France was in a position to get more than OTL I think. Sure, pushing for maximum peace always brings some resentment, but I think that they had the military and diplomatic power to enforce such terms at the time. They had, after all, full control of the area. Possession is nine tenths, especially when your main challenger on the issue shares no common border anymore.
The general sentiment in France was that the treaty really shortchanged them. They did really well in the north and gained nothing for their trouble. It was an accepted practice to win land in war, and the treaty had various terms that would have made French gains in the low countries somewhat tolerable for the other powers. It should not be understated how happy the British were at the time to have France finally recognize the legitimacy of its claim to Hanover, for example, as well as the expulsion of the Jacobites.
Giving small bits of the northern part of the area to Holland might be enough to buy their support. The British are worried by the foothold France has gained in India with its conquest of Madras and they want to trade it back. Austria is powerless unless Britain wants to keep fighting. Thats essentially the situation. My own opinion is that the French simply undershot in that treaty, and it may have been seen as weakness and precipitated the Seven Year War.