HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_07.28.2011City of Georgetown,, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, July 28, 2011, at 6:00 p.m.
.City Council and Municipal Court Building, Georgetown, TX 78627
101 E. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
Members. present: Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Susan Firth; Gregg. Herriott; David
Paul; Nelia Ibsen Schrum; and Raymond Wahrenbrock
Commissioners in Training present: Andy Welch
Members absent: N/A
Staff present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner and HARC liaison; Elizabeth Cook,
Community Development Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Avery Craft,. Planning
Specialist and Recording Secretary
Regular Session - 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.
Consent Agenda:
1.
Review and possible approval of the minutes from the June 27, 2011 Regular HARC.
meeting.
Rapp asked that the wording for Wahreadnock's statement on page two, paragraph five, .line
one be changed from "Wahrenbrock stated that the board will not be taking any action in
the removal of the buildinguntil someone is lined up to takethe property" to
"Waterer Brock asked if the board will be taking any action in the removal of the building
until someone is lined up to take the property_"
Motion by Paul to approve the minutes from the June 27, 2011 meeting with the
correction_ Second by Blankenship. Approved 7 — O. (Rapp, Blankenship, Firth, Herriott,
Paul, Schrum, Wahrenbrock approved_)
Regular Agenda-
2. Public hearing and possibleaction.to amend a Certificate of Design Compliance to change
the approved color of paint on a fence at City of -Georgetown, Block 28, Lots 1 — 8, also
known as the Monument Cafe/Market site, located at 500 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2011-
006) "This item has been forwarded from the June 23, 2011 regular meetirzg.
Wyler presented staff report.
The applicant seeks to amend a Certificate of Design Coxx-npliance (CDC) approval
from HARC to change the approved color of the biergarten fence from mahogany to
dark green. At the March 24, 2011 meeting, the applicant received approval to
1
construct the woven fence with the condition it be painted mahogany. Now, the
applicant wishes to amend the original color approval to allow the current color
dark green. He states the dark green matches the color scheme of the market.
Staff recommends approval to amend the Certificate of Design Compliance to
change the biergarten fence color from mahogany to dark green.
Firth and Blankenship questioned why the applicant requested changing the already
approved color of dark green to mahogany. (The approved color was mahogany and the
requested change was to dark -green.)
Rapp stated that she prefers the mahogany color but has gotten used to the new proposed
dark green after driving by the property.
Rapp opened a public hearing at 6.10 p.m.
No one came forward to speak.
Rapp closed public hearing at 6.11 p.m.
Motion by Paul to approve the darlc green color_ Second by Schrum. Approved 7 — O.
(Rapp, Blankenship, Firth, Herriott, Paul, Schrum, Wahrenbrock approved_)
Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for minor changes
to the front exterior of the building and the addition of lighting at City of Georgetown, Block
40, Lot 2 (s/pt), also known as All Things Kids, located at 703 S. Main Street. (CDC-2011-
013)
This agenda item, along with the following agenda item (items 3 and 4) were presented
together; as they both seek the same approval for their businesses next door to each other.
wyler presented staff report.
The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval to complete minor
exterior renovations to the Main Street canopy as part of an overall maintenance
project to the building. First, the canopy will be stripped of existing, non -historic
metal roofing as well as the soffit and drainage material. New roof sheathing will be
applied prior to installation of new flashing and white roofing membrane. The
membrane serves as weather proofing for the canopy to prevent the wooden roof front rotting_
All other items, including. the replacement of aged tie -rod, fascia and soffit materials,
as needed, are considered maintenance and do not require HARC approval.
Next, existing PVC downspouts, unoriginal to the historic structure, will be
removed and replaced with more appropriate metal downspouts and painted to
match the existing ones.
Lastly, the applicant proposes adding five (5) four -inch diameter recessed down
lights in the soffit of the canopy to provide sidewalk lighting. An existing hanging
light will be removed and the electrical wires will be used to serve the proposed
recessed lights. The applicant also wishes to add a small outdoor mini -light on top
of the canopy to provide lighting for the existing tenant wall sign. A similar style
2
mini -light, as well as under -canopy recessed lighting, can be seen at 71.3 S. Main
Street, a few buildings to the south.
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance as proposed by
the applicant with the consideration the applicant keep the existing under -canopy
light fixture as a decorative piece, even if it is not used specifically for lighting.
Ken Horac, one of the owners of All Things Kids, opted to leave the hanging lights in lieu of
wall mounted lights at the request of the board_ Horac decided to address the canopies first,.
and then address the recessed lighting.
Firth asked what the material is in the recessed lighting. Horac stated the material is metal
and plastic.
Rapp asked what the roof of the canopy will look like. Horac stated that the roof will look
the same; however, the metal roofing will go away because it is not historical and extremely
difficult to waterproof_ Itwillbe a flat, white membrane roof, which will help minimize
leaking issues.
Rapp asked about the soffit lighting.
Blankenship referenced guidelines. 4.1 (Avoid removing or altering any significant
architectural detail) and 4.9 (Replacement of missing or deteriorated details shall be based
on original features. Blankenship asked if the storefront glass is original, because the waves
in the glass are indicative of historic glass. Horac stated that the glass is original float glass
that is very hard to come by. Blankenship encouraged that Home keep the glass, as it is
historic.
Blankenship referenced guideline 5.7 (consider removingmaterials that cover original
siding). Blankenship encouraged Florae to look into removal of the corrugated metal above
the transom windows.
Rapp asked if. Staff thinks that -the light under the canopy enhances the look of the front of
the business. Wyler stated that Staff believes the lighting brightens- up the. Square and are in
favor of it. Horac stated that it will not be an -issue to keep the lighting_
Rapp opened a public hearing at 6:28 p_m.
Rapp closed the public hearing at 6:29 p._xn.
Motion by Blankenship to approve with the condition that the light be retained under the
canopy. Second. by Rapp. Approved 7 — 6_ (Rapp, Blankenship, Firth, Herriott, Paul,
Schrum, Wahreribrock approved.)
4. Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for minor changes
to the front exterior of the building and the addition of lighting at City of Georgetown, Block
40, Lot a ovpt), also known as Ker-Cz Guitars, located at 705 S_ Main Street. (C1DC-2011-014)
Rappopened public hearing 6:30 p.m_
No one cameforward to speak_
a
Rapp closed public hearing 6:31 p.m.
Wahrernbrock asked if the lighting will be the same at Keno Guitars as at 703 S. Main Street.
Horac stated that Ken.. has a hole in the canopy and the lights are hanging higher. This is
because the building widths are different.
Herriot asked if the PVC will go back to metal. Horac stated that it willbe going back to
metal.
Motion by Blankenship to approve with the retention of the hanging light under the
canopy_ Second by Paul_ Approved 7 - O_ (Rapp, Blankenship, Firth, Herriott, Paul,
Schrum, Waltrenbrock approved.)
5. Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for the addition
and exterior changes to a residence at Glasscock Addition, Block 14, Lots 5 $c 6, located at
407 S. Myrtle Street. (CDC-2011-015)
Wyler presented staff report.
The applicant seeks CDC approval for the renovation and addition to their single-
family, Low -Priority historic residence located ir. the Old Town Historic C7verlay.
Some of these changes to the house, detailed below in the report, are to the front
facade, thus requiring CDC approval before work can be permitted. The applicant
intends to move their family into the residence and to make it their primary home.
After doing sig, tificant research on the property and surrounding neighborhood,
they feel the alterations planned will be similar and consistent with other homes in
the area from the same period, while greatly improving the street appearance,
energy efficiently and livability of the home.
Throughout the years, this home has gone through many renovations and additions.
From approximately 2000 to 2011, the owners made many changes, one of which
included replacing the asbestos siding with shiplap wood -grain concrete siding,
unoriginal to the house_ Detailed further in the applicant's supporting materials,
there have been two major additions to the original historic house_ Sometime
between 1950 and 2000, a 289 square foot addition was added to the north side of the
building_ Around 2000, approximately 747 square feet was added to the east side of
the original home.
This CDC submission is for three primary modifications to the property that require
HARC approval. The applicant proposes to extend the current 4'x4' porch to become
a wrap -around porch, extend the north side of the house seven (7) feet while adding
a gable on the roof, installing a box window for the kitchen and replacing a window
with an additional exterior door.
First, the applicant proposes to extend time current 4'x4' porch facing Myrtle Street to
become a wrap -around porch_ The current porch, in disrepair, is in need of having
the pine posts replaced. The construction date of the current porch is unknown.
The plan is to extend this porch to wrap around the south side of the house_ This
4
can be found on other similar style homes in the neighborhood. Photographs have
been provided in the supporting materials showing other properties in Old Town
Georgetown with similar style porches. The applicant states that the south side of
the house has no shade and the walls have little insulation. Adding the porch will
increase the energy efficiency of the property without impacting the overall design
or street appeal. Brick bases with wood beam columns will be used to support the
roof and standard wooden rails will be installed as well. A neighboring home_ on 5,h
Street has a similar style covered porch. Renderings as well as color samples have
been provided in the application.
Next, the applicant proposes to extend the north side of the house seven (7) feet and
add a gable roof and box window for the kitchen. Detailed renderings of both the
roof and window are attached to the report. The portion of the house that will
receive the addition is not original to the home and was added sometime between
1950 and 2000 and is set back from the original building line by approximately two
(2) feet. The applicant intends to extend the length of this section by seven (7) feet to
allow for a larger kitchen and dining area. 'The applicant will use the same height
and type of materials of the current house. With the addition, a gabled roof will be
installed above: the kitchen area, which will match the cross -gabled roof on the south
side of the house. The current double -hung window in the kitchen will be replaced
with a box window that will tie in with the other windows on the house. It is stated
that the addition of the box window will not only provide additional room in the
kitchen, but will add architectural interest to this portion of the house that is
currently unattractive due to a farm gate, exposed plumbing and an unpaved
driveway.
Lastly, the applicant proposes to replace a south -facing window with an exterior
door. On the west end of the 5°h Street side of the house (south facing), the intent is
to replace the current large, vertical window with a main entry door. The style, size
and trim of the door will be similar to the rest of the home and with other homes in
the area. The home has a foyer room behind this window, which, according to the
applicant, is too small to be used for a bedroom or study. By altering one wall in the
room, it can be turned into a. usable foyer. Proposed styles of doors have been
provided in the submission materials_ Although the doors are shown as stained oak,
the applicant states they will paint the door to match the. trim of the home. The
current entrance door facing Myrtle Street will be replaced with a window,
matching adjacent ones in style and color on the west side of the house.
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance as proposed by
the applicant for both the wrap -around porch and north -side addition, including the
gabled roof and box window. Although the covered porch was never historically a
part of the house, the applicant have given logical reason for the appropriateness of
the addition including to aid in energy efficiency and because the original home has
5
had two past additions, which resulted in its Low -Priority historic classification in
the Historic Re-S61.311-ceS Survey. The applicant will maintain the original house and
placing a covered porch, typical for Old Town Georgetown, -seems appropriate_ The
addition to the north side of the house is also appropriate given that that portion of
the house is not original and was built semetime between 1950 and 2000_ Detailed
within the submission materials, all setback and design standards are being
respected and the addition including the box window and gabled roof,
appropriately ties in with the rest of the house_
The third item, the replacement of a window with at door, may not be appropriate_ It
is discouraged to replace original historic features, such as a window, with
something different_ Although the proposed entrance door would complement the
house significantly, it is taking away a feature from what is remaining of the original
house_ Staff understands the applicant's reasoning behind the proposal and asks.
HARC and the applicant to discuss this specific item further before making a
decision. Mentiorned in Guideline 4.2 above, if HARC finds the replacement of the
south -facing window with an entrance door appropriate, the applicant should use
the original window in place of the current Myrtle Street door that would be
removed and converted to a window. This would at least preserve the window
even if it is in a different location_
Sarah Milburn moved to Georgetowra in. 1994 with her husband, John, looking for an old
home to renovate and possibly tam into a Bed and Breakfast. The Milburn's bought 1008 E.
University and spent six years renovating it before selling it to. the Wiley's, who turned it
into what is now the San Gabriel House Bed and Breakfast run by Dee Rapp. The Milburn'.s
recently purchased 407 S. Myrtle and now want to make some adjustments to the home.
They want to place a porch with a rocker on the south side of the home to block out the sun
that goes to that side of the home. They also want to knock out the wall and add an
additional entry_
Rappasked if the depth ort the porch on the Myrtle Street side is going to stay the same.
Milburn stated that the depth will stay the same.
Firth asked if the entry porch (Myrtle side) will be removed. Applicant stated that the porch
will be removed because it is rotting.
Milburn addressed parking. The city has done a traffic study and determined that there can
be a curb cut_ It will be in the proper set back on the proper side.
Firth asked if the box window will be centered on the gable. Milburn stated that it will be
centered.
Firth .asked why Milburn was replacing the dining room window. Milburn stated that she
wanted to put the seating on the other side that the window would be in front of. Firth
asked why that window is not like the rest of the windows on that side of the house.
Milburn stated that the size of the window is slightly different_
Blankenstap stated that the front facade is a simple folk Victorian house and she can see
6
why Milburn was drawn to the house. Blankenship stated the existing addition. is a good
one but had issues with the proposed one competing with the historic portion of the
building_ Blankenship referenced Design Guidelines 7.4 Sr 7..8 which address an addition
being subordinate to the original building. By adding a cross gable roof, the 'historic facade
is diminished. Blankenship would prefer to see the extended long roof or the addition in the
back so it does not take- away from the historic facade. Milburn stated that only a fifth of the
house is historical and the part she wants to change is not historic.
Blankenship addressed the changing of the entrances. Blankenship asked Milburn if the goal
is to get closer to the garage. Milburn confirms that is the goal. Blankenship states that the
removal of the historic door goes against numerous designguidelines including 7.7, 6.12,
6.13,. 4.2 . Blankenship asks if the door can be added to one of the bedrooms on the addition.
Milburn does not like the idea because the room is going to be used as a guest room_
Blankenship addressed the porch.. Although the porch is an addition, it does fit the Folk
Victorian house well with its simple "Shed -Style Porch". The :proposal does change that.
Blankenship asked if the porch can be left as is with a separate long porch added on the
south side or extend the length of the wrap around porch so. it is at least balanced ort the
front facade of the historic building. Milburn does not have a problem with the idea of
extending the length of the wrap around porch.
Rapp opened public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
Tian Todd came forward to speak.
Todd, a local building contractor, has been working with the Milburn's on this project . He
has worked on numerous historic homesherein Georgetown and understands how to keep
homes historic. Todd thinks that the two additions are not keeping with historic and
therefore, do not need to be preserved. Todd believes- the gable addition will enhance the
side of the property and give It a historic look.
Rapp closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.
VVehrenbock stated that he wants to keep current front door on the Myrtle. side and keep the
original front porch and not extend the wrap around. If the porch does wrap around then
removing the handrails would give a true view of what the house looked like originally.
Motion by Rapp that the original door and porch area that exists facing Myrtle today be
retained fun the future plans. Second by Paul_ Approved 7 — O. (Rapp, Blankenship, Firth,
Herriott, Paul, Schrum, Wahrenbrock approved.)
Motion by Firth that HAliC allow applicant to replace the window on the southwest -side
of the /rouse with an additional exterior door that is historic in appearance while working
with Staff for final details. Second by Paul. Approved 7 — O. (Kapp, Blankenship, Firth,
Fierriott, Paul, Schrum, Wal. enbrock approved_)
Motion by Blankenship to approve the addition of the porch with the option to extend it
to the break in the house on the Myrtle side with no railings on the Myrtle side and
railings on the 5°. Street side where needed while working with Staff to determine porch
Length_ Second by Paul_ Approved 6 — 1. (Rapp, Blankenship, Firth, Flerriott, Paul,
Schrum approved; Wahrertbrock opposed.)
7
Motion by Paul to allow the 7 foot addition on the north side of the house_ Second by
Schrum. Approved 7 - O_ (Rapp, Blankenship, Firth, lierriott, Paul, Schrum approved,
Wahrenbrock)
Motion by Blankenship to approve the new roof line with the cross gable, the box
window centered while retaining. the existing double window at the height it is, with the
alternative option to put in two single windows that are evenly spaced, working with
Staff. Second by Wahrenbrock. Approved 7 - O (Rapp, Blankenship, Firth, Flerriott, Paul,
Schrum, wahrenbrock approved.)
6. Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance to repaint the
facade, replace the awnings and change the business signage at City of C,eorgetown, Block
52, Lot 3 (s/pt), also know» as Razmataz Salon„ located at 805 S_ Main :Street. (CDC-2011-
016)
13erriot recused himself from the meeting.
Wyler presented staff report.
The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) approval to make some
minor exterior changes to her business storefront.
First, the applicant proposes painting the doors, frarang, trim and drainage pipes on
the lower part of the building, as well as the window frames and trim upstairs black.
In short, what is currently a dark green on the building will be changed to black.
The red accent lining on the windows will be changed to gold.
Next„ the awning above the upper story windows will be changed to all black and
the main level awning will be changed to the black and gold pattern shown on the
provided rendering_ The new awnings will be sewn into the existing metal frames_
Lastly, the Razmataz sign will be updated to match the new colors of the building.
The backdrop will be the same gold seen on the gold lining proposed around the
windows and the words "Razmataz Salon" will be changed to black along with the
sgn's border. 'The size, material and location of the sign will remain the same.
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance to repaint
exterior features of the building, replace the current awnings and to update the
business sign, as proposed by the applicant.
Firth asked if the window signs were being changed as well as the building sign.
Wyler stated that the flush mounted wall sign was going to be the only sign to
change.
Firth stated that at some point she would like the applicant to consider changing the
green front doors to the building because all of the doors should match. This would
include the door to the apartment upstairs.
Thad and Grace Bergstrom from Razmataz stated that they attempted to replace the
doors in. the past but were not permitted because they were told the doors are
historic. Blankenship believes the doors are not historic.
Wahrenbrock suggested that the galvanized pipe be painted the color of the
building so that it does not stand out and fades into the building_ Thad Berstrom
stated that he did not think that would be a problem.
Rapp opened public hearing at 8:05 p.m.
No one came forward to speak..
Rapp closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
P./lotion by Sch+-+•+ra to approve the Certificate of DC to repaint the facade and the awning,
replace the awnings and change the business signage, and repaint the galvanized pipe to
match the. building. Second by Wahrertbrock. Approved 6 — O (Rapp, Blankenship, Firth,
Paul, Schrum, Wahrenbrock approved; Herriott recused himself.)
Flernott renamed to the Bias.
7. Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance to demolish an
existing non -historic house and accessory shed in Old Town. at Glasscock Addition,. Block
30, Lots 5 Sr 6(e/pt), located at 410 F_. 7., Street_ (CDC-2011-017)
Firth recused herself from the meeting.
Wyler presented staff report.
The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) approval to demolish
an 884 square foot non -historic house built in 1970 as well asa non -historic metal
shed. The demolition of the house is the first step in a plan to combine two lots (410
E. 7°h Street and 611 S. Elm Street) and to build a single-family Home on the center of
the lot that is appropriate to Old Town.
After having a follow-up meeting with members of the Demolition Subcommittee,
the attached materials were requested and have been provided with this application.
Although 1-1ARC is not approving the design of the future structure, the applicant
has provided renderings of similar style homes that will replace the subject structure
as well as a proposed site layout_ Like any residential project this project will need
to obtain all required permits before demolition and construction can commence
and meet all development regulations of the Urufied Development Code_
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance for the
demolition of the non -historic house and metal shed_
Rapp opened the public hearing at 8:16 p.m.
rgo one came forward to speak_
Rapp closed the public hearing at. 8:17 p.m.
Rapp stated that she thinks the lot looks very rough and the neighborhood would benefit
9
from having another house built. The house is very small and in bad shape_ After the
scheduled site visit, Rapp determined that it was not a significant home.
Rapp and Wahrenbrock agreed that demolishing_. structures near the 50 year mark should be
handled with caution.
Blankenship made a motion to approve demolition_ Rapp 2^d.
Motion by Marticenship to approve the demolition. Second by Rapp_ Approved 6 — O
(liapp, Blankenship, Flerriott Paul, Schrum, Wahrernbrock approved; Firth recused
herself.)
Item number 2:0 followed item number 7, as it shared the same applicant.
8. Public hearing. and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior
changes including maintenance and changes to the display cases at City of Georgetown,
Block 50, Lot 4 (rn/pt) 8z Lot 5 (s/pt), also known as the Palace Theatre, located at 81_0 S.
Austin Avenue. (CIJC-2011-018)
Wyler presented staff report..
The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) approval to make some
minor exterior changes to the theatre as part of an overall maintenance project_
First, the applicant proposes covering a telephone wire running down the front of
the facade with a 1"x1" encasement to be painted the same color as the stucco_
Currerttly, the wires are exposed as shown on a provided. photo and this encasement
would screen the wires from street view.
Next two (2) non -historic wooden display cases, installed sometime after 2001 to the
left and right of the theatre entrance doors, will be replaced with new Sass
Industries Edgeline anodized aluminum satin silver and black display cases
measuring 53.5 inches tall by 33-3/1 6 inches wide by 4 inches deep, slightly larger
than the current ones. The new cases will be installed in the same locations and a
photo has been provided showing the current wooden case and a proposed
aluminum case on the building_
.Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance for the minor
exterior changes, as proposed by the applicant.
Rapp asked why reducing the appearance of exposed electrical wire would be a
HARC issue. Wyler stated that it is because they are adding on a feature.
Firth asked if there is a reason why the applicant is replacing the wood cases with
metal cases_ Applicant Bob Kostka stated that the wooden case is old and falling
apart. It was determined that the metal case would be more appropriate and
attractive.
Rapp asked what the electrical wire was going to be encased in. Kotska stated that it
would be a metal casing and painted to blend into the theatre.
1 0
Motion by Herriott to approve the CDC to add the wire covering and change the display
cases. Second by Blankenship_ Approved 7 - 0 (Rapp; Firth, Blankenship, Flerriott, Paul,
Schrum, Wahrenbrock approved)
12_ Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior
changes and new signage. at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 7 (swipt), to be known as
Square Books, located at 719 S. Main Street. (CDC-2011-019)
Blankenship rec.-used herself.
Wyler presented the staff report.
The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) approval from 1-1ARC
for the restoration of the storefront including replacing the existing blue awning
with a more original wooden canopy and exposing the transom windows. The
applicant also proposes signage for the new business within, Square Books.
The existing weathered blue awning over the sidewalk will be removed and
replaced with at wood canopy painted off-white to match the adjacent wood
canopies along. Main Street. The new canopy will be attached using metal
turnbuckles (tie rods) and painted the same color. Beam board will be used
underneath and a metal roof made of galvanized aluminum will be placed above as
seen on other canopies on the square_ With the removal of the blue awning, original
transom windows will be exposed and bring the building back to its original
appearance, as shown on a provided historic photo of the Dimwit Building_ Special
steps will be taken to preserve the original transom windows and integrity of the
building_ The applicant has worked closely with the Texas- historical Commission
during the planning of this project.
Next, new signage is proposed. Formerly "Hill Country Bookstore", "Square
Books" will be the new tenant. The applicant proposes three types of signs for the
business. First one double -sided hanging sign measuring two (2) feet tall by four (4)
feet wide is proposed. This sign will be installed under the proposed wooden
canopy, perpendicular to Main Street and just to the west of the entrance door at the
corner of the building. It will be hung with a metal bracket typical for Downtown
and will provide a 7.5 foot clearance underneath_ The sign will read "Square Books"
in the business's font, layout and colors as shown on the provided renderings_
"Square" will be in a light green (sample provided) and "Books", along with a thin
border, will be black. The backdrop for the sign will be white.
Secondly, a two-sided A -frame portable sign is proposed_ The sign, made of
Moderate Density Overlay (MDO) wood will be similar to those recently approved
around the Square. It will measure three (3) feet tall by two (2) feet wide and will be
white with a black border with the "Square Books" logo on the top half and a
chalkboard below_
The green and black "Square Books" vinyl logo will also be installed on five Main
ZZ
Street windows_ The green on the vinyl will be slightly darker than the painted
green on the hanging sign_ A color sample has been provided. Each sign will be
centered on the window and will measure sixteen square inches, well below the
maximum allowance of 30% coverage. In addition to the window signs, the right
entrance door will receive the same vinyl logo with the left door window having the
hours of operation centered in white vinyl. Each door sign will measure ten square
inches, approximately 9% of each window.
Per a rendering provided by the Texas Historical Commission, the applicant would
like to add individual iron lettering reading "Square Books" across the top of the
canopy as depicted in some of the provided photos_ Because an agent has yet to be
found who could construct this sign, final details could not be provided with this
application, but the applicant strongly wishes to install something like this in the
near future. The applicant has asked HARC to consider this sign as part of the
application even though final details have not been provided.
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance for the removal
and replacement of the cloth awning with a wood canopy and tie -rods in addition to
the window, A -frame and hanging signs, as proposed by the applicant and strongly
encourages the applicant to consider installing recessed under -canopy lighting, like
proposed at 703 8r 705 S. Main Street.
Additionally, staff considers the proposed iron letters attached to the canopy
appropriate, but would prefer this specific request be taken to the HARC Sign
Subcommittee for approval when final details are known. HARC may also approve
conditions on size, material and location for the canopy lettering and once the
applicant has decided on a final design, give staff the ability to administratively
approve it.
Rapp opened the public hearing at 8:55 p.m.
No one came forward to speak.
Rapp closed the public hearing. at 8S6 p.m.
Rapp addressed the signs. The A -Frame sign falls within the color schemes for the Square
and the size is appropriate.
Motion by Paul to approve the A. -Frame sign with the new colors and chalk board_
Second by Watarenbrock. Approved 6 — O ()Rapp, Firth, Flerriott, Paul, Schrum,
Wahrenbrocic approved)
Rapp addressed the hanging sign. There is only one hanging sign and it is a small sign.
Business owner, Preston Stone, explained that it would be hard to put up an additional
visible sign along the street because there is a large tree that takes up most of the space.
Motion by Firth to approve the CDC for the hanging signs and give the applicant the
option to hang a second sign on 8.. Street if they find its necessary_ Second by Rapp_
Approved 6 — O (Rapp, Firth, Herriott, Paul, Schrum, Wahrerabrock approved)
1_2
Rapp addressed the window and door signage. Rapp likes the look and the repetitiveness
on the glass and thnks it would be a good look for the square.
Firth asks if the applicant will put any additional information on the door such as the hours
of operation or "Open" and "Closed."
Motion by Firth to approve the CDC for the window and door signage as presented.
Second by Harriett. Approved 6 — O (Rapp, Firth, Harriett, Paul, Schrum, Wahrertbrock
approved)
Dee addressed the canopy. Firth stated that she thinks the style is a great improvement from
the blue awning. Dee stated that it is vary beneficial to the Square to have lighting
underneath the canopy. Applicant Sarah Stone stated that they will be putting lighting
under the canopy_
Herriott asked if the lights would be going underneath the awning. Stone stated that it will
look like another business' lighting at The Escape, twodoors down_
Wyler stated that he does not mind the recessed lighting.
Firth asked what is going to be put on top of the wood_ Stone stated it will be galvanized
aluminum. This will prevent leaking.
Motion by Firth to approve the CDC for the awning with the roofing material, whether
corrugated, galva loom or smooth decking and light fixtures., whether recessed or under
the canopy and are subject toarchitect and Staff approval_ Second by Rapp_ Approved 6
— O (Rapp, Firth, Herriott, Paul, Schrum, Wahrenbrock approved)
Blankenship returned to the alas_
12. Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition
of -a non -historic structure and addition of site features at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lot
4, located at 614 S. Main Street. (C1DC-2011-020)
Blankenship and Firth recused themselves from the meeting.
Wyler presentedstaff report_ Constructed in 1968, the subject building is not classified
as an historic structure according to the Historic Resources Survey_ The applicant
proposes to demolish the brick structure and reinstate the Fire wall between 101 W.
7 4' Street and 10S W. 74' Street (west wall of subject building). The border of the
existing building will be retained by installing five 4-foot by 4-foot concrete planters
along the edge of the building as shown on the provided site layout and elevations.
A 42" high. black wrought iron fence will be installed in between the planters that
would allow for pedestrian access to the courtyard 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_ Brick pavers matching the current Main Street sidewalk
will be used for courtyard flooring and carried into the associated alley_ At the
northwest corner of the courtyard, a 5-foot Galbar.urn-trimmed brick wall will be
installed and will screen a portion. of the alley from patrons in the courtyard. The
13
project is currently going to site plan review to ensure full compliance with City
regulations.
Additional details such as signage, lighting, furniture and a possible mural will be
brought back to the Commission at a later time for final approval. Landscaping for
the planters is currently being reviewed and will be approved through the site plan
process_ Wall finishes, such as the existing stone wall on the south side of the
courtyard, will be exposed and cleaned acid any maintenance work required will
match the original as closely as possible. A brick wall is proposed for the west wall
of the courtyard and will match the existing wall, which will be exposed upon
demolition of the subject building.
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance for the
demolition of the non-historic/noncontributing structure at 61_4 S. Main Street and
replacing it with a courtyard, as proposed by the applicant with the consideration
that brick or stone -lined planters be used rather than exposed concrete_
A major design goal is to promote friendly, walkable streets and to encourage
pedestrian activity while contributing to the quality of life. By removing a
noncontributing office building and replacing it with a friendlier courtyard, this goal
is clearly being reached.
Rapp opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m.
No one came forward to speak.
Rapp closed the public hearing at 8:28 p.m.
Rapp asked what is going to happen in the alley.
James Boyd, architect of Grape Creek Courtyard, stated that the alley will stand right where -
it sits. There will be a screen wall that will help cover trash cans in the alley way. The
.screening will come out about 4 - 5 feet, depending on the fire departments regulation. It
will be approximately 4 feet wide by 5'feet tall.
Wahrenbrock asked if the trash cans will be an issue as far as odor is concerned. Boyd stated
that the trash cans are there mc.stly for offices so it probably won't be a problem. Boyd
stated that the only potential issue in the alley way would be the grease traps from Laurie's
Cafe. I-Iowever, as long as. they are sealed up., they are not an issue_
Rapp asked Boyd about the mural and. concrete planters. Boyd stated that the planters can
be stained or painted_ The planters will be large and heavy enough so that no one can pick
them up and move them. The mural is at possibility if the owners of the building or the city
would be interested in creating one. If they are interested in building a mural, Boyd will
revisit with HARC to discuss the possibility.
Wahrernbrock inquired about the air conditioning units that were going to possibly be move
up to the roof to clear up space in the alley way. Boyd stated that there will be a unit on the
roof and the condenser will be gone.
Wahrenbrocl¢ stated that he has an issue with the design of the. rod iron fence. Wahrenbrock
14
suggested a design such as a grapevine to tie into. the name of the business.
Wahrerhbrock asked about the brick in the floor. Boyd stated that it is consistent with the
brick on the sidewalks_
Motion by Rapp to approve the CDC as presented, leaving the option for some of the
details to be worked out with Staff, such as the pavers and fencing_ Second by Herric tt.
Approved S — O (Klapp, Herriott, Paul, Schrum, W ahren crock approved; Firth and
Blankenship recused themselves.)
Firth and Blankenship returned to the dais_
11. Discussion and reminder that there will be a Sign Subcommittee meeting taking place on
August -10, 2011 and that the next regular I3AR.0 meeting and possible Sign Subcommittee
meeting will take place on August 25, 2011.
After the meeting on August 10,h there will be a meeting on design guidelines- at 5 p.m..
12_ Adjournment. Rapp adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p_zn.
Appro ed, Deea hair A st, eeg. Herriott, Secretary
v�
1_5