They were also planning to work with the Library to possibly use
the white side wall for an outdoor projection screen for movie nights.
The Commissioners decided to vote on the different elements of the application separately.
Motion by Firth to approve the CDC for the sign as presented. Second by Urban. Approved 6 -
0. Firth encouraged the applicants to come back to HARC for future signage.
They discussed the proposed slats next. Urban expressed that he would like to see the brackets of
the slats spaced equally across the front of the building. Mr. Brady stated they would do that and then
apply the slats so that there would not be a seam.
Firth quoted Guideline 4.2, “Avoid adding elements or details that were not part of the original
building.” And she cited Guideline 5.6, “Historic building materials or features shall not be covered.”
Firth does not feel the slats are appropriate.
Motion by Firth to deny a CDC for the horizontal slats, leaving just the existing stucco on the
top portion of the building. Second by Brown. The CDC was denied by a 4 - 2 vote. (Denial by
Firth, Brown, Rapp and Wahrenbrock. Voting against the denial: Paul and Urban.)
There was no further discussion of the paint. Motion by Firth to approve the CDC for the white
paint color on the building. Second by Wahrenbrock. Approved 5 - 1, Brown opposed.
Motion by Firth to approve the awning, trim and casing colors. Second by Urban. Approved 5
- 1, Brown opposed.
6.Discussion and possible direction to staff on proposed revisions to the Design Guidelines for the
Downtown and Old Town Overlays.
Wyler opened the discussion by stating that no major changes had been made to the document after
the public workshops. Rapp added that she wanted more detailed criteria and consequences added
to the demolition sections. Wyler explained that those details were more specific in the Unified
Development Code. There was discussion that the demolition subcommittee could use more training
on those sections of the code. There was further discussion of the timing for adoption of the finalized
document. Commissioners were told to get any further suggested changes to staff no later than June
14.
Rapp opened and closed the Public Hearing at 8:55 with no speakers coming forth.
7.Updates from staff and reminder about the June 13, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting at the
Georgetown Municipal Complex and the June 28, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign Subcommittee meetings at
Council Chambers.
Wyler reminded the commissioners that they may have a special called meeting if the Hat Creek
application came back with the requested materials. He will send out an email checking availability of
the commissioners.
8. Adjournment
Rapp adjourned the meeting at 8:57 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, May 24, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Thursday, May 24,
2012 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:
Susan Firth, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Tim Urban
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 action on the minutes from the May 9, 2012 Sign Subcommittee meeting.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at Lost Addition, Block 64 (pt), also known as Avalon Monuments, located at 1004 S.
Austin Avenue. (CDC-2012-020)
3.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at Lost Addition, Block 66 (s/pt), also known as Mustang Heritage Foundation, located at
1112 Rock Street. (CDC-2012-022)
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 24, 2012 at 6pm.
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 _________________, 2012, 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, May 24, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Thursday , May 24, 2012.
Members Present:
Susan Firth, Chair; and Tim Urban
Members Absent:
Sarah Blankenship
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Firth called the meeting to order at 5:34 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 action on the minutes from the May 9, 2012 Sign Subcommittee meeting.
Motion by Urban to approve the minutes as written. Second by Firth. Approved 2 - 0.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at Lost Addition, Block 64 (pt), also known as Avalon Monuments, located at 1004 S.
Austin Avenue. (CDC-2012-020)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval
from HARC to install new business signage. The first sign will be installed above the entrance
doors and display windows and will read “Avalon Monuments” in individual plastic red letters
attached to a silver PVC board as a backdrop. The PVC board will be painted to match the silver
currently on the building and will be sized to fit directly into the sign freeze only above the subject
storefront. A sample of the letter was provided at the meeting.
Next, two display windows have the services provided by the business detailed on them. This
window signage has not yet been approved by HARC and the applicant seeks CDC approval to
bring the window signage into full compliance. The window immediately to the north (right) of the
entrance door reads “Head Stone, Granite Bronze, Final Dates” with the adjacent window reading
“Cremation urns, Lettering, Etching”. Both windows use a white vinyl application and all lettering
has been centered on the window. The entrance door has the hours of operation detailed in a
white vinyl application as well. The window lettering covers 30% of each window.
Staff recommends approval of the size and location of the individual lettering on the primary sign
with the condition the applicant use a painted cast metal rather than a hard plastic material for the
primary sign, including the backdrop to which the letters will be affixed. This will ensure
compliance with Design Guideline 9.15 which prohibits plastic as a sign material Downtown.
Using a cast metal rather than a hard plastic will provide the same visual affect and the letters can
be installed in the same manner.
The applicant was not present for comments. Firth opened and closed the public hearing at 5:34
p.m. with no speakers coming forth.
Urban stated he agreed with the staff recommendation of the metal sign lettering to replace the
plastic lettering. Firth agreed and suggested the metal lettering be applied directly to the metal
which is mounted to the fascia.
Motion by Urban to approve the CDC consistent with staff recommendations, metal
lettering on the metal background, and to approve the previously applied lettering on the
windows. Second by Firth. Approved 2 - 0.
3.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at Lost Addition, Block 66 (s/pt), also known as Mustang Heritage Foundation, located at
1112 Rock Street. (CDC-2012-022)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval
from HARC to reface an existing two-sided freestanding sign. Each Moderate Density Overlay
(MDO) face measures 8 feet wide by 4 feet tall and will be overlaid with a vinyl print. The design
of each face consists of a beige, lightly patterned backdrop with the company’s name/logo in black
print. The backdrop will somewhat match that seen on the facade of the building. Below the
company’s name/logo will be contact information with the name of the agent in red type at the
bottom.
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance for the refacing of an existing
freestanding sign with the condition a border (either red or white) be placed around the face and
that the red at the bottom of the sign, and possibly the trim, match what is currently found around
the windows of the structure. The sign appears to be taller than most along this stretch of
University but HARC should take into consideration there is a 3-foot white picket fence around this
property that limits visibility when making their determination.
The agent, Ray Shawley, was present for questions and comments. Urban asked if the red
lettering was to exactly match the red trim on the house and Shawley responded affirmatively.
Firth opened and closed the public hearing at 5:38 p.m. with no speakers coming forth.
Firth asked that the sign be lowered from 6’3” to exactly 6’. She also requested that the sides of
the sign be enclosed so that it does not look so “temporary”. Shawley agreed to finish it out with a
frame and sides. He also agreed that the border around the sign could be painted a contrasting
color.
Motion by Urban to approve the CDC for the sign with the addition of the wood trim to
finish the sign sides and posts, that they be painted an accent color or the sign color, and
a border be added to the sign faces in a red to match the sign lettering. Second by Susan.
Approved 2 - 0.
4.Adjournment
Firth adjourned the meeting at 5:41 p.m.
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 24, 2012 at 6 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Wednesday, May 9,
2012 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:
Susan Firth, Chair; Sarah Blankenship and Tim Urban
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 action on the minutes from the April 26, 2012 Sign Subcommittee meeting.
2.Election of Sign Subcommittee officers (Chair & Secretary).
3.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for a new awning sign
at Lost Addition, Block 13, Lots 3, 4, 7 & 8, also known as Divine Patina, located at 1005 S. Austin
Avenue. (CDC-2012-019)
4.Discussion and possible action to set the days and times for HARC Sign Subcommittee meetings.
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 May 24, 2012.
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 _________________, 2012, 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, May 9, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Wednesday , May 9, 2012.
Members Present:
: Susan Firth, Chair; Sarah Blankenship and Tim Urban
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Firth called the meeting to order 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 action on the minutes from the April 26, 2012 Sign Subcommittee meeting.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the minutes as presented. Second by Urban. Approved
2 - 0 - 1 (Firth abstained since she was not present for that meeting.)
2.Election of Sign Subcommittee officers (Chair & Secretary).
Blankenship moves that Firth continue as Chair and that Urban serve as Secretary.
Second by Urban. Approved 3 - 0.
3.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for a new awning sign
at Lost Addition, Block 13, Lots 3, 4, 7 & 8, also known as Divine Patina, located at 1005 S. Austin
Avenue. (CDC-2012-019)
Wyler presented a brief staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance
approval from HARC for an awning sign advertising the business. The name of the business,
Divine Patina, will be printed on a new burgundy canvas awning which will be attached to the
existing awning frame. The frame is currently covered by a turquoise awning from the previous
business. The lettering will be centered on the 24-foot long awning. Staff recommends approval.
Ray Shawley was present for the applicant. Firth asked why the applicant was not asking for
window signage as well. Shawley said they did not want it.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the CDC as proposed. Second by Urban. Approved 3 -
0.
4.Discussion and possible action to set the days and times for HARC Sign Subcommittee meetings.
Commissioners discussed making changes to the meeting date and time. Urban requested that
the Wednesday meeting be at 4:30 instead of 4:00.
Motion by Urban to keep the 2nd Wednesday of the month meeting, but move the time to
4:30 p.m. Second by Blankenship. Approved 3 - 0.
Firth, Blankenship and Urban all stated they would not be able to attend the June 13th meeting.
Wyler stated he would try to reschedule it.
5.Adjournment
Firth adjourned the meeting at 4:16 p.m.
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 24, 2012.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Design Guidelines Public
workshop
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Design Guidelines Public workshop will meet on
Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 05:30 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 Design Guidelines Public workshop Members:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Susan Firth; David Paul; Raymond Wehrenbrock; Tim Urban; and
Jennifer Brown and, Commissioner in Training - Anna Eby
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
Members of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission may or may not be in attendance at a
public workshop regarding updates to the Downtown Design Guidelines on the following dates. No action
by the Commission will be taken at these workshops.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 5:30 p.m.
Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 3:30 p.m.
These workshops are regarding proposed amendments to the Downtown Design Guidelines as they relate
to development in the Downtown and Old Town Historic Overlays. The purpose of the meetings is to
provide opportunity for citizen participation in the Design Guidelines amendment process. Some of the
more noteworthy changes are:
·Chapter 8, Site Design
·Chapter 9, Signage
·Chapter 11, Colors (new chapter)
·Chapter 14, Infill in Old Town (new chapter)
·Appendix A, Glossary of Terms
More information, as well as draft text, is available at the City’s Planning and Development Department at
300-1 Industrial Avenue and at http://historic.georgetown.org/downtown-design-guidelines/
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 _________________, 2012, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, April 26, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Thursday, April 26,
2012 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:
Susan Firth; Sarah Blankenship; Tim Urban
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 action on the minutes from the April 11, 2012 Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new
business signage at City of Georgetown , Block 38, Lots 2 & 3, and 1 (pt), to be known as
The Exchange, located at 109 W. 7
th
Street, Suite 115. (CDC-2012-015)
3.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new
business signage at City of Georgetown , Block 27, Lots 1 – 8, also known as the
Georgetown Barbershop and MiBoHe Wellness, located at 501 S. Austin Avenue,
Building #2. (CDC-2012-018)
4.Discussion and possible action to set the days and times for HARC Sign Subcommittee
meetings.
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 April
26, 2012.
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 _________________, 2012, 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, April 26, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Thursday , April 26, 2012.
Members Present:
Sarah Blankenship, Acting Chair; and Tim Urban
Members Absent:
Susan Firth
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; April Quade, Planning Specialist; and Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Blankenship called the meeting to order at 5:31 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 action on the minutes from the April 11, 2012 Sign Subcommittee meeting.
Motion by Urban to approve. Second by Blankenship. Approved 2 - 0.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lots 2 & 3, and 1 (pt), to be known as The Exchange,
located at 109 W. 7th Street, Suite 115. (CDC-2012-015)
Blankenship asked that this item be moved to the entire Commission’s regular meeting at 6:00
p.m. since the building colors were already posted for that meeting and she felt the sign should be
addressed with that discussion. This item was postponed until later in the evening.
3.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1 – 8, also known as the Georgetown Barbershop
and MiBoHe Wellness, located at 501 S. Austin Avenue, Building #2. (CDC-2012-018)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval
from HARC for three new signs. First, a flush-mounted sign is proposed for the south-facing side
of the building. The wooden sign with vinyl print will measure 18 feet wide by 2.5 feet tall and
depicts the names of both businesses in a black font with a red band at the bottom showing
contact information. A red and white barbershop pole will be placed in the center of the sign
separating the two business names. The sign will be installed directly onto the stucco façade and
centered on the building.
Next, vinyl lettering will be installed on three south-facing windows. The first window measures
3.7’ wide by 5.33’ tall and is located on the second western-most window facing south. The
applicant proposes placing white lettering that reads “Cut & Shave” centered on the window. A
red, white, blue and black barbershop pole will be placed to the left of the lettering. The second
window is the same size as the first and is located immediately to the left (west) of the entrance
door. This window proposal details the services provided by MiBoHe in white lettering. The final
window measures 4.62’ wide by 5.33’ tall and is located immediately to the right of the entrance
door. This window proposal will have the name of the business and contact information in white
lettering.
Lastly, a portable sign is proposed. It will be placed on the Austin Avenue sidewalk to the west of
the subject building. A parking lot separates Building 2 from the sidewalk and large trees on the
west side of the building make it somewhat difficult to advertise to street traffic. Because of this,
the applicant would like to place an A-frame sign on the sidewalk. Detailed in the applicant’s letter
of request, the double-sided sign will be made of ½” wood with a metal hinge and chains. The
design scheme will be similar to the design of the flush-mounted sign. The location of the sign is
subject to HARC’s consideration should they feel a portable sign is appropriate. Unfortunately, the
applicant was unable to get a rendering submitted to the Planning & Development office so a
visual was not provided.
Karina Loyo, the applicant was available for questions and offered to draw a picture of the
proposed portable sign on the spot. The commissioners began asking questions.
Urban asked about the entrances. Loyo explained that there was only one real entrance. The
door on the west side of the building was for staff and was actually blocked by a tree. They asked
Ms. Loyo why she only wanted one flush mounted sign for the two businesses. She explained
that she thought it was a more simple design and that she and the other tenant agreed to the
style. Blankenship explained that usually two separate businesses preferred two separate signs
and that she would suggest doing that. Urban suggested if Ms. Loyo only wanted one physical
sign, that the barber pole in the middle be moved to the left side of the sign, and a dark vertical
line be placed in the middle. Loyo asked if they wanted a border. They said it was preferred.
They also agreed with the staff recommendation to place the phone number on the window
instead of the flush mounted sign.
Blankenship opened and closed the Public Hearing at 5:40 with no speakers coming forward.
Motion by Urban to approve the flush mounted sign, consistent with the staff
recommendations: move the barber pole to the left, place a dark, vertical line in the middle,
add a border in black or red, and remove the phone numbers to the window. Second by
Blankenship. Approved 2 - 0.
Urban started the discussion of the window signage. He explained that the window signage
seemed off balance and noticed the MiBoHe sign seemed center justified. Loho explained the
barber wanted to have balance on the front of the building, but that the one door was not centered
in the front of the building. He suggests following the staff recommendations to balance the front
to the building better.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the window signage with the staff recommendations to
reduce the size of the barbershop pole and that the colors match what is found on the
primary sign. The name of the businesses should be included on the door, if there is
space. This will free up space to separate the provided services and contact information
between the two side windows and will create a more balanced look to the signage.
Second by Urban. Approved 2 - 0.
Motion by Blankenship to approve an A-frame sign for this business with approval by staff
on a final design. Second by Urban. Approved 2 - 0.
4.Discussion and possible action to set the days and times for HARC Sign Subcommittee meetings.
Since Susan Firth was not present, this item was postponed until the next meeting.
5.Adjournment. Blankenship adjourned the meeting at 5:51 p.m.
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 April 26, 2012.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, April 26, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, April 26, 2012 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:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Susan Firth; David Paul; Raymond Wehrenbrock; Tim Urban; and
Jennifer Brown.
Commissioner(s) in Training: Anna Eby
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.
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 March 22, 2012 Regular HARC
meeting.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new
business signage at City of Georgetown , Block 38, Lots 2 & 3, and 1 (pt), to be known as The
Exchange, located at 109 W. 7
th
Street, Suite 115. (CDC-2012-015)
3.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new
business signage at City of Georgetown , Block 27, Lots 1 – 8, also known as the Georgetown
Barbershop and MiBoHe Wellness, located at 501 S. Austin Avenue, Building #2.
(CDC-2012-018)
Regular Agenda:
4. Discussion and possible action on a request to waive a 365-day waiting period for the
demolition of a structure without CDC approval per Unified Development Code Section
3.13.010.D.4. for 1415 College Street.
5.Discussion and possible action on a postponed Certificate of Design Compliance request for
the construction of a new single-family residence at Glasscock Addition, Block 5, Lots 5
(w/pt) & 6 (sw/pt), located at 415 W. 10
th
Street. (CDC-2012-007)
6.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for the
demolition of two historic structures in Southside Addition, Block 4 (se/pt), located at 307 E.
18
th
Street. (CDC-2012-011)
7.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for minor
exterior changes at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lots 2 & 3, and 1 (pt), to be known as The
Exchange, located at 109 W. 7
th
Street, Suite 115. (CDC-2012-014)
8.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for exterior
changes at City of Georgetown, Block 49, Lot 1 (e/pt), located at 806 Rock Street.
(CDC-2012-016)
9.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for site and
building design approval as part of the Hat Creek Burger Company infill project at City of
Georgetown, Block 24 (replat), located at 405 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2012-017)
10.Update on proposed revisions to the Design Guidelines for the Downtown and Old Town
Overlays.
11.Updates from staff and reminder about the May 9, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting
at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and the May 24, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign
Subcommittee meetings at Council Chambers.
12. 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 _________________, 2012, 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, April 26, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
April 26, 2012.
Members Present:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship, Jennifer Brown, David Paul; Tim Urban, and Raymond
Wahrenbrock. Commissioners in Training present: Anna Eby
Members Absent:
Susan Firth
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Staff present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; April Quade,
Planning Specialist; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Rapp opened the meeting at 6:02 p.m. She explained that item #9 had been pulled from
the agenda by the applicant and that item number 2 of the consent agenda was not discussed
by the Sign Subcommittee, as reported by Blankenship, and that action would need to be taken
by the entire commission with item number 7, the companion item.
Rapp asked Blankenship for any action from the Sign Subcommittee. She responded that
action was taken on the 501 S. Austin Ave Building #2 item, approved with staff recommended
conditions, and #2 was forwarded to this commission.
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 March 22, 2012 Regular HARC
meeting.
Rapp asked that under the Hat Creek item that it be mentioned that the applicant stated
they would save the Heritage Tree. Paul stated that he was voted in as Secretary, not
Blankenship as stated. Blankenship stated these were the best minutes so far.
Wahrenbrock asked that on page 3, middle of the page, last sentence the wording be
changed to incoming traffic, instead of oncoming traffic.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Paul. Approved
6 - 0.
2.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new
business signage at City of Georgetown , Block 38, Lots 2 & 3, and 1 (pt), to be known as The
Exchange, located at 109 W. 7
th
Street, Suite 115. (CDC-2012-015)
3.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new
business signage at City of Georgetown , Block 27, Lots 1 – 8, also known as the Georgetown
Barbershop and MiBoHe Wellness, located at 501 S. Austin Avenue, Building #2.
(CDC-2012-018)
Items 2 and 7 were discussed after the minutes. These minutes will be reflected under #7.
Regular Agenda:
4. Discussion and possible action on a request to waive a 365-day waiting period for the
demolition of a structure without CDC approval per Unified Development Code Section
3.13.010.D.4. for 1415 College Street.
Wyler opened the discussion, explaining that the Sullivans, the owners have been working
on the residence and that they are concerned about the demolished back porch that leaves a
back portion of the house open to the elements . They are asking to move forward with the
completion of the addition.
Rapp asked the Sullivans, who were present, why they applied for the permits to rebuild
the porch and then demolished the porch. They explained that their contractor said he had
applied for the permits and that they did not understand that the porch was actually a part
of the historic structure.
Wahrenbrock explained the importance of visibility of the porch which faces the street,
including the side street, and protecting that historical view point.
Mr. Sullivan explained that the condition of the porch, with termites and dry rot, is the
driving force for asking for a waiver of the 365 day demolition permit. Mrs. Sullivan
showed diagrams of the existing footprint and house, along with proposed work to extend
the house and complete it.
Wahrenbrock asked about the windows that were full pane glass. Mrs. Sullivan explained
that she had personally worked on the woindows, reglazing them and making the wood
grids on the single pain windows .
Rapp opened and closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. with no speakers coming forth.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the waiver of the 365 day waiting period for the
demolition permit of the porch. Second by Paul. Approved 6 - 0.
5.Discussion and possible action on a postponed Certificate of Design Compliance request for
the construction of a new single-family residence at Glasscock Addition, Block 5, Lots 5
(w/pt) & 6 (sw/pt), located at 415 W. 10
th
Street. (CDC-2012-007)
Wyler presented a short staff report. This is continuation of a portion of a CDC request
taken to the March 22, 2012 HARC meeting. CDC-2012-007 was for the demolition of an
historic house and for the construction of a new residential-single family structure. HARC
approved the demolition portion of the CDC request but had concerns about the new
structure and made a request that the applicant return with an updated design concept that
was more fitting to the neighborhood and respected the original structure. The applicant
has 3 proposals for the house.
David Voelter, architect, and Susie Ramos, owner were present for the discussion. Mr.
Voelter started by saying that they started with wanting touse the existing trim on the
house. The front elevation is the same as the previous plan. They changed the south
elevation using board and batten to continue the same wood style as the previous structure.
The extended the porch to the west and the interior changed to accommodate the exterior
changes.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions. Blankenship stated she was pleased they were
removing the rock façade that did not seem to fit the neighborhood and asked that they
consider using the board and batten all the way around the house instead of breaking up
the lines with the horizontal siding. She suggested they follow Guideline 12.21 where new
interpretations of the old are encouraged. She encouraged them to draw on the history of
the old building and continue that with new materials. Paul explained the difference in
cost of vertical board and batten versus horizontal siding.
There was further discussion of the porches. Mrs. Ramos stated she likes the porches the
way they are designed now.
Rapp opened and closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. with no speakers coming forth.
The Commissioners discussed other items of design. They asked for more windows which
would be more reflective of the previous structure, and an extension of the board and
batten section to make it look like a bigger portion of the building .
Motion by Rapp to approve the CDC with the following considerations to be reviewed
with staff: 1. More vertical board and batten, either the whole house or a specific area
with reference to the previous home. 2. More windows, more window hoods (decorative).
3. More windows that are representative of the board and batten portion of the rendering
on the front. 4. Front south elevation expand all the way to the porch. 5. Add another
window to the front elevation that is in keeping with the board and batten style section .
6. Remove the extension (extra six inches on south elevation), especially if covered in the
vertical board and batten. Second by Blankenship. Approved 6 - 0.
6.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for the
demolition of two historic structures in Southside Addition, Block 4 (se/pt), located at 307 E.
18
th
Street. (CDC-2012-011)
Wyler explained that the applicant was asked to provide a history of the structures by the
demolition subcommittee, after the site visit earlier in the week. The applicant has
provided that information. The applicant, Bill Stump was introduced. He explained that
he is the owner of several properties in town.
Paul stated that the garage had been converted to a home and an extra “garage” was
added. They were both in bad shape and built on the ground. He stated it would improve
the neighborhood to demolish this building. He also said that the house next door was
very well preserved. Rapp agreed after seeing the shape the garages were in, that they
should be demolished. She applauded Mr. Stump for his great efforts to reuse the materials
in these old structures and that he has done excellent work on restoring the homes.
Wahrenbrock appreciated the “reconstruction”.
Motion by Wahrenbrock to approve the CDC for demolition of the two structures as
proposed. Second by Paul. Approved 6 - 0.
7.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for minor
exterior changes at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lots 2 & 3, and 1 (pt), to be known as The
Exchange, located at 109 W. 7
th
Street, Suite 115. (CDC-2012-014)
Wyler presented both staff reports and explained that there would need to be two public
hearings. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval from HARC for
three new signs. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval from
HARC to repaint the entrance doors and kick plates for suite 115 from the current red to a
new color. Two options are proposed. The first, and preferred, option is to paint the
subject features a dark Bermuda Blue. The blue will match the blue on the proposed
signage for the storefront the HARC Sign Subcommittee will consider on the same day as
this request. The second option is to paint the features the same light green that is
currently found on the building around the red areas. The applicant has stated that, if
needed, the upper story windows can be painted as well should HARC feel it is necessary.
The applicant, Carly Donnell, was available for comment and she described what she
wanted to do to the building. Rapp asked questions for clarification. Donnell asked to
paint the existing red trim to green with blue on the lower facade. She does not want the
red because it is not part of her business identity.
Blankenship stated she would like to keep the top and bottom of the building connected.
She suggested adding the red accent colors to the sign to tie it in. She also suggested
stretching the sign into an oval to increase the size of the lettering , making it easier to read .
Rapp opened the public hearing at 6:20 and closed it with no one coming forward to speak.
There was more discussion of the existing colors, the entire upper façade of the building
trim was painted red. Blankenship explained that although the other tenants had different
color (green) on the lower story, this approval of a different color would continue the
breaking up of the façade . She recommends changing the bottom façade to green or
leaving it red. They could paint the door blue if they need to.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the signage as proposed with the suggestion to add
red as suggested. Second by Wahrenbrock. Blankenship amended the motion to allow
the sign to be an oval shape with a 12 foot maximum square footage as allowed. Second
of the amendment by Wahrenbrock. Approved 6 - 0.
Motion by Blankenship to deny approval of the new paint colors. Second by
Wahrenbrock. Vote was 3 - 3, so no action. (Brown, Rapp and Paul denied)
Building colors were discussed further. Donnell agreed to paint the door and window
boxes the monochromatic green that the neighboring tenant uses .
Motion by Brown to approve the store front paint color of monochromatic green. Second
by Paul. Vote was 3 - 3, so no action. (Blankenship, Wahrenbrock and Urban denied.)
Raymond pointed out that the red accents bring attention to the building and possibly the
sign(s).
Motion by Blankenship to approve the dark blue front door color and to leave all the
other paint colors the same as existing. Second by Paul. Approved 4 - 2. (Urban and
Wahrenbrock opposed).
8.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for exterior
changes at City of Georgetown, Block 49, Lot 1 (e/pt), located at 806 Rock Street.
(CDC-2012-016)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance
(CDC) approval from HARC to make exterior changes to an unlisted historic structure
located in Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay. Neither the 1984 or pending 2007 Historic
Resources Surveys reference this property, but according to the Sanborn maps , the
structure was erected sometime between 1925 and 1940 and at some point received a new
stone veneer façade. Original doors and windows have also been replaced over time. The
following changes are proposed to the exterior of the building:
1. All existing stone veneer on the north and east façade will be removed.
2. All existing metal siding on the south and west façade will be removed.
3. New Hardi-plank siding and trim will be installed on the north, east, and south façades
and a new metal siding will be installed on the west façade.
4. Removal of single doors on both the north and east façades and enclosure of the
openings.
5. Replacement of existing doors on both the north and east façade with new painted
metal and glass 3’ by 6’8” doors.
6. Create an opening on the east façade where a door and window are currently located
and install a new 10’ wide by 8’ tall metal and glass roll-up door.
7. Provide new sheet metal coping at the top of the parapet.
8. Provide new sheet metal scupper boxes and down spouts at the north side of the
building.
9. Remove the existing electrical service from the north façade and install new electrical
service on the south façade.
10. All existing windows on the east façade are to remain and the windows on the north
façade will be replaced with aluminum “storefront” type windows with insulated glass.
11. New roof top AC units will be installed, but will not be visible from the street due to
the parapet wall.
Wyler introduced Matt Williams of Trinity Architects and Eric Visser, owner of the
building. Commissioners began asking questions. Rapp asked about the color of the
windows. Williams explained the metal would be a bronze color, along with the scupper
boxes. She also asked if the building would be any taller than it currently is. Williams
responded that it will remain 4.5’ on north side and that it will hide the mechanical
equipment.
Blankenship asked if they had considered other material options, that the proposed
hardiplank was not consistent with the Downtown area. Williams stated they looked at
other options but they are not in the price range.
There was discussion of when the rock veneer was applied and Wyler responded that it
was not recorded, but estimated that it was between 1925 and 1940.
Visser explained that this was not a good building and that it was a tough choice whether
to tear it down or try to remodel it. There are economic limitations on that side of the
Square, he explained, that made it cost prohibitive to put too much money into the building
that cannot be recovered.
Wahrenbrock questioned the intention of the garage style/ sectional doors. Visser
explained that the proposed new tenant, RunTex, would use the doors and keep them open
during runs and events that they would hold, expanding their space.
Blankenship discussed the doors and windows, stating that typically the door and
windows were the same height, but these were designed differently . Williams explained
that they wanted to use the existing openings, which are different heights.
Wahrenbrock stated he would like to see the same siding material used all the way around
the building. Williams explained the fire rating issue that exists with the proximity of the
adjacent building. Blankenship explained that she likes the rusted metal look, finds it
interesting, maybe having a mural painted on it. Visser says that is not economically
feasible. Paul stated that with the new proposed parking garage and walkways planned,
the pedestrian friendly elements are important.
Rapp opened the public hearing at 7:56 and closed it with no public coming forth.
Blankenship stated she feels the proposed siding goes against the Guidelines. Wyler
explained that since this was not an historically significant structure, the owner only has to
consider proposed options, and the owner prefers stucco or wood. Paul spoke out against
hardiplanks also. Wahrenbrock suggested reducing the size of the planks from 8” to 4”.
Williams stated that could be an option.
Rapp allowed a late speaker to come forth. Aaron Cabrera, owner of a building at 308 W. 8
th
, stated that he was in total agreement with any changes to this structure and sees that a
positive change for the street, he recommends approval.
The Commissioners then discussed further options: half stone on the bottom and half
hardiplank above, stucco on the east and north elevations, metal applications. They
questioned using rock trim. Visser stated that was not affordable and that stucco was twice
as expensive as hardiplank.
Motion by Rapp to approve the CDC as requested with the following conditions and
suggestions: Conditions are that the doors be 8 feet tall to match the height of the
windows, that the hardiplank product be 4” not 8” as proposed and that more traditional
trim be used around the windows. The suggestions are that siding be used on all 4 sides,
but the commission is okay with the existing metal on the west side, stucco is to be
considered on the east and north sides and that a mural be considered with the reuse of
the metal. Second by Wahrenbrock. Approved 5 - 1 (Blankenship opposed.)
Rapp asked that Visser consider reusing as many materials of the structure as possible.
Wahrenbrock asked for the ceiling tiles to be given to the Heritage Society. Visser
explained that a lot of the materials were not worth saving. He thanked the commission for
moving this project forward.
9.Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for site and
building design approval as part of the Hat Creek Burger Company infill project at City of
Georgetown, Block 24 (replat), located at 405 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2012-017) *This item
was pulled from the agenda at the request of the applicant to an unknown later date.
10.Update on proposed revisions to the Design Guidelines for the Downtown and Old Town
Overlays.
Wyler explained the Public Workshops would be held on May 9 at 5:30 p.m., and May 10 at
5:30, then a Public Hearing at the next regular HARC meeting on May 24, the
recommendation to City Council by HARC on June 28, then City Council workshop and
first reading on July 10, and adoption on July 24.
11.Updates from staff and reminder about the May 9, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting
at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and the May 24, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign
Subcommittee meetings at Council Chambers.
Rapp expressed appreciation for Liz Cook, who retired on April 30 stating that she had
provided a significant influence on the HARC and Georgetown. HARC presented flowers
for her that would be delivered by staff.
Blankenship asked that there be an overview of CAMP training.
12. Adjournment
Rapp adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit will meet on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 08:30
AM in the 307 E. 18th Street
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit Members:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Susan Firth; David Paul; Raymond Wehrenbrock; Tim Urban; and
Jennifer Brown
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 site visit on Tuesday, April 24, 2012. This is discovery action of a HARC
agenda item that will be discussed and action taken at the regularly scheduled HARC
meeting on Thursday, April 26, 2012. The application for 307 E. 18
th
Street is to demolish
two historic, but not listed, structures. Commissioners have asked for a site visit 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 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 _________________, 2012, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Wednesday, April 11, 2012 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:
Sarah Blankenship, Dee Rapp, Tim Urban
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 action on the minutes from the March 14, 2012 Sign Subcommittee meeting.
2.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new business
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 52, Lot 3 (s/pt), also known as Balance Wellness Center,
located at 809 S. Main Street (CDC-2012-012)
3.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new business
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 4 (pt), also known as A Premium Blend School of
Performing Arts, located at 708 S. Austin Avenue, Suite 201. (CDC-2012-013)
4.Discussion and possible action to set the days and times for HARC Sign Subcommittee meetings.
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 April 26, 2012.
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 _________________, 2012, 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, April 11, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Wednesday
, April 11, 2012.
Members Present:
Susan Firth, Chair; and Tim Urban
Members Absent:
Sarah Blankenship
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Firth called the meeting to order 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 action on the minutes from the March 14, 2012 Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
Firth asked that Wyler’s original staff recommendation be included. Motion by Firth to
accept the minutes with the amendment. Second by Urban. Approved 2 - 0.
2.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new
business signage at City of Georgetown , Block 52, Lot 3 (s/pt), also known as Balance
Wellness Center, located at 809 S. Main Street (CDC-2012-012)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance
approval from HARC for a new flush-mounted wall sign advertising his business. The
sign will be constructed of Moderate Density Overlay (MDO) wood with a vinyl digital
print and will be hung against the building where the previous “Run Tex U” sign was
located. The 2-foot by 6-foot sign will read “Balance Wellness Center” in light blue and
black. A thin black border will be placed around the sign.
At this time, the applicant has stated he does not wish to place any additional signage
on the building. Renderings and further details for the proposed sign are provided
below and within the applicant’s supporting application materials attached to the
report.
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance for the
flush-mounted sign as proposed by the applicant. Staff recommends that if in the
future the applicant updates the awnings that they incorporate the blue and black of the
sign and trim, similar to how the Salon next door incorporated their colors into the sign
and awnings. A change in awning design would require approval from HARC prior to
being completed .
Ben Parker, the applicant, was present and stated that he intended to include a black
border around the sign , as indicated on the application and unlike the current banner.
Firth opened and closed the public hearing at 4:05 with no public comments.
Firth stated that in the future she felt his business needs pedestrian signage on the
window or door with contact information, hours of business, etc. and that he should
revisit the Commission for approval of those as well.
Urban questioned the size of the flush-mounted sign, asking about it blocking the brick
frieze. Wyler explained that it was consistent with the other flush-mounted sign
two-doors down, Razmataz, and that since it was not completely blocking the frieze, he
felt it was okay.
Motion by Urban to approve the sign as presented. Second by Firth. Approved 2-0.
3.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new
business signage at City of Georgetown , Block 41, Lot 4 (pt), also known as A Premium
Blend School of Performing Arts, located at 708 S. Austin Avenue, Suite 201.
(CDC-2012-013)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance
approval from HARC for three new signs. First, a sign is proposed for the main façade
of the building, above the existing “50/50” canopy sign. The applicant wishes to install
a flush-mounted wall sign to complement the neighboring “Sweet Serendipity” sign but
has been informed by the building owner to not puncture the historic building’s façade
in any way so asks for both HARC and staff’s guidance in installing an appropriate sign
for this location. The proposed, and preferred, sign measures 1.4 feet tall by 16 feet
long, similar but slightly longer than the neighboring sign and reads “A Premium Blend
School of Performing Arts” in a decorative maroon, gold and cream script and border.
The only other option is to hang it directly on the canopy tie rods. This is not the
applicant’s preferred method of installation and would push the sign out from the
façade.
Next, a hanging sign will be installed under the canopy and in front of the business’
entrance, just to the south of the restaurant’s entrance . The design of the hanging sign
is similar to the primary sign but incorporates a more decorative shape. It measures 1
foot tall by three feet wide and provides the required 7-foot clearance.
Lastly, vinyl window signage will be installed on the entrance door and street-facing
window. The applicant has proposed three styles of window lettering and asks for
HARC’s guidance towards which will be more appropriate. The first and preferred
option incorporates a more solid, printed design for the front window with cream
lettering for the door. The second option applies a frosted backdrop on the window
with cutout lettering. The language on the door will be presented in the same frosted
vinyl. The third option calls for black and white cutout letters on both the window and
door. Detailed renderings for all three options have been attached to this staff report.
With all three options, the window sign will read “A Premium Blend School of
Performing Arts” with the website and contact number below. The door will also have
the name of the business but with the applicant’s name, title, and “by Appointments
Only” added below. All three options measure 30% of the glass areas surface.
The applicant, Jim Fain, was available for questions. Also Kim Wolferman, his
marketing assistant. Mr. Fain explained that he had spoken with the owner of the
building, Eric Visser, and Mr. Visser was now okay with the flush mounted sign being
installed directly to the building.
Firth opened and closed the public hearing at 4:19 p.m. with no speakers coming forth.
Firth and Urban discussed the signs. Urban was okay with the flush mounted sign, the
colors and the font. Susan explained that she actually preferred the flush mounted type
sign installed directly to the building, not standing out from the building in any way,
but that she felt Mr . Visser should give written authorization for this.
Motion by Urban to approve the flush mounted sign and the hanging sign from the
canopy as presented, with an emailed approval needed from the owner for attaching
the flush-mounted sign to the building. Second by Firth. Approved 2 - 0.
There was further discussion of the door and window signage. Wolferman explained
that the door is not frosted at this time, is clear, and prefers something that stands out
and can be seen. She prefers the frosted glass look with the cut-out lettering, or the
vintage look with a burgundy font.
There was discussion of their options. There was concern about the vintage look not
relating to the other signage. Ms. Wolferman explained that the door and window
signage were designed to be consistent with their website , business cards and logo .
Firth suggested possibly using the frosted look with the notes showing through the
background, to tie in with the theme. Mr. Fain prefers to use just the lettering and to do
away with the gray look. Ms. Wolferman suggested using a light beige background
with burgundy colored lettering and scrolls. They all agreed on that.
Motion by Firth to accept the third option of the proposed window signage, with the
Premium Blend lettering and scrolls in burgundy on a cream colored background.
The lettering on the door will be the same burgundy color. Second by Urban.
Approved 2 - 0.
4.Discussion and possible action to set the days and times for HARC Sign Subcommittee
meetings.
They decided to postpone this item until all three members were present.
5.Adjournment
Firth adjourned the meeting at 4:42 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, March 22, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, March 22, 2012 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:
Members: Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Susan Firth; David Paul; Raymond Wehrenbrock; Tim
Urban; and Jennifer Brown.
Commissioner(s) in Training: Anna Eby
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.
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 February 23, 2012 Regular HARC
meeting.
Regular Agenda:
2.Election of officers (Vice-Chair & Secretary).
3.Consider setting the time and date of the regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural
Review Commission.
4.Election of the Sign Subcommittee members (3).
5.Consider setting the day and time for the Sign Subcommittee meetings.
6.Election of the Demolition Subcommittee members (3).
7.Training from the City’s legal department.
8.Discussion with the City’s legal department regarding regulation of sign content.
9.Discussion regarding the conceptual layout of a proposed project at 405 S. Austin Avenue.
*Action will not be taken for this item .
10.Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for site approval
due to a change in use from residential to non-residential for a proposed bed & breakfast in
addition to approval of an alternative parking plan at Lost Addition, Block 77 (s/pt), located
at 1602 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2012-005)
11.Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition
of a Medium-Priority historic structure and for the construction of a new single-family
residence in its place at Glasscock Addition, Block 5, Lots 5 (w/pt) & 6 (sw/pt), located at
415 W. 10
th
Street. (CDC-2012-007)
12.Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition
of a Low-Priority historic structure at Booty & Lesueur Addition, Block 1, Lots 7 & 8 (s/pt),
located at 1301 West Street. (CDC-2012-009)
13.Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition
of a Medium-Priority historic structure at Booty & Lesueur Addition, Block 1, Lots 7 & 8
(s/pt), located at 612 W. 13
th
Street. (CDC-2012-010)
14.Questions or comments from Commissioners-in-Training about the actions and matters
considered on this agenda.
15.Updates from staff and reminder about the March 26 & 27 CAMP training session at the
Georgetown Public Library, the April 11, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting at the
Georgetown Municipal Complex, and the April 26, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign Subcommittee
meetings Downtown at Council Chambers.
16. 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 _________________, 2012, 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, March 22, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
March 22, 2012.
Members Present:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship, Jennifer Brown, Susan Firth, David Paul; Tim Urban, and
Raymond Wahrenbrock.
Commissioners in Training present: Anna Eby
Members Absent:
none
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie
Kreger, Principal Planner; April Quade, Planning Specialist; John Hale, Code Enforcement Officer and
Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Rapp opened the meeting 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.
(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 February 23, 2012 Regular HARC
meeting.
Blankenship wanted the item 3, on page 2, last paragraph to be revised to read “Blankenship
agreed that the utilitarian look of the metal canopy was appropriate for the rear façade because
the backs of the building were designed for utilitarian use, often with less expensive or more
utilitarian looking materials.”
Firth reported a correction to page 3, last paragraph, “including the fact that there would have
to be had been so many changes that the removal of this house”. The line above has a typo a n
should be an. And in the 4
th
paragraph of page 3, Virginia Stubbs actually met with the
previous owner, not the current owner.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the minutes with proposed changes. Second by Paul.
Approved 7 - 0.
Regular Agenda:
2.Election of officers (Vice-Chair & Secretary).
Rapp recommended Sarah Blankenship for Vice-Chair. Wahrenbrock recommended
Firth, who declined. With no other nominations, Blankenship was approved for
Vice-Chair, 6 - 0, Blankenship abstained.
Rapp recommended David Paul for Secretary. With no other nominations, Blankenship
was approved for Secretary, 6 - 0, Paul abstained.
3.Consider setting the time and date of the regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural
Review Commission.
Rapp recommended the regular meeting date remain the same, the fourth Thursday of
each month at 6:00 p.m. Voted 7 - 0 to approve.
4.Election of the Sign Subcommittee members (3).
Rapp explained the role of the Sign Subcommittee. She was on the subcommittee and
asked to be taken off the subcommittee. Blankenship and Firth were on the subcommittee
and stated they would remain. Tim Urban volunteered to be on the subcommittee also.
Motion by Rapp to approve the Sign Subcommittee as Blankenship, Firth and Urban,
Second by Paul. Approved 7 - 0.
5.Consider setting the day and time for the Sign Subcommittee meetings.
Motion by Rapp for the existing day and time of the Sign Subcommittee meetings
remain the same until the three appointees can meet and make the decision if they want
to change it. Second by Paul. Approved 7 - 0.
6.Election of the Demolition Subcommittee members (3).
Wyler explained the requirements of the subcommittee and that there were noset date and
time meetings. This group meets on an as-needed basis. Susan Firth and David Paul stated
they would like to remain on the subcommittee. Raymond Wahrenbrock volunteered to be
on the subcommittee also. Rapp moves to accept these three volunteers as the demolition
subcommittee. Second by Blankenship. Approved 7 - 0.
Item 9 was discussed next, waiting for the City Attorney. Then Item 10 was opened.
7.Training from the City’s legal department.
Bridget Chapman, the acting City Attorney began an explanation of the Commission’s role
in City Government, along with a discussion of the Downtown Master Plan and Design
Guidelines, Unified Development Code and Code of Ordinances.
8.Discussion with the City’s legal department regarding regulation of sign content. This
discussion ended at 7:45 p.m.
9.Discussion regarding the conceptual layout of a proposed project at 405 S. Austin Avenue.
*Action will not be taken for this item .
A presentation was made by the owners of Hat Creek Burger, that is proposing a restaurant
with a drive-thru at 405 S. Austin Avenue. They projected the drawings that were included
in the HARC packets.
Rapp opened the discussion by Commissioners. She expressed concern about the plan to
mix pedestrians with the parking areas and the drive-thru. Paul suggested installing a
railing between the sidewalk and the drive-thru, and appreciated the very family-oriented
business and playground . The owner explained the playground was fenced and screened
also for safety reasons.
Firth expressed concern about the access easement and access to that for both the restaurant
and the townhomes. She asked for an explanation of the situation and the plan to address
the concerns. She asked how the tenants would get in and out of their garages if the
drive-thru backs up. Wyler explained the owner would need to consider the townhouses in
the development of the site. The representative, Bryant Boyd, acting as consulting architect
for this job, spoke to the situation. He explained there had been many discussion regarding
this access and that the Fire Department and city staff had asked that the existing access
easement be used with entrance be at one end, not widened and that the egress, exit for the
drive through be through the other end of the easement, creating a one-way situation for
the north end of the easement. Firth asked if a fire truck could get through there and Boyd
assured her it could. Firth was still concerned about the residents of the townhomes and
their access to their garages. Wahrenbrock expressed concern about the resident in the first
garage having to back into the access easement and oncoming traffic.
Blankenship applauded the canopies and materials of downtown. She explained that she
was concerned about the lack of pedestrian orientation from the street and parking lot. She
gave Tamiro Plaza as an example of open storefront at the pedestrian level , right up to the
corner. She suggested having a pedestrian entrance along 6
th
Street and/or Austin Avenue,
or extending the playground to keep the pedestrian flow along this block. She explained
the Design Guidelines puts the parking areas behind the buildings. Jay Hailey explained
that he was using terracing and that the north end of the block was elevated. The
Commissioners expressed concern about pedestrians being able to access the site other than
through the driveway access. There is a delicate balance between a high traffic area and
pedestrians.
Rapp expressed that she would also like to see this site become more pedestrian friendly.
All Commissioners were in agreement on enhancing the pedestrian portion of the site.
Firth expressed that she felt the barn look and cupola seem out of character with the
downtown area. Mr. Hailey explained that the Austin Avenue side of the project is more
mercantile and that they needed a signature entryway to the site, hence the red color, and
the cupola was to give the site a more rustic look, and a transition to the residential look,
adding the board and batten as a “nod” to the townhomes behind the site. Firth and
Wahrenbrock both believe the cupola is out of character. Blankenship suggested changing
the shape of the cupola to make it more consistent with the downtown area.
Although this was not a public hearing, Andrew Soulen, an owner of one of the adjacent
townhomes asked to speak. He explained that he appreciates the service of the commission
but believes this development will affect their (the town home owners) and lower their
quality of life.
Rapp summed up the concerns of the Commission and thanked the representatives for
bring their ideas forward .
10.Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for site approval
due to a change in use from residential to non-residential for a proposed bed & breakfast in
addition to approval of an alternative parking plan at Lost Addition, Block 77 (s/pt), located
at 1602 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2012-005)
Wyler presented the staff report. The subject residential property is actively going through
the Special Use Permit (SUP) approval process to allow for a proposed Bed & Breakfast
(B&B) establishment. In addition to the SUP, and per Unified Development Code (UDC)
Section 3.13.010.3, a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) is required for development
within the Old Town Overlay District when a property is commercial or changing to a
commercial use. With this being said, the applicant is required to receive CDC approval
from the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) for the site layout, as well
as any exterior modifications or signage proposed, to ensure compliance with the Design
Guidelines.
As proposed, the layout is compliant with the UDC for the intended use of a B&B
establishment, aside from having on-site parking for the B&B. Detailed below, the
applicant wishes to preserve the residential back yard and has requested to use two
existing driveways off 16th Street for their overall parking requirement of four (4) spaces (1
space per guestroom + 2 additional spaces). Per UDC Section 9.02.060.H, HARC may
approve an alternative to providing off-street parking spaces on site if the applicant
demonstrates the proposed plan will equally protect surrounding neighborhoods, maintain
traffic circulation patterns, and promote quality urban design. HARC decides if the current
layout, as proposed, is appropriate for both the B&B property and the neighborhood and
can be supported by the Design Guidelines.
Based on the applicant’s materials and staff’s analysis, staff recommends that HARC
approve the Certificate of Design Compliance for the use of a Bed & Breakfast on
this property as well as the alternative parking plan as proposed by the applicant.
The homeowners have clearly considered the Design Guidelines and want nothing
more than to maintain the residential appearance and feel of the property. A small,
two-bedroom B&B is appropriate for this historic house and utilizing existing
parking surface to prevent the destruction of the back yard would benefit not only
the applicant but the neighbors and surrounding neighborhood as well.
Philip and Kristi Brown, the owners were present and stated they moved to
Georgetown a year ago and love it here. They want to open a B&B as stated in the
staff report that is harmonious with the neighborhood, has no monument sign, no
events and serves only a breakfast meal. There was a short discussion that the
Browns will install a sidewalk on the property to improve front and back door
access from the alternative parking spaces.
Rapp opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m.
Clare Easley of 912 Forest spoke in support of another B&B in Georgetown. She also
expressed that the Browns should not be required to add an additional 2 parking
spaces, for a total of four, for two rooms.
Rapp closed the public hearing at 7:13 as there were no more speakers.
Blankenship made a motion to approve the application as proposed, with the
alternative parking plan and the change in use. Second by Wahrenbrock.
Approved 7 - 0.
11.Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition
of a Medium-Priority historic structure and for the construction of a new single-family
residence in its place at Glasscock Addition, Block 5, Lots 5 (w/pt) & 6 (sw/pt), located at
415 W. 10
th
Street. (CDC-2012-007)
Wyler presented the staff report. This is a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance to
demolish a residential structure in Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay District. According to
both the 1984 and 2007 (not yet adopted) Historic Resources Surveys, the structure at 415
W. 10th Street is considered a Medium -Priority Historic Structure .
In the 1984 Survey details the house as a one-story wood frame dwelling with a modified
L-plan. Built circa 1900, the exterior walls are board and batten and the roof is an
intersecting gabled design with standing-seam metal covering. The openings to the house
consist of wood sash double-hung windows and two single-door entrances. One of the
entrance doors has a transom window. Located on the front (south end) of the house is a
one-bay covered porch with shed roof . The porch is concrete and is an altered feature of the
house. Overall, the Survey has the house listed as a structure with significant architecture
due to it being a good example of a modified L-plan dwelling with board & batten siding .
This survey has the structure listed in good condition but the structure has gone through
significant deterioration since.
On October 27, 2011, the Demolition Subcommittee met with the applicant to discuss the
existing and proposed structures. All requested supporting materials by the subcommittee
members have been included with this application. Members of the Subcommittee can
further detail their viewpoint of the proposal from the meeting and a site visit for all HARC
members is scheduled for Tuesday, March 20, 2012.
Because the property is located within the Downtown Overlay District, HARC must
approve both the demolition of the historic house as well as the architectural design of the
new residential structure and site layout before the project can commence.
Susie Ramos, the owner and David Voelter, the architect, were present for discussion. Ms.
Ramos stated she bought the house in 2008 to relieve the financial burden of the family
whose family member had once lived there. She stated at the time of purchase it was
deteriorating and in bad condition.
Rapp opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m.
Ellen Davis, of 405 E. 10
th
Street, stated she was disturbed that the city allows houses to get
to this point of deterioration when demolition is inevitable.
Rapp closed the public hearing at 7:56 with no more speakers.
Blankenship opened the discussion and expressed the desire to handle the two issues,
demolition and infill construction, at the same time since they both affect each other. The
Guideline in Chapter 12 referencing infill construction addresses a property that is vacant.
She cites UDC Section 3.13.020.D.1, the applicant shall provide a written statement showing
the demolition is sought to replace the structure with a new structure that is more
appropriate and compatible with the historic overlay district.” She stated she feels there is
not anything more appropriate for this site than what is already there. She feels they
should consider new house plans that incorporate the existing structure, saving as much of
the historical integrity as is possible.
Rapp explained that she was torn in her decision of this application. She feels it is the
citizens responsibility to contact Code Enforcement when a property gets to this point. She
does not believe the infill project fits the neighborhood , even though the neighborhood is in
transition and is changing from residential uses to commercial uses.
Firth agreed that demolition by neglect can never be condoned. She questioned Mr. Voelter
as to whether any of the structure or materials could be salvaged. He stated yes, they had
planned to save the siding and the flooring and that they had already agreed to let the
demolition contractor have them for another house. He explained that there were only two
original windows left in the house, the others had been changed out.
Firth questioned why this style was chosen. He explained that is what the client, Ms.
Ramos wanted. They explained that they intended to make it a mix of other materials and
styles that were seen in the neighborhood, not one specific style. Firth stated she could
support the demolition, but not the new style .
Urban explained that the new construction does not honor the structure that was there,
mimicking the architectural style. He suggests reusing the materials from the existing
house in this location and possibly imitating the roofline of the current structure.
Rapp wanted clarification that this would remain a single-family residence. Ms. Ramos
stated it would, with a possible home office in the back.
There was further discussion of possible actions. All agreed that the new house would not
fit the character of the neighborhood, and that they want to see it more in keeping with the
area.
Motion by Firth to approve the CDC for demolition of 415 W. 10
th
Street with the
provision that the existing structure be documented for historical reasons and all
possible materials be salvaged for reuse ; and that the design for the infill project be
postponed for more consideration by the applicant to revisit the comments that the new
structure should incorporate the style of the neighborhood. Second by Paul. Approved
4-3. (Wahrenbrock, Rapp and Blankenship opposed.)
12.Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition
of a Low-Priority historic structure at Booty & Lesueur Addition, Block 1, Lots 7 & 8 (s/pt),
located at 1301 West Street. (CDC-2012-009)
Wyler presented the staff report, items 12 and 13 were discussed together as they are
adjacent to each other. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval from
HARC for the demolition of the Low-Priority houses. According to the applicant’s letter of
request, the houses have been in the City family since the early 1950’s. Family ownership
changed in the following years and in 2006, the houses were boarded up and taken off the
rental market due to their deteriorating condition. In 2008, the properties were put up for
sale (a letter from the real estate agent has been included) and have been in the current
situation and condition since.
The owner states that the structural integrity of the houses may be becoming compromised
because the roofs are sagging and the exterior walls have dry rot . Health and safety are
also a concern. Georgetown Code Enforcement has been sent out to the properties multiple
times due to squatters taking shelter within the structures. This leads to further safety and
health concerns for the properties and surrounding neighborhood. Also, Mr. City states
that removal of the structure could increase the property appeal to prospective buyers.
Based on the applicant’s materials and staff’s analysis, staff recommends that HARC
approve the Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition of the Low-Priority
house, 1301 West Street. Staff questions the historical significance of the house and
considers it to be Low-Priority according to the priority descriptions. Safety is also a
major concern. The property has been for sale since 2008 and keeping it in its
current condition would only result in further deterioration and safety concerns for
the neighborhood. Also, the house has significant damage (rot and termite) to a
point where a majority of the structure could not be salvaged if it were to be
remodeled.
Based on the applicant’s materials and staff’s analysis, staff recommends that HARC
approve the Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition of the
Medium-Priority house, 612 W. 13
th
Street, with the condition detailed photographs
and material/structural/property notes be made about the historic shotgun style
house. Ideally, the architecturally significant structure should be saved or at least
moved to another location within Georgetown , but after touring the structure and
seeing the deterioration first hand with the Demolition Subcommittee, Code
Enforcement, and Residential Plans Reviewer, that seems highly unfeasible.
The Demolition Committee held a site visit of the properties that week.
Mr. Lee City, owner and applicant of both structures shared a bit of his family
history and asked that he be allowed to demolish the structures.
Rapp opened the public hearing at 8:52 and there were no speakers so the public
hearing was closed immediately.
Rapp explained that the houses were not in the overlay district , that the shotgun
house was a more desirable style but that it had 4 undesirable additions made to it
and it was in horrible shape. The site visit showed evidence of termites, squatters,
and that the city had boarded up both structures. She felt that in this case that
demolition was okay. Paul agreed. Wahrenbrock wanted it noted that there were
numbers 613 over the door and on the mailbox , but that the city uses 612 for this
address.
Motion by Rapp to apprve the demolition of 1301 West Street as recommended by
staff. Second by Paul. Approved 7 - 0.
Motion by Rapp to approve the demolition of 612 W. 13
th
Street, also known as 613
W. 13
th
Street, as recommended by staff. Second by Wahrenbrock. Approved 6 -1,
Blankenship opposed.
Mr. City stated he looks at these old houses and remembers his mom saying to
remember that she was old and to let her go. That how he wants to remember these
houses. Rapp asked him to capture the oral and picture history of the houses before
removing them. Mr. City agreed.
13.Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition
of a Medium-Priority historic structure at Booty & Lesueur Addition, Block 1, Lots 7 & 8
(s/pt), located at 612 W. 13
th
Street. (CDC-2012-010)
14.Questions or comments from Commissioners-in-Training about the actions and matters
considered on this agenda. Anna Eby did not have any comments.
15.Updates from staff and reminder about the March 26 & 27 CAMP training session at the
Georgetown Public Library, the April 11, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting at the
Georgetown Municipal Complex, and the April 26, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign Subcommittee
meetings Downtown at Council Chambers.
16. Adjournment
Rapp adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit will meet on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at
08:00 AM in the 415 W. 10th Street, Georgetown, TX
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit Members:
: Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Susan Firth; David Paul; Raymond Wehrenbrock; Tim Urban; and
Jennifer Brown. Commissioner(s) in Training: Anna Eby.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 08:00 AM
Members of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission may or may not be in
attendance for a site visit on Tuesday, March 20, 2012. This is discovery action of a
HARC agenda item that will be discussed and action taken at the regularly scheduled
HARC meeting on March 22, 2012. The application for 415 W. 10
th
Street is to demolish
an historic house. Commissioners have asked for a site visit 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 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 _________________, 2012, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit will meet on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at
08:45 AM in the 1301 West Street & 612 W. 13th Street, Georgetown, TX
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit Members:
Members: Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Susan Firth; David Paul; Raymond Wehrenbrock; Tim
Urban; and Jennifer Brown.
Commissioner(s) in Training: Anna Eby.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 08:45 AM
Members of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission may or may not be in
attendance for a site visit on Tuesday, March 20, 2012. This is discovery action of two
HARC agenda items that will be discussed and action taken at the regularly scheduled
HARC meeting on March 22, 2012. The two applications for 1301 West Street and 612
W. 13
th
Street (single property, two structures) are to demolish two historic houses.
Commissioners have asked for a site visit 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 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 _________________, 2012, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Wednesday, March
14, 2012 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:
Dee Rapp; Susan Firth; Sarah Blankenship
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 action on the minutes from the February 23, 2012 Sign
Subcommittee meeting.
2.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new
signage at City of Georgetown , Block 38, Lot 1 (w/pt), to be known as Burger
University, located at 119 W. 7
th
Street. (CDC-2012-006)
3.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lot 4, also known as the Georgetown Visitors
Center, located at 103 W. 7
th
Street. (CDC-2012-008)
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
22, 2012.
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 _________________, 2012, 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, March 14, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Wednesday , March 14, 2012.
Members Present:
Susan Firth, Chair; and Sarah Blankenship
Members Absent:
Dee Rapp
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Firth called the meeting to order 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 action on the minutes from the February 23, 2012 Sign
Subcommittee meeting.
Blankenship asked that the wording of the motion for the second item be changed to
indicate that the commission recommended the rocket logo be added to the sign, not
conditional as stated.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the minutes as corrected. Second by Firth.
Approved 2 - 0.
Firth brought Item 3 forward, expecting it to be a shorter discussion. Discussion and
action taken shown in order of agenda.
2.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new
signage at City of Georgetown , Block 38, Lot 1 (w/pt), to be known as Burger
University, located at 119 W. 7
th
Street. (CDC-2012-006)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance
approval from HARC for signage on three sides of the historic Lockett Building on the
Square. More specifically, there are five styles of signs proposed.
First, four double-sided projecting signs will be installed above and in between the
display windows and transom windows. Each sign will be in the shape of a shield and
will be constructed of Moderate Density Overlay (MDO) wood with a printed vinyl
design. The business’ corporate logo with the name, image of a hamburger, and
establishment date will be placed in the center of each shield. A blue outline will be
placed around the circle and a white border will be placed in between the blue outline
and the edge of each sign. Each sign will measure 2’ by 2’ and will be well above an
eight-foot clearance from the sidewalk. A black metal rod with base will be used to
attach each sign to the building.
Next, frosted vinyl window signage is proposed for the entrance doors and an adjacent
display window. Each sign will display the business’ logo, the same one proposed for
the projecting signs. The larger logo, to be centered on the display window
immediately to the right of the entrance doors, will measure 3’ by 3’. The two smaller
logos will each measure 1’ by 1’.
The third set of signs proposed for the building includes the installation of four
flush-mounted wall signs. Each sign will mirror the exact design, material, and size as
the four projecting signs proposed along 7th Street, but will be installed flush with the
building rather than projected . Each sign will be installed between two 2nd story
windows and one door, starting from the cardinal display window at the corner of the
building.
The fourth proposal is the refacing of an existing double-sided projecting sign above an
Austin Avenue door near the northwest corner of the building. The sign will read
“University Club of Georgetown” in black type with a grey backdrop and will be
constructed of reinforced vinyl placed inside the existing black metal frame.
Lastly, a large rectangular flush-mounted sign (similar to a college pennant) is proposed
for the north side of the building. The sign will measure 16 feet tall by 4 feet wide,
totaling 64 square feet. Two designs have been submitted for HARC’s consideration.
One incorporates a grey backdrop with white and blue lettering and the other a blue
backdrop with white lettering . The length of this façade is 30 feet.
Staff recommends the following action be taken for the following items:
1)7
th
Street Projecting Signs: Approval with the consideration of reducing the
colors in the burgers to meet the color restrictions detailed in Design
Guideline 9.17 should HARC consider them non-compliant. The unicolor
burger image, seen on the glass signs, would be appropriate for these signs.
2)Entrance Door/Window Glass Signage: Approval as proposed.
3)Austin Avenue Flush-Mounted Signs: Approval with the following
considerations:
a.Similar to the 7
th
Street projecting sign recommendation, reduce the colors
of the burger image on each sign to ensure compliance with Design
Guidelines 9.14 & 9.17, should HARC consider them non-compliant.
b.Either remove the outer two signs , install a larger, horizontally positioned,
flush-mounted sign above the windows centered on the façade, or have a
single, larger vertical sign to mirror the north sign. Sign design options
can be discussed at the meeting when both staff and the applicant are
present. The sign shall not exceed 115 square feet to ensure compliance
with size limitations.
4)Austin Avenue Projecting Sign: Approval as proposed.
5)North-Facing Flush-Mounted Sign: Denial as proposed or Approval with
the following conditions:
a.The sign should be reduced in size to no more than 30 square feet (15’ tall
by 2’ wide) considering the façade length is 30 linear feet. This will ensure
compliance with Design Guideline 9.5.
b.The top edge of the sign should be at the same elevation as the top edge of
the 2
nd
story windows and horizontally centered between the closest
window and western most water spout to ensure compliance with Design
Guidelines 9.1 & 9.4. Should HARC decide a sign with a pointed feature
at the bottom is appropriate , it might be appropriate to have the sign
drape from the top of the building. This can be discussed more at the
meeting.
c.A border should be placed around the sign to ensure consistency with
other flush-mounted signs found around Area 1. The color of the border
should be one found on the proposed signs.
d.For this sign, the image of the burger is overwhelming and inappropriate.
Staff suggests just the name of the restaurant centered on the sign with a
border be installed. This design would be more appropriate and
traditional for the location and would not be in conflict with any Design
Guidelines. As an alternative, a unicolor burger design, similar to that
seen on the glass signs, could be incorporated at the bottom of the sign.
This would tie it in with the other signs.
Overall, staff understands the complexity of placing signs on this specific
building due to the architecture, amount of walls, and overall size of the building
but wants to ensure the signs tie in with each other and complement rather than
distract from the building’s architectural features.
The applicant, Alan Grimsley spoke for his application. He stated he likes the
vibrant colors of the burger and wishes to keep that on his 7
th
Street projecting
signs. And he was okay with the suggestions made of the north facing sign,
including taking off the burger emblem. He offered suggestions for the Austin
Avenue signs, reducing the number to 3 instead of 4 as originally proposed. He
was open to discussion.
Firth opened the Public Hearing at 4:20 p.m. and closed it with no speakers coming
forward.
Blankenship asked for an example of the banner material and was shown that it was a
thick canvas, not plastic. Firth expressed that she liked the window signs and felt that
they fit with the character of downtown and followed the guidelines. Blankenship
agreed. They questioned why the third window on 7
th
Street did not include signage
and Mr. Grimsley explained that he wanted that open for display of the different
activities that would be held there.
Firth asked about the front door signage including the website and having the hours of
operation updated. Grimsley stated he would do that.
Motion by Firth to approve the CDC for signage of the windows on 7
th
Street and the
front door signage, as presented, including the updated hours of operation and to
include the website. Second by Blankenship. Approved 2 - 0.
They then discussed the small projecting sign on Austin Avenue and asked the
applicant if he was okay with that sign being a more conservative, simplistic style. He
explained that sign was for the upstairs area that would be used for banquets and
special uses and that the style was good for that.
Motion by Firth to approve the small hanging sign on Austin Avenue as presented.
Second by Blankenship. Approved 2 - 0.
The discussion of the 7
th
Street projecting signs was opened. Firth explained that she
liked the idea of the tie rods and the concept of the university style banners, but did not
like the multi-colored burgers on the signage, stating she felt it did not meet the
guidelines and they were inappropriate for the Square. There was further discussion
and Mr. Grimley explained that he did not like the idea of using a single color burger
emblem on those signs, stating they would not look like burgers from a distance.
Blankenship stated she felt the multi-color burgers gave it a good look and that she felt
they met the character of the area. Grimley explained that he wants it to be
unmistakable to the public what the business is and that this is unique on purpose.
Blankenship stated she feels that the burger logo matches the front colors of the
building and indicates a younger feeling , upbeat feel for the business. They discussed
possible options of fewer colors for the burger picture. Grimley does not want a
cartoon graphic for the burger . Wyler explained that he can understand Blankenship’s
point that this corporate logo does tie into the building
Motion by Blankenship to approve the 7
th
Street projecting signs as presented based
on Guideline 9.17 - Use colors for the sign that are compatible with those of the
building front. Motion failed for lack of second.
Raymond Wahrenbrock, HARC Commissioner came in for observing the meeting. He
did not take any action of offer any discussion.
They agreed to move on to the other signs and come back to the 7
th
Street signs. They
began discussing the Austin Avenue flush -mounted signs. Firth suggested using the
north facing sign format and possibly using just two signs. Grimley want to provide
consistency from the corner, with the front of the building matching the Austin side of
the building. They also discussed the banner size and type on the north side of the
building. Grimley stated he wants two projecting signs, one on each side of the front
door that match the style of all the hanging banners. They all agreed that they like the
effect of the hanging banners off the top of the building, with added stripes and a point
at the bottom. They discussed color options and logo styles.
Motion by Firth to approve the CDC for signage with the following changes: change
the Austin Avenue flush mounted signs to an additional projecting sign on the
southwest corner of the building that would match the pennants on 7
th
Street, using
the existing tie rod; add a pennant banner on the north and northwest corners,
hanging from the roof line matching the point of the projecting signs and the strip
the single burger would be replaced with the Burger University logo. The size could
be developed working with staff, up to 30 square feet each. The background will be
blue, in the design of the grey sign. All approvals will be contingent upon the final
hamburger design approval. Second by Blankenship. Approved 2 - 0.
There was discussion of corporate logo usage in the content of a sign. Firth clarified
that since the Commission could not regulate content, and though the sign goes against
a Guideline, the corporate logo would be allowed. Grimley explained that the
multi-colored burger logo has been sent for trademark licensing and is his corporate
logo. Blankenship explained that she was for the burger logo because she felt the
signage was a flair for the Square that was not affecting the integrity of the historic
building. Firth tried to justify the acceptance of the corporate logo since it goes against
the guideline for the correct number of colors, but agrees that it is justifiable .
Blankenship moves that based on the information that this is a trademark logo that
the multi-colored burger be allowed on the signage for Burger University as their
corporate logo. Second by Firth. Approved 2 - 0.
Everyone agreed that the changes and concepts of the approved signage will look good.
Blankenship asked that the signs that were to be attached to the Austin Avenue and
north side of the building, not be attached directly to the stone, but attached through
the mortar joints . Grimley explained that he would use the mortar joints for application
of the signs and will be eventually be replacing all the mortar joints that need repair.
Blankenship will forward information about the replacement of mortar joints in historic
buildings.
Wyler reminded the applicant that he needs updated renderings for the file and for
inclusion with the permit.
3.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lot 4, also known as the Georgetown Visitor
Center, located at 103 W. 7
th
Street. (CDC-2012-008)
Wyler presented the Staff Report, citing staff recommendation of approval based on
Guidelines 9.1, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.15, 9.17, and 9.18.
The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval from HARC for three
new signs. First, a flush-mounted wall sign will be installed above the 7th Street
canopy, centered above the entrance door. Made of Moderate-Density Overlay (MDO)
wood, the sign will measure 17.23 inches tall by 120 inches long, or 14.3 square feet.
Detailed below and within the applicant’s supporting materials, the sign will read
“Visitor Center” with the image of two poppies on each side and a beige and red border
matching colors found on the building’s façade and kick plates.
Next, a hanging sign will be installed under the canopy and in front of the entrance
door. The design will be identical to the flush-mounted wall sign and will measure 6
inches tall by 41.8 inches long, or 1.74 square feet. It will be hung using silver chains
and will provide a required 7 foot clearance above the sidewalk.
Lastly, vinyl window signage will be installed on the entrance door glass providing
information on hours of operation below the standard bronze and grey City logo and
white “Visitor Center”. A “103” will also be installed on the glass but this will not be
reviewed by HARC nor considered part of the sign area calculation, considering it is a
required fire safety feature for the building.
Cari Miller, applicant and Visitor Center representative, explained that the hanging sign
would be the same size as the previous hanging sign.
Firth opened the public hearing at 4:06 and closed it with no public asking to speak.
Blankenship had no further comments.
Firth questioned the color of the city G on the door, stating she thought it was not easily
read and consistent with the other lettering on the door. She also asked for the fonts to
be consistent and whether they should add the website link . Miller said that could be
considered.
Motion by Firth to approve the CDC for the flush mounted and hanging signs as
submitted, with consideration of matching the font on the door sign with the other
signage, making the city G logo white to match the other lettering and adding the
website link if they chose to. Second by Blankenship. Approved 2-0.
4.Adjournment
Firth adjourned the meeting at 5:22 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Demolition Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Demolition Subcommittee will meet on Thursday,
February 23, 2012 at 04:00 PM in the 307 E. 18th Street
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Demolition Subcommittee Members:
Susan Firth and David Paul
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
Members of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission Demolition
Subcommittee will be in attendance for a site visit on Thursday February 23, 2012. The
site visit will include a walkthrough of the structure(s) with the property owner,
members of staff, and possible attendance from the public. There will be discussion at
the property, but no action will be taken at this time.
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 _________________, 2012, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, February 23, 2012 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:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Susan Firth; David Paul; Nelia Ibsen Schrum; and Raymond
Wehrenbrock.
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.
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 January 26, 2012 Regular HARC
meeting.
2.Discussion and possible action on a postponed Certificate of Design Compliance request for
new signage at Lost Addition, Block 64 (pt), also known as Texas Car Title & Payday Loan,
located at 1000 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2011-037)
Regular Agenda:
3. Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior
changes to an historic building at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lot 4, to be known as
Grape Creek Winery, located at 101 W. 7
th
Street. (CDC-2012-004)
4.Discussion and possible action on a postponed Certificate of Design Compliance request for
the demolition of a Low-Priority historic house in Shell Addition, Block 15 (se/pt), located at
711 E. 5
th
Street. (CDC-2011-036)
5.Updates from staff and reminder about the March 14, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee
meeting at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and the March 22, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign
Subcommittee meetings at Council Chambers.
6. 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 _________________, 2012, 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, February 23, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
February 23, 2012.
Members Present:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship, Susan Firth, David Paul, and Raymond Wahrenbrock
Members Absent:
Nelia Ibsen Schrum
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner and HARC liaison; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development
Director; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Rapp opened the meeting 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.
(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 January 26, 2012 Regular HARC
meeting.
Rapp pointed out the typo error on page 2, in the eighth paragraph, ws should be “was”.
On page 3, sixth paragraph, to should be “two”. The vote on the first motion of item
number 2 showed Rapp approved and Paul opposed. That should be switched. And she
wanted more details
2.Discussion and possible action on a postponed Certificate of Design Compliance request for
new signage at Lost Addition, Block 64 (pt), also known as Texas Car Title & Payday Loan,
located at 1000 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2011-037)
This item was approved by the Sign Subcommittee at 5:30 p.m.
Regular Agenda:
3. Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior
changes to an historic building at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lot 4, to be known as
Grape Creek Winery, located at 101 W. 7
th
Street. (CDC-2012-004)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance
approval from HARC for exterior changes to the north side of the historic 101 W. 7th Street
building. After the demolition of the 614 S. Main Street building, the rear wall of the
building will be exposed . New stone will be used to repair the wall as needed and a new
door, two new upper-story windows and a metal canopy will be installed.
The new court yard door will match the 7th Street entrance doors in appearance and
material, minus the transom window. It will provide access between the winery and court
yard. An 8’8” wide metal canopy with tie rods will be installed above the new door. The
canopy will project 4 feet into the courtyard and will provide a clearance of at least 11 feet
underneath. Similar style metal canopies can be found on the Public Library and
Makemson, Steele Weir Building downtown. Additionally, two new upper story windows
will be installed. Each window will match the appearance and material of the existing
upper story windows found on the building. The applicant has stated lighting and signage
details are not finalized at this time and will be brought back to HARC for approval at a
later time.
Bryant Boyd, the architect and agent was available for questions and comments.
Wahrenbrock asked if the upper story windows were designed to meet the fire code. Boyd
explained that the building was sprinkled and therefore did not need a fire escape. Firth
questioned how the awning over the courtyard would match this new canopy over the
back door. Boyd stated he did not know. He was questioned about the use of metal versus
wood as the canopy building material. He explained that the metal was more durable.
Wahrenbrock explained that he would like to see the canopy fascia be wooden, to match
other portions of the building. Boyd explained that he chose the more utilitarian look for
the back of the building because he did not know what materials would be exposed after
tearing down the back portion of the building for the patio. The existing stone on the north
side of the building will be exposed and repaired /replaced in kind as needed .
Rapp opened the Public hearing at 6:21 p.m. and closed if for lack of speakers.
Blankenship agreed that she liked the more utilitarian look of the metal canopy on the back
door.
Motion by Firth to approve the CDC as proposed with consideration to making the
awning fascia wooden. Second by Blankenship. Approved 5 - 0.
4.Discussion and possible action on a postponed Certificate of Design Compliance request for
the demolition of a Low-Priority historic house in Shell Addition, Block 15 (se/pt), located at
711 E. 5
th
Street. (CDC-2011-036)
Wyler gave a brief report of the item. At the October 27, 2011 HARC meeting, the
commission postponed action on a request to demolish a Low-Priority Historic Structure at
711 E. 5th Street, requiring the owner to provide certain financial information on
demolishing the structure versus renovating it, as well as have a follow-up site visit prior to
returning for final action. Upon the item being postponed, a 175-day postponement period
began. This delay process is detailed in the attached staff report from the October meeting.
On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, there was a walkthrough of the Low-Priority house. At
that walkthrough the property owner provided updated financial details as requested and
addressed questions and comments from HARC members and members of the Georgetown
Heritage Society who were in attendance. After meeting the requests from HARC, the
property owner is returning for final action on the demolition request.
The property owner, Mr. Banks was present.
Rapp opened the Public Hearing at 6:25 p.m.
Virginia Stubbs, representing Georgetown Heritage Society, explained that she still believes
the house has “good bones” as she stated at a previous meeting, but met the owner of the
house. She explained that everyone agreed that the second story was unsound and that
after reading the engineering and architectural reports she agrees to the demolition. She
requested that HARC consider asking the owner to salvage as many materials and good
bones as possible .. She explained the wood used to build the house was originally from the
GS Griffith Company and that it needs to be salvaged if possible.
Clare Easley, also of the Georgetown Heritage Society, spoke in favor of the demolition.
She remembered when Miles Allen purchased the house and added the second floor to the
already pieced together house. She thought the neighborhood would benefit from the
demolition at this point.
Rapp also mentioned that the commissioners received a letter from Will Moore, a previous
HARC member, also in support of the demolition. Rapp closed the Public Hearing at 6:32
p.m.
Dennis Banks spoke and said he would agree to save the materials from the house, store
them locally and reuse them in the construction of the new house on that lot . Rapp asked if
he would be amenable to someone from the commission documenting the historic features
and materials of the house, to preserve as much of the history of the house as possible. Mr.
Banks had no objection.
Rapp explained that the commission’s last action caused the 175 day delay clock to start,
upon which the commission must act. There were only 30 more days left before Mr. Banks
would be allowed to demo the building.
Blankenship questioned the state of this building in comparison to other buildings that had
been salvaged and reconstructed . Boyd, the architect, explained that was difficult to
estimate until the second floor and roof were removed, but that the foundation would need
to be redone and engineered. He explained that most houses have a shell when you start
taking them apart, but this one even has a cracked shell .
Firth appreciated Mr. Bank’s cost analysis and how he has worked with the commission.
She explained it was not the commission’s intent to allow the demolition of a n historic
structure but there seemed to be numerous reasons to allow this one, including the fact that
there would have to be so many changes that the removal of this house would actually
contribute to the value of other buildings in the neighborhood. She was also in favor of Mr.
Bank’s vested interest in this house because he wants to live in the neighborhood.
Blankenship agreed and suggested Mr. Banks consider a Victorian style house instead of
the proposed Craftsman style.
Wahrenbrock offered to work with staff and Mr. Banks to document the history and
architectural features of the house.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the CDC for demolition of this structure, following
the UDC requirements for documentation of the structure and working with salvageable
materials, and with consideration of the neighborhood style of Victorian style houses for
the new house. Second by Paul. Approved 5 - 0.
5.Updates from staff and reminder about the March 14, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee
meeting at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and the March 22, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign
Subcommittee meetings at Council Chambers.
Robbie reminded all of the next meetings.
6. Adjournment
Rapp adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Thursday, February
23, 2012 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:
Dee Rapp; Susan Firth; Sarah Blankenship
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 action on the minutes from the February 8, 2012 Sign
Subcommittee meeting.
2.Discussion and possible action on a postponed Certificate of Design Compliance
request for new signage at Lost Addition, Block 64 (pt), also known as Texas Car Title &
Payday Loan, located at 1000 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2011-037)
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
February 23, 2012.
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 _________________, 2012, 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, February 23, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Thursday , February 23, 2012.
Members Present:
Susan Firth, Chair; and Dee Rapp, Sarah Blankenship
Members Absent:
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Rapp (Firth took second Chair) called the meeting to order at 5:35 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 action on the minutes from the February 8, 2012 Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
Firth asked that changes be made: on page 2 of 5, #2, Firth opened the Public Hearing. On page
4 of 5, #3, in regards to the freestanding sign, no aluminum would be allowed on the side door
signs, and the freestanding directional sign should be installed permanently. On page 5 of 5, Firth
wanted it noted that instead of the lettering being too ornate, that the words “Restaurant and Bar”
were too ornate.
Motion by Firth to approve the minutes as corrected. Second by Rapp. Approved 3 – 0.
2.Discussion and possible action on a postponed Certificate of Design Compliance request for new
signage at Lost Addition, Block 64 (pt), also known as Texas Car Title & Payday Loan, located at
1000 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2011-037)
Wyler presented the staff report. At the October 27, 2011 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting, the
agent representing Texas Car Title & Payday Loan made a presentation to the subcommittee for
new signage. After discussing the application with the agent, the subcommittee asked her to
come back to the group with an updated design that was more appropriate for the historic gas
station and consistent with the Design Guidelines.
After further working with staff from both the City and Texas Historical Commission, a new design
has been submitted that the agent feels better complements the historic gas station and
addresses concerns made by the Subcommittee. The original application was for a flush mounted
sign with a white background. The second proposal is for channel style neon letters, with painted
pinstripes along the edging of the awning.
Rapp opened and closed the Public Hearing at 5:42. There were no speakers.
Blankenship expressed appreciation for their interpretation of the historic neon on this style of old
gas station type building. Rapp asked if the size of the sign was within code. Wyler responded
yes. There were no other signs on the application, A-frame, window, etc.
Firth questioned the rocket logo that was located on the first application and was missing from the
second rendering. The agent, Jennifer Howard with A-1 South Texas Sign explained that it was
left off, but could be added back in a smaller version.
Blankenship questioned what was being done about the door openings. Wyler responded that
was under Code Enforcement’s jurisdiction at this point and not open for discussion.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the CDC for signage as presented with the condition that the
rocket be added back onto the sign, with administrative approval by staff before being added.
Second by Firth. Approved 3 – 0.
3.Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 5:48 by Rapp.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit will meet on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
at 04:00 PM in the 711 E. 5th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit Members:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Susan Firth; David Paul; Nelia Ibsen Schrum; and Raymond
Wehrenbrock
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
Members of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission may or may not be in
attendance for a site visit on Wednesday, February 15, 2012. This is follow-up action
requested by HARC on a Certificate of Design Compliance request taken to the
Commission back in October 2011 for the demolition of an historic house in Old Town.
The site visit will include a walk through of the structure with the property owner ,
members of HARC, staff, and possible attendance from the public. There will be
discussion at the property, but no action will be taken at this time.
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 _________________, 2012, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, February 9, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit will meet on Thursday, February 9, 2012 at
03:00 PM in the 612 W. 13th Street & 1301 West Street
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit Members:
Susan Firth; David Paul; and Nelia Ibsen Schrum.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
unless otherwise specified.
Call to Order at 03:00 PM
Members of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission Demolition
Subcommittee may or may not be in attendance for a site visit on Thursday , February 9,
2012. This is a discovery action of the HARC Demolition Subcommittee for a future
Certificate of Deign Compliance application. The site visit will include a walkthrough of
both structures with the property owner , members of the Demolition Subcommittee,
and staff. There will be discussion at the property, but no action will be taken at this
time.
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 _________________, 2012, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Wednesday,
February 8, 2012 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:
Dee Rapp; Susan Firth; Sarah Blankenship
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 action on the minutes from the January 11, 2012 Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
2.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City
of Georgetown, Block 39, Lots 2 & 3 (pts), also known as Diva Chicks ARTful Boutique, located at
109 E. 7th Street. (CDC-2012-001)
3.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at
Dalrymple Addition, Block G (n/pt), also known as Figueredo Fowler Law Office, located at 406 W.
University Avenue. (CDC-2012-002)
4.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City
of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 4 (pt), also known as The 50/50 Restaurant, located at 708 S.
Austin Avenue. (CDC-2012-003)
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 February 23, 2012.
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 _________________, 2012, 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, February 8, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Wednesday , February 8, 2012.
Members Present:
: Susan Firth, Chair; and Dee Rapp
Members Absent:
Sarah Blankenship
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Firth called the meeting to order at 4:07 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 action on the minutes from the January 11, 2012 Sign Subcommittee meeting.
Motion by Firth to approve the minutes as submitted. Second by Rapp. Approved 2 – 0.
2.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City of
Georgetown, Block 39, Lots 2 & 3 (pts), also known as Diva Chicks ARTful Boutique, located at 109
E. 7th Street. (CDC-2012-001)
Wyler presented the report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval from
HARC for a hanging and A-frame sign along with window lettering. First, the applicant proposes
installing a ½” thick double-sided Moderate Density Overlay (MDO) wooden sign above the entrance
door and awnings where the previous business’ hanging sign was located. The sign measures 2.5
feet wide by 2.28 feet tall (5.71 square feet) and will be affixed above the entrance door on an
existing sign bracket from the previous tenant The sign will read “Diva Chicks ARTful Boutique” in
the business colors of black, white and pink. The design consists of the business name in a
decorative font with a lightened black and gray decorative backdrop. The border consists of a
dotted pattern in the corporate colors.
Next, the applicant proposes installing window lettering and advertisement. The entrance door will
have the business logo, very similar to the hanging sign’s design, along with hours of operation and
the address in the same font and color as the main sign. The circular logo measures 18” wide by
16” tall and the lettering below measures a total of 18” wide by 20” tall. Together, the logo and
lettering has an area of 648 square inches, approximately 20% of the glass area. “Diva Chicks
ARTful Boutique will also be installed on each of the two display windows in a dusted vinyl
(color/material sample has been provided). They will be positioned slightly higher than center
preventing any window displays from being blocked from street view. The vinyl lettering will take up
approximately 10.9% of the left window and 10.7% of the right window. A decorative border is also
proposed for the two display windows. The border, which will have the same dotted pattern as the
main sign’s border, will measure 4 inches wide and will be placed completely around each of the
windows.
Lastly, a wooden A-frame sign is proposed for in front of the business. The two-sided sign will be
constructed of MDO and the graphics will match the colors and exact design as the logo found on
the proposed door sign. The A-frame sign will also include “Women’s Artfully designed clothing”,
the phone number, and website address below. Staff recommends approval of all the signs with the
modification of eliminating the polka dots around the window frames.
Kay Briggs, the applicant, was available for questions. Rapp asked about the lighting installed
inside the window. Ms. Briggs stated she could remove the lighting but that it was very dark inside
the window otherwise. Rapp also questioned the polka dots around the window, stating they were
not typical of downtown, but they were okay, suggesting a solid border might be more appropriate.
Rapp also questioned the colors of the logo on the door versus the colors on the other signs. The
colors used are red, blue, yellow, black and white with different shades of those colors also used.
Firth discussed that the background of the hanging and building signs made it difficult to read the
lettering. She suggested a solid color. Rapp agreed. Ms. Briggs said she did not like the solid black
or gray background, but would consider the melon color solid background.
Rapp opened the Public Hearing at 4:30 and as no one came forward to speak, closed the Public
Hearing.
Motion by Rapp to approve the CDC for the hanging/ projecting sign as proposed with the
exception that the background be a solid melon color, but including the lettering and
patterned border. Second by Firth. Approved 2 – 0.
Motion by Rapp to approve the CDC for window signs, door sign and A-frame signs as
proposed but to work with staff to insure the A-frame is acceptable, and encouraging the
applicant to use a solid background similar to the hanging sign. Second by Firth. Approved
2 – 0.
3.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at
Dalrymple Addition, Block G (n/pt), also known as Figueredo Fowler Law Office, located at 406 W.
University Avenue. (CDC-2012-002)
Wyler presented the staff report. First, the business wishes to replace the existing stone base and
wooden frame on the property with a new sign. The two-sided freestanding sign will be constructed
with ½” Moderate Density Overlay wood and a vinyl application with be placed over each face. The
support posts will be constructed of wood and placed in between to two faces as shown on the
provided black and white diagram detailing the anatomy of the sign. Overall, the sign measures 48
inches wide by 72 inches tall, totaling 24 square feet. The sign will have “406” within a burgundy oval
at the top depicting the property address with the name of the lawyer and law office below. Contact
information and “Family Law and Mediation” will be included. The applicant also proposes leaving
space for an additional tenant. This tenant will utilize the same colors and fonts as the tenant
above. A thin border will be placed around the oval and sign face. Additionally, a decorative
separator will be placed between the tenant’s business name and adjoining information. Another
separator will be placed above the space for the second tenant. The sign faces and posts will be
burgundy and the borders/separators will be beige. Color samples along with sign renderings can
be found within the applicant’s attached materials.
Next, a small secondary freestanding directional sign made of corrugated plastic is proposed for the
front yard, just west of the main freestanding sign. This sign will measure 24 inches wide by 18
inches tall (3 square feet) and will stand about 3 feet tall. The sign will have the same color scheme
as the main freestanding sign but will read “Additional Parking in Rear” with two directional arrows.
The sign will be mounted within a standard real-estate angle-iron frame.
Lastly, two brushed aluminum signs with black vinyl lettering are proposed for two doors. One door
is located on the side, east door and the other on the backside of the building. Each sign will read
“Private Entrance, Please Use Front Door” and will measure 8 inches wide by 2 inches tall. Staff
recommends postponing action on the Certificate of Design Compliance application for all three
signs.
1)Freestanding Main Sign: This sign does not appear subordinate to the building and appears
visually cluttered when considering the language placement. A more appropriate design could be
proposed. As detailed above, a shorter, wider sign with side by side information versus horizontal
information might be more visually appropriate and easier to read. Also, the support poles should
be placed on the side of the sign faces and not within. Other signs along University Avenue have
decorative sign posts.
2)Aluminum Door Signs: A wooden or MDO sign, rather than metal, is more typical for door signs
Downtown. The signs should complement both the building and other signs on the property.
3)Secondary Freestanding Directional Sign: This style of sign is not typical nor is it appropriate for
Downtown. Staff suggests the applicant use the same materials as the main freestanding sign and
move the sign further back to where it is set back flush with the front of the building. The design of
the sign is appropriate, but not the material and location. In addition, the sign information should be
limited to the directional message.
Ray Shawley, the applicant for Affordable Signs, was available for questions. He stated that the
sign was proposed to be placed that tall originally because of the poles and other signs located
along that section of University Avenue.
Firth opened the Public Hearing at 4:37 p.m. and as no one came forward to speak, closed it.
Rapp commented that she felt the sign is too tall and unnecessary for that area and obstructs the
view of other signage, and is concerned about the size and shape of the sign for this building. She
also stated she would like to see the “Additional Parking in Rear” sign in another material and
pushed back to match the front façade of the house, possibly making it wooden with wooden posts
to match the house. She agreed the wording and font of all the signs seemed appropriate. She
stated that the aluminum signs to go on the doors also seemed out of character with the wooden
structure.
The commissioners discussed possibilities for the large sign out front. The commissioners agreed
that the sign should be no higher than five feet tall with a maximum of four inches off the ground, so
the wooden sign is not sitting directly on the ground. They also stated tenant #2 should have the
same font and have the information in the same order as tenant #1.
Motion by Rapp to approve the CDC for the freestanding main sign colors and font and style,
while changing the orientation of the sign to be landscape and to allow no more height than
five feet, working with staff to approve the mounting of the sign so that it does not sit on the
ground but allows for landscaping underneath. To approve the freestanding directional sign
colors but to install it to the right of the driveway even with the front façade of the house,
and made of wood and installed on wooden posts. To approve the door signs as presented,
but for the applicant to consider wood materials over the proposed MDO aluminum finish.
Second by Firth. Approved 2 – 0.
4.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for new signage at City of
Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 4 (pt), also known as The 50/50 Restaurant, located at 708 S. Austin
Avenue. (CDC-2012-003)
Report by Wyler. First, the business wishes to reface an existing canopy sign. The two-sided sign
will read “The 50/50” with “Restaurant and Wine Bar” below as shown on the provided rendering.
Each face is made of ¼” thick acrylic and covered with vinyl. The sign will use the existing sign’s
frame and will measure 6 feet wide by 3 feet tall, totaling 18 square feet. A black border will be
placed around the sign.
Next, a double-sided hanging sign will be installed under the canopy and in front of the entrance
door. Made of ½” Moderate Density Overlay (MDO) wood, the sign will measure 36” wide by 12.5”
tall and will have the exact same appearance as the canopy sign, including the black border. The
sign will be hung from existing bolts and in the same location as the previous business’ hanging
sign.
Lastly, an A-frame sign is proposed for the sidewalk. The ½” MDO wood sign will be two-sided and
measure 36 inches wide by 42 inches tall, approximately 10.5 square feet in area. Shown on the
provided rendering, the upper portion of the sign will match the other two signs with the lower
portion being a chalk board for daily specials. Staff recommends approval with slight modifications
to the signs.
Paula Velez, the applicant was available for questions. She wanted the commissioners to know that
the lettering of the signs actually was drawn to incorporate several historical features of buildings
around the square. She showed examples of some of those details.
Firth opened the Public Hearing at 5:03 p.m. and as no one came forward to speak, closed it.
Firth questioned whether the window and door signage being used at the time were part of the
application. The Applicant stated no. Firth also expressed that she felt the lettering was too ornate
for the canopy signage and made it difficult to read.
Rapp explained that she was concerned about the slash between the 50 and 50 looking like a
numeral 1, that having been pointed out to her, and that she felt others would see the same thing,
making it look like five numerals, not 50/50. She suggested making the slash longer or solid black.
She also suggested increasing the font size of the “Restaurant and Wine Bar” lettering under the
name.
They questioned the use of the silver A-frame sign. Ms. Velez stated they were using the same sign
as the restaurant before, merely changing the name at the top of the sign.
Rapp moves to approve the CDC for the canopy sign, the A-frame sign and the hanging sign
colors and sizes as submitted, but with consideration that the slash between the 50’s be
either lengthened or blackened to increase readability. No further staff review should be
needed for that. Second by Firth. Approved 2 – 0.
Adjournment. Firth adjourned the meeting at 5:15 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Demolition Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Demolition Subcommittee will meet on Wednesday,
February 1, 2012 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 Demolition Subcommittee Members:
Susan Firth; David Paul & Nelia Ibsen Schrum
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.The Subcommittee members may attend a pre -application meeting with staff and a future applicant
to discuss the submission requirements for a proposed demolition Certificate of Design Compliance.
(No action will be taken.)
2.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 _________________, 2012, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, January 26, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will meet on Thursday, January 26, 2012 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:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Susan Firth; David Paul; Nelia Ibsen Schrum; and Raymond
Wehrenbrock.
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.
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 8, 2011 Regular HARC meeting.
Regular Agenda:
2. Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition of an
historic detached garage in Dimmitt Addition, Block 88 (nw/pt), located at 905 College Street.
(CDC-2011-043)
3. Review and Discussion with possible direction to staff on proposed amendments to the Design
Guidelines.
4.Discussion with staff on Georgetown’s Commissioners Assistance and Mentoring Program (CAMP)
training session scheduled for late March.
5.Updates from staff and reminder about the February 8, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting at
the Georgetown Municipal Complex and the February 24, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign Subcommittee
meetings at Council Chambers.
6. 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 _________________, 2012, 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, January 26, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday ,
January 26, 2012.
Members Present:
: Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship, Susan Firth, David Paul, Nelia Ibsen Schrum, and Raymond
Wahrenbrock
Members Absent:
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner and HARC liaison; Julie McCartney, Chief Code Enforcement
Officer; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Rapp opened the meeting 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.
(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 December 8, 2011 Regular HARC meeting.
Susan Firth stated that she would like the “Vice-chair” title removed from the attest line. Then
she motioned for approval of the minutes as submitted with that change. Second by Paul.
Approved 5 – 0. (Schrum not present at this point.)
Regular Agenda:
2.Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition of an
historic detached garage in Dimmitt Addition, Block 88 (nw/pt), located at 905 College Street.
(CDC-2011-043)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval from
HARC for the demolition of the detached garage. The main house, also in need of maintenance, has
significant history attached to it having been the home of Sam Houston’s daughter but the history of
the subject garage is less known. The applicant states the purpose of the request is to demolish the
garage in hopes to better sell the property to someone who is willing to make the investment and fix
the house up. It has been stated the current owner does not have the financial means to renovate the
house. Staff recommends approval of the demolition.
Bob Schnelle, the applicant was available for questions from the commissioners.
Blankenship questioned the comment that the applicant would like to re-plat the property also. Wyler
explained that the neighbor’s fence was placed, without a permit, on this owner’s property. In order to
re-plat, to remedy the situation without removing the fence, the garage would have to be demolished.
Rapp asked how long the applicant had owned the property. Mr. Schnelle responded since 1963.
She asked why it was so neglected and he responded that no one had lived there in several years
because it was unusable.
Blankenship asked how long the property had been for sale. Schnelle responded that it had been for
sale for 3 months, but the sign disappeared that week.
Rapp opened the Public Hearing at 6:10 p.m. and as no one came forward to speak, closed the Public
Hearing.
Blankenship stated that the research she had done estimated the construction type was of the early
1900’s. She expressed concern over demolition of any part of the property until a new owner had the
opportunity to make the decision.
Nelia Schrum entered the dais.
Julie McCartney, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, spoke to the several maintenance code issues that
had been addressed over the past several months. She stated this ws the last item to be addressed.
She stated the city prosecutor and judge determined that the structure must be either brought up to
code or demolished and Mr. Schnelle has indicated that he does not have the means to bring it up to
code compliance.
Mr. Schnelle explained that he has not been able to sell the “historical nature” of the house after trying
for several months. Blankenship suggested websites that market state and national historical site
specifically.
The Commissioners continued the discussion that this property should never have been allowed to fall
into such a state of disrepair. There was discussion that HARC action, whatever it would be would
impact the new owner. It was also mentioned that it was possible that the Building Official could also
decide that this was a dangerous structure and force the destruction of the building, but this could
legally take several months. Several of the commissioners stated that if it was demolished that
because it was a historic structure of some nature that it should be well documented before
demolished and that some of the materials should tried to be saved and reused.
Motion by Firth to approve the CDC for demolition, with the condition that the applicant work
with staff to document the structure with photos, dimensions and as much detail as possible,
and that the batten boards try to be saved for the new owner. Second by Rapp. Vote 3 – 3
(approved – Rapp, Firth and Schrum; opposed – Blankenship, Paul and Wahrenbrock) Tie
vote, failed.
The Commissioners discussed other options Mr. Schnelle might have.
Firth gave the same motion again: Motion by Firth to approve the CDC for demolition, with the
condition that the applicant work with staff to document the structure with photos, dimensions
and as much detail as possible, and that the batten boards try to be saved for the new owner.
Second by Rapp. Approved 6 – 0.
3. Review and Discussion with possible direction to staff on proposed amendments to the Design
Guidelines.
Items 4 and 5 were discussed first. Commissioners were given the brochures for CAMP and asked to
contact staff with confirmation of their attendance on March 26 and 27.
Firth asked that the City Attorney attend a general meeting of the Commission to address sign content
and the ability of the Commission to regulate that.
Elizabeth Cook presented a handout to discuss to more items for the Design Guidelines update. The
discussion centered around outdoor furniture and allowing string lights in the trees and beyond.
4.Discussion with staff on Georgetown’s Commissioners Assistance and Mentoring Program (CAMP)
training session scheduled for late March.
5.Updates from staff and reminder about the February 8, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting at
the Georgetown Municipal Complex and the February 24, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign Subcommittee
meetings at Council Chambers.
6. Adjournment. Rapp adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit will meet on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at
08:30 AM in the 905 College Street
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Site Visit Members:
Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Susan Firth; David Paul; Nelia Ibsen Schrum; and Raymond
Wehrenbrock
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 site visit on Tuesday, January 24, 2012. This is discovery action of a HARC
agenda item that will be discussed and action taken at the regularly scheduled HARC meeting
on January 26, 2012. The application for 905 College Street is to demolish a detached garage.
Commissioners have asked for a site visit 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 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 _________________, 2012, at __________, and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee will meet on Wednesday, January
11, 2012 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:
Dee Rapp; Susan Firth; Sarah Blankenship
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 action on the minutes from the December 8, 2011 Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
2.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for the refacing of an
existing freestanding sign at Morrow Addition, Block G (nw/pt), located at 102 E. University
Avenue. (CDC-2011-044)
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 January 26, 2012.
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 _________________, 2012, 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, January 11, 2012
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
met on Wednesday , January 11, 2012.
Members Present:
: Susan Firth, Chair; and Sarah Blankenship
Members Absent:
Dee Rapp
Members Present but not participating:
Staff Present:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Firth called the meeting to order 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.Review and possible action on the minutes from the December 8, 2011 Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the minutes. Second by Firth. Approved 2 – 0.
2.Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for the refacing of an
existing freestanding sign at Morrow Addition, Block G (nw/pt), located at 102 E. University
Avenue. (CDC-2011-044)
Wyler presented the staff report and recommends approval. The applicants, Mary Jo Schoppa
and Rita Snyder of Keller Williams Realty, were available for comments or questions. They
explained that Mr. Lackey, the present owner is 82 years old and will retire soon. Ms. Schoppa
has been working for him and will remain in the building as a realtor, and Ms. Snyder will join her.
They want both names on the sign.
Blankenship wants the new occupants to combine the signs to one sign, per the Guidelines
suggestions. The commissioners suggested that and discussed it with the applicants. They
stated when Mr. Lackey retires, they will reconsider and redesign the signs.
There was further discussion of putting the name of the business on the sign, instead of the
proposed names of the realtors. Ms. Snyder explained that their names, as realtors, are their
business names and that by putting their company name, they would be in conflict with the Keller
Williams office just down the street. Firth wants the sign to include the business name or type,
stating that a person’s name and phone number does not indicate the business type.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the signs as proposed with the recommendation to put
a single, directory type sign at this location in the future. Second by Firth. Approved 2 – 0.
Ms. Snyder commented that Robbie Wyler was good to work with and she appreciated his help.
Adjournment Firth adjourned the meeting at 4:18 p.m.