RES 01063 - Laserfiche WebLink

Item 6b PAP-15~ Chamberlin Associates Appeal ~of ,the Planning Commission's donbl of an applicatibn for design review approval to demolish an' existing restaurant building and construct a two-story office buJklina totaling auuroximatelY 44~250 sq. ft. on 2.7 acres of laud located at 507S Hopyaed Road in the Hacionda Business Park~ as filed under Case PUD 81-30- 84D. (SR 01:069) Brian Swift presented the staff report. Ms. Ayala referred to a statement in the stuff report that said the office use would reduce the traffic impact from that of the restaurant. The restaurant has been vacant for three years; how can you reduce what has not been there? Mr. Swift acknowledged there has been no traffic from this site. However, if a reslaurant is opened, traffic would be added. The baseline traffic model is based on this restaurant being occupied. The point is that an office use generates less traffic than a restaurant use. Ms. Ayala then referred to the building cap for Hacienda Business Park and inquired it this building was included in that square footage. She asked what other properties remain undeveloped and wondered if Council is being asked where to allocate the remaining square footage? Mr. Swift said 95% of Hacienda Business Park has been developed. A cap was created that applies only to the Prudential properties and those are now being built out. However, according to the development agreement, there is no rule that prevents a developed property from being expanded. There is 408,000 square feet that is available to non-Prudential properties for expansion. Those properties must still comply with the rules for traffic generation. If this pwject is approved, the additional square footage will not be available for any other use. Ms. Ayala said this was the first project that was coming back to request a change and felt it was just the beginning. Mr. Campbell assumed thc Chamberlin Group had paid for a retail study of the area to determine the best use for this site. There was a statement that the site was too big to be small and too small to be big and asked for clarification. Mr. Swift said that 2.7 acres is too small for a retail center. It is not too small for a stand-alone retail business. It is too big for a single restaurant use, as demonstrated by Pedro's Restaurant. Typical restaurant uses want a building smaller than 16,000 square feet and only require about three-fourths of an acre of land. This is a tricky land use issue as to what the marketplace might want to put on this site. The Planning Commission Pleas~nton City Council 9 04/03/01 Minutes