HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_07.24.2008Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4
Meeting July 24, 2008
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers, located at 101 E. 7th St.
Georgetown, TX 78626
Members Present: Rick O’Donnell, Chair; Tommy Gonzalez, Vice-chair; J.C. Johnson, Nancy
Knight, Will Moore andWest Short
Members Absent: Linda McCalla
Staff Present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Planning Director; and
Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission is responsible for hearing and taking final
action on applications, by issuing Certificates of Design Compliance based upon the City Council
adopted Downtown Design Guidelines. This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission, for consideration and possible action on the following:
Regular Session: To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair O’Donnell 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 June 26, 2008 regular meeting.
2. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
signage at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lot 4, located at 103 W. 7th Street. (CDC-2008-027)
Item #2 was moved to the regular agenda at the request of the Sign Subcommittee.
Motion by Knight to approve the minutes. Second by Gonzalez. Approved 5 – 0. (Chair does not
vote unless to break a tie.)
Regular Agenda:
Item #2 above was opened for discussion. Wyler explained the application for a sign to be
located on the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau door. The sign was proposed as blue with white
lettering. Knight explained her disapproval of the blue which matches the blue letting on the
highway but not the blue of the Visitor’s Cen ter sign, which this sign is directing visitors to.
There was a discussion of complementing blue colors and matching blues to existing signs.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4
Meeting July 24, 2008
Motion by Gonzalez to approve the sign CDC as submitted. Second by Johnson. Approved 4 – 2.
(Knight and O’Donnell opposed.)
3. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance
amendment for facade updates at City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1-8 located at 501
Austin Avenue. (CDC-2005-012)
Wyler presented the staff report. This application meets the guidelines 8.1, 8.2 and 8.4. This
is an application to change the original approved facade and site layout for Phase 1 of
Tamiro Plaza. The sidewalks and doors must be rearranged to provide handicap access
ramps and the design of the handrail for the ramp is as simplistic as possible to reduce the
visibility. Staff recommends approval or the redesign.
The Commissioners questioned the applicants on why the most visible corner was chosen
and what jurisdiction the HARC had in city sidewalks. Mr. Choi, the applicant and owner,
explained that two doors of the building had to have handicap access according to the fire
code and he had worked with the city street department to design the best possible situation.
He also said the elevation of the southeast side of the building made, with the door included
would cause them to lose 2 – 3 parking spaces.
There was more discussion about alternative locations. Commissioners expressed their
concerns about taking away part of the sidewalk on a prominent corner of the block. Mr.
Choi assured them he was doing everything possible to reduce the appearance of the
sidewalk ramps. Elizabeth Cook stated that if necessary, an easement into the sidewalk
could be granted to allow the encroachment i nto the right-of-way.
Motion by Knight to approve the Certificate of Design Compliance amendment based on the
applicable Design Guidelines for 501 Austin Avenue. Second by Gonzalez. Approved 4 -1.
(Short opposed.)
4. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
minor facade changes at City of Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 4(pt) located at 104 1/2 West 8th
Street. (CDC-2008-026)
Wyler presented the application. The applicant seeks approval for minor facade changes
facing 8th Street as a result of weather damage and ensuing modifications. The applicant is
the roofing company that has been hired to replace scuppers and collectors on the roof.
Motion by Gonzalez to approve the application as submitted. Second by Moore. Approved 5
– 0.
5. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
facade approval at Glasscock Addition, Block 23, Lots 1-8, located at 1105 Church Street.
(CDC-2008-010)
Wyler presented the application and showed a material sample. Mr. McIntosh, the owner
and applicant, stated the window samples are applied to some of the south side windows.
the limestone material will be placed on the east side. The limestone material presented is
actually an EFIS material with the color match of native Florence limestone. He said he
would email the Commission when the material is up so they can look at it.
Chair O’Donnell stated he thought it was to look like cut stone. Short questioned the
durability. McIntosh stated that other than repairing any damage from hail or storms, the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4
Meeting July 24, 2008
product was guaranteed for 25 years with a recoating every 10 years.
Chair O’Donnell thanked Mr. McIntosh for coming.
6. Consideration and possible action on a request for approval for a Certificate of Design
Compliance amendment including signage at Cody’s Addition, Block 1, Lot 1, located at 1201
Church Street. (CDC-2007-018)
Wyler presented the application. The applicant is seeking approval on a CDC amendment
for facade and site changes, including signage. The Commission asked the applicant to come
back within 60 days of the last meeting to discuss paint samples, and updated site and
elevation plan and materials to be used for lighting and planters. The applicant provided all
materials and drawings.
The paint samples indicated a darker beige color on the south end of the building, with
lighter color on the middle and north end to reduce the impact. The updated site plan
included parking, landscaping and fencing as requested. The updated elevation included
lighting sconces, fences with evergreen vines and planters. The requested sign is to be
located above the windows and hung from the soffit centered on the north section of the
structure. No lighting is being proposed for the sign.
Wyler read the Guidelines that were applicable in the staff recommendation. Those were
guidelines 8.3, 8.13, 9.4, and 9.5.
Chair O’Donnell questioned Tom Nichols, applicant and architect, about the color choices
for the building. Nichols stated he preferred a one color building. O’Donnell agreed he
prefers the simplicity and look of one color. The Commissioners discussed different options
to change the impact of the larger building on the south end.
There was also discussion on lighting the sign. The applicant chooses not to do any signage
lighting at this time. The screening material on the rooftop was discussed and Nichols
explained it would be C-channel type metal and painted the same color as the rest of the
building. The awning material was discussed and it was decided that since there was not a
sample, this item must come back to the Commission before being installed.
Motion by Gonzalez to approve a CDC for 1201 Church Street with the following
specifications: 1. The awning on the building is approved as a concept with the condition
that the materials, color and renderings and drawings must be brought in for final approval.
2. Sconces are approved with compliance with code specifications. 3. The building be
painted a single color. 4. The sign is approved as presented. 5. The fence will start at six feet
and drop to 4 feet in the front sideyard as per the site plan. 6. Planters on the south side of
the building will be placed more toward the front of the building and of a smaller scale and
the planters on the north side of the building will not be in a straight line and will be a
smaller scale than indicated on the drawing. Second by Moore. Short amends to allow the
owner to arrange the cluster of planters on the north side of the building. Gonzalez accepts
the amendment. Gonzalez amends his original motion to include that the awning must be in
place within 60 days of approval of the awning CDC. Second by Moore. Approved 4 – 0 – 1
(Knight abstained.)
7. Update from staff on modifying CDC application procedures.
Cook distributed the new forms and checklists that are being modified. The contractors and
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4
Meeting July 24, 2008
applicants will be required to sign them in the future. Commissioners stated they like
requiring the applicant to provide more material samples but questioned the enforcement of
the new rules. Cook says staff is prepared to be stricter with the enforcement of submittal
materials.
There was discussion regarding the lack of inspections being done on HARC projects. It
seems the lack of site plans in the downtown district means less enforcement because
inspections are not being called in. There is a coordinated effort being put in place between
Building Inspections and Planning to review all site plans against HARC approvals and
building code regulations. Wyler is currently doing more on-site inspections of all
downtown projects to helpfully stop projects in a timely manner that are out of compliance.
Commissioners asked the upcoming UDC amendments include sidewalk guidelines for
improved pedestrian flow. Commissioners also requested a statement on the applications
that the property owner is ultimately responsible for all work on the property and it is their
obligation to inspect the contractor’s work on a regular basis. They also requested that the
checklist include a beyond a written description, a sample board, using the word “shall”
instead of “may” for all requirements.
8. Comments from the Director and reminder of the next meeting on August 28, 2008.
Cook advised she will send out an email regarding upcoming training sessions as soon as she
receives dates from the consultant.
9. Adjournment
Chair O’Donnell adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m.
__________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Chair, Rick O’Donnell Attest, Secretary, Nancy Knight