SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Frank Algarin, Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, Robert Forbis, Peggy McDonough (Chairperson), Susie McHugh, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, Matthew Wirthlin (Vice Chairperson) and Mary Woodhead.
Present from the Planning Division were Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Nick Britton, Principal Planner; and Cecily Zuck, Senior Secretary.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson McDonough called the meeting to order at 5:44 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time.
A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were Frank Algarin, Tim Chambless, Peggy McDonough, Susie McHugh, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, Matthew Wirthlin and Mary Woodhead. Salt Lake City Staff present were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director and Kevin Young, Transportation Division Assistant Director.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, September 13, 2006.
(This item was heard at 5:44 p.m.)
Commissioner Robert Forbis made a motion to approve the minutes with one change noted by Commissioner McHugh. Commissioner Delay Seconded the motion. All voted “Aye”. The motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 5:45 p.m.)
Chairperson McDonough reminded the Commission that during the Planning Retreat last week, Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director, informed the Commission of a planned meeting on October 19 with City Council concerning the upcoming Downtown projects. Chairperson McDonough then inquired if there was any confirmation concerning the proposed meeting between the Council and the Planning Commission and the Transportation Advisory Board.
Mr. Ikefuna noted that this meeting has been set for 5:30 on Thursday, October 19, 2006 in Room 326 of the City and County Building.
Mr. Ikefuna raised another concern addressed during the Planning Commission Retreat on October 4, 2006. He stated that he was aware that the Planning Commission wished to have more involvement from City Counsel, particularly City Attorney Lynn Pace. Mr. Ikefuna did discuss this with Lynn Pace, and it was agreed that he will be available to meet during dinner with the Commissioners to brief them on legal issues which may warrant the opinion of Counsel.
Mr. Ikefuna noted that minutes from the retreat on October 4, 2006, will be available next week.
Chairperson McDonough next acknowledged a letter from the Mayor requesting that the Planning Commission initiate a petition for Transit Shelter Advertising in Salt Lake City.
Commissioner Delay made a motion to initiate a petition to allow Transit Shelter Advertising in Salt Lake City. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. All voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
Chairperson McDonough brought attention to the Memorandum submitted by Deputy Panning Director, Cheri Coffey, a request to expand petition 400-05-16 relating to Amendments to the Conditional Use Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Coffey noted that in light of new state law, the Planning Department is requesting an expansion of this petition to look at the issues in a comprehensive manner.
Commissioner Scott made a motion to expand petition 400-05-16 relating to Amendments to the Conditional Use Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Forbis. All voted “Aye”. The motion passed.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA
(There were no items to be reviewed.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 410-06-15 – A request by Salt Lake City Transportation Division to close a portion of 100 South at the railroad tracks at approximately 700 West to eliminate an unprotected railroad crossing, increase safety and create a “Quiet Zone”.
(This item was heard at 5:52 p.m.)
Chairperson McDonough recognized Nick Britton as staff representative. DJ Baxter from the Mayor’s Office was also present. Mr. Britton gave a brief overview of the project noting that the closure has been requested in order to establish safer conditions at this intersection, which is currently an unprotected at-grade railroad crossing. Another goal is to promote and facilitate economic development in this area through the creation of a “Quiet Zone”. Mr. Britton noted the proposed changes to traffic including the diversion of traffic heading west on 100 South to a new mid-block road returning to 600 West. Mr. Britton then noted that north-bound traffic on 700 West would be allowed to make a U-turn at an open portion of 100 South to head south again on 700 West.
Commissioner Woodhead inquired if in addition to the curb and gutter proposed, Union Pacific or another party would put a gate or alternative barrier across this closure.
In response to Commissioner Woodhead’s question, Mr. Baxter stated that there would not be a gate but that this closing would be similar to the crossing closed at 500 North and that a strong visual indicator at the end of the street would be included.
Commissioner Woodhead wondered if pedestrians trapped on 200 South by a stopped train might still be able to get through to 100 South.
DJ Baxter indicated that this option for pedestrians would eliminate a Quiet Zone, or the benefits of such a zone, as trains would not be allowed any audible warnings for pedestrians.
Commissioner Chambless inquired if there would be any opportunity for bicyclists, motorcycles or other alternative modes of transportation to cross at the intersection.
Mr. Baxter stated that there would be no opportunity for crossing of any kind, but that trains would be allowed to travel through much more quickly, which hopefully would expedite the surrounding traffic.
Commissioner Scott inquired if the surrounding properties would be affected by the traffic redirection.
DJ Baxter acknowledged that the tracks would have to come somewhat east and a warehouse property would be affected. Mr. Baxter also noted that in addition to the existing freight rail tracks, there will be two UTA commuter rail tracks constructed to the east. Mr. Baxter stated that due to the widening of this area to accommodate the additional rail lines, the new road will need to move somewhat east.
Commissioner Woodhead voiced her concern that this proposal was only presented to the Downtown Community Council and did not go before the West Side Community Councils, and wondered if there was any way to present the proposal before the Poplar Grove Community Council to give some notice to them.
Nick Britton noted that Planning Staff could contact the Poplar Grove Community Council Chair and see if this item could be added to that Council’s November agenda.
Chairperson McDonough opened the hearing to public comment at 6:00 p.m. As there were no questions or comments, the public hearing portion was closed.
Regarding Petition 410-06-15, Commissioner Delay made a motion to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the closure at 100 South at the 700 West rail crossing to pedestrian and general vehicle access including the following amendment:
1. The City will make an effort to present this proposal to the Poplar Grove Community Council.
Commissioner Algarin seconded the motion. All voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 6:01 p.m.)
Mr. Ikefuna recognized Tim Harpst, Transportation Division Director, with a presentation updating the Planning Commission on the Downtown Transportation Master Plan. Mr. Harpst noted that this has been a year long process and that during the holidays, the Committee for the Downtown Transportation Master Plan will be consolidating all plans and the final draft will be available for review early next year. Mr. Harpst invited the Planning Commission to meetings which will provide input to the Downtown Transportation Master Plan.
Mr. Harpst gave a Power Point presentation as an overview to the Planning Commission. Mr. Harpst noted that the goals noted in the presentation were developed through the public process with the assistance of an advisory committee. Alex Ikefuna and Doug Dansie were representatives from the Planning Department, and the UTA, the Downtown Alliance, Chamber of Commerce and the Utah Department of Transportation were also part of the committee.
Mr. Harpst indicated that there is a Community Leader Forum being used for feedback which involves anywhere from 80 to 100 individuals per meeting. He noted that this meeting input has been documented and is included on a website set up specifically for the Downtown Transportation Master Plan, slctrans.com.
Mr. Harpst noted that the Planning Commissioners would be receiving an invitation to attend the Parking and Traffic Community leader forum October 25, and again on November 29, at which, representatives from Denver, Portland and Vancouver will be present.
Mr. Harpst discussed the plan for City Rail and Bus lines. He stated that this was the starting point for the Downtown Plan because the Transportation Department felt that the Rail system, in particular, was the most permanent system for the Downtown transportation system. Mr. Harpst said that if improvements can be made to the rail system first, all other systems can be improved around that system.
Last week UTA along with Salt Lake City and other agencies began a six month review of the alignment that was set back in the late 1990s, which proposed extension from the University Medical Center to the Airport. Mr. Harpst stated that this review represents the last phase of that development.
Several potential future light rail lines were indicated by Mr. Harpst. A 200 South 200 West line, and a 400 West 400 South line were presented as possible options. Mr. Harpst indicated that as the Committee received input from various sources, there was a strong indication that the 400 South 400 West connection was the more sensible option to provide transit service throughout the Downtown area. Mr. Harpst noted that over the last several months each mode of travel had been analyzed and in the future they will be modeled to see if these modes of travel work. As the plan is drafted, time frames will be developed as well as cost estimates.
Mr. Harpst indicated the current Bus system leading to the Transportation Hub. He stated that Transportation is looking at a second transit center at 200 South and State or 400 South and Main. Mr. Harpst stated that these two locations were selected because they facilitate the best transfer between bus and light rail with a short walk. Out of those two concepts, Mr. Harpst noted that the 200 South and State Street option received the most favorable response.
The Free Fare Zone was reviewed. Mr. Harpst indicated that Transportation is looking at providing an area where any rail trips would be free. He stated that the Bus would be free or have a reduced fare. Ultimately, this would be a negotiation item between the City and UTA. Mr. Harpst noted that at this point it is very difficult to keep track of individual fares on bus lines within and outside of the free zone.
A proposed Circulator-type system was presented to the Commission. Mr. Harpst stated that Transportation intends to provide a good means of supplemental circulation to the Downtown area and there are three possible concepts for this supplemental circulation system. These concepts were discussed by Mr. Harpst as follows:
1) A 200 South link which would connect the new proposed transit center on the east side and the existing hub on the west.
2) A Hotel District line circling along 500 and 600 South. A bus shuttle could be available to provide access to Salt Palace and tourist destinations
3) Main Street and 300 South Center for connection to offices and restaurants.
Mr. Harpst indicated that one idea for this system would be “branded vehicles” which may be buses of a certain color, noting a particular route. Supplementing that service might mean different signs or logos for coordinating routes.
Mr. Harpst also discussed bicycling concepts. He indicated that proposals include bike lanes off road but separate from the sidewalk area. Mr. Harpst displayed an example of such a lane in Portland, Oregon in which the bike lane was painted a different, vibrant color. He noted that the second bike lane proposal included the “Share the Lane” concept and painting half of a traffic lane for bike transit as well as an advertising campaign to increase motorist awareness.
Mr. Harpst noted that with Salt Lake City’s wide sidewalks it may be possible to rearrange these sidewalks and designate part of these areas as bicycle paths. He noted that the concept is to recognize that there are different types of cyclists, some who wish to flow with traffic and those who feel safer in a designated sidewalk area.
Sidewalk bicycle facilities were addressed by Mr. Harpst. He noted that designating the sidewalk for bicycle parking might be possible or that bicycle amenities, including updates to the ordinance, may be necessary for storage and locking. Mr. Harpst included the example of designating parking spaces for bike lockers in parking lots and parking garages
Mr. Harpst discussed pedestrian path generators, including what he deemed the backbone of pedestrian circulation- the Downtown grid system which encourages easy pedestrian access. He stated that the Transportation goal is to promote pedestrian access through the large downtown blocks to provide more direct access and a more intimate experience for pedestrians and cyclists. Mr. Harpst indicated a pattern showing the type of access pedestrians would like to have to businesses and attractions.
Mr. Harpst added that Streets and Traffic are this months Committee topics. He stated that the Committee is beginning to combine all of the ideas that have been presented. Mr. Harpst indicated that Transportation is looking particularly at Downtown Parking.
Mr. Harpst invited the Commissioners to address him with any of their comments or questions.
Chairperson McDonough requested comments and questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Chambless noted the comparison to Amsterdam, and noted that bicycle paths have separate traffic signals and inquired if this plan envisioned separate signals for bicyclists.
Mr. Harpst stated that a development of that magnitude is several generations down the way. Right now it would correspond with the Downtown crosswalks and their signals. Mr. Harpst noted that the bicycle lane would be noted and painted next to the existing crosswalk. No separate timing would be necessary, but a new bicycle symbol could be added to the pedestrian signal now present.
Commissioner Chambless inquired if bicycles would be allowed to park on the side of the sidewalk.
Mr. Harpst said that parking on the side of the sidewalk was not intended. However, Mr. Harpst noted that bike lockers may be located on the public right of way, but more specifically, that during new construction a portion of parking stalls may be designated as space for bike lockers.
Commissioner Chambless inquired if public bicycles may become part of the Transportation plan.
Mr. Harpst noted that this is not part of the envisioned plan, and there are several problems with these programs.
Commissioner Scott asked where the public meetings regarding these issues are held.
Mr. Harpst indicated that the meetings have been held in various locations and are advertised by invitation only. He noted that Transportation feedback forms are provided from slctrans.com for anyone to fill out and they are regularly reviewed to incorporate new ideas.
Commissioner Forbis noted concern over cyclists and pedestrians being in the same lanes. He also indicated that the options noted in the presentation were much better than current indicated lanes or lack thereof.
Mr. Harpst concurred with Commissioner Forbis noting that this is one of their major concerns along with the possible need to reduce the speed limit in the Downtown for increased safety.
Chairperson McDonough noted her concern regarding the possible impact from including pedestrian traffic, bicyclist traffic and outdoor dining or furnished areas in the same right of way.
Mr. Harpst noted that a conversation being held this week will include what he deemed the hierarchy of streets and that this discussion will be about what makes sense on each street. Mr. Harpst stated that some proposed concepts might require waiting until some sidewalk areas are rebuilt.
Commissioner Chambless noted that he has observed traffic calming methods which work very well for other downtown areas and assist commerce. Commissioner Chambless inquired if this is potentially the same relationship we are looking for in Downtown Salt Lake.
Mr. Harpst stated that one concept is that of mid-block travel-ways, promoting both bicycling and walking. He noted that bisecting these major blocks with a network grid is being proposed and would allow pedestrians and cyclists to wander through.
Commissioner Chambless wondered if a possible future project could connect the Gateway and Main Street with a Pedestrian Corridor.
Mr. Harpst noted that it would be difficult. He indicated that because of the size of the blocks Downtown, Salt Lake has a very small amount of space dedicated to Public right of way and this smaller percentage means we are doing well moving people around with less space now and it will become increasingly more difficult to continually decrease this amount of space. Seeing no further comments, the Commission moved on to the next item.
Alex Ikefuna introduced Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director to discuss the Master Plan Prioritization with the Planning Commission at 6:42 p.m.
Ms. Coffey stated that the original Master Plan Priority Matrix was adopted in August, 2005. Ms. Coffey noted that due to workload and staffing issues the staff has been limited as to what it can focus on relating to long-range planning, but that the Planning Division is currently making a concerted effort to give long-range planning more attention. Ms. Coffey noted that Master Plan prioritization within the Matrix was based upon several factors, including; if the Master Plan was currently being worked on, if funding had already been allocated for the Master Plan, development pressure in the specific geographic area and the age of the existing Master Plan.
Ms. Coffey stated that at that time the Planning Commission made Central Community and Sugarhouse the main priorities as those were the plans closest to completion and those plans were adopted in November and December of 2005, respectively.
Ms. Coffey reviewed the Memorandum for the Planning Commission regarding the Master Plan Prioritization.
Ms. Coffey noted that currently, the Northwest Quadrant and Downtown Master Plans are the top priority. She stated that Planning has met with the consultant for the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan and the Downtown Master Plan is being developed in Conjunction with the Downtown Rising project.
Ms. Coffey acknowledged that the West Salt Lake Master Plan was never really published and therefore the mass distribution of this plan to the public didn’t happen although it was adopted in 1995. Ms. Coffey took over authorship of the West Salt Lake Master Plan in 2002 with new census figures and new plan concepts such as walkability. In the beginning of 2006, it was re-submitted, comments came in July. Ms. Coffey noted that the West Salt Lake Master Plan is very close to being brought back for the approval and adoption process.
Ms. Coffey discussed the Euclid Small Area Plan. Funding has been secured, and Staff is working with a consultant. She stated that a draft plan had been submitted at the end of this summer. Ms. Coffey noted that Planning is working with other departments to get this started through the adoption process.
Ms. Coffey reviewed the Westminster Small Area Plan, funded with CDBG money. She stated that the Westminster Small Area Plan also needs to be finished and taken through the adoption process.
There has been a request from the City Council, Ms. Coffey noted, to fund research regarding land use along the Foothill and Parleys Way Corridors of the East Bench Planning Community. This would be in conjunction with the Transit Study currently being analyzed for this area. This would be completed by a consultant if funded.
Ms. Coffey noted that the East Central Small Area Plan implementation was put together as a condition of approval for the Cancer Wellness House in 2001. Ms. Coffey stated that Community representatives noted that a new plan might not be necessary, but instead focus on only implementation of current policies. Ms. Coffey said that more things could be done in order to complete the plan.
Ms. Coffey also noted that the Historic Preservation Plan has been funded and Planning is hoping to hire a consultant for that project by January.
Commissioner McHugh stated that the problem in implementing all of these projects is having enough staff.
Ms. Coffey noted that yes more planners are needed, and the Planning Division is preparing to request for additional staff.
Mr. Ikefuna noted that the Division is requesting six or seven additional planners in January.
Ms. Coffey added that due to Compatible Residential Infill, projects such as subdivisions are taking much more time, and they are much more complex, requiring a great deal of scrutiny.
Commissioner Scott inquired if the discussion should be regarding what the Commission thinks about the Master Plan prioritization. Commissioner Scott stated her concern regarding the possible legal implications of the East Central Small Area Plan implementation and if these concerns shouldn’t make this plan a higher priority. Commissioner Scott then asked what might happen to the Conditional Use that has been waiting on the Small Area Plan.
Ms. Coffey stated that maybe the motion regarding the Cancer Wellness House should have been stated in such a way to approve it with the noted conditions and requesting that the Staff create a Small Area Plan, thereby making one independent of the other.
Ms. Coffey indicated that the way she interpreted the minutes from the April 4, 2002 meeting was that the Planning Commission changed that condition so that it wouldn’t be to make a Small Area Plan, but rather to proceed with the recommendation from Joel Paterson’s memorandum addressing the issues raised by the Condition.
Mr. Ikefuna stated that the position was clear to the staff.
Ms. Coffey noted that she didn’t feel there was a legal issue, but that Counsel could be addressed on this matter as well.
Ms. Coffey added that several items in Mr. Paterson’s memo have been worked on: there are two National Historic Districts now in that neighborhood and that the area Councilwoman is looking at possibly making this area a local Historic District which would allow much more involvement on the property owner level. Ms. Coffey also referred to other conditions reviewed in Mr. Patterson’s memo meeting the condition of the Conditional Use.
Commissioner Scott noted that the neighborhood is now prone to aggressive development, and that the Planning Commission is still concerned about the cumulative negative impacts that may occur, but that there are no tools to consider these uses.
Ms. Coffey stated that the condition was changed by the Planning Commission based upon the suggestions of the East Central Community Council.
Chairperson McDonough voiced her concern that there is a need to have a map identifying correlating uses in an area so the Commission can make findings relating to the net cumulative adverse impact. Chairperson McDonough also stated that she did not feel that there is a legal issue relating to the condition regarding the Cancer Wellness Center and that the documentation is clear that the Planning Commission changed that condition.
Ms. Coffey noted that hourly employees were hired to try and track all conditional uses which proved to be very difficult due to the nature of the records. Ms. Coffey stated that it is very difficult to map Non-conforming uses under city and state law. You can rebuild and/or expand these uses. Ms. Coffey noted that there are all different types of conditional uses, but there was a decision on what types of conditional uses would be mapped, mainly those uses which are likely to have an impact, those that require spacing to mitigate that impact.
Ms. Coffey stated that the definition of a conditional use also being grappled with and that more education is necessary from Counsel regarding new state law.
Chairperson McDonough noted that Cindy Cromer was present and recognized her for commentary.
Ms. Cromer noted that the decision noting the Cancer Wellness Home was made at a public meeting and not a public hearing, so public comment was not obtained. She stated that the decision was later put before the Land Use Appeals Board. Ms. Cromer stated that the issue of public notice for changing a condition of approval is extremely important. Ms. Cromer then stated that the standards need to change and tools such as design guidelines, density bonuses, transfer of development rights and credits for historic preservation need to be implemented in order to promote development, and something which doesn’t require a development agreement for every single use.
Commissioner Woodhead asked if these issues were specific to the East Central Community Plan or to all Master Plans.
Ms. Cromer noted that the issues specific to the redevelopment of the medical clinics is unique to the East Central Community Neighborhood.
Commissioner Scott inquired if Ms. Cromer was suggesting the City pursue some type of development plan implementation.
Ms. Cromer stated that she proposes the City create a planning project similar to the design/build project that includes the regulations to implement the plan policies at the time the plan is adopted.
Ms. Coffey stated that Planning can request funding to research the drafting of a specific plan to put such tools in place.
Commissioner Delay noted that this is exactly the type of issue that requires public input.
Mr. Ikefuna noted that the City Council appropriated $80,000 to Staff in the 2006-2007 fiscal budget for Historic Preservation Plan. Mr. Ikefuna stated that part of this budgeting included the identification of neighborhoods that may be designated as historic neighborhoods and incentives that would encourage people to undertake the preservation of structures within these neighborhoods.
Mr. Ikefuna stated that the current Ordinance needs to be scrutinized in order to identify minimum requirements that may need to be lowered, especially in terms of square footage, so that projects like the Harrison and Henderson projects may be addressed. He noted that changes most certainly need to be made including separation of the Planned Development and Conditional Use processes.
Commissioner Chambless noted that there is a need for planners who understand these problems and can address them. Commissioner Chambless noted that if these problems are going to be addressed, there must be incentives for planners to stay with the City.
Commissioner Algarin inquired of staff if the Planning Commission was being asked their opinion regarding the Master Plan Prioritization Matrix.
Mr. Ikefuna noted that this was the issue at hand, but of course, recommendations of Staff could be reviewed, discussed and affirmed.
Chairperson McDonough inquired if the reworking of the Ordinance included input from the public.
Ms. Coffey noted that any text amendment involves citizen input through Open Houses.
Chairperson McDonough asked if there was any comment regarding the East Central Small Area Plan in terms of priority and if there was any information regarding funding.
Ms. Coffey stated that no funds have been allocated to this plan at this time but could be requested from City Council.
Commissioner Muir noted that he felt the prioritization seemed very sound.
Chairperson McDonough concurred.
Commissioner Scott noted that she feels the East Central Small Area Plan needs a higher prioritization.
Mr. Ikefuna stated that the projects on the table have been funded. The East Central Small Area Plan is being worked on, but funding must be found.
Mr. Ikefuna asked if the Planning Commission was comfortable with the prioritization as listed in the Master Plan Matrix memorandum.
Commissioner De Lay affirmed that the prioritization is not a problem, but that more community input would be useful. It was noted that the Planning Commission feels that more staff is needed to get these things done.
Chairperson McDonough stated that she understood the problem to be one of staffing and funding.
Mr. Ikefuna stated that this issue is being addressed with the Mayor, City Council and even Human Resources.
Commissioner Forbis inquired if it would be of any use if a letter were drafted by Staff and signed by the Planning Commissioners to request this issue be addressed.
Commissioner Wirthlin noted that they could contact their City Council representatives and discuss the staffing problem.
Commissioner De Lay noted that eventually this situation will lead to the problem of nothing moving forward.
Seeing no further discussion on this issue, the Chair moved on to the next item.
Mr. Ikefuna noted that Bob Farrington was present from the Downtown Alliance to present information regarding Downtown developments with the Planning Commission at 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Farrington stated that the Downtown Alliance is engaged in a very interesting process with the Chamber of Commerce, Salt Lake City Corporation and the entire community in envisioning a plan for the downtown area, and briefly discussed the role of the downtown area in the regional economy.
Mr. Farrington said that the Downtown Alliance sees their efforts as being directly linked with the Downtown project becoming more linked with the Downtown Master Plan. Mr. Farrington observed that the Downtown Alliance is also engaged with the Transportation Master Plan and integrating that into the Downtown Master Plan.
Mr. Farrington noted that his organization is at the fifty percent point or so in their public engagement effort. In the last six months, they have had approximately 500 people attend various meetings regarding the downtown developments.
Mr. Farrington stated design leaflets have been provided for several organizations.
Mr. Farrington acknowledged that the announcement by the LDS Church has really skyrocketed response. As an idea of what that had generated regarding response, in August/September 3,000 hits, then in October so far there had been 25,000 visitors and almost 2,000,000 hits. Mr. Farrington noted that some of the issues addressed in citizen comments were parking, retail variety, different presentation, more diversity and more family friendly activities downtown.
Mr. Farrington noted that the Downtown Alliance is trying to utilize the respective City staffs in the best way possible and there is a good working, unique reciprocal relationship in this collaboration. Mr. Farrington reported that obstacles to the success of Downtown development are regulatory.
Mr. Farrington stated that the Alliance’s goal is to have the wealth of data being collected compiled and presented to the general public by the end of January.
Mr. Ikefuna raised the issue of the Planned Development Subcommittee. He noted that current members are Chairperson Peggy McDonough and Commissioners Muir and Delay. Mr. Ikefuna added that one more commissioner needed to be appointed to take former Commissioner John Diamond’s place on the subcommittee.
Chairperson McDonough noted that she had asked Commissioner Algarin, but that she felt an alternate may be necessary.
Commissioner McHugh stated that she would be an alternate and Frank Algarin accepted the appointment.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
The meeting adjourned at 7:51 p.m.