HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_DTPG_06.24.2019Minutes of Meeting of the
Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee Meeting
City of Georgetown, Texas
June 24, 2019
The Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee met on Wednesday, June 24, 2019 at
12:00 PM in the Community Room at City Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr Street, Georgetown, Texas.
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined
under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon
request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting
date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr Street for additional information;
TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Board Members Present:
Michael Walton, Co -Chair
Linda McCalla, Co -Chair
Mickie Ross
Scott Firth
Larry Olson
Shawn Hood
Chris Damon
Kay Briggs
Others present:
Ruth Roberts
Kay Scharff
Lucas Adams
Legislative Regular Agenda
City Staff Present:
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Eric Johnson, CIP Manager
Amanda Still, Arts & Culture Coordinator
Danella Elliott, Executive Assistant
Kim McAuliffe, Downtown Development Manager
Michael Walton, Chair, called the meeting to order at 12:11 p.m..
A Background on the existing Parking Study — Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
Laurie thanked everyone for agreeing to be on this Steering Committee. She introduced herself and
explained that the members were selected because they all have expressed an interest and have a passion
for our downtown. Each member introduced themselves, and City of Georgetown staff that were
present introduced themselves. Laurie said that they were here to support the committee. She said that
our goal is to get the committee's input on how to get public support so that we can provide
recommendations on the design, but also how to approach the public. We want to give the best and
most representative feedback to the Council. She noted that we do not have a contract for design, just
for feasibility. We had an engineer evaluate the sight and went above and beyond and did conceptual
renderings, but she wanted to clarify that those were just conceptual drawings, and we do not have a
contract at this time. Laurie said that we would be very informal with the agenda.
B Current status report — Eric Johnson, CII' Manager
Background — Parking Study done in 2015 with Carl Walker (now WGI) as the consultant. They came
during different periods throughout the year. He provided an overview of their study in June of 2015.
They held stakeholder interviews, as well as public workshops and an online survey. From the online
survey, 86% of the customers were willing to walk the 1-2 blocks; business owners were less likely to
want to do that. 60% of the business owners would rather park on the street. Eric answered questions
about the boundaries and areas that were included in the survey. He explained that because the study
was done in 2014, with results being delivered in 2015, there were a lot less businesses right off of the
square that are there now. The point of the study was to decide what we needed then, and what we
needed in the future. Laurie explained that Council was hearing a lot of feedback that we needed more
parking or a parking garage, so we hired professionals to come in and assess the situation.
There were some short-term strategy suggestions, such as utilizing the 150 space lot at MLK and 8',
utilizing parking ambassadors in the downtown 3-hour zone area, and to have better communication
with partners, such as the DGA and Williamson County. Other strategies were to reconfigure existing
parking to maximize utilizations and form partnerships with privately held parking lots to allow public
parking after 5:00 p.m. We have now named the parking lots and have better parking and traffic
management for festivals.
It was explained that the parking study did not say that we needed a parking garage immediately, just
that people were unwilling to pay for parking because you could find a place to park, it may just be
further and take a little more time. Also, the future is unclear about long-term parking arrangements
due to ride -share programs, etc. Laurie explained that if you are using it as a revenue source, some of
the tax-exempt bonding isn't available to the City anymore.
Eric also went over some suggested mid-term (pedestrian access/safety on west side of Austin Avenue,
improved sidewalks along 8th Street, improved lighting on sidewalks and parking lots and utilizing
shuttle services during smaller special events) and long-term strategies (partnering with the County to
understand long-term facility plan and structured parking).
Eric went over the presentation to Council given in January 2019. WGI was hired to do a feasibility
study on the property. Eric explained that the parking garage location would be behind the old
Municipal Court/Council building. Based on the conceptual design, the parking garage would have
212 parking spaces, which is a net gain of about 150 parking spaces.
Eric answered some questions on going below grade. He explained that if you do that, you have to
have additional forced air, basically an 14VAC system. This is a very large maintenance item and
electric draw. He also addressed parking spaces that will be utilized during construction for the crane,
etc. After construction, we would be able to put parking spaces back in, it would just be smaller, or
develop it into something else.
Laurie explained that financial obligations drive design and a cost benefit of maximizing space. It was
suggested to maybe use the spaces marked for storage (in the conceptual design) for parking and utilize
storage units at another location to store items for special events, etc.
Eric showed some conceptual drawings. Kay Briggs said that she really liked the looks of the crepe
myrtles on the renderings and the ideas presented. Others liked the examples with art on garage to
soften the look, and the fact that it could be changed out.
C Parameters of downtown development - Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Eric went over some of the information presented to HARC in January. He said that there were some
concerns about a huge 4-story parking garage. Eric explained that it is a 4-level (which is much shorter),
not a 4-story. He showed the plans for the design HARC approved on January 28"' the design plans for
the old Municipal Court building. Laurie reminded the group that they were not being asked to provide
a design. It was suggested to have shadow diagrams of Galaxy Bakery, etc. as we get further down the
road.
D Downtown Design Guideline basics — Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Sofia went over the high points of Downtown Design Guidelines, explaining that they are not a rigid
set of rules, but guidance for development in the downtown, i.e., a framework for how we judge
developments in downtown and Old Town. She clarified that they stick to the guidelines, and explained
the difference between guidelines and requirements. She explained that the TIRZ guidelines are not
codified as in code language in the UDC. They use the guidelines and report if the requests "meet or
do not meet".
She went over the presentation, which outlined design goals for areas and projects to be constructed.
She noted that not every guideline can be met on every structure. Sometimes things are just not practical
or appropriate and they have to look at the intent of the project. Discussion followed on the guideline
suggestion for retail on the bottom. Sofia said she could bring more information on scale and massing
if needed. Sofia noted that height allowed in mixed use downtown is 40 feet.
E Discussion and possible action for design ideas (possibly including art) — Kim McAuliffe,
Downtown Development Manager
Kim McAuliffe showed some examples of various types of art, etc. for the exterior of the parking
garage. She said they are just to create inspiration and get everyone's creative juices flowing. Pictures
are iconic for Georgetown, with inspiration from other cities. The examples were well -received. Some
additional suggestions/comments were:
• look for features that stand out and go with original design
• landscaping to hide the levels
• public art gets people interested
• reflect the character of the community and uniqueness of our city
• banner screens (could be changed; hides and creates visual interest)
• provide interesting views/sights (don't have to stick to one type of medium)
• stone exterior vs. brick seems to fit better with the aesthetics of downtown
• cultural district; fabulous history in Georgetown; cool to have photos / sepias of different
people; perfect opportunity to represent our culture/history
• love to see some aspect of culture/history; tell our story
recommend art to tell the story of Georgetown; make it local
• have display boxes on the first level
• changes occur all the time; architecture is art also; let the building's architecture tell our story
■ tell story of our people written in stone; each bldg. is a reflection of ideas and our culture that
built it.
■ dress up the parking garage; ability to create most significant architectural project; something
we can all culturally be proud of
G Discussion and feedback on holding public meetings — Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
What ideas and feedback do you have immediately for design?
What ideas for public input?
What additional information would you like to see for the next meeting?
• It was suggested to have shadow diagrams of Galaxy Bakery, etc. as we get further down the
road.
• Sofia said she could bring more information on scale and massing if needed.
• Goal is to get clear story and come up with something simplified
• Create an information kit for public input process ( On the Table format, etc)
• Look at feasibility for utilizing 7" street parking area
• Additional ideas for building architectural elements/cultural input and art ideas
■ Explore retail component; very specific; (possibly have Visitor's Center on bottom level with
shirts/brochures, etc.
• Pop-up shop/kiosk/very small footprint business opportunity, etc.
• Explain why retail on bottom wasn't considered (small retail)
• Not open houses but mirror what Sofa did at 14ARC (various times 6:00 and 8:00 - presentation
with public participation and discussion went smoothly and was educational)
r Alternative approach; creating information kit and city staff available across the city; simplify
the story; clearer story with no technical information
The group agreed that future meetings would work best later in the afternoon, around 3:00
or4:00 p.m.
The meeting adjpurned at 1:33 p.m.
7
W tan Linda McCalla
a- -hair Board Co -Chair
_q-2Z 11
Date