HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_DTPG_03.05.2020 Minutes of Meeting of the
Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee Meeting
City of Georgetown, Texas
March 5, 2020
The Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee met on Thursday, March 5, 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: City Staff Present:
Michael Walton, Co-Chair
Linda McCalla, Co-Chair
Scott Firth
Larry Olson
Shawn Hood
Chris Damon
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
Travis Baird, Real Estate Coordinator
Eric Johnson, Facilities Director
Danella Elliott, Executive Assistant
Kim McAuliffe, Downtown Development Manager
Travis Baird, Real Estate Coordinator
Trish Long, Facilities Manager
Mayra Cantu, Management Analyst
Aly Van Dyke, Comm/Public Engagement Director
Britin Bostick, Historic Planner
Bridget Weber, Assistant to the City Manager
Board Members Absent:
Mickie Ross (sick)
Kay Briggs resigned from committee on 1/16/2020
Others present:
Larry Brundidge
Annah Russell
Legislative Regular Agenda
Michael Walton, Co-Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
A. Approval of the Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee Meeting
minutes from the February 13, 2020 meeting – Danella Elliott – Committee Liaison
Larry said that his name was spelled incorrectly on the first page of the minutes. Change noted and
correction will be made in official minutes. (Change Olsen to Olson)
Motion to approve the corrected minutes by Shawn Hood; second by Larry Olson. Approved 7-0.
B. Presentation of updated parking garage preliminary rendering, based on recommendations
from the February 13th meeting – Eric Johnson, Facilities Director
C. Presentation of the updated design concepts for the parking garage – Michael Walton and
Linda McCalla – Co-Chairs of the Parking Garage Stakeholder Committee
Combination of Items B and C: Discussion on the renderings:
Larry suggested that the Stakeholder Engagement Plan slide include the addition of Steve Fought’s
newsletter that went to 6,000 people. Noted, and will be added.
Michael asked for clarification on the presentations: There are 2 presentations: one from the
committee and one from city staff. The staff presentation gets more into the stakeholder
engagement and draft scope for the consultant but is not included in the committee’s presentation.
We need to get feedback from Council and make sure we are meeting/have met their expectations.
The committee discussed what was to be included in the presentation and how Michael and Linda
would present it to Council. Everyone definitely agreed that we should include the timeline slide
showing a comparison on how far the design has come (including all façades), as well as the original
renderings.
Eric clarified that with both Concepts #7 and #8, there will need to be digging because of some bad
soil.
Committee voting: Support of Design:
Vote Concept #7 Concept #8 Either
YES 4 6 4
NO 3 1 3
Committee comments on voting:
Committee
Member
Concept #7:
4 levels above
ground
Concept #8:
3 levels above
ground; 1 level
below ground
Comments
Chris Yes Yes Votes “yes” for both but feels we would
better served with #7. He said Georgetown
will grow and this is our opportunity to begin
the transition; it is sensible to go up and cross
that bridge now. He noted that it costs less
and is not unattractive.
Linda Noted that Tamiro Plaza was the first to ask
HARC for a variance in height.
Shawn Yes Yes
Proponent for #7 due to practicality of space
usage. His holdback is that he would prefer
it to be 40’ (without an executive exception)
rather than 43’9”. He feels that we have an
obligation when working within the UDC
that we follow the same rules as others. He
prefers Concept #7 and said if this could be
built at 40’, he thinks we should do it. He
also could be a proponent for #8, but he
believes we will open Pandora’s Box when
we begin digging.
Larry No Yes Larry supports #8. He said it fits height-wise
along with the addition to Council Chambers
and across the street with Wish Well and it is
within the 40’ limit. He did clarify that he
feels it should be #8A with something
besides a concrete block wall on the south
elevation….it is too massive and would stick
out significantly.
Scott No No Asked for clarification: Has HARC has ever
approved split-faced concrete walls in
downtown? He feels that we may have an
issue with HARC on the 7A and 7B versions,
and he would not support either with the
concrete walls. Regardless, he has been clear
the entire time that he feels the internal
structure design has significant issues and
would not vote in favor of the garage with
this internal structure design on any of the
concept variations. His vote is not unique to
this location.
Michael Yes Yes Agrees with Larry. We will not present
renderings, but will present costs for A and
B. Given the current state of this project, he
supports both concepts and noted that the
mission of the committee was to work on the
aesthetics (exterior design) and based on
citizen feedback and the survey, he feels that
we have over-achieved what the committee
was originally asked to do by Council. We
were not asked to judge costs or layout on the
inside, and based on working within the
scope of what was asked, he would be fine
with either concept. If there weren’t other
things to factor in, he would vote for #7, as
he doesn’t have an issue with height. But
factoring in costs, he prefers the cheaper
option, but factoring in design…he
understands.
**Scott disagreed with Michael on the
boundaries put on committee’s role. He
watched the meeting where Council formed
the committee, and they did not say anything
about façade, but the design of the garage.
His perspective on design is the entire design
(including the structure) and he just wanted
to say there is a difference in the
interpretation of what Council asked for
when the committee was formed.
Chris asked how the committee could best serve Council. If costs weren’t a factor, then the “pie in
the sky” would be the best case scenario, but if it isn’t in our purview, then ultimately it will be up
to Council to factor in everything, including costs, when they make their final decision.
Scott said possibly the best way was to offer options that have gone through due diligence of the
committee that can be revisited by Council once the location of the project is finalized.
Larry said we are very close to finalizing the conceptual design we have it narrowed down to 2
versions. In reference to concrete block wall, he questions if it would even pass HARC review.
The committee discussed what and how to present this information to Council during the workshop
next week. Laurie said that the Communications Plan for the next phase should also be included.
Citizen comment: Larry Brundidge thanked everyone for their efforts and said that it has been
monumental. He commented that if 40’ft is the height and we should recognize that and live with.
If people don’t like that, then the UDC needs to be changed.
The committee said that they appreciated the entire city staff team throughout this adventure. Scott
expressed his sincere appreciation to Laurie for her willingness to answer any questions or requests
that the committee had, and everyone agreed. Laurie said that this was definitely a team effort,
and everyone (staff, Council and the Committee) had the same goal of trying to accommodate and
come up with the best solution for the parking garage. She thanked everyone for serving on this
committee, and noted that it has been a monumental task.
Michael echoed Scott’s comments, noting that it had been a long haul, but there has been great
discussion and engagement and he appreciated everyone’s comments, passion and hard work.
Chris said that when we get this parking structure built, it will be the most handsome parking
structure!
The meeting adjourned at 3:42 p.m.
__________________________________
Michael Walton Linda McCalla
Board Co-Chair Board Co-Chair
_____
Date