HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_DTPG_11.15.2019Minutes of Meeting of the
Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee Meeting
City of Georgetown, Texas
November 15, 2019
The Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee met on Friday, November 15, 2019
at 3:00 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
Board Members Absent:
Chris Damon
Kay Briggs
Others present:
Charlotte Kovalchuk, Williamson County Sun
Legislative Regular Agenda
City Staff Present:
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager
Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Eric Johnson, CIP Manager
Danella Elliott, Executive Assistant
Kim McAuliffe, Downtown Development Manager
Jackson Daly, Assistant to the City Manager
Eric Lashley, Library Director
Travis Baird, Real Estate Coordinator
Trish Long, Facilities Superintendent
Keith Hutchinson, Communications Manager
Britin Bostick, Historic Planner
Michael Walton, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m.
1. Overview of the Open Meetings Act and Public Information Act — Robyn Densmore, City
Secretary
Robyn provided an overview of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) and Public Information Act (PIA).
She explained walking quorums (and how easy it is to fall into that situation) and went over the
"things to remember" guidelines handout. She said that all correspondence, discussions, etc. should
be conducted during the scheduled meeting, which is open to the public.
2. Approval of the Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee Meeting
minutes from the September 17, 2019 meeting — Danella Elliott — Committee Liaison
Motion to approve minutes by Larry Olsen; second by Scott Firth. Approved 6-0. Chris Damon
and Kay Briggs absent.
3. Provide an update on the Downtown Parking Garage Survey, Jackson Daly, Assistant to the
City Manager
Jack thanked the committee for their great guidance and efforts in promoting the survey and for
encouraging everyone to participate. We had 1,400 responses and noted that for Georgetown, that
is an outstanding number of responses and engagement from the citizens.
Jack went over the points of the survey:
The survey had picture ofaparking garage andNiief-descriptor
■ We tried to make it more informal
• The positive responses (OK, Cool or Fantastic) were added together to get the net positive
percentage
Fa ade Concept
Net Positive Rating
First -floor retail or displays
78.38
Full Fa ade
69.15
Brick and plass
63.90
Green walls or planters
54.35
Panel Screens
33.36
Art panels or banners
29.73
Mural
26.07
Steel mesh screening with brick accent
25.72
Artistic Lighting
22.03
Traditional Concrete
20.66
Modern
11.37
We asked people to provide feedback on different design elements. The higher the weighted
average, the more positive it is (i.e. landscaping and traditional materials are perceived as being
positive).
Design Elements
Weighted average
Traditional materials stone, brick
3.23
Landscaping
3.21
First -floor retail or displays s
2.73
Green walls or planters
2.34
Public art banners, murals lighting)
2.16
Modern materials (glass, exposed steel,
concrete
1.84
We asked citizens to provide 3-5 words to describe what they would like the parking garage to look
like: the words that emerged more frequently were: traditional, square, historic, fits, blends,
modern (this was mostly accompanied by "not" modern, "don't do" modern, etc.); generally the
other words were self-explanatory as to how the responders felt.
Jack said that we are really trying to focus on communication, and we want to get the results out
and share with the public. He said that we are very fortunate that we got good feedback from the
public. The risk with surveys is that you sometimes receive muddled feedback, but he feels that
we got back relatively clear direction from the community.
Scott Firth asked about the word "fit" and said that it appeared 6 times in the Wordle. Jack said he
can get the words, verbatim comments and raw data together and provide this information to the
committee.
He also asked if we had any knowledge of the respondents. Jack said they did collect a few e-mail
addresses, but purposely tried to make it informal and easy to understand to encourage more people
to complete it. They felt that having demographic area questions, etc. might make the respondents
uncomfortable and balk about completing it. It was regulated so that the survey could only be
completed one time per person.
There was further discussion about the percentages, and some felt that we didn't do too well with
78% as the highest in any category. Shawn said that we could have made the survey to come out
to where we got and A+, but we would basically be getting answers to the questions we asked. We
wanted to ask very broad questions and gets as much feedback as possible, and we now have a lot
of feedback and data to filter through and gather pertinent information about what our community
wants or does not want. We have a lot of data to build on in a very positive way.
Larry said there was a definite break between the top four concepts and the others. Jack will provide
more information on:
• How many asked for additional information by providing their e-mail addresses
• Response rate on other surveys
• Provide an electronic copy
The committee feels there is a growing level of interest in design, as well as location. Mickie said
that they also passed out information to visitors that do not live here, because they will use it most
likely more than the local community.
Laurie said that this committee should be commended for getting the cards out and really pushing
people to do the survey, therefore we received more responses than we ever have. She really
appreciates the efforts.
Scott thanked whomever created the cards. They were great to have as he walked around, but noted
that about 90% were unaware that we were even building the parking garage. Some were happy
and some became involved in very heated discussions. Shawn said the cards were invaluable and
allowed him to engage with others and he was able to offer answers and explanations if they asked
questions.
4. Provide an update on the design construction contract and project timeline — Eric Johnson,
CIP Manager
The design contract went to Council on Tuesday and it was almost unanimously approved. Eric
has the signed contracts in his office. Larry asked why is there no schematic design in the contract,
and Eric said that the item in the agenda packet was the proposal, not the contract. Included in the
contract is 4 stakeholder meetings: 2 with the committee and 2 with the public, but these meetings
can be set up however the committee wishes.
Larry asked what happens if HARC votes the design down and asked if then City Council would
need to vote to appeal to themselves. Laurie said that we hope that we wouldn't get to that. The
task of the architect is to present a design to HARC that is in compliance and if there is a
disagreement, we will seek advice from Council.
Timeline:
Design 24 weeks
HARC 18 weeks
Bidding and Award 10 weeks
Construction 1 year
Laurie said we could have as much design discussion as the committee wants, i.e., phone calls,
meetings (in person or on the telephone) etc. She wants everyone to feel comfortable, and is hoping
to get conceptual review to HARC by February or March.
Larry asked about the lease agreement on the surface parking lot and Laurie clarified that it was a
20 year lease with the County.
Michael asked if there was time for them to do some type of additional public outreach between
now and the design phase. The survey results will go to the architect so they can be used for
conceptual drawings and review. Eric explained that the design contract scope includes schematic
design, design development, construction documents, bidding and negotiation and construction
phase services. He hopes to have that done Spring/Summer. In that time, during that process, it
would go to HARC for approval. Laurie said that after meeting with the architects, we can put
together a more detailed review/schedule.
Scott asked if the retail/display information from the survey has been given to the architect for
options. Shawn said that he made multiple trips around square talking to people. He received
specific feedback from patrons on the square, and they seem less interested in retail and much more
interested in display. It is a hardship for businesses on the square and heard suggestions of using
displays to drive customers back to the businesses on the square by making it very appealing,
possibly utilizing a rotation system (monthly) between businesses. He was amazed at the interest
in the display idea, noting that it was of most importance for the displays to be transparent and not
lose the safety aspect of the garage.
5. Public outreach and input — next steps - Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
Laurie said that we haven't set firm deadlines. At our next meeting December, we will meet with
the architects, gather feedback and possibly have a few options. We need to make sure we are
communicating the right materials to the architects.
Scott said that he was disappointed that we couldn't include the mass and scale discussion in the
survey. We did agree in August that we wanted that included in the public outreach but we haven't
gotten public feedback on the mass and scale and that is an important aspect, going to HARC.
Michael said that we do need input on the mass and scale, but has no idea how you would ask that,
noting that a random citizen would not know what that means. We need to make it more abstract,
such as height and property lines possibly.
Suggestions were for the architects to do conceptual drawings that showed eye level perspectives,
not bird level, to get the sense of how it will look. The committee would like conceptual drawings
(for a focal point) from the Courthouse looking diagonally, from 7th and Main Street and from
Church Street.
Shawn said that the mandate from Council for the number of parking spaces really gives the
architects the direction that they need to go.
The committee discussed the next meeting, which would include the architects. December 12, 16,
17 or 18 seemed to be the best days.
We will poll the committee and set the next meeting date.
The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
I212-)C(
Date
� II�
Linda McCalla
Board Co -Chair