My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN050112
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
CCMIN050112
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/7/2012 1:00:19 PM
Creation date
8/7/2012 1:00:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/1/2012
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN050112
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS <br /> 17. Public Hearing: P12-0042, City of Pleasanton — Consider an Ordinance to amend Chapter 18.44: <br /> C Commercial Districts, Special Purpose-CC Central Commercial District of the Pleasanton <br /> Municipal Code to designate financial institutions as a conditional use within the Downtown <br /> Revitalization District (Continued from April 3, 2012) <br /> Planning Manager Janice Stern presented the staff report; provided background on how the City has <br /> regulated financial institutions in the past and said that while the City recognizes them as a valuable <br /> downtown use it also wants to ensure the continued attraction of a wider range of retail uses. <br /> She reviewed the proposed modifications, which would subject financial institutions to a use permit if <br /> located in a Special Purpose-CC District or Planned Unit Development that references the CC District, <br /> located in a revitalization district, and it has frontage on Main Street. The property must meet all three <br /> of the conditions in order to trigger the use permit requirement; all other locations would remain as <br /> permitted uses. She noted that the intent is for these regulations to affect only those locations with <br /> ground floor frontage on Main Street and recommended that the Council direct staff to add language to <br /> that effect. In an effort to provide the Planning Commission with guidance when reviewing applications, <br /> the ordinance advises that it should discourage more than one financial institution within any one block <br /> of Main Street and discourage location on a corner property on Main Street, unless such location would <br /> contribute to vitality and pedestrian interest in the downtown. Existing financial institutions would remain <br /> as legal nonconforming uses. Once vacated, the space may be replaced with another financial <br /> institution within 180 days although the Council may wish to extend this timeframe based on several <br /> comments received. <br /> The Pleasanton Downtown Association reviewed the draft proposal and voted to support the changes. <br /> Staff also met with the Economic Vitality Committee, who provided general comments that they would <br /> prefer to see a more comprehensive approach to achieving the goals identified for the downtown area <br /> and integration into an updated vision for the downtown. The committee had concerns about creating <br /> nonconforming uses that do not provide for expansion, the length of time a property could retain its <br /> legal nonconforming status once vacated, and that there are no similar proposals to regulate other uses <br /> that might not be thought of as contributing to downtown vitality. It was also stated that rather than <br /> discourage, the committee would like to see a more positive approach to attracting the desired uses by <br /> marketing sites based on their specific infrastructure and capacity. The Planning Commission also <br /> recommended the proposed amendments to the Council and, in recognition of other comments, that <br /> staff explore changes to other permitted commercial uses in the downtown area, as they are able. <br /> Councilmember McGovern voiced difficulty in understanding the Downtown Specific Plan's position that <br /> financial institutions are considered to be similar to traditional retail uses. She also questioned the <br /> concept of discouragement, had trouble establishing a nexus between this and the purported intent of <br /> attracting corner storefronts that are vital to pedestrian traffic, and suggested that prohibiting such a use <br /> might better meet that intent. <br /> City Manager Fialho explained that the approach was not to prohibit the use specifically but rather to <br /> engage in an exercise that asks if the location makes sense for the economy and the community. Staff <br /> concluded that generally, there is a discouragement of financial institutions located at certain high <br /> visibility corners but that ultimately it is a discretionary exercise on the part of the Planning Commission <br /> and City Council. Based on economic conditions, there may come a time when property owners must <br /> rent such locations to a bank in order to fill their spaces. The proposed language is not necessary, but <br /> does give the ruling body a flexible basis for making decisions both today and in the future. <br /> Councilmember McGovern asked whether any other jurisdictions have studied the ratio of different <br /> retail establishments that best encourage a vital downtown community. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 4 of 11 May 1, 2012 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.