Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Ayala feb that any time a change in use is requested in Hacienda Business <br />Park, that the city have a neutral party analyze the economic feasibility of the site. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell indicated he also struggled with this. Consideration should be <br />given as to why this site has remained vacant and why a restaurant has not been <br />successful. The property should not sit vacant. The zoning allows this type of a building <br />and he felt it was a good use for the site. He did not object to having the Planning <br />Commission review the architecture of the building, but he liked it as it was. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti indicated she was around when the Hacienda Business Park was <br /> approved and there were many prototypes of the buildings to be situated along Hopyard <br /> Road and within the Business Park. Residential housing was suggested to be part of the <br /> area south of West Las Positas and the developers did not think it would work. The <br /> prototypes that were suggested for Hopyard reflected what is actually there now. She <br /> described the existing buildings and uses along the road. For many years, design review <br /> for projects in Hacienda were approved by beth the Planning Commission and the City <br /> Council. That only changed a few years ago. Traffic studies take into consideration the <br /> number of trips generated by a specific use. The trips for an office are calculated per <br />· square foot of space, not the number of tenants. Given the fact that this has been fallow <br /> property as a restaurant use, she would not consider require that a restaurant .use come <br /> back to this site. One possibility for the site is to intensify the use and build a larger, <br /> taller building. Instead, we have a project that will be a cornerstone for the city, has the <br /> same setback and footprint as the present building, and will be an asset to the city. She <br /> supported the application and felt it complemented the buildings across the street. She <br /> did not think it appropriate to review retail uses for this site. She did not support a <br /> feasibility study or reviewing other uses. The General Plan designates this property for <br /> office, commercial, retail, hotel, and restaurant uses. She did not want to change the <br /> General Plan to accommodate other things at this time. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico felt that if an office building were to be built on this property, that the <br />proposed project is an acceptable design. However, he also felt uncomfortable <br />overturning a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission at two meetings in a row on <br />issues that were significant from its perspective. He thought it would be appropriate to <br />take sixty days to review other uses for this site. He believed this was the first <br />redevelopment proposal and was concerned about setting a precedent. He thought it was <br />likely the market study would agree with the proposed use, but given the strong feelings <br />and direction from the Planning Commission, it would be a mistake not to take a little <br />more time and review all other options before making a final decision. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell asked Mayor Plco if he was concerned about spending $20,000 for <br />a study if it results in the same project before Council tonight? <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico was more concerned about making an irrevocable decision on land <br />use without having studied other options. When you consider the long term effects and <br />the $63 million budget for the entire city, $20,000 is not a significant amount. <br /> <br />Pl~osanton City Council 17 04/03/01 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />