Laserfiche WebLink
°'"' '°~ CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~' - Planning Commission <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DCtB : December 10, 1975 <br />Time : 8:0o P.M. <br />PIOCe; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Staff recommendation is for approval <br />At the time that the General Plan wa <br />amended, it was recognized by staff <br />Viand the General Plan Advisory Com- <br />mittee that it would be logical to <br />develop this property as commercial, <br />since it lies between two commercial <br />parcels, faces a busy thoroughfare, <br />and probably is too high priced to <br />be developed as medium density resi- <br />dential. <br />Staff realizes that this is creating <br />additional retail commercial land in <br />the City and that there is some ques <br />tion as to whether the City actually <br />needs any more of this type land. T <br />market, however, indicates that ther <br />is need for this type of development <br />to go on this particular parcel. <br />The survey staff conducted in connec <br />tion with the General Plan amendment <br />for the Spivak property on the east <br />side of Hopyard Road and north of <br />Valley Avenue, indicated that the <br />General Plan amendment would have ve <br />little impact on other commercial pr <br />perties in the City, including the <br />Central Business District. However, <br />there is an overabundance within the <br />City of Office zoning. Therefore, <br />the question of building additional <br />offices if this property were so de- <br />signated, is unlikely. It is staff' <br />opinion that the applicant would not <br />consider more office uses, since he <br />is part-owner of office property at <br />Valley Plaza which now stands half <br />vacant. However, if the Commission <br />is concerned, perhaps at the zoning <br />stage, this parcel can be put into a <br />Planned Unit Development, which woul <br />afford greater control by them on it <br />uses. <br />-4- <br />