Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes HARC 08.11.2022Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes August 11t",2022 at 6 p.m. Council and Courts Building 510 West 9t" Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members Present: Michael Walton, Chair; Jennifer Powell; Karalei Nunn; Tom W. Davis; Alton Martin; Alternate Williams "Jud" Harris Members Absent: Linda C. Burns, Vice Chair; Lawrence Romero; Alternate Pierce M. Macguire Staff Present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nathaniel Waggoner, Historic Program Manager; Jessica Lemanski, Planning Specialist Meeting called to order by Chair Michael Walton at 6:03 pm. Public Wishing to Address the Commission On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found at the Commission meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison, 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: Persons may add an item to a future Commission agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Commission meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Commission Liaison contact information, please logon to http://government.georgetown.org/categorylboards-commissions/. A At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board. Legislative Regular Agenda B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the July 28, 2022, regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Committee - Jessica Lemanski, Planning Specialist Commissioner Davis requested correction to Item C's motion; Change "disapprove" to "approve". Commissioner Davis requested correction to Item D; Change spelling of Applicant's name from "Wong" to "Wang". Motion to amend the minutes by Commissioner Davis, with corrections to Item C moving Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 1 of 6 August 11, 2022 from "disapprove" to "approve", and correction to Item D to change spelling of Applicant's name from "Wong" to "Wang". Second by Commissioner Nunn. Motion approved unanimously (7-0) C Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines at the property located at 823 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of 0.826 acres, being part of Lot 8, Block 51, City of Georgetown. (2022-40-COA) — Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range Nat Waggoner presented the Staff Report and established that the applicant is requesting permission from HARC to install a 39.5' sq. ft. internally illuminated sign mounted on the portico oriented toward the intersection of Austin Ave/91" Street, in addition to the two window signs that have been reviewed by the HPO. The property under consideration contains a medium -priority, southwestern -inspired building. The 2016 Historic Resources Survey indicates prior use of the site as an auto garage, and the 1984 HRS image provides evidence of this use. The 1984 survey describes the property as a one-story commercial building of brick and stucco veneer, with a hip roof and metal tiles with exposed rafter ends. Noteworthy features include roof tiles in mission style. The site is located at the intersection of Austin Ave and E 9th Street, the gateway to Georgetown's square. The structure is situated at an angle on the site and features a portico over the driveway for customers at the primary entrance. The proposed internally illuminated (push through) sign will be located at the front of the building, facing the intersection of Austin Ave and 9th Street. The angle of the building will make the sign visible from both streets. The proposed sign will measure 5' 10" wide and 5' 3" tall, 39.5'. The lettering will be approximately 3' 6 3/8" tall and 3' wide. The depth of the sign is 5". The colors of the sign will be black with a light pink heart shape that is spliced in half horizontally with light green lettering. The sign is proposed to be internally illuminated, which is not permitted in Area 1 of Downtown. The illumination will produce approximately 60 watts of white LED lights pushed through the acrylic and vinyl sign face. There are four colors proposed for the illumination. The portico on which the sign will be installed is approximately 32' in length and 16' in height. The total length of the building including the portico is approximately 55'. The sign will be mounted with a new, aluminum bracket that measures 2 by 2". The bracket will be mounted to a lower portion of the roof with bolts. Specifications on how the sign will be installed on the roof was not provided with this application. Waggoner spoke to the location and history of the property in relation to the Sanborn map and HRS survey photography, the orientation and size of the proposed sign, and presented renderings of the design of the proposed sign. Waggoner noted that internally illuminated signs such as those proposed by the applicant are not in line with the design guidelines of the downtown area. Waggoner reviewed the applicable design guidelines by sharing that staff had determined the proposed project complies with 4 of the 9 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines (for the Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 2 of 6 August 11, 2022 canopy sign portion of the request) in Chapter 5 and staff recommends denial of the request for the canopy sign. Waggoner also noted that, as required by the UDC, two (2) signs were posted on -site. To date, staff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in opposition to the request. Applicant is here and wishes to address the Commission. Chair Walton opened the floor for questions or comments from the Commissioners. No discussion or questions. Applicant shared a packet with Commissioners with potential changes to the signage and approached the podium to address the Commission. Jamie Mitol, Custom Sign Creations, approached the podium to address the Commission and spoke to the difficulty of mounting signage on the building, reducing the size of the sign to 4 feet tall, changing the internal illumination from 6500 Kelvin down to 3,000 Kelvin (warmer, "cozy" light), and engineering approval for mounting to the building. He also acknowledged the integrity of the roof is a highlight of the building and proposed redesigning the mounting bracket to create an armature that mounts onto the underneath of the portico to preserve the roof. Jamie said they are hoping to create a compromise with these concessions so that the internal illumination might be approved. Chair Walton asked if the mounting adjustment mentioned was in the packet provided? Applicant said no, it was more of a sub -note he wanted to talk about to potentially allow approval with conditions. Applicant and owner are open to mounting the sign to a vertical column of the building, preferably on the left side when facing the building to allow a view of the roof (last resort, if necessary). Chair Walton asked if the Applicant knew the square footage of the sign with the new dimensions? Applicant said it would be around 18 square feet; 4 feet tall by 13 inches wide, significantly reduced from the 30 square feet technically allowed in that area. He noted that there is no place to put a 30 square foot sign on the building without obscuring a significant portion of the roof. They could potentially lower it down and mount it to the column, but it would then be an issue of an under -canopy sign, which would require reducing the square footage down to 8 square feet. Commissioner Davis asked if mounting the sign underneath would pose a threat to pedestrians knocking their head on it? Applicant replied that they would be able to comply with code requirement of 7 ft clearance. Commissioner Davis inquired about the orange colored bracket on the picture provided in the packet and whether it would be removed. Applicant said the photo in the packet was an old Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 3 of 6 August 11, 2022 Google Earth screenshot and the orange projecting flag mount seen in the picture was potentially from when Keller Williams occupied the building and is no longer there. Commissioner Davis suggested that they mount the sign from the column, which would make it perpendicular to the street and easily readable for pedestrians and cars passing. Applicant acknowledges it's a great idea if the Commission were open to not calling it an under -canopy sign and allow them to keep the square footage proposed in the packet. Commissioner Davis informed that the Commission has the option to postpone the item to allow Applicant to come back with updated location and size options, as well as attachment methods, so that the technical details of the proposal can be reviewed and discussed. Commissioner Nunn asked if they had considered using another signage method other than interior illumination? Applicant said that they had, and that considering the other signs around the location with illuminated, they want to stand out to attract potential clients. Alternate Harris supported Commissioner Davis' earlier suggestion of postponement because there have been instances of the Commission giving approval to a proposal and then having a completely different outcome built, and he would like to see them come back with a new proposal with details to discuss and potentially approve. Commissioner Harris said he was concerned about the internal illumination of the sign and it looking out of place, and he would visit downtown to look at the surrounding business' illuminated signs; He acknowledged that there are other signs that are lit in the area and wants to be consistent and fair. Applicant replied that they are trying to design a sign that aesthetically fits in with the downtown area buildings. Commissioner Nunn noted that their location is a gateway building to the square, and therefore the standard is a bit higher than under -canopy signs, and she is concerned with the internal illumination. Chair Walton reiterated that the Commission needs to see proposed changes to the design. Chair Walton asked Waggoner to provide feedback to applicant to allow the first approval criteria ("Application is fully complete, and information contained is correct and sufficient") to be fully complies instead of partially complies. He commented that the temperature of the lighting is important, but the building is a gateway into the square, and the applicant should investigate external illumination. Commissioner Powell asked if the Keller Williams sign in slide 14 of the staff presentation is the max size allowed in the area? Waggoner replied that he did not have the dimensions and did not see the COA for that project, but he guessed that it's larger by 2x4 ft (8 ft squared is what is allowed for under canopy sign). Applicant guessed that the sign was probably around 2x8 or 2x7 feet. Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 4 of 6 August 11, 2022 Commissioner Powell asked if there were any restrictions to an illuminated double -sided sign? Waggoner referred to page 226 of the Design Guidelines (under large signs): "Any two-sided sign shall be designed to be back to back and in no case shall both sides of the sign be visible at any time to the reader." He noted that he is unsure if this guideline is applicable in this case, but that is the provided guideline around visibility. Commissioner Powell noted that it would be helpful to include images of surrounding business's signs for reference and comparison in the staff report if the item does get postponed and comes back to the Commissioner for discussion. Alternate Harris noted that there are a number of internally illuminated signs in the area, but that is not necessarily a good thing. He would like them to raise the bar for signage, as this building is a higher priority structure than others in the downtown area, and it is a gateway structure for entering the square. Williams also noted that CVS complied with their externally illuminated signage, and he would not vote to approve an internally illuminated sign as he feels strongly about this issue. Alternate Harris asked the staff if there are color temperature or brightness guidelines (i.e. lumens measured at a certain distance), or is that more code related? Waggoner replied that there are standards in UDC for candle lights at certain points in a property. UDC calls for warm color, similar to daylight. Chair Walton opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forth. Brandi Townsend (Owner) approached the podium to address the Commission and spoke to the condition of the building before their move, the renovations made to the building to bring out the original materials, and her appreciation for the history of the building. Brandy stated that she is flexible and open to postponement but wants her sign to be visible and attract potential customers. Applicant said they are probably not going to mount the sign to the roof, but they still want the internally illuminated sign. Motion to postpone Item C to the September 81" HARC Meeting to get updated specific revisions on the proposal by Commissioner Martin. Second by Commissioner Harris. Applicant confirmed that he would gather different perspectives on where the sign would go (northbound and southbound pictures to allow views of the impacts and visibility of the sign), as well as mounting and architectural armature updates. Applicant also stated that he thinks they will probably avoid mounting anything on the metal roof, but still wishes to use an internally illuminated sign. Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 5 of 6 August 11, 2022 Motion approved unanimously (7-0). D Updates, Commissioner questions and comments - Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Davis. Second by Commissioner Martin. Motion approved unanimously (7-0). The meeting adjourned at 6:51 p.m. /s Rich el Walton, Chair Jennifer Powell, Secretary Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 6 of 6 August 11, 2022