The look of Tennant Avenue at Highway 101 may change in the
future and, as a bonus, the physician count in Morgan Hill could go
up as well.
The look of Tennant Avenue at Highway 101 may change in the future and, as a bonus, the physician count in Morgan Hill could go up as well.
At Wednesday’s City Council meeting the council approved on a 3-2 split vote adopted a policy that will allow a 10,000 square-foot medical office building to temporarily fulfill a general plan requirement for a large tenant on a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the 29-acre site on the southwest corner of the interchange.
A PUD requires a plan for the complete site before any construction can begin and includes location and descriptions of streets, landscaping and signs and which sort of businesses might be included. However, according to Realtor John Telfer who is marketing most of the multi-owner site, no large anchor has been found.
Instead, two owners, Dr. Arthur Biedermann, an allergist with offices in several Bay Area cities, and Nick Goyal want to begin developing the site without one. But the general plan stands in the way.
Goyal wants to build a gas station, car wash and mini mart plus a fast food restaurant – most likely Wienerschnitzl, purveyor of hotdogs. Biedermann told the council in January that he wants to build an office building to house an allergy clinic and bring in several physicians in other specialties.
Telfer was asked if the medical building might build before the service quartet.
“Dr. Biedermann is not interested in proceeding alone,” Telfer said. He said the Goyal project would install much of the area’s infrastructure – streets, sidewalks – that the doctor couldn’t afford to do himself.
The problem arose over two items in the general plan: land use policy 10c requires all commercial sites on freeway interchanges be zoned PUD and 10.5, that orders that the zoning ordinance be amended to insist that fast food restaurants and gas stations should not precede larger tenants in a PUD. Telfer’s clients are requesting the opposite.
At first Councilman Greg Sellers had reservations.
“Are we piecemealing this (site) away so there’s no room for a major anchor tenant?” he asked.
Sellers said he was uncomfortable allowing “the secondary use (gas station, car wash) to dictate to the larger one.”
Councilman Larry Carr said that the original goal (to wait for a large tenant) was “great when the economy is building but it’s not a reality of today. How long are we willing to hold out for an anchor tenant?”
Mayor Dennis Kennedy asked if allowing the smaller projects to build would endanger a future larger tenant.
“By allowing this to proceed, do we jeopardize an appropriate developer?” he asked.
“No,” said David Bischoff, community development director. “If only part of the infrastructure is put in (the part nearest Tennant Avenue), it would not preclude that.”
Council, fresh from a controversial discussion on June 18 over its auto dealer strategy and the location of dealerships in town, cast an eye on the Tennant PUD.
“Is any part of this (site) a possible location for auto dealerships,” asked Kennedy.
“Yes,” said City Manager Ed Tewes, “but since it lies within 10 miles of Gilroy, any dealership would have to be one not already in Gilroy.”
A 10-mile distance between same-company dealers is considered minimum.
Sellers pointed out the brands on the council’s auto strategy list include Lexus and Volvo, neither of which is in Gilroy.
Councilwoman Hedy Chang, who is against Ford building on Condit Road near East Dunne Avenue, pounced on the possibility.
“If we approve this tonight, do we preclude an auto dealership there (on Tennant)?” she asked.
Again the answer was no as long as the primary site remained visible from the freeway, Bischoff said.
Carr said he wanted to make it clear that council was approving a trial reinterpretation for freeway PUDs and that they would review this revision after it had been applied once or twice.
Councilman Steve Tate, a former planning commissioner, differed.
“This cannot be a trial,” he said. “There are no parcels left to correct it.” Because he disapproved of allowing the deviation, Tate voted no.
Chang initially voted yes but changed her vote to no. In discussion she said she was concerned that the property be reserved for a possible car dealership.
Tewes assured council members they were not amending anything with Wednesday’s motion.
“You are only adopting policy for staff and applicants regarding this particular development, about what constitutes the larger development required by the group.”
