Minutes Downtown Plan 8 25 03 MINUTES
DOWNTOWN PLANNING COMMITTEE
Long Range Planning Advisory Commission
Monday, August 25, 2003
8:00
Conference Room 2. City Hall Annex
1300 Main Street, Dubuque, Iowa
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Chairperson Dave Rusk: Committee Members Jim Giesen, Doris
Hingtgen, Dan LoBianco, Ann Michalski. John Walsh and Mike Ironside;
Staff Members Laura Carstens. Beth Conlon. David Harris and Jerelyn
O'Connor. Also present were: Jim Holz of MSA. and Anne Ricker of
Leland Consulting Group and Bob Kost of SEH wa conference call.
Committee Members Pam Jochum. Bob Felderman. Jim Gibbs. Judie
Fjellman and Steward Sandstrom; Staff Members Rich Russell and Bill
Baum.
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Rusk at 8:13 a.m.
without a quorum.
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE: Staff presented an Affidavit of Compliance verifying the
meeting was being held in compliance with the Iowa Open Meetings Law
MINUTES: The minutes of the August 18, 2003 meeting were approved as submitted by
consensus: however, a motion was not made and seconded to approve the minutes due to
lack of a quorum.
ACTION ITEM: Review Draft Report (Sections 4-7)
The Committee discussed the need for a warehouse district plan before connecting with
Anne Ricker of Leland Consulting and Bob Kost of S.E.H. via conference call. At 8:20
a.m. a quorum was reached and the Committee contacted Anne Ricker and Bob Kost via
conference call to discuss Sections 4-7 of the draft report. Chairperson Rusk commented
that the appendices looked good. There was a discussion of the level of detail that Ms.
Ricker and Mr. Kost would use in the Downtown Master Plan. The Committee reiterated to
Ms. Ricker that the level of detail would vary from section to section.
The Committee and consultants discussed Section 4 Historical Features. Changes in
Section 4 were:
Paqe 37: Change the word "any~' to "many" in the 3~ line.
Pa,qe 38:
> The text next to the text box needs to be revised to full sentences.
> Embellish internal redevelopment specialist position text and include:
a) A need for the position to pay for itself.
Minutes- Downtown Planning Committee
August25.2003
Page 2
c~ Out source possibilities.
d~ Streamline approval policies.
e) Text that fleshes out the argument for the internal redevelopment position
with action bullets
The Committee discussed putting the info in a PowerPoint presentation with hard
cop~es for City Council. The consensus of the Committee was to further discuss this
suggestion at a later meeting.
Additional changes to Section 4 and the overall plan were:
39:
Replace the photo with one from the study area, such as Bricktown, etc.
Include text that discusses the possibility of a state lobbyist for historic tax
credits, a City Council legislative list. and identify a contact in Des Moines. with
specific ideas, in the action matrix.
Advocate responsible use of TIF in the Dubuque Downtown Master Plan
Identify areas not adequately covered with existing services like federal and
state historic tax credits.
Discuss overlapping and consolidation of services and recommend how they fit
in with the City of Dubuque, Dubuque Main Street. Ltd (DMSL) and Dubuque
Initiatives projects.
Describe functions of the assistance positions - note who is doing this now in
the City, DMSL etc. and include an organizational consultant concept in the
action matrix.
Acknowledge the accomplishments of DMSL and Dubuque initiatives and how
the synergy of the two groups can work for development.
Use language that supplements and compliments existing services while being
aware of budget restraints and give some examples of how other cities have
funded a developer advocate
Discuss the need for an entity that is focused on all these things: historical
features, finance etc., as well as the need for these functions without specifying
new positions, but being realistic in describing capacity of existing entities
(enhanced function vs. new positionsl throughout the plan.
Make clear that development will not happen without these resources, capacity,
or functions, and highlight these in the action matrix as a group that needs a new
vehicle/new position.
State the need to identify new positions and how they can be funded - for
example, outsourc~ng, new staff, etc.
Identify that we are th~n on staff and strategize on how to accomplish the-
functions with an outsourcing contract and include a menu of options with
examples from other cities.
Alert the City Council to this discussion in the plan.
The Committee discussed the oossibility of a developer rep/advocate with respect to
the City's Economic Development Department DMSL and Dubuque Initiatives. The
Minutes - Downtown Planning Committee
August 25, 2003
Page 3
Committee noted that this function s served by City Economic Development
Department as staff to Dubuque Initiatives part-time.
The consultants stated that they would like to keep all options for implementation within
the action matrix versus discussing options in the body of the report.
Further changes to Section 4 were:
Pa,qe 40: > Add standard opening sentence under Actions and clarify ~nconsistencies in
designations.
> Add more programs beyond the two in the box.
> Change bullets under Actions to match the discussions of the revised bullets
from Section 1
> Under barriers clarify that 'inconsistencies in designations" refer to National
Register, historic district, architectural significance, etc.
Page 41
,~ Add "local" to third bullet.
> Revise the last bullet to reaa "Continue to administer and increase funding
for".., including a footnote on other cities' programs to help Dubuque improve
existing programs with a suggestion to keep the dollars separate for the
programs.
The Committee and consultants discussed Section 5, Public Space and Open Areas. A
consensus was reached on the following changes:
Pa,qe 42
> Adjust the first line to reaa, "nowhere."
Pa,qe 43
> Revise the first sentence in the second paragraph.
Pa,qe 44 > Discuss Central Avenue. and how to make it more pedestrian friendly without
going two-way.
> Regarding Washington Park, change the word "pavilion" to "gazebo."
Pa,qe 45
> Change "Education and Conference Center" to "Grand River Center".
Pa,qe 46
> Reference Streetscape Guidelines in the last bullet and expand to the entire
study area.
Minutes - Downtown Planning Committee
August25.2003
Page 4
Pa,qe 47 > Clarify the loan pool for green space to the entire study area.
> Add to bullet #2: "neighborhood organizations" and add a note that this is partly
an enforcement issue.
> Delete 3ra bullet.
'> Ada to bullet #4: "develop/coordinate" a loan pool and add informabon to action
matrix regarding separate funds and menu of options.
Paqe 48 > Add to bullet #2: "neignborhood organizations and civic organizations."
> Add "Strengthen downtown park and green space programs."
> Add "revitalize citizen qvolvement in City's Adopt-A-Park Program" and
acknowledge existing programs.
> Add accompanying language with a menu of options for volunteerism and
a volunteer corps in the action matrix along with outsourcing, and contract
employees.
The Committee discussed the imoortance of the ADA standards, and the consensus
was to call out ADA standaras everywhere in all sections of the plan, and also in the
Introduction (Section 1) as a strong City value. Additional changes to the plan were:
Add a bullet for "Encourage business owners to create a sense of place and
ambience, such as sidewalk cafes" in Section I Introduction ana in Section 2.
Commerce.
Mention the need for a downtown park with outdoor play space that is accessible
to the downtown for active recreation, and suggest collaboration with downtown
school and as projects develop.
Acknowledge the lack of downtown play space in this section and in Residential
Living (Section 6).with a bullet to require or suggest that any housing projects
with children will provide green space for tot lo! playgrounds.
Incorporate outdoor play space in new construction and suggest funding
mechanisms to help developers accomplish this.
Note new green spaces on investment opportunity maps.
After discussion, the Committee then moved on to Residential Living, Section 6.
Consensus of the Committee was to clarify/define "pink collar workers" on Page 49.
Ms. Ricker then reviewed the nomenclature, organ,zation and expectations for a
housing strategy. An email to Ms. Ricker from Staff Merr Der Harris was distributed to
the Committee. The conclusion of the Committee was that the Residential Living
Section should be more detailed and should describe how we are going to accomplish
our housing strategy. The Committee asked Ms. Ricker to review Mr. Harris's memo.
and then rewse Residential Living, Section 6 and the Residential Development
Inventory. Ms. Ricker stated that the Residential Development Inventory could include
building permits, sq Jare footage available in un- and undeveloped buildings in the
downtown area and other available data. She noted that she had not been sent this
MinJtes- Downtown Planning Committee
August25,2003
Page 5
data in its entirety, and what she did have was qot rn electronic form. She explained
that this was why the inventory was not included in the appendices distributed last
week. Committee Member LoBianco described what data DMSL had provided, it was
clarified that the consultants were to use all available data.
The consensus of the Committee was for Ms_ Ricker to give the revised Residential
Living (Section 6) to David Harris for his review prior to the Downtown Planning
Committee review, when the Residential Development Inventory would also be
reviewed.
The Committee moved on to Section 7.Transportation. Consensus was to add "crucial"
to and then elevate [he last sentence on page 58 to the beginning of the section in the
italicized paragraph on page 57.
The Committee then discussed the preliminary transportation framework plan {map),
and updating it to reflect the latest map from the Transit Alternatives Study. They also
debated how to coordinate the conclusions of the two planning efforts. There was
discussion by Committee members and staff regarding the coordination of the
Downtown Master Plan with the Transit Study. Committee Member Micha [ski suggested
that the consultants bring a unified recommendation to the City Council. Chairperson
Rusk said the Plan should could ma
~,u ~ ~,ummunuauon Tar a TtxeQ guldeway transit
system that is different from the Transit Alternatives Study because that stud¢ would
not actually provide a recommendation but rather present what the consultant terms a
locally preferred alternative. Other members commented that the Committee shouJ d not
present a recommendation that is contrary to the Transit Study's recommendations.
Committee Member Michalski noted three issues at the City Council work session on
the Transit Study were: flexibility, costs and closure of 3r° Street Overpass, and then
[eft the meeting. Committee Member LoBianco also left. There was no longer a quorum
present.
Chairperson David Rusk advocated that Leland/SEH be allowed to recommend actions
that would positively impact downtown,,,,,,~,,~,--, with including a fixed route transit system
to include and they should defend their recommendation with examples from other
cities, and +''
....... ulato reasons for a fixed guide way system. He stressed that this was
the recommendation of the consultant, and we should not override it flit is their open,on,
and it is an appropriate recommendation that they feel strongly about.
Committee Member Walsh stated he was not comfortable with this position. He
advocated that the plan describe the benefits of this system, saying what we want
Transit to accomplish without getting into specifics, describing the benefits to tourism
downtown living, etc., but not present a recommendation that is contrary to the Transit
Alternatives Study. Chairperson Rusk asked for the consultants' opinions.
Mr. Kost and Ms. Ricker agreed with Mr. Wa sh's suggestion. They said the plan could
state the benefits for the fixed guideway system, and also support the locahy preferred
alternative [o coordinate the two planning efforts.
Minutes - Downtown Planning Committee
August 25. 2003
Page 6
The Committee discussed the pros and cons of the consultants' and Committee
-nembers' recommendations. Committee members and staff discussed how to describe
the benefits of poth a fixed guideway and -ubber-ti "ed trolleys, without making a
recommendation that is dtfferent from the Transit AIternabves Study. CommitTee
members a~so noted their own lack of familiarity with the Transit Study, and the lack of
technical competencies of the Downtown Master Plan consultants to make a
recommendation on SUCh a technical study.
Chairperson Rusk acknowledged that the Committee no longer had a quorum present
and that a vote could not be taken. He proposed that the full Committee and the
consultants consider adding a bullet in the Action Steps of Section 7. Transportation. to
read: "U~derst~d Acknowledge that the Transit Alternabves Study is underway to get
oeople on and off the Port. but the Downtown Master Plan is to look at all aspects of
(]owntown and-.'-, : ~ , ,.i that regardless of the results of that study, iris
recommended ~ha~ a fixed guideway alternative be studied long-term despite cost,
flexibility, parking, w~res and disruption impacts because of the benefits/~consultants to
quantify) and example of other cities to respond to the question: 'why are other cities
doing this?' in spite of these objections. The benefits should include a discussion of the
potential for positive impacts on commerce and job creation, residential riving, culture.
entertainment and tourism, and how this potent/a/differs from the simple deployment of
rubber-tired trolleys."
Bob Kost Left the conference call at 11:30 a.m. Transportation, Section 7 was tabled
until the September 8,n meeting.
The consensus of the Committee was to start the September 8,n meeting at 8:00
for rewew of Trans 3ortation. Section 7. and the appendices distributed on August
Residential Living, Section 6. will be reviewed at a later date. The September 15th City
Cou qcil work session will 3e cancelled.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m
Res 3ectfully submitted
Elizabeth Conion. Assistant Planner
Adopted