ALAMOSA — Alamosa City Council continues to set their sites on working toward the future and Wednesday night’s meeting was no different.
A number of ordinances were up for discussion but one led to a discussion that was lengthy and revealed varying opinions on the subject at hand. It was specifically related to Ordinance no. 21-2024, to amend the Unified Development Code.
As stated in the council communications, the Main Street Advisory Committee (MSAC) provides input on the implementation of the Downtown Design Plan, and acts as a deliberative and review body representing the interests of the Central Business area of downtown to create a more vibrant and welcoming downtown.
As was reported during the council meeting by Rachel James, director of Development Services, the committee has regularly brought up items if addressed, would have a positive impact in shaping the future of downtown and be more in accordance with the Downtown Design Plan.
Specifically, the issues brought up and addressed in the ordinance related to first floor businesses not being open for walk-in hours, several issues with, real estate offices occupying space on Main Street but never being open and temporary banners being in place for too long to a degree that they are, essentially, no longer “temporary” and are beginning to be a less than attractive sight on Main Street.
The reclassification of real estate offices as professional services offices was addressed and agreed to on a unanimous basis as was the issue with the term “temporary banners” being more clearly defined in terms of materials that may be used and how long they can be in place until a permanent sign is installed.
But the issue of requiring businesses to be open for a minimum of 60 hours most definitely drew comments from both members of the public and members of council.
As outlined in the communication, in the Central Business District it is required that Retail Services Type 1, Retail Services Type 2, and Personal Service uses to be open for a minimum amount of time for walk-in traffic.
Staff had added a threshold of 60 hours per month in order to provide a clear threshold while also providing reasonable flexibility.
The common opposition to this section of the ordinance addressed the over-reaching nature of a city council setting a minimum number of hours on a business that was privately owned. Again, the need for businesses to be open in order to encourage a more “vibrant” downtown area was not disputed; differences focused on what message was being sent to the public when city council mandated the hours of service – not per day but total per month. The fact that the suggestion was brought forth not by council itself but by the Main Street Advisory Committee, which is comprised of individuals who are business owners, was not considered to be a major factor in the discussion.
After significant discussion, a motion amending the ordinance with the section addressing the 60-hour threshold was made by Councilor Hensley (who is the council representative on the Main Street Advisory Committee) and seconded by Councilor Jan Vigil.
In observing the discussion, it was noted that “vibrant” was an apt word to describe council interactions. It was both encouraging and affirming to see a very diverse council have a spirited discussion with opposing viewpoints and still find a consensus on which to agree that seemed to satisfy all parties involved.
Since that was a second reading on the ordinance, the unanimous vote made it effective immediately.
