Laserfiche WebLink
However, according to the development agreement, there is no rule that prevents a <br />developed property from being expanded. There is 408,000 square feet that is available <br />to non-Prudential properties for expansion. Those properties must still comply with the <br />rules for traffic generation. If this project is approved, the additional square footage will <br />not be available for any other use. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala said this was the first project that was coming back to request a change <br />and felt it was just the beginning. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell assumed the Chamberlin Group had paid for a retail study of the <br />area to determine the best use for this site. There was a statement that the site was too big <br />to be small and too small to be big and asked for clarification. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said that 2.7 acres is too small for a retail center. It is not too small for <br />a stand-alone retail business. It is too big for a single restaurant use, as demonstrated by <br />Pedro's Restaurant. Typical restaurant uses want a building smaller than 16,000 square <br />feet and only require about three-fourths of an acre of land. This is a tricky land use issue <br />as to what the marketplace might want to put on this site. The Planning Commission <br />preferred to have an analysis performed by the City to determine what would work on <br />this site and be the best complement for other uses in the general area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell asked if other restaurants had looked at this site and determined not <br />to lease it because of the size. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said several restaurants had looked at the site and did not want that <br />building because it didn't fit the model that was preferred or for other economic reasons. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell said that from reading the staff report, it appeared the Planning <br />Commission liked the project, but did not approve it because they were not comfortable <br />with the land use. He asked if the Planning Commission denied the project because they <br />wanted the Council to make the land use decision, or did they simply not like the plan? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that projects like this in Hacienda Business Park are normally <br />design review applications and Council would never see the application unless it were <br />appealed. The Planning Commission wanted to look at other land uses for this site and <br />did not want to address the application's design until the land use was studied. The <br />applicant appealed to the City Council. He could only guess how the Commission felt <br />about the building, because the Commission did not vote on the design. If Council finds <br />the land use acceptable, it could refer the building to the Planning Commission for design <br />review. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked about the present zoning designation for this property and <br />believed it was one of the broadest with regard to what was allowed on the site. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 9 04/03/01 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />