Minutes Downtown Plan 9 8 03 MINUTES
DOWNTOWN PLANNING COMMITTEE
Long Range P{anning Advisory Commission
Monday, September 8, 2003
8:00 a.m.
Conference Room 2. City Hall Annex
1300 Main Street, Dubuque, Iowa
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Chairperson Dave Rusk: Committee Members Doris Hingtgen, Dan
LoBianco, Ann Michalski. Judie Fjellman, Jim Giesen and John Walsh:
Staff Members Laura Carstens, Bill Baum, Rich Russell David Harris and
Jeretyn O'Connor. Also present were: Consultants Jim Holz of MSA, and
via conference call Eric Padget of URS. Anne Ricker of Leland
Consulting Group, and Bob Kost of SEH. Guest: John Gronen.
Committee Members Mike Ironside Pam Jochum, Bob Felderman. Jim
Gibbs. and Steward Sandstroml Staff Member Beth Conlon.
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Rusk at 8:13 a.m.
without a quorum, when Eric Padget of URS Anne Ricker of Leland Consulting Group, and
Bob Kost of SHE were connected via conference cai
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE: Staff presented an Affidavit of Compliance verifying the
meeting was being held in compliance with the Iowa Open Meetings Law.
MINUTES: Chairperson Rusk noted that the minutes of the August 18. 2003 meeting were
reviewed and approved by consensus without a quorum at the August 25, 2003 meeting.
The minutes of the August 25, 2003 meeting were reviewed with the following changes
requested by Chairperson Rusk:
On page 5, 4th paragraph, 5TM sentence, replace "should" with "could'; and add to the
end of that sentence, "but rather present what the consultant terms a locally preferred
alternative".
On page 5. 5th paragraph, change "living with" to "including"; change "to include" to
"and they should defend their recommendation with": and delete "to articulate".
On page 5, 5th paragraph, add a second sentence, "He stressed that this was the
recommendation of the consultant, and we should not override it if it is their opinion,
and it is an appropriate recommendation that they feel strongly about."
On page 6. 3"~ paragraph, 2"~ sentence: replace "Understand~ with "Acknowledge";
replace "and would encourage that" with "that regardless of the results of that study, it
is recommended that"; insert "parking" after "flexibility"; insert "impacts" after
'disruption"; delete the parentheses: and add to the end of that sentence, "in spite of
these objections."
Minutes - Downtown Planning Committee
September 8. 2003
Page 2
On page 6, 3rd paragraph, add a new sentence. "The benefits should include a
discussion of the potential for positive mpacts on commerce and job creation
residential living, culture, entertainment and tourism, and how this potential differs from
the simple deployment of rubber-tired trolleys."
Staff Member Carstens felt that the August 25tn minutes were correct for the sentence in
quotes, because neither her qo~es nor the notes of Staff Member Conlon included the
reference To "parking", and because she had read the quoted statement into the record at
the meeting. Chairperson Rusk disagreed, and said if he was quoted, that he felt he should
be quoted accurately. Staff Member Baum noted that minutes are a history of what takes
place at a meeting, and are r~ot a transcn:}t or an opportunity to say that this is what I
meant. Chairperson Rusk acknowledged Mr. Baum's comments and then reiterated that if
he was quoted, then he should be ouoted accurately.
Committee Member Walsh noted that the minutes seemed to reflect that only Mr. Rusk was
in attendance. Mr Walsh expressed frustration with Chairperson Rusk's method of
conducting the meetings, and what Mr. Walsh considered to be too much time spent on
details of the minutes rather than the big picture of the plan. Mr. Walsh acknowledged Mr.
Rusk's contributions to the Committee and the community, but questioned whether the lack
of attendance by Committee Members was a reflection of how the meetings were run.
Chairperson Rusk acknowledged Mr. Walsh's comments, and then began a review of
Section 7. Transportation.
Committee Member Michalski arrived at 8:35 a.m. There was still not a quorum. No motion
could se made to approve the August 25th minutes due to the lack of a quorum.
ACTION ITEM: Review Draft Report (Section ?)
Chairperson Rusk reiterated the changes to pages 57 and 58 of Section 7. Transpor[ation.
which were discussed at the August 25, 2003 meeting.
The Committee and staff then discussed the map in this Section with consultants Bob Kost
and Eric Padget. Mr. Kost agreed to change page 59 to reflect correct name of map as
Transportation Framework Map, not Transit Map. The consensus discussion with Bob Kos~
was that the map will remain the same, but the legend will indicate that two-way conversion
of one-way needs to be evaluated further through additional study under auspices of the
Public Works Department. Mr Kost noted that the 1997 Downtown Circulation Study's
goals were to move traffic through downtown efficiently and safely, while this plan has the
goal of getting people to downtown as a destination, not s place to go through. DiScussion
of depicting proposed transit routes on the map to coordinate with recommendations of the
Trans 't Alternatives Study followed.
The following additional changes were recommended for Section 7:
Paqe 60: Change "seemless" to "seamless."
Minutes - Downtown Planning Committee
September 8. 2003
Page 3
Paqe 61: Last sentence ~s a bit awkward and needs to be rewritten.
Pa.qe 62: Discussion ensued of recommendations of the Downtown Master Plan and
Transit Alternatives Study, and continuance of the Downtown Planning Committee as one
of the focus groups for the Transit Alternatives Study. There was further discussion that
the Downtown Master Plan would look at a tong-term strategy of a fixed guideway, as well
as the locally preferred alternative that comes out of the Transit Alternatives Study. It was
also discussed that reasons for a fixed guideway would be described in the Downtown
Master Plan, and would note that it is not the only alternative. Committee Member
Michalski clarified that the Transit Alternatives Study is a long-term study that is waitinc~ for
the consultant recommendation, community input, and then a City Council decision She
further clarified in response to Chairperson Rusk's questioning the City Council's recent
decision to purchase two rubber-tired replica trolleys that this trolley purchase was initiated
a number of years before by Keyline as a part of the City's regular budget process to
provide required connectivity between the Port of Dubuque and Downtown.
Pa.qe 63:
Change "capitol" to "capital.*
Discussion of footnote to clarify that this refers to rubber-tired.
Pa,qe 64:
Delete dangling "Streets" after 1~t paragraph.
Change "lower Main" to "Historic Otd Main" here and throughout the plan.
Change "51/161" to "61/151" here and throughout the plan
Add discussion of U.S. 52 and rerouting, as well as the creation of two-way business
routes on U.S. 52 through downtown, with a long-term study to be done under the
auspices of the Public Works Department.
Pa.qe 65: There was discussion of reduced rate parking vouchers in ramps when meter
revenues are used to pay off bonds on ramps. Consensus was that the plan should list the
recommendations for parking as issues to be explored rather than simply implemented in
order to acknowledge mitigating factors and differing views and positions in the community.
Pa.qe 66:
> Consensus was to reiterate the new bullet recommended for page 30. to assemble a
public/private team tc rewew the 1997 Downtown Circulation Study (traffic, parking and
urban design) and determine if a new study is needed.
> Change ~accept* to "incorporate" in 5TM bullet.
There was discussion of the last bullet re: transit shuttle between Bluff Street shopping and
the Port of Dubuque, and transit system integration of Keyline and private operators
throughout downtown Discussion followed on whether the 5th bullet should reflect
anguage about a fixed guideway discussed earlier in meeting.
Committee Member Giese arrived at 9:16 a.m. A quorum was now present.
Minutes - Downtown Planning Committee
September 8, 2003
Page 4
Discussion continued, with consensus as follows:
> Add investigate integration of public-private transit services for downtown.
> Reword last bullet provide a transit connection between the traditional areas of
downtown and the Port.
> Since the action steps listed are related to transit, and are covered in Transit
Alternatives Study, [hen action s~eps re: parking need to be added ~o reflect the
narrative on page 65
Discussion of incentives for deck parking on the Port. and creative ways to enhance
parking in downtown followed. There was discussion of incorporating a general statement
an¢ a bullet "to develop a comprehensive parking strategy for downtown through
3ublic/private partnerships for on-street, off-street and deck parking". Discussion followed
of the relationship of parking to downtown living and merchants, with consensus that this
relationsh, p a~so needs to be evaluated in development of a comprehensive parking
strategy for downtown. Discussion continued on how to incorporate the importance and
scope of a comprehensive parking strategy, which is not part of the scope of this plan
Chairoerson Rusk questioned why the Downtown Master Plan did not include a parking
strategy similar to the issue 'aised earlier about the plan providing a housing strategy.
Staff Member Carstens stated a parking s~udy required intensive technical effort and a
budget that was :)eyond this team's scope of work and expertise. Committee Member
LoBianco supported this position with an analogy to Comorehensive Plan and Downtown
Master Plan, noting that there was no expectation with the Comprehensive Plan's update
that a Downtown Master Plan would be developed concurrently as part of the
Comprehensive Plan. Consultant Anne Ricker noted that a comprehensive parking study
was not part of the scope of work, and was a significant cost.
Ms. Ricker continued that a housing strategy was not part of the RFP any more than a
parking study was. She said [hat the RFP referred to Vision Downtown, not the preceding
Housing forum. She noted that a Comprehens ve Downtown Master Plan means that she
had to take an overall equivalent look at all six sections of Vision Downtown. Committee
Member Michalski agreed with Ms Ricker and said the consultants have done a good job.
Staff Member Baum left at 9:52 a.m~
ACTION ITEM: Review Draft Report (Section 6)
Ms. Ricker provided an update on revisions to Section 6. Residential Living. She indicated
that she was not able to provide Staff Member Harris with a revised Section 6 because she
still needs to receive a map from Dubuque Main Street Ltd. (DMSL) and the City. There
was discussion of the need for inventory of potential upper floor space downtown to
augment limited research of assessor's records. Ms Ricker said she had told DMSL and
City staff that a map of this space in an electronic form needs to be finalized for her to fold
into the Residential Living section Staff Member Carstens said Planning Services staff is
working on this map with Committee member LoBianco and Staff Member Russell.
Minutes - Downtown Planning Committee
September 8, 2003
Page 5
Committee Member LoBianco and Ms. Ricker discussed that loan ~rograms from DMSL
need further discussion. Ms. Ricker said that she has received positive feedback from
developers that she felt should be ~ncorporated into the report, which is a benefit of the
delay.
The Committee discussed possible meeting dates for discussing the housing section. Ms.
Ricker offered to provide the action matrix at this same meeting, and possibly the revisions
to the rest of the draft plan. It was decided that the next Committee meeting will be held on
September 30th at 8:00 a.m. Additionally, a Committee meeting was scheduled for October
7th at 8:00 a.m.
Consultant Eric Padget left the conference call at 10:04 a.m.
Chairperson Rusk distributed a draft Table of Contents that he proposed be used for the
plan. noting that he has rearranged the order of the appendices as previously discussed.
The Committee took a break at 10:05 a.m. while City staff attempted to fax the draft Table
of Contents to Anne Ricker.
Staff Member Harris left at 10:10 a.m
Consultant Bob Kost left the conference call at 10:22 a.m.
The fax did not go through despite numerous attempts, so the meeting resumed at 10:23
a.m.
ACTION ITEM: Draft Appendices Review
Chairperson Rusk reviewed the draft Table of Contents verbally with Ms. Ricker. He askec
that the concept/priority projects table in the Introduction (Section 1) summarize broad
elements of the Action Matrix. He noted that Sections 2-7 are Vision Downtown elements.
He suggested mowng the Action Matrix and Final Framework Plan from the appendices to
be combined in a new Section 8 of the plan. He said the Action Matrix should include a
cross-reference to Vision Downtown. After discussion, this suggestion was deferred until
the Downtown Planning Committee actually has an Action Matrix in hand.
An additional appendix recommended by Chairperson Rusk to include Assessments of
Vision vs. Reality and Vision & Reality vs. Existing Plans was deleted by Committee
consensus as being unnecessary since this assessment is what the plan itself does.
With respect to the Investment Opportunities appendix, which includes Catalyst Concepts
and Development Concept Plans, it was suggested that Ms. Ricker review these t-o be sure
the illustrations are in the right order relative to the preceding economic analysis for
development concept plans.
There was discussion of the Physical Profile appendix, and whether Ms. Ricker has the
most up-to-date data from DMSL and the City on property inventory. Chairperson Rusk
Minutes - Downtown Planning Committee
September 8. 2003
Page 6
suggested including a Downtown Properties Inventory with a date on the data. There was
discussion about whether to add this item. and the availability of data.
Committee Member Michalski said the most important parts of the plan for the City Counci
will be Section ~ and the ~)rooosed Section 8. ano that most Council members also wil
study Sections 2-7. Mrs. Michalski added that the most important appendices for the City
Council will be the Investment Opportunities. all the maps in the Physical Profile. the
Market Profile. the Socioeconomic Profile the Retail Inventory Audit, the Target Industries
Analysis. the Downtown Planning Committee Members Listing, the Funding Partners
Listing, and Vision Downtown.
It was suggested that Committee Member LoBianco. Staff Member Carstens and Ms.
Ricker look at including a summary of a downtown properties inventory. Also discussed
was hay ng an inventory of available space that DMSL maintains included or summarized.
with DMSL identified as the contact. This appendix would then be relabeled as Downtown
Available Properties Inventory.
The following changes were discussed for the chart in the Physical Profile appendix:
Under Streets and Alleyways, there was discussion of the intent of this section, with
consensus to either list all streets or list major streets. If list all streets, then include 8'"
Street and other streets in Little Dublin; Staff Member Carstens will ask Bob Kost what
he wanted to convey with his section
> Under Parking Facilities. clarify if "6" is the correct number of multi-level facilities.
> Add Historic to the Landmarks section label, and then Staff Member Carstens will
provide names of historic landmarks to Bob Kost.
Under Ornamental Streetscape, add Cable Car Square.
For the Historic and Demolition Districts, Staff Member Carstens will check the names
of demolition districts, and then relay any changes to Bob Kost.
> Under Cultural Facilities. change "Opera House" to "Grand Opera House", and delete
the second reference to Museum of Art.
> Under Lodging, add Canfield Hotel.
For the Socioeconomic Profile appendix, there were no comments.
For the Market Profile appendix, the Committee asked about the reference on page 6,
Retail Demand from Tourism, to the Greater Lansing Study. Ms Ricker explained this is an
ndustry study used as a comparable reference, and she would label it as such.
For the Retail Inventory Audit appendix, there were no comments.
The Residential Development Inventory appendix has not yet been provided.
For the Target Industries Analysis appendix, Chairperson Rusk thought this was
unnecessarily long, and should be deleted or presented as a summary. Ms. Ricker noted
that this item was on the scope of work and specifically was requested to be checked off
the list Committee Member Michalski noted that this was an mportant appendix which
Minutes - Downtown Planning Committee
September 8, 2003
Page 7
would interest the City Council. Consensus was for Ms. Ricker to summarize Dubuque's
targets from this appendix in the Commerce section.
Consultant Jim Holz left at 11:10 a.m.
For the Developer RFP Solicitation appendix, consensus was that a list of targeted
developers and strategy of how to contact them should be in a memo from Ms. Ricker
separate from the report to avoid any conflicts of interest for Leland Consulting Group.
Committee Member Walsh left at 11:13 a.m. A quorum was no longer present.
For the Outreach Synthesis appendix, consensus was to add comments collected from the
traveling exhibit, and to delete the list of questions alone, and use just the list of questions
with the responses included.
For the Meeting Materials appendix, consensus was to consolidate the City Council
presentations and move synthesis of Downtown Planning Committee work sessions here.
Staff Member O'Connor left at 11:15 a.m.
Consensus was to keep the Downtown Planning Committee meeting minutes as an
appendix.
Consensus was to delete the proposed individual appendices for the Downtown Planning
Committee Members Listing and the Funding Partners Listing, and instead list the
Downtown Planning Committee members and the funding partners in the plan itsetf.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:18 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager
Adopted