Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_DTPG_01.08.2020Minutes of Meeting of the Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee Meeting City of Georgetown, Texas January 8, 2020 The Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee met on Wednesday, January 8, 2020, 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 Chris Damon Kay Briggs Board Members Absent: Others present: Fabio Serrato, WGI Representative (via phone) Terry Scanlon, Citizen Legislative Regular Agenda City Staff Present: Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Eric Johnson, CIP Manager Danella Elliott, Executive Assistant Jackson Daly, Assistant to the City Manager Eric Lashley, Library Director Travis Baird, Real Estate Coordinator Trish Long, Facilities Manager Cari Miller, Tourism/CVB Manager Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director Mayra Cantu, Management Analyst Michaela Dollar, Economic Development Director Britin Bostick, Historic Planner Michael Walton, Co -Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m. 1. Approval of the Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee Meeting minutes from the December 12, 2019 meeting — Danella Elliott — Committee Liaison Motion to approve minutes by Larry Olsen; second by Mickie Ross. Approved 8-0. 2. Review of project costs and selection process for the project site at 61' and Main Streets (Larry Olson and Scott Firth, Downtown Parking Garage Steering Committee Members) — Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Jackson Daly, Community Services Director 3. Provide update on discussion update on discussion with WGI representatives at the December 121' meeting — Eric Johnson, Facilities Director Eric announced that Fabio Serrato, WGI Representative, would conduct part of the meeting via Zoom. Fabio explained that based on the committee's feedback in January, he would be showing concept drawings as Options 7 and 8. The updated version, noted as Option 7, aligned the openings of the ground level with the openings in the levels above; used different colors of brick and included ornamental patterns to create an offsetting facade. This is a 4-level structure, all above grade (size is 43' 9"). Option 8 includes one level below grade (size is 32' 5") with ornamental metal that can be produced in any image. The panels are perforated metal so the window openings are actually open to allow for ventilation without the need for forced air units. He explained that in the southwest corner, there would be an elevator and stairs, and on the northwest corner, it would be stairs only. Chris asked why the awnings were not above the entrance opening. Fabio explained that there will be wayfinding signs, etc. but they could certainly put the awnings there as well. There were questions on the use of actual brick vs. thin brick overlay panels. Fabio said that the thin brick panels were more cost effective and not labor intensive. Larry asked for locations where this application has been used. His has concerns about using this type vs. real brick. This significantly changes what developers in the future will be able to use. Fabio will provide this information and we will send it out to the committee members. Discussion included: use of sensors for counting (both entrance and exit) and down); making handicap spaces a high level priority and suggested providing more handicap spaces than the minimum requirement; ensuring the panels were easy to see through, stressing that safety and security were of utmost importance; research the possibility of reducing the slope of the garage; and discussion on the estimated cost increase from the beginning estimates until now. Discussion also included (and clarified) the display areas on the Is' level. The committee said that small display areas (6 — 12") that could be accessed from the front is what they had envisioned, not large sections that would take out parking spaces. They discussed utilizing the space between the three columns in the middle, and leaving the other two outside columns open so that visibility and safety wouldn't be compromised. Fabio also talked about an option to add a jump ramp, which would reduce the slope to 5.4%. Currently the proposed slope is 6.21%, and the maximum allowed for parking is 6.67%. The jump ramp would require structural framing and may need to provide columns to create the transition but there is a cost associated with it. Shawn asked if there is a noticeable difference and Fabio replied that both are acceptable, but this would be a better level of service. Michael asked Fabio and Eric to research this option and provide information at our next meeting. Michael thanked Fabio for listening to the committee members at the last meeting. He feels this is good progression and said that based on the suggestions and recommendations, Options 7 and 8 incorporates all of the feedback. Each member gave their opinions on the concept designs, and Chris told Fabio that they were not all in agreement that Option 8 is the only one; some members like Option 7 as well. Fabio said they will update the renderings and then can provide updated cost estimates. 4. Discussion and direction on next steps for public input — Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Eric discussed the estimate of probable cost handout from January of 2019. He also passed out information on cost escalation, which is about 4-5% per year. Larry said that he has done some research, and concrete has escalated 20%, or about 10-11% per year since 2016. He thinks 4% is too low based on his research. Eric talked about schematic design vs. proof of concept and also provided information on utilities, Suddenlink, fiber, etc. and the cost increase if we the committee decides that they would like to propose an option of going below grade and brick facade on all 4 sides, as neither were in the original concept. Laurie gave a presentation on the background on downtown parking, which included the Downtown Master Plan parking considerations, parking study recap, site review information, new and in -process business developments in the downtown area, background on previous Council presentations and direction, city -owned parking lots, encroachment, challenges based on previous direction and conceptual design and questions from previous meetings. She also talked about the schedule (timeline) and short, mid, and long-term strategy recommendations from the Parking Study. Laurie also provided information on the site review (September 2015) which included: • Site 1 — North Lot at Austin Ave. & 5th Street • Site 2 — Bank of America Lot at Rock Street & 7th Street ■ Site 3 — Central Lot at Main Street & 7th Street • Site 4 — Library Lot at Rock Street & 9th Street • Site 5 — South Lot at Main Street & 9th Street Laurie also noted that in 2011, the county -owned site at 6" and Rock was evaluated for partnership, but the county was not ready to partner at that time. She also went over previous Council presentations and direction. The 2015 Parking Study highlighted lack of surface parking east of Austin Avenue and the lot by Grace Heritage which is now developed into office/retail. Larry said that his (and others) frustration was that there was no public or verbal discussion on the location aspect of the parking garage. Laurie's presentation included the dates when it was discussed: • June 26, 2018 Facilities and CIP Plan presented to Council • FY 2018 Budget Process Aug 7 proposed budget Aug 14 public hearing Aug 21 public hearing • Jan. 22, 2019 —Project Update • April 9, 2019 - Public Engagement Process for the Garage During the negotiations of the sale of the old Council Chambers, moving the property line was a component of the negotiations. The garage site was there at that point, and already budgeted at that time and Council approved to move the property line and how it affected the garage was discussed at that time. Laurie explained that these were steps along the way to get us to where we are today. Larry explained that it seems that this would have been brought up as a separate item for public discussion instead of having it included within the budget workbook. Scott said that he still would like to get public feedback and let our citizens weigh in on the design, height, etc. to see if they actually want a garage with all the ramps and slope that is hard to walk up. He said that when receiving public input, we could include the approximate number of spaces that could be created in this footprint, and ask the public if they want the parking garage here or do they want it somewhere else, or will they even use it because of the ramps. Mickie and Chris agreed that they do not see how the public can have enough information to make a measured response. Chris, Mickie and Shawn feel that if we go back to the public and ask them if this is an acceptable location, then this committee has been spinning its wheels when they had a mandate to get something done and Chris said that if this were the case, all of the meetings this committee has participated in has been a waste of time. Chris suggested that they go down on the square and tally the approximate ages of those who use the square and reminded everyone that Sun City is not our only demographic. Scott said all he wants is public feedback. Michael asked how he thought we could get a valid response. Scott said that the choices could be: borrow the Sheraton's plans and build a garage like that at 9' and Main vs building WGI's garage at 7" and Main, and ask the public which they would rather have. Michael said that we need to know what the main goal of asking for public input was ... if the goal is to kill the garage, then everybody that supports this garage will be angry; if goal is to choose a different location, then we will have to wait until we can afford to do it. Scott said that he doesn't even like the structure of the garage and he is not convinced that the older population or people with big pick up trucks with hitches will even use it. Kay said that parking doesn't just affect customers, but affects the businesses as well. The parking ambassadors made such a big difference to help with the parking issues, and a garage would alleviate the issues even more. Mickie talked about how the increased visitation will just continue to increase, and not necessarily by the locals, but by out of town visitors, and if they can't find a parking place, then they will stop coming. She said we need to look at the big picture. Larry reiterated that this location was never discussed in public, and this is the frustration that he hears and agrees with. He was at the meetings, but never heard it actually discussed. It was buried on page 306 of the workbook. Shawn said there is a deficit of parking on the square. He said that this is just a stepping stone and will not be the last time that the need for parking will come up because the need for additional parking garages will happen in the future. Chris said that he doesn't share the mass and scale opinion and feels that we desperately need this garage and have needed it for years. Mickie noted that the cost factor does matter, as we only have a set amount of money, as directed by Council. Larry thinks Option 8 is the only way to move forward and said that we need to look at the north, east and south elevations and be sensitive to that because it will either blend nicely or really stick out. Add in all, we need to review the fagade choices and see all of the costs. Shawn thinks the Option 8 is the best solution going forward as well and asked for help to pursue that. Chris doesn't share the concern about mass and scale issue, but he just wants to get this done and is willing to compromise. Linda said that she feels that the parking lot at 9" and Main deserves better than a parking garage, such as a building with parking and residential, and we are a long way from it. The goal was never to make downtown a museum, but to ensure that it had a lively commercial economic future and said that we owe the City of Georgetown to its success. In 1982, the City believed in it and has continued to build on that through the years and the City of Georgetown has everything to do with why our downtown is so successful. They believed in the Main Street concept, funded the position and has continued to do so by investing in our downtown. They have made great economic decisions to ensure people continue to come downtown. She said that we need to find a way to compromise, and Option 8 relieved her. It did away with mass and scale issue. Larry said that he would recommend that we incorporate Option 8 with the lesser slope, and use dollars instead of percentages in the material for the next meeting. Michael recapped and asked for information on the site analysis that was done after the 2015 Parking Study to be distributed to the committee, and at the next meeting they would like to see 1) updated drawings that include 4 facades, 2) updated cost ranges on grade or below grade, and 3) discussion on public input. Danella will send out options for setting the next meeting. Terry Scanlon, Georgetown citizen, spoke and said that he has lived here 4 'h years, and does not want Georgetown to look like Cedar Park. He said we need to do everything we can to not put the parking garage in downtown Georgetown but develop it where it is sensible. The proposed location should be used only as a last resort. The meeting adjourned at 5:09 p.m. i Michael a[ on Linda McCalla Board - 3air Board Co -Chair Z_ 13 - 202o Date