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 rtain period of time, <br />something like five years to complete the job. The City is trying encourage an owner to <br />make the improvements while a building might be vacant. Commi sioner Finch added that it <br />is certainly more economically feasible and easier to make the imp ovements before it is <br />rented or leased to someone. It is best to do the project all at one . me, rather than in piece- <br />meal sections. <br /> <br />Commissioner Finch felt a time frame should be set by the City so that when a building <br />becomes vacant that the owner of a business be required to reinfor the building before it is <br />again used. He noted that it takes about 4-6 months to reinforce a building. He further <br />stated he did not think the incentives are that substantial. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Finch's comment regarding the amou t of incentives offered by <br />the City, Mr. Swift noted when the City first began to look at's and incentives, that <br />the City had already been giving a number of incentives about six ears before the <br />Unreinforced Masonry Building Law was passed. The incentives ing offered exceeded <br />those being suggested by the City Manager. <br /> <br /> <br />downtown parking <br />incentives. Mr. Swift <br />felt it is critical that <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk discussed with Mr. Swift the possibility 0 <br />becoming a critical issue if all owners take advantage of the offer <br />did not think that parking would become a major issue; however, h <br />existing unreinforced buildings are reinforced. <br /> <br />Chairman Hovingh further questioned staff as to the possibility of <br />making use of the opportunity to expand their FAR to 200 percent. <br />would then be automatic that second-story structures be made acce <br />Mr. Beougher replied that such buildings would have to be fitted <br /> <br />downtown owners <br />He asked whether it <br />ible to the handicapped. <br />th 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 parki g funds. Mr. Swift <br />replied that the City does have between $20,000 and $30,000 gene ted in parking funds. <br />He further noted that it costs $5-6,000 for each parking space. <br /> <br /> <br />e requirement so that <br />. Swift said the <br />frame. He pointed out <br />e vacant. <br /> <br />Commissioner Finch reiterated his desire to have a certain time f <br />unreinforced buildings are reinforced when they become vacant. <br />Commission can make this suggestion to Council in regard to a tim <br />that several buildings have already been reinforced when they beca <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1992 <br />Page 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.