My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 12/09/1992
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
PC 12/09/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:29:19 PM
Creation date
5/25/2005 3:54:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/9/1992
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 12/09/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />ordinance that does not make it voluntary. It is mandatory after a ce 'n period of time, <br />something like five years to complete the job. The City is trying to ncourage an owner to <br />make the improvements while a building might be vacant. Commissi ner Finch added that it <br />is certainly more economically feasible and easier to make the impro ements before it is <br />rented or leased to someone. It is best to do the project all at one ti e, rather than in piece- <br />meal sections. <br /> <br />Commissioner Finch felt a time frame should be set by the City so t when a building <br />becomes vacant that the owner of a business be required to reinforce the building before it is <br />again used. He noted that it takes about 4-6 months to reinforce a b ilding. He further <br />stated he did not think the incentives are that substantial. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Finch's comment regarding the amount of incentives offered by <br />the City, Mr. Swift noted when the City first began to look at URM' and incentives, that <br />the City had already been giving a number of incentives about six y s before the <br />Unreinforced Masonry Building Law was passed. The incentives be" g offered exceeded <br />those being suggested by the City Manager. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk discussed with Mr. Swift the possibility of d wntown parking <br />becoming a critical issue if all owners take advantage of the offered i centives. Mr. Swift <br />did not think that parking would become a major issue; however, he elt it is critical that <br />existing unreinforced buildings are reinforced. <br /> <br />Chairman Hovingh further questioned staff as to the possibility of all downtown owners <br />making use of the opportunity to expand their FAR to 200 percent. e asked whether it <br />would then be automatic that second-story structures be made accessi Ie to the handicapped. <br />Mr. Beougher replied that such buildings would have to be fitted wi elevators. <br /> <br />mE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />No one spoke for or against the application. <br /> <br />mE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright asked whether the City has any in-lieu parkin <br />replied that the City does have between $20,000 and $30,000 genera <br />He further noted that it costs $5-6,000 for each parking space. <br /> <br />Commissioner Finch reiterated his desire to have a certain time fram <br />unreinforced buildings are reinforced when they become vacant. Mr <br />Commission can make this suggestion to Council in regard to a time <br />that several buildings have already been reinforced when they becam <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1992 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />funds. Mr. Swift <br />in parking funds. <br /> <br />requirement so that <br />Swift said the <br />e. He pointed out <br />vacant. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.