Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_03.14.2012 SpecialCity of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Georgetown Municipal Complex, New Planning Conference Room 300-1 Industrial Ave, Georgetown, Texas 78626 Members present: Susan Firth, Chair; and Sarah Blankenship Members absent: Dee Rapp Staff present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary 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 ort 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 - O. 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 sigrtage at City of Georgetown, Block aa, Lot 1 (w/pt), to be knovāœ“rt as. Burger University, located at 119 W. 7r1, 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 ort the Square. More specifically, there are fivestyles 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 Gverlay (MDG) 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. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee. Paga 1 of B Minutes March 14, 2012 A black metal rod with base will be used to attach each sign to .the building. Next, frosted. vinyl window sigrtage 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 tl-ie 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 anexisting 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 1-IA12C'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 facade is 30 feet. Staff recommends the following action be taken for the following items: 1) 7"^ 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 HAl2C. 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: Similar to the 7th Street projecting sign recommendation, reduce the colors of the burger image on each sign to ensure compliance with Design Guidelines 9.14 Sz 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 facade, 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. Thesign shall not exceed 115 square feet to ensure compliance with size limitations. 4) Austin Avenue Projecting Sign: Approval as proposed. 5) North -Facing Plush -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 facade 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 2na Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sion Subcommittee Minutes March 14. 2012 Page 2 of 6 story windows and horizontally centered between the closest window and western most water spout to ensure compliance with Design Guidelines 9.1 8s 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. 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. 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 t nicolot- burger design,. similar to that seen on the glass signs, could beincorporated 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 signstie in with each other and complement rather than distract from the building's architectural features. The applicant, Alan Grirrtsley spoke for his application. He stated he likes the vibrant colors of the burger and wishes to keep that on his 7t. Street projecting signs. And he was okay with the suggestionsmadeof 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 wasopen 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 thethird window on 7t. Street did not include signage and Mr_ Grimsley explained that he -wanted that open far 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 CI?C for signage of the windows on 7th Street and the. front door signage, as presented, including the updated hours of operation and to include the website. Second by Blankenship_ Approved 2 - O_ 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. Historic and Arcttitectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Minutes March 14, 2012 Pages 3 of 6 Second by Blankenship. Approved 2 - O. The discussion of the. 7." Street projecting signs was opened. Firth explained that she liked the idea of the tie rods and the concept of the university stylebanners, 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. Slarikenship 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 7t* Street projecting signs as presented based on Guideline 9.1.7 - Lise calors for the sign that are campatibZe with those of the bieildirtg front. Motion failed for lack of second. Raymond Wahreribrock, 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." 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 thefront 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 CriC for signage with the following changes: change the Austin Avenue flush mounted signs to an additional projecting sign on the southwest comer of the building that would match the pennants on 7." Street, using the existing tie rod; add a pennant banner on the north and northwest comers, 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. A11 approvals will be contingent upon the final hamburger design approval. Second by Blankenship_ Approved 2 - O. 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 Historic ane Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Minutes March 14, 2012 Page 4 of 6 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 stoves 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 - O. 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. Grirnley explained that 1-te 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. Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliancefor new signage at City of Georgetown, Block:38, Lot 4, also known ets the Georgetown Visitor Center, located at 103 W. 7,h 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 (MDCI) wood, the sign will measure 17.23 inches tall by 120 inches long,., or 14.3 square feet. Detailed below and within the applicants 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 facade 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. Carl 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 4:06and closed it with no public asking to speak. Blankenship- had no further comments. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Rage 5 of B Minutes March 14, 2012 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. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Minuta% March 14. 2012 Page 6 of 6