Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_PAREB_09.14.2006Minutes of the Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Board City of Georgetown, Texas Thursday, September 14, 2006 The Parks and Recreation Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday , September 14, 2006. Members Present: Barbara Owens, Bob Mathis, Kay Cobb, Kent Buikema, Mark Ramsey, Mike Simpson, Ron Doernbach, William Mateja Members Absent: Mark Shepherd Staff Present: Randy Morrow, Kimberly Garrett, Jill Kellum, John Aldridge Minutes Regular Meeting 1. Ca11 to order The meeting was called to order by Mark Ramsey at 7:02 pm. 2. Roll Call 3. Update on regional transfer station — Jim Briggs John Aldridge stated Jim Briggs could not attend the meeting. Jim Briggs informed John Aldridge that it would be about 6 months before there was any information on this topic. 4. Update on San Gabriel Bridge and Walden realignment for the future - John Aldridge John Aldridge, the Transportation Engineer for the City of Georgetown, was introduced by Mark Ramsey. Aldridge stated there were members and representatives of TXDOT and consultants from TCB present for the meeting. Aldridge stated that they have met with the City of Georgetown staff to come up with concepts for the bridge and TCB was present to show some concepts based on the ideas of the City of Georgetown staff. Aldridge introduced Gerald Pohlmeyer who is a design manager with TXDOT in the Georgetown office. TXDOT is charged with keeping up with on system and off system bridges. TXDOT rates the bridges in the state every 2 years for structural soundness and their sufficiency. The bridge in San Gabriel Park came up one year ago for replacement through FHWA's program for replacing what they consider to be a structural deficient type bridge. The rating on this bridge was low enough that through the statewide program TXDOT obtained funding for this structure. This is a joint project with TXDOT and the City of Georgetown. TXDOT has the project because they administer Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds on a local level. The majority of all off system bridges are normally in the county but some are in the city. Pohlmeyer stated that College Street, in the City of Georgetown's overall transportation plan, is shown as a collector roadway. Pohlmeyer stated that TXDOT intends on building a structure that meets the City's criteria for a collector roadway. He also stated that after the project is complete it is a City structure and something the City needs to be happy with and added that since the structure is in San Gabriel Park that it is different than most structures and they would like ideas from the City's Transportation Department as well as the City's Parks Board. Pohlmeyer introduced Catherine Judd, a registered landscape architect and consultant, with TCB engineers. Judd stated that TCB is a multi disciplinary engineering consultant firm who specialize in environmental and transportation engineering. She stated that they worked together with engineers to come up with a bridge concept that would be feasible to be constructed and also provide two very distinct aesthetic concepts. They collected some system and site condition information. The site condition shows that it is in a park, in a historic community, in a natural setting, over the San Gabriel River, and also has an existing structure with some history. There is an eroding plaque on the existing bridge that has a WPA sign on it, which was a period in American bridge history where a lot of construction was occurring between the years 1935-1937. Judd stated that she researched that era before developing any preliminary sketches to come up with imagery from that time to evoke different design themes. This research produced two separate concepts for the bridge design. She explained that concept A is more traditional and the overriding theme is pedestrian oriented that has overlook or scenic nooks and lighting that would compliment the existing park lighting. Concept B borrows from the existing structure and compliments some of the bridges in Georgetown. She explained that concept B does not have lighting and shows a different approach but could be incorporated at the bridge entry points. She stated that with both bridges that the Garden Club could be used to implement hanging baskets or gardens on the bridge. She also explained that part of the experience in crossing the bridge is approaching the bridge. Since the concepts do allow for pedestrians and bicycles it would not be unusual to create a pocket park or some other enhancement as you approach the bridge. Morrow asked in concept A how many overlooks there were. Judd stated that she was looking at every other column. Morrow asked about the barrier in concept A. Judd stated that is for safety to separate the vehicles and bicycles. Morrow stated that would make concept A wider than concept B. She explained that it could, but the 6ft. sidewalks could be decreased to 5 ft. to comply with ADA. She stated that they wanted to give the City the option of adding a potential turn lane in the future so it is wide enough to accommodate any future restriping. Morrow asked about the absence of a barrier in concept B. Judd explained that it is not required because of the concrete rail. It was explained that the barrier is to keep the vehicles from leaving the bridge and stated that concept B is similar to the highway 29 bridge with the raised sidewalk and concrete rail on the outside. Doernbach asked about the specifics of the bridge and Judd stated these are considered different styles that are conceptual and that no elements are exclusive to either concept. Owens asked if the details in the concepts could be interchanged between the two concepts such as columns, railing, step outs. Judd stated that could all be worked out and that the primary objective is to maintain an area for water to flow through. Pohlmeyer stated that any detail in exhibit A and B can be transferred from one to the other. Doernbach asked if conduit would be used through a bridge like this to run optic fiber or cable or other utilities. Aldridge stated that the Rivery bridge has the conduit in the concrete rail. Judd stated that the lights or the columns could be used for holiday lighting or for banners. The arch is there for aesthetics not for structural purpose. Doernbach asked how they envisioned the 2 bridges working together. Judd stated that the new bridge would allow for pedestrian use and since it will be higher it will provide a view and the existing bridge would be used for pedestrian and bicycles only and may need to be barricaded off. It was also stated that the design of the existing bridge was taken in to consideration with the design concepts of the new bridge so in that aspect they will be working together also. It was stated again that the arch was not structural and was there for aesthetics. Doernbach asked what kind of disruption to the river will be created by the construction of the bridge. Pohlmeyer stated that the water from the river will not be totally diverted, they will use coffer dams and collect the silt. Aldridge stated that on the Rivery Bridge the construction vehicles used mineral oil instead of hydraulic oil in case a hose was to break. Ramsey asked how far apart the bridges are going to be. Pohlmeyer stated it has not been determined, but the bridge will probably be constructed down river. He also stated that they wanted to discuss the design first, and then when they return, they will have a more solid design. Aldridge stated that there are 3 known major utilities in the downstream of the existing bridge. He stated they are close to the existing bridge and downstream so that will determine the bridge placement. Mateja asked if there are time frames under discussion in this meeting. Pohlmeyer stated that would be determined by how long it would take to get a solid recommendation from the City of Georgetown on what everyone will be happy with. He stated that designing takes awhile and then they should be able go to work any time after they get the final plans. Pohlmeyer stated it would be at least a year before it starts. Morrow asked if there was a plan for the bridge to continue straight and go by Southwestern. Aldridge stated that the bridge would come to College and take a right turn and then connect from College to Walden that would some time in the future hit Smith Creek Road over to Southwestern. This plan is very conceptual. Pohlmeyer stated that one plan was to have the bridge on the outer edge of the park and still line up with the existing roads. They talked about how the bridges would be parallel with each other, and if it was skewed then the concepts of the bridge would change because the aesthetics would be different. Morrow stated that he would like to see a bike lane on the road that connects to Southwestern. Aldridge stated that it would be tight in the area and that he would have to get it above the hundred year flood plain. Mateja asked how long a project like this would take. Pohlmeyer stated the construction time would be 6 months to one year. Ramsey asked how much taller this bridge would be than the existing bridge. Pohlmeyer stated they do not know at this point because not all the testing has been done yet. Mateja asked if this was a for sure project. Pohlmeyer stated that it is a for sure project if the City of Georgetown wants it to be. There is money available to fund this project. There will be a public meeting on this project but it is not a requirement for this project. Owens asked from an ecological perspective would it be better for the birds to have an open bottom part of the bridge. Pohlmeyer stated there will be dirt from where the bridge stops and where the water is and there will not be concrete. They had even talked about leaving it open back from the waters edge so if the City of Georgetown decided to put a hike and bike trail further downstream that option would be available to go under the bridge. Ramsey reiterated that this was just a concept and as more information is available keep in mind what they have presented and think what we might want to be changed. Discussion of the columns and arches and catching debris was discussed. Pohlmeyer stated that TXDOT stated that they could go take the information that was discussed and come back with more information and even hold a public meeting. They can return after the public meeting to the Board with an update. 5. Update on the Community Center renovation — Garrett Staff will start taking reservations on Oct. 2nd for March 2007, and public notification has been given. Garrett states that as of their current schedule they are about 3 weeks behind. The project is to be complete in December and the contractor is planning to catch up and make up the 3 weeks. Garrett stated that the roof trusses and deck will be on next Friday. The procedures for booking will be the same as in the past. The facility can be reserved one year to the date and a lottery will be implemented if needed. Buikema asked if there is going to be a grand opening. Garrett stated there will be a grand opening but no date has been set. Morrow stated that there is a $500 per day liquidated damage if they do not finish by December 31, 2006, as the contract states. Staff will start meeting with the contractor weekly to keep them on task. There is a new superintendent and construction manager on this project. Garrett stated the biggest issue is the structure of the existing walls since they are hollow and have no rebar in them. They are trying to structurally stabilize them. Buikema asked about viewing the facility before the next meeting. Garrett stated we could begin the meeting at 6:30 pm on October 19th before the monthly parks board meeting. 6. Update on the Arts and Cultural board with their connection with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and public art displayed in public places — Eric Lashley Eric Lashley is the City of Georgetown's staff liaison for the Arts and Cultural Board. The Arts and Cultural Board is the newest advisory board that the Council created last August. Lashley stated that the board was created because there was a staff committee that was looking at doing public art and Lashley stated he got involved because he wanted to have public art at the library. Lashley stated he approached Paul Brandenburg, the City Manager, and Brandenburg said he wanted two things to happen before the board went to Council and the first thing was that he wanted a commitment from Southwestern and second was he wanted a commitment from GISD that they would participate in the Arts and Cultural Board. Lashley stated they went to Southwestern's Dean of Fine Arts, Paul Gaffney, and went to GISD's head of fine arts, Charles Aguillon and they agreed to be a part of it. The purpose of the Arts and Cultural Board is to provide public art in Georgetown as there is very little public art in Georgetown, to coordinate the different arts groups in Georgetown to be working together, and to find funding for the public art. The chair of the Arts and Cultural Board is Paul Gaffney. One of the board's objectives from the City was to find a funding source. The Arts and Cultural Board proposed a funding source to City Council which was accepted one month ago. The funding source will start fiscal year 2007 — 2008 and it will be that 1/4% of the general fund will go to public art. There will be approximately $70,000 for public art. The other funding mechanism was for future City projects and that 2% of that project would go to public art. The Arts and Cultural Board would create a panel for different public art. There are two priorities for public art to be displayed which are downtown and the park and trails. Then they would like to see public art displayed in City facilities that have a high public traffic. They would like to establish panels of citizens that would make recommendations in their areas for the public art. Lashley stated that the Board presented to Council that they are not only talking about painting and sculptures, but that with City facilities they could implement architectural functional art. Lashley stated that another issue is Garey Park which may not be an issue for 20 years, but there is already a sculpture there and the house could be a gallery. Lashley stated it is natural that the Arts and Cultural Board work with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board because it is a priority for them to get public art in the parks. Lashley stated that this is a quality of life issue and public art can be controversial and that is why they want a lot of community involvement throughout the whole process and that the art chosen is something that reflects the values of Georgetown. Simpson asked how the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board initiate ideas with the Arts and Cultural Board. Lashley stated the Arts and Cultural Board is open to any ideas, but soon their project will be with the new library. Simpson would like to look into working with the Arts and Cultural Board on some ideas associated with the new dog park. He stated that construction items that could be used as agility type of equipment and there are innovative things that can be done as far as the signage for the dog park. Lashley stated they want to increase the art in Georgetown. He stated that Georgetown does not want to be a big city without public art. Lashley stated there is a lot of potential with the parks and the river and working along the Blue Hole area with the new restaurants coming in to the area. Cobb asked about the 2% of the cost of the construction site and asked if it would be limited to that particular construction site. Lashley stated that it would apply to the area that is being constructed. The 2% would not be held if the art could not be used on that project. 7. Approve minutes from August 17th, 2006 meeting Simpson made a motion to approve the minutes. Buikema seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. 8. Future agenda items 9. Adjourn Buikema made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Approved:— Mark'Ramsey, Chair Par 1Ss` apd Recreation Board Kay Cobb, Secre aty Parks & Recreation Board Attest: