HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_DTPG_02.13.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Downtown P arking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee
of the City of Georgetown
F ebruary 13, 2020 at 3:00 P M
at City Hall Community Room located at 808 Martin L uther K ing Jr Street
Georgetown, T X
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
A Approval of the Downtown P arking G arage S takeholder S teering C ommittee Meeting minutes from the
January 8, 2020 – Danella Elliott, C ommittee Liaison
B Update from F ebruary 11, 2020 C ounc il Workshop – David Morgan, C ity Manager and Laurie Brewer,
Assistant C ity Manager
C R eview of revis ed exterior des igns for the North, East & S outh elevations based on the C ommittee’s
design dis cus s ions at the January 8, 2020 meeting – Eric Johns on, F ac ilities Director and F abio S errato,
W G I R epresentative via Zoom Meeting.
D R eview cost estimates for the des ign option with 3 levels of parking above grade and 1 parking level
below grade as pres ented at the January 8, 2020 meeting - Eric Johnson, F acilities Direc tor and F abio
S errato, W G I R epres entative, via Zoom Meeting.
E R eview cost estimates for the revised Main S t elevation (both 4 level and 3 levels above grade) as
reviewed with the C ommittee at the January 8, 2020 meeting - Eric Johns on, F ac ilities Director and F abio
S errato, W G I R epres entative via Zoom Meeting.
F R eview cost estimates for the revised elevations to be reviewed at the F ebruary 13, 2020 meeting for the
North, East & S outh elevations - Eric Johns on, F ac ilities Director and F abio S errato, W G I
R epresentative via Zoom Meeting.
G Next s teps and public input – Laurie Brewer, As s is tant C ity Manager
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
Page 1 of 31
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 2 of 31
City of Georgetown, Texas
Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee
February 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Approval of the Downtown P arking G arage S takeholder S teering C ommittee Meeting minutes from the
January 8, 2020 – Danella Elliott, C ommittee Liais on
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Danella S . Elliott
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Draft minutes from 1.8.2020 Backup Material
Page 3 of 31
Minutes 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: City Staff Present:
Michael Walton, Co-Chair
Linda McCalla, Co-Chair
Mickie Ross
Scott Firth
Larry Olson
Shawn Hood
Chris Damon
Kay Briggs
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
Board Members Absent:
Others present:
Fabio Serrato, WGI Representative (via phone)
Terry Scanlon, Citizen
Legislative Regular Agenda
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 6th 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 12th 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
Page 4 of 31
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
1st 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 façade 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
Page 5 of 31
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 6th 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 9th and Main vs building WGI’s garage at 7th 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
Page 6 of 31
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 façade 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 9th 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 ½ 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.
Page 7 of 31
The meeting adjourned at 5:09 p.m.
__________________________________
Michael Walton Linda McCalla
Board Co-Chair Board Co-Chair
_____
Date
Page 8 of 31
City of Georgetown, Texas
Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee
February 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Update from F ebruary 11, 2020 C ouncil Works hop – David Morgan, C ity Manager and Laurie Brewer,
As s is tant C ity Manager
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Laurie Brewer, As s is tant C ity Manager and David Morgan, C ity Manager
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
2.11.2020 Council Presentation Pres entation
Page 9 of 31
Downtown Parking Garage
February 11, 2020
Page 10 of 31
Purpose of Workshop
•Provide background for current parking
garage site and downtown parking
–Define the changes driving demand for
additional parking
•Discuss options for council direction on
analysis of other sites
–Engagement from stakeholders
–Identify goals and criteria for decision making
Page 11 of 31
Background on Downtown
Parking
Page 12 of 31
Public Parking Changes since 2015
East Side of Austin
•8 spaces gained on 9th St
by GHC due to bus stop
moving
•(20) Spaces lost due to
Watkins
•(12) Spaces lost due to
City Hall sale
West Side of Austin
•138 Phase 1 Lot at 8th
and MLK (County
partnership)
•67 Phase 2 Lot at 8th and
MLK (County partnership)
•13 Blue Hole Parking
(coming soon)
City of GeorgetownPage 13 of 31
Why 6th and Main
•Sale of City buildings increased intensity of use
in the area
•Additional development in this area will increase
demand for parking
•A smaller garage could be funded within city’s
budget in the shorter term, alleviating parking
pressures to delay the larger and more
expensive garage
•Smaller garage proposed in FY18 for FY19
Budget
City of GeorgetownPage 14 of 31
Downtown Development
Timeline 2017-current
Page 15 of 31
City-owned lot
County-owned lot
Garage Site
Page 16 of 31
Parking Demands
•Availability of public parking in downtown was
the driver for the development code reducing
parking that would be required in other parts of
city
•For 2019 Downtown Development Projects
–691 would be required if not located in
Downtown
–108 added or identified through alternative
plans
City of GeorgetownPage 17 of 31
New businesses
•Watkins (office & restaurant)
•Hitch Hall
•Golden Rule
•600 Market Place
•Heritage Court (office &
restaurant)
•Rock Street Lofts
•Blue Corn Harvest
•Wish Well
•City Post (3 levels)
•Mango Tango
•Barrel and Amps
•Stromberg Hoffman (front)
•Lamppost Coffee
•Lark and Owl Bistro/Bookstore
•Wag Heaven
•309 Coffee
City of GeorgetownPage 18 of 31
MLK
Development in Downtown
Downtown
Overlay
Area 1 district
3 hour parking
Free Public Parking
New construction or
substantial redevelopment
Reuse or planned reuse of
existing building with more
intense use
Page 19 of 31
Area 1
Reuse or planned
reuse of existing
building with
more intense use
New
construction or
substantial
redevelopment
Downtown Development Parking Analysis
parking requirement if use located outside downtown overlay
33
spaces
110
spaces
29
spaces 155 spaces
32 spaces
63 spaces
23
spaces
25
spaces
30 spaces
22
spaces
104 spaces
16
spaces
49
spaces
Page 20 of 31
Area 1
Reuse or planned
reuse of existing
building with
more intense use
New construction or
substantial
redevelopment
Downtown Development Analysis
opportunities for new development
Undeveloped platted
lots
Page 21 of 31
Next Steps -Opportunities
Page 22 of 31
Summary -Verification
•Consensus
–Additional public parking is needed
–Parking structures should be considered
–More public input should be initiated
•Feedback
–Other sites should be studied
City of GeorgetownPage 23 of 31
Expand Scope of Study
•Pause on 6th and Main Lot
•Utilize existing consultant to expand study
•Review other sites
–Based upon updated development and
parking demands
City of GeorgetownPage 24 of 31
Expand Scope of Study
•Establish Criteria for review/evaluation
•Potential criteria
–Fiscally responsible
–Consistent with Downtown Master Plan
•Design criteria
–Location where it serves the highest need
•Accessibility
•Alleviate immediate pressures short/mid-term
City of GeorgetownPage 25 of 31
Next Steps
•Feedback on revised approach from
Council
•Discussion with Design Committee
–Meeting on 2/13/20
•Next Steps
–Return to Council with scope changes and
contract change for consultant
–Proposed public engagement process
City of GeorgetownPage 26 of 31
City of Georgetown, Texas
Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee
February 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
R eview of revised exterior designs for the North, Eas t & S outh elevations bas ed on the C ommittee’s
des ign disc ussions at the January 8, 2020 meeting – Eric Johnson, F acilities Direc tor and F abio S errato,
W G I R epres entative via Zoom Meeting.
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Eric Johns on, F ac ilities Director
Page 27 of 31
City of Georgetown, Texas
Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee
February 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
R eview c os t es timates for the design option with 3 levels of parking above grade and 1 parking level below
grade as presented at the January 8, 2020 meeting - Eric Johns on, F ac ilities Director and F abio S errato,
W G I R epres entative, via Zoom Meeting.
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Eric Johns on, F ac ilities Director
Page 28 of 31
City of Georgetown, Texas
Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee
February 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
R eview c os t es timates for the revis ed Main S t elevation (both 4 level and 3 levels above grade) as reviewed
with the C ommittee at the January 8, 2020 meeting - Eric Johns on, F ac ilities Director and F abio S errato,
W G I R epres entative via Zoom Meeting.
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Eric Johns on, F ac ilities Director
Page 29 of 31
City of Georgetown, Texas
Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee
February 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
R eview c os t es timates for the revis ed elevations to be reviewed at the F ebruary 13, 2020 meeting for the
North, Eas t & S outh elevations - Eric Johnson, F acilities Direc tor and F abio S errato, W G I
R epres entative via Zoom Meeting.
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Eric Johns on, F ac ilities Director
Page 30 of 31
City of Georgetown, Texas
Downtown Parking Garage Stakeholder Steering Committee
February 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Next steps and public input – Laurie Brewer, Assistant C ity Manager
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Laurie Brewer, As s is tant C ity Manager
Page 31 of 31