Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_09.27.2012City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, September 27, 2012., at 6:00. p.m. City Council and Municipal Court Building 101 E. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 Members: Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Jennifer Brown; Anna Eby; David Paul; Raymond Wehrenbrock; and Tim Urban. Comatissiorter(s) in Training: N/A Staff Present: Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; and Stephanie McNickle, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 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 Qpen Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter S51.) Welcpme 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 'F 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'sapproval of an item on they 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. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Desigrt 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) Historic and Architectural Review Commisslor. Page 1 of 11 September 27, 2012 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 1HLA12C meeting. Second by Wahrenbrock. Approved 5 - 0,-2 abstentions by Brown and Urban. Regular Agenda- 5. Discussion andpossible actionon 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, I_ot 7 (nw/pt), also known as Georgetown Winery, located at 715 S. Main Street. (CDC- 2012-030) The staff report and procedures tofollow 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 thetransom lettering to 1-LARC_ 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. Thepersonfiling 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, I IARC 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 asit relates to this matter. Motion to Deny 64pproued 2-01-13lankenship Er LlrbaxJ) Based on the following Design .Guidelines: Design Guidelines: 9.1 - Consider the building frarrs as wart o„Egn overall sign program ... The sign subcommittee determined the transom Lettering is not proportionate to the building and dominates the appearance. Lettering in transom window.", 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 requirementper glass panel. The sigh could be considered both a window sign and flush -mounted sign. Historlc anal Architectural Review CO1t1i11.i.S910n .September 27, 2012 Page 2 of 11 Thee Subcommittee then recommended the owner utilize the existing canopy signs and not bloc$ the transom windows_ Based on only the above Design Guidelines, HARC shall review and take action on the appeal. Should liARC 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 thesize 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_ Fie does not want to place a sign on the canopy like everyone else. Rapp asked about the size of the letters. Mr. Marelc explained that the "W" letter would take up 389'r, of the window, but that the other letters only talc. up 26 % percent. I -le 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 Gotzmart came forward. He stated he has been making signs for 80 years and would like the .style of the sigmas. 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 artd 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 windows 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 ofthelettering, 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 based on Guidelines 9.4 and 9.5, as thetotal window area, and the letters together as one word and that both. calculations Historic acid Architectural Review Commission September 27, 2012 Page 3 of 11 exceed the maximum size of the allowable signage_ Blankenshipargued 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 coverageof 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 facade changes to an historic structure/site at Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lots 1 Sr 2, to be known as The Union on Eighth, located at 224 E. 80-. 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 facade 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 Sr 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 (Sehr's Moonlit Beach). 3. Windows/Trim: Fix / replace (in -kind) damaged windows / trim_ Trim will be repainted to match the building trim (B ehr's 2Vloorslif Beach). 4. Existing Exterior Doors: WiII be repaired / replaced in -kind if needed. The following changes are also detailed in the applicant's letter of requestand are considered exterior changes_ They do require HARC review and action: T. 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 tl-.e 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/glassfolding door for access to the proposed courtyard. Historie artd Archi tCcivral Review Corrmmissi6ra Scpecxnber 27, 2012 Page of 11 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. New Courtyard Gates: Two rusted metal gates will be installed on the St. Street side of the courtyard wall for emergency/AI?A 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 4.2 —Avoid removing or altering any significant architectural detail. The applicant will keep the existing metal facade intact and. will replace rotted or missing materials in -kind as needed_ Guideline 4.$ — Protect and maintain significant stylistic- elements. The industrial looking metal facade will remain. This style of facade 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. Qnly 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 onoriginal 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 5.2 —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. rt. is stated that no material shall be applied as a coveringto 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 protestant is not applied, the roof will need to be replaced. Guideline 5.8 —Protect wood features from deterioration. Wood features (trim Br 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 tosee 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 art appropriate contrast to the building. Guideline 5./4.— 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 Historic and Architectural Review Comniiasion Page 5 of 11 September 27, 2012 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_22 — Preserve the position, number size and arrangement or -historic windows and doors in a building wall. Enclosing an historic opening in a key character -defining facade is inappropriate, as 1s adding a new opening_ TYte 30' folding door will be installed on a non -character -defining facade_ 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 8*^ Street provides appropriate contrast to the privacy wall while also serving a safety purpose. Guideline 6.25 — Repair wood features by patching, piecing -in,. consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the wood. Salvageable wood materials will be repaired and maintained. Guideline 6.26 — Glass in doors and windows should be retained. Broken or missing glass will be replaced in -kind as needed_ Guideline 7.2 —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 altars 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 facade 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 1' ow 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 appealingand 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 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 20.2 — 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 1-1Al2C and action Historic and Arcl-titectoral Review Commission Page 6 of 11 September 27, 2012 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 receiveddesign 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 tiesthe site in with the remainder of Downtown where a vacant lot currently sits. Chair Rapp invited the applicant, Justin Bollls, 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 HAI2C be postponed until the significant zoning issues can be addressed by City Council_ IC Johnson (Ed Olsert gave his allotted 3 minutes to Mr. Johnson for 6 minutes total), 303 E. 9t• 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 the accordion door looks. tacky. He explained that he was friends with Mr. Conway and Historic anal Architectural TZeview Commission Page 7 of 11 Septerober.27, 2012 has. many fond memories of the building. Tie 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 thiswouldbe 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. Heasked for a delay in action until the zoning issues are resolved. 1-le 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. 12app asked Mr. Bohls if he would like to respond. Mr. Bethls 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. lie apologized for the language on the website_ 1-ie 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 ques-tiorts. Kreger explained that she isnot 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 elastorneric 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. Bahia 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 cif 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 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Pass 8 of 11 September 27, 2012 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. Bol-hls explained that they do not have specific requirements of these doors and because the structure is less than 5000 square feet, no. sprinklers arc needed. He is adding the gates to the courtyard at the request of the fire department. Wahreribrock 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. Sohls responded that where there Is brick, wood would be placed to look like brick, a more modern interpretation of the existing wall_ TI-ie wall willbe 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. Wahreribrockasked about the large tree by the garage- Bohls explained that the tree is question belongs to Chant.Vs. Wahrenbrock asked Bohls if he would consider limestone block instead of the concrete blocks. Bobls 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. 1-Ie suggested using just bricks and/or limestone_. Sohls 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 Sty+ 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 8o, 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 thewindows, a consistent line - His taric and Ar�a.a tectural Review Coo-oolssion. Page 9 of 11 September 27, 2012 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 bereplaced only as a Iast 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 50 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 - O. 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 I-iARC Sign Subcommittee meeting at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and the October 25, 2012 HAl2C/HAI2C 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 hefelt the times had been adjusted. Staff is proposing the regular meeting. of October 25, be pushed back a week to November Y^t. An email will be sent asking everyone tocheck their calendar for availability. Historic and Architectural r2eview Commission Page 10 of 11 September 27, 2012 S. Adjourrtmertt at 8:12 p.m_ 1 App ed, Dee IYa ap, CYtair Attest, David Paul, -Secretary His#arid artd st ra6iiectural Review Commissiort. Page 11 of 11 September 27, 2012