Loading...
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