Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report

City Council Date: September 22, 2009

File No: CDC-2009-030

Item Description
Public Hearing to consider an appeal of a decision of the Historic and Architectural Review
Commission regarding the denial of a Certificate of Design Compliance for 501 South
Austin Avenue.

Item Details

Project Name: Tamiro Plaza Master Sign Plan Amendment

Project Address: 501 S. Austin Avenue
Location: East side of Austin Avenue, between 5th and 6th Streets
Legal Description: City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1 through 8

Tenant/Applicant: Merrill Lynch

Property Owner: Tamiro Ventures
Contact: Robert Berryman, Merrill Lynch

Appeal Date: September 9, 2009

Staff Representatives: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner and Elizabeth Cook,
Director of Community Development

Decision Being Appealed

HARC Application:
On November 20, 2008, at the request of the property owner, HARC approved a Master
Sign Plan for the Tamiro Plaza office building. Master Sign Plans are typically requested by
owners of multi-tenant buildings to provide for consistency in signage and to allow staff
approval of signs if they are compliant with the Plan. If approved, a Master Sign Plan is the
controlling document for signs at the subject property, which may be more restrictive than
the Design Guidelines or the UDC. As a reminder, staff does not have the authority to
approve sign permits in Downtown or Old Town unless there is an existing Master Sign
Plan in place that has been approved by HARC. Then, the administrative approval only
allows signs in compliance with the Plan. The approved Master Sign Plan included
conditions for each tenant on signage placement and allowances. For Tamiro Plaza, a sign’s
location, colors, style, fonts, etc. have all been established by the building owner in the
Master Sign Plan. Merrill Lynch, occupying half of the 1st Floor, would be given space on a

Appeal of HARC Decision for 501 S. Austin Ave. Page 1 of 10

Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report

monument sign as well as ten-inch white lettering on the green sign freezes above each of
its business windows. The staff report and application materials for the Master Sign Plan
application, its minutes, and subsequent amendment applications to the Master Sign Plan,
including a new A-frame sign and projecting sign for the 4th-story tenant, have all been
provided for Council as Exhibit D.

Merrill Lynch, the applicant, has stated that the trademarked corporate logo used
worldwide cannot be altered. The existing conditions of the Master Sign Plan prohibit the
company from using the corporate logo and disallow the type of signage proposed.
Therefore, they are asking for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for an amendment
to the Master Sign Plan to allow two (2) illuminated flush-mounted signs that will comply
with corporate regulations.

As noted above, the applicant seeks CDC approval for additional signage to be added to
the exterior of Tamiro Plaza. An LED illuminated wall-mounted sign is proposed directly
above a first floor window on both the Austin Avenue and 5th Street sides of the building as
shown in the application packet. Each sign will measure eleven (11) feet wide by 2.6 feet
tall and will be white with a black outline of the corporate bull logo to the left of the
business name. The plate where the letters and bull logo are will be painted red to blend
into the red brick of the building. The applicant believes this will reduce the visibility of the
sign outside of the letters and bull logo. A diagram detailing how the sign will be attached
and wired to the building has been provided along with details on the location, size and
color of the two signs.

HARC Action:
On August 27, 2009, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) Sign
Subcommittee held a public hearing on a proposed Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC)
for 501 S. Austin Avenue to amend an existing Master Sign Plan to allow for the addition of
two (2) illuminated LED wall-mounted signs at the northwest corner of Tamiro Plaza above
the first floor windows on both the Austin Avenue and 5th Street sides of the building. At
the Sign Subcommittee meeting, action was taken to forward the item to the regular HARC
meeting due to the fact it was an amendment to a Master Sign Plan. This referral is not
uncommon for this type of application. The item was then placed on the regular agenda at
the August 27, 2009 HARC meeting for the full Commission’s consideration. Attached for
the Council’s consideration is the staff report and application materials submitted to HARC
(See Exhibit A).

Staff Position:

Appeal of HARC Decision for 501 S. Austin Ave. Page 2 of 10

Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report

Staff did not provide a specific recommendation for or against approval of the subject
request. Staff’s position is that Master Sign Plans are created to maintain an appropriate
and uniform appearance of signs in developments with multiple businesses, and that when
there is a Master Sign Plan in place for a development, as there is in this case, each
individual sign request must be evaluated in the context of the approved Master Sign Plan,
as well for conformance with the UDC and Design Guidelines. Although requests for use
of corporate logos are not uncommon, the City’s practice has been to work to make any
corporate logos, colors, sizes, etc, conform to the Master Sign Plan. Therefore, staff
informed the Commission that the proposed signs do not directly contravene any specific
Design Guidelines, but the signs may compete with the building and lack appropriateness.
Staff advised that amendments like this should be considered on an individual basis and
both the intent of the applicant as well as the purpose of the Master Sign Plan and Design
Guidelines should all be evaluated when making a decision. Finally, staff also reminded
HARC that they may work with the applicant on a compromise to the type of signage
proposed, should they find there is a better option.

As a side note, the UDC allows staff flexibility to make a recommendation or not.
Depending on the request, staff may make a recommendation of approval, approval with
condition, denial or simply point out factors for HARC’s consideration. In past cases, staff
has not always made a recommendation to approve or deny.

After holding the public hearing and considering the information provided by staff and the
applicant, HARC, with a vote of 5 to 1, denied the CDC application. They based their
decision on the concerns that are detailed later in this report under “Basis for HARC
Decision”. A draft of the HARC’s meeting minutes from August 27, 2009 is included as
Exhibit B.

Applicant’s Appeal:
On September 9, 2009, the applicant’s representative, Robert Berryman, with Merrill Lynch,
filed a timely appeal of HARC’s decision and stated the following as grounds for the
appeal:

1. “There were 3 options offered by staff to the HARC. 1) Accept the proposed
signage as presented. 2) Accept the proposed signage as presented with conditions.
3) Not allow the proposed signage because of non compliance with the design
guidelines. Applicable guidelines were 9.4, 9.5, 9.13, 9.14, 9.15, 9.17, 9.18, 9.20 &
9.21. HARC chose the 3rd option, even though the signage met all 9 of the signage
guidelines. That fact had been stated in the staff presentation to the HARC.

Appeal of HARC Decision for 501 S. Austin Ave. Page 3 of 10

Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report

Therefore, HARC was subjectively creating policy, not enforcing the policy that has
been approved by the city council within the UDC signage guidelines.”
2. “Other Banking entities along Austin Avenue, in similar proximity to the square,
have larger signage and multi-colored signage that is lighted. Merrill Lynch’s
proposal for signage is white in color and is much smaller in size.”
3. “Merrill Lynch’s signage issue came to HARC without Staff recommendation either
for or against, although there was a section on the presentation for “Staff
Recommendation”. The Chairman of HARC, Mr. West Short, noted from the dais
that this was highly unusual for staff not to make a recommendation one way or the
other. He also noted that he had not seen a lack of recommendation as long as he
had been on HARC.”
4. “Merrill Lynch had been advised by staff that the corporate Logo could not be
allowed on the fascia. Even if the Logo were allowed on the green fascia, the New
York Stock Exchange has deemed that the Bull Logo is to be almost 50% larger that
the actual words “Merrill Lynch” on all signage. Therefore, to fit the Logo within
the green fascia, the lettering would be about 3 inches tall – rendering it unreadable
from the street. The entire sign would only be approximately 38 inches long on a
fascia board 11 feet long. The New York Stock Exchange does not allow Merrill
Lynch to have signage without the corporate Logo.”
5. “The city’s current rules for the fascia require that Baskerville Med font be used for
the lettering on the fascia. That requirement deviates from the font in the proposed
Merrill Lynch signage. Merrill Lynch is unable to deviate from the approved font of
its registered trademark. It is considered an issue of consumer protection and is a
registered trademark.”
6. “HARC members did not seem to understand or care about the position in which
they were putting Merrill Lynch. When they were told that there is no option
available to Merrill for a variance on the signage because it is controlled by the New
York Stock Exchange, HARC member Will Moore commented that they may not get
a variance from HARC that night either. In addition, HARC never offered a
compromise to Merrill Lynch. They only voted to retain the current provision,
which effectively left Merrill Lynch without signage option.”

The applicant’s letter of appeal has been included as Exhibit C. The applicant did not
present any new information with the letter of appeal.

Basis for HARC Decision

HARC is charged with reviewing the application, the staff report (which is a summary of

Appeal of HARC Decision for 501 S. Austin Ave. Page 4 of 10

Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report

the request and staff’s analysis of the project), the Design Guidelines, and the Unified
Development Code (UDC). HARC’s basis for denial is articulated in the draft meeting
minutes from August 27, 2009 (Exhibit B), and is summarized below:

1. Concerns were addressed that there would be more tenants in the building coming
forward asking for the same type of amendment and adding their own signage to
the side of the building.
2. Some Commissioners indicated the sign itself was appropriate but it did not comply
with the intent of the Master Sign Plan.
3. Placement of the sign just below the 2nd story windows was of concern.
4. At the meeting, it was determined that the proposed signs will cover and extend
over the existing brick sign freeze between the 1st and 2nd story windows. The
Design Guidelines discourage the masking of architectural details on Downtown
buildings.

Additionally, a HARC member, scheduled to miss the meeting, provided a

recommendation letter for the Commission’s consideration. The following is the language
provided in that letter:

“Item No. 2: The Design Guidelines allow HARC to consider the building front as
part of an overall sign (Chapter 9.1). It also states that ‘a typical strip-commercial
development pattern is inappropriate in the Downtown Overlay District’. The
complexities of the Tamiro Plaza with its multiple tenants make wall-mounted signs
inappropriate. Just imagine the appearance of the Plaza if every tenant placed an
illuminated sign on the building! Care and foresight must be taken when
developing signage for downtown buildings. Those signage plans must be reviewed
with every tenant to ensure complete understanding of what is allowed and what is
restricted. The approved Master Sign Plan and downtown Sign Guidelines must be
respected by every tenant and building owner to maintain the visual integrity of the
historic area.

I would encourage the Commission to deny the CDC for an amendment to the
Master Sign Plan for Tamiro Plaza and the CDC for approval of additional exterior
signage for the Tamiro Plaza.”

Procedures for Appeal of HARC Decision

In accordance with UDC Section 3.13.080, a person aggrieved by a final action on a

Appeal of HARC Decision for 501 S. Austin Ave. Page 5 of 10

Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report

Certificate of Design Compliance may appeal to the City Council. With this being said, the
following are procedures for Council’s consideration to address the Appeal of a HARC
decision based on the UDC’s outline of the process:

1. City Council Packet – The Director of Planning & Development is responsible for
preparing the agenda coversheet and providing the background information
regarding the decision of HARC to the City Council. Such background
information shall include the application submitted by the applicant to HARC;
and Director’s report to HARC; any other documents that were reviewed by
HARC in making its decision; the minutes of the HARC meeting at which the
decision was made; and a copy of the written notice of appeal. In addition, any
written comments received will also be included.

2. Opening of Hearing – The Mayor or presiding officer shall introduce the item as
an appeal from a decision of the HARC, and shall open the hearing on the
appeal.

3. Introduction by Director – After the opening of the hearing, the Director of

Planning & Development shall provide an initial presentation to City Council
regarding the decision being appealed and shall summarize the contents of the
City Council Packet on the item.

4. Statement from Applicant/Appellant – The person or entity that filed the appeal
will then be given an opportunity to present their evidence and arguments in
support of their request to change the decision of HARC.

5. Public Comment – Public comment shall be allowed pursuant to the same

policies and procedures of the City Council applicable to regular agenda items.

6. Questions by Council Members – Council members shall have an opportunity to

question the appealing party, the Director of Planning & Development and other
staff members, and, if present, the Chairperson or other member(s) of HARC.

7. Closing of Hearing – After the foregoing, the hearing will be closed by the
Mayor or other presiding officer.

8. Deliberation and Decision by the City Council – The Council shall deliberate and
take final action on the appeal. Per Section 3.13.080(B) of the UDC, the HARC

Appeal of HARC Decision for 501 S. Austin Ave. Page 6 of 10

Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report

action is presumed to be valid. The person filing the appeal has the duty to
present sufficient evidence and has the burden to justify a reversal of the action
being appealed. Per Section 3.13.080(C) of the UDC, all findings and conclusion
necessary to the appeal decision by the City Council shall be based on reliable
evidence. Competent evidence (evidence admissible in a court of law) will be
preferred whenever reasonably available, but in no case may findings be based
solely on incompetent evidence unless competent evidence is not reasonably
available, the evidence in question appears to be particularly reliable, and the
matter at issue is not seriously disputed. The City Council may reverse, affirm,
in whole or in part, or modify the HARC decision and make the correct order,
requirement, decision or determination, and for that purpose has the same
authority as the HARC. Per the requirements of Section 3.13.080(D) of the UDC,
a concurring vote of a majority of the City Council members present is required
to overturn a HARC decision on a Certificate of Design Compliance.

Review of the Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC)

For the City Council to review the Certificate of Design Compliance it must use the same
criteria as HARC, including the approved Master Sign Plan, Design Guidelines, and the
UDC. Below is background from the staff report to HARC regarding this particular CDC
application and other related sign requests. The Council should reference the City of
Georgetown Design Guidelines noted below, and UDC Section 3.13.030 Criteria for
Approval – General, provided as Exhibit E.

As previously stated, on November 20, 2008, HARC approved a Master Sign Plan for the
Tamiro Plaza office building. This approval included conditions for each tenant on signage
placement and size allowances per the plan. Merrill Lynch, occupying half of the 1st Floor,
was given space on a monument sign as well as ten-inch white lettering on the green sign
freezes above each of its business windows. Since the Master Sign Plan was approved in
November, 2008, two applications for signage at Tamiro Plaza have come in front of HARC
that were not part of the original Master Sign Plan. The first was for the addition of an A-
frame sign for the 4th-story restaurant. Considering there was a need for alerting customers
when the restaurant was open and a lack of on-street signage (according to the applicant),
the HARC Sign Subcommittee felt this sign was appropriate and approved it. The second
was the addition of a projecting sign to the side of the building for the 4th-story restaurant.
The projecting sign was originally part of the Master Sign Plan, but was pulled from the
application during HARC’s review. The 4th-story tenant later returned for the projecting
sign. Considering the restaurant’s reasons for again proposing the projecting sign and the

Appeal of HARC Decision for 501 S. Austin Ave. Page 7 of 10

Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report

fact that it was originally part of the Master Sign Plan application, the Commission worked
with the applicant at the meeting and ultimately approved a projecting sign for the Austin
Avenue side of Tamiro Plaza.

Below are the Design Guidelines presented to HARC that correspond with the Merrill
Lynch application, including staff comments shown in bullets. This information and format
is typical of the information that staff reviews and provides to HARC on CDC’s.

Guideline 9.4 – A flush-mounted wall sign may be considered.

• The building was constructed with sign freezes above each of the windows. The
proposed signs utilize those freezes and respect the borders.
• This method of advertisement is not found anywhere else on the subject building.
However, a few other businesses Downtown do have internally illuminated signs.

Guideline 9.5 – A flush-mounted wall sign shall not exceed one square foot for every one foot of
linear facade width.
• At 28.6 square feet each, both signs remain well below the maximum allowed size
for mounted wall signs on this building.

Guideline 9.13 – A sign should not in any way obscure or compete with architectural details of an
historic building facade.
• Utilizing existing brick sign freezes, the proposed signs do not obscure any
architectural details. Note: During the HARC meeting, the applicant did confirm
that the sign will cover a portion of the sign freeze.
• The illuminated signs somewhat compete with the look of the building and add a
design feature that is not uniform with the rest of the building.

Guideline 9.14 – Signs that are out of character with those seen historically and that would alter the
historic character of the street are inappropriate.
• Although Tamiro Plaza was constructed to complement the historic buildings of
Downtown, it is not considered a historic building itself. The proposed type of
signage is common on office buildings of this type and size outside of historic
downtowns. Across the street, a Neon sign was recently approved for a restaurant
because it was deemed appropriate for the use and location. The City Council
acting as HARC should take into consideration the type and location of the building
as well as the proposed signage.

Appeal of HARC Decision for 501 S. Austin Ave. Page 8 of 10

Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report

Guideline 9.15 – Sign materials should be compatible with that of the building facade.
• Metal, illuminated signs such as this are not common on historic buildings
Downtown but may be appropriate for a building such as this.

Guideline 9.17 – Use colors for the sign that are compatible with those of the building front.
• Only white, red and black are proposed for the sign. This maintains a very basic
color scheme and does not contrast with any other colors found on the office
building.
• The applicant has proposed red for the back panel to better tie the sign in with the
red brick of the building.

Guideline 9.18 – A simple sign design is preferred.

• Complying with the corporate design regulations, the applicant has simplified the
color scheme to just white with a black and white bull logo with a red backdrop to
ensure as little contrast with the building as possible.

Guideline 9.20 – If internal illumination is used, it should be designed to be subordinate to the

overall building composition.
• The applicant has avoided a rectangular sign panel and instead has chosen to utilize
a conforming illuminated letter and logo theme. This is considered appropriate for
Downtown.

Guideline 9.21 – Sign brackets and hardware should be compatibles with the building and installed
in a workman-like manner.
• The applicant has ensured that the sign will be professionally and properly attached
to the building and that very little brick will be affected by the installation of the
signs.

Public Comments
No public comments have been received at this time.

Sample Motions for Consideration

1. Affirm the decision of HARC, denying the CDC.

2. Reverse the decision of HARC, granting the CDC approval for the amendment
to Tamiro Plaza’s Master Sign Plan, granting the addition of two (2) illuminated
signs for Merrill Lynch, as proposed by the applicant.

Appeal of HARC Decision for 501 S. Austin Ave. Page 9 of 10

Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report

3. Modify the decision of HARC, granting some of the items requested in the CDC
application, denying others, or modifying some, based on evidence and
testimony presented to the Council.

Attachments
Exhibit A – August 27, 2009 HARC Staff Report and exhibits
Exhibit B – August 27, 2009 HARC meeting Minutes - draft
Exhibit C – Letter of Appeal
Exhibit D – Master Sign Plan for Tamiro Plaza (including corresponding staff report &
minutes) as well as amendment applications.
Exhibit E – UDC Section 3.13.030, Criteria for Approval – General

Appeal of HARC Decision for 501 S. Austin Ave. Page 10 of 10