Loading...
09/15/1987CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 A adjourned regular meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on September 15, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem Hugh J. Grant, Councilmember Dennis L. Evans, Councilmember Susan Shirley, Councilmember Chairman Caouette Vice Chairman Van Gelder Commissioner Hawkinson Commissioner Munson Commissioner Hargrave Commissioner Cole Commissioner Sims Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney David Sawyer, Planning Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: Thomas Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director The meeting was opened with invocation by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Grant. Mayor Matteson convened City Council and Planning Commission, this is from the adjourned meeting of September 10, 1987. Mayor Matteson indicated the first item on the list is the Retail development in the vicinity of DeBerry and the I-215 freeway. The Planning Director presented a staff report for Council's and Commissioners' information. On July 20, 1987 the Site and Architectural Review Board considered and conditionally approved SA 87-6, a proposed 3.3 acre commercial retail center located in the area north of DeBerry Street and east of I-215 freeway. He stated the project, as proposed, requires a General Plan Amendment which realigns the right-of-way of Commerce Way and also reduces the required width of Commerce Way. He stated todate, staff has not processed the General Plan Amendment to accomplish this because such a realignment of Commerce Way would have a significant impact on the property to the south of this project and should be considered in the overall General Plan Amendment. He stated Mr. Ross Geller has indicated to staff that the realignment of Commerce Way, as proposed by the applicant, is in -line with what he will be recommending. He stated the applicant has requested this joint meeting in hope that after a general discussion of the project, he will feel more comfortable in beginning work on the required drawings necessary for building permits and the Site and Architectural Review, while waiting for the General Plan Amendment to be heard. He noted the purpose of this meeting is for general discussion of this project and no action should be taken by either the City Council or the Planning Commission, as recommended by the Planning Department at this time. The Planning Director indicated the applicants were in the audience and felt they had presentations to present to Council and Commissioners. Vic Peloquin Mr. Peloquin indicated as being one of the owners of the 280 Pasalto property, and the property being in their possession Anaheim, CA approximately a year and in preparation of this development, he Victor understood the City had other developments proposed on this Construction property. Mr. Peloquin stated that in order to make the project economically feasible, they had to come up with a number of square feet at the price they paid for the property and the construction. He stated in order to do that, they need to get the road aligned to get better utilization of the land. He stated they are anticipating attracting freeway frontage users that need that exposure. Therefore, their design is leaning towards what they submitted to the Planning Commission approximately three and half months ago when they got a very receptive response from them regarding the overall project. Mr. Peloquin stated the only thing that the Planning Commission could not do was approve the realignment of the roads or the road width with regard to their development. He indicated, subsequent to that meeting, they understood that a General Plan Amendment change is coming before the City and is going to be presented to the City around October 12, 1987 for the first review. In preparing for that, and in talking with city officials, they found out their alignment matches the proposed alignment of the consultant. Mr. Peloquin stated they only had two issues to discuss; the alignment and the width of the road. He felt the alignment of the road that they came up with was what the City's Consultant would be recommending and, therefore, is not an issue to discuss. Mr. Peloquin stated if they widen the road further than it is right now, which is 21 ft. on either side, they could easily widen it to 24 ft., which would give you two travel lanes each direction. He felt they could widen the road to 48 ft. and come up with a 12-foot landscape buffer. He stated the two travel lanes being 12 ft. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 2 each bring a maximum total of 48 ft. from curb -to -curb which he believed would facilitate any future traffic needs within that scope of traffic impact. He stated if the Planning Commission, City Council and City Personnel all concurred with that, he would like to open for discussion. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Peloquin if he would show them on the map what he was talking about? Mr. Peloquin, pointing out on the map, stated what they have right now is the width of the road being 80 ft. up near the skating rink coming down to this area. He stated they propose an ultimate right-of-way of 72 ft., which is about 8 ft. short of what the width is now. He noted the recommendation they got at their last meeting, was there will be no "on -street" parking. If that is case, the width of the road could be narrowed down making it into two lanes in either direction, 48 ft. curb -to -curb. He indicated they would reduce their landscape buffer (made indication on the map) by 3 ft. and widen the road to 48 ft. curb -to -curb creating 2 lanes in either direction. Mayor Matteson questioned Mr. Peloquin as to where the street is ending now. Mr. Peloquin indicated the street ends at DeBerry (made indication on the map) and ties into the existing street and makes an even transition to Commerce terminating at DeBerry. The Planning Director stated the existing street ends at the beginning of the plan and what Mr. Peloquin is showing you was proposed. Mayor Matteson asked if this was the existing proposal or the revised proposal. Mr. Peloquin stated this is the only proposal they have ever submitted. Mayor Matteson asked who owns the land; was Mr. Peloquin dividing someone elses land. Mr. Peloquin stated they own all the land there (indicating on the map), 9.1 acres, they do not control any of the land on the other side. Mayor Matteson asked, so this does not affect anyone's property but your own. Mr. Peloquin replied "That is correct." Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked Mr. Peloquin to explain why the existing General Plan alignment would not make the project feasible and why the realignment is better for the project in the City. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 3 Mr. Peloquin proceeded to show where it terminates and stated, if this street were to continue on a parallel line with this, it would come right down in this location and they wouldn't have parking. He stated by realigning this street and coming out in this direction, they felt the interesection would be a much better intersection. Their main purpose is to get this road away from the freeway, which would allow for ample parking for larger users. Councilmember Grant asked the Planning Director how does it affect the property that continues on south from there. The Planning Director replied (indicating on map) the one area where the roads comes into is a property line that would impact these properties to the south. If, in fact, the road continued, it would impact each one of the properties on either side of the property line. Mayor Matteson asked if the property owners down there have been contacted regarding their opinion on the street coming in there. The Planning Director stated they have not been contacted by staff. Mayor Matteson asked the Planning Director to please contact them. Nick Bacani Mr. Bacani stated in the present plan of the 1983 General Plan, Victor Constr. the road goes all the way (indicating on the map) and even if this road goes this way and then goes this way, they feel it would not make very much difference. It would be very logical and advantageous for the development of the entire City if it goes this way and dissect this property (indicating on the map) in between because most of this area is vacant right now. He stated if this will be zoned similar to this (indicating on the map), it will be of a great importance to the City, because right now what we are attracting is freeway visibility. He stated if this grows, it would impact the growth. Mr. Peloquin stated, just in general terms, anytime you can get a road frontage on a piece of property, it will enhance the frontage value of the property. Councilmember Grant questioned you mentioned there will be no "on -street" parking, is that your own idea? Mr. Peloquin replied no, they met with staff approximately a week or week and half ago and it was a thought that no "on -street" parking in that location would be desirable. He stated whether staff recommends it now or whether the City Council would want "on -street" parking, what they are trying to do is get cars off the street and onto the parking lots. Mayor Matteson stated that he had mentioned in his report that there was no intended usage and so how can we designate how many parking spaces are required when we don't know what is going in. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 4 The Planning Director stated the current proposal is broken into three phases. The current proposal, which is going through Site and Architectural Review, is through the zoning of C-2 and CPD. The way our code is written, we have a blanket formula for that, with the exception of certain uses, such as hospitals, or something along those lines. He stated what the buildings are being built for, staff measured the parking for compliance with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code Section 18.60.060 for one space for 200 square feet of gross floor area. He stated so, as long as the use goes in and meets the CPD and C-2 use requirements the parking will be adequate as the code is written now. Mayor Matteson asked if there were any other questions? Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated several years ago, we attempted to put a minimum -acre development with an overlay on that area. She stated through a variety of moods, the development minimums were removed, but this project comes the closest to meeting that criteria that at one time we had set. She stated the hindsight being a little easier than foresight, had we known something like this would come in, we probably wouldn't have Orco Tool where it is. Mayor Matteson stated one of his concerns is that if we do narrow those streets down, we might have problem later on with traffic. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked the City Engineer if he could develop some type of scenario that would give Council and the Commissioners an idea of how traffic would be feeding into this alignment of Commerce Way and tell us whether in the future, that alignment could handle it. The City Engineer replied in the staff report that had been prepared for the first Planning Commission meeting, staff recognized the General Plan as it is now, which requires 88 ft. of right-of-way with a 64-foot curb -to -curb. He noted the existing conditions, as they are now in the developed section of Commerce Way is 60 ft. of curb -to -curb, which doesn't meet our current standards. He stated, strictly from a traffic standpoint, the 64-foot curb -to -curb provides for two lanes of traffic in either direction and a potential parking lane on either side, which means what you are ending up with is two 12-foot lanes of traffic, which is the half street. The City Engineer indicated the concerns he has, if any, are the fact of someone parking in a "No Parking" area which would impede traffic, like unnecessary turning movements off of Commerce Way into the various facilities. Councilmember Shirley said taking the extremely optimistic viewpoint that if this development goes in and becomes Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 5 extremely well used and the parking lot fills up and people start parking on the streets, how can the City deal with this and keep it under control? She believes there will be "on -street" parking, illegal or not, and she would like to address this point further and get some more comments on it. Mayor Matteson asked what will happen if you are required to put in that larger street, how would it affect your project? Mr. Peloquin stated if the larger streets are put into two lanes either direction and parking, it impacts the parking requirements all along both sides and we will have to put in another 8 ft. The landscaping will diminish and will also take out parking spaces, which then reduces our square footage of our buildings. He stated so, economically, it impacts them severely. Mayor Matteson stated we do not know what will develop down from there either. Mr. Peloquin stated as far as the parking on the street, he felt it could be easily controlled as they do it in other cities that have "no parking" on the streets. They put in red curb, "No Parking" signs and enforce it with citations. Mayor Matteson expressed a concern about delivery trucks or furniture trucks coming to deliver, they are going to double park out on the streets while they find out what they are suppose to do, right there that makes one lane. Mr. Peloquin stated, traditionally, they don't do that, but he can't say that they wouldn't. They are suppose to be pulling into the parking lot and if they have delivered once to that location, they know where they are going, and they just drive in. Councilmember Shirley questioned if there was anything that provides for compact car parking and, if so, has that been taken into consideration? Mr. Peloquin stated it had been taken into consideration. He stated he thought the code is 25 percent for compact, he wasn't sure what it is in Grand Terrace. Councilmember Evans stated he felt we are getting off the path, and if he understood what was being asked is to give input to two issues, (1) whether or not we agree with your current alignment, (2) decide as to the proper width. He stated in the staff report, the Planning Director mentioned that the Consultant had indicated he had no problem with this alignment and this is what he is going to be recommending, is this not correct? Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 6 The Planning Director replied that is what he had indicated to him at this point. Councilmember Evans asked the Planning Director in his professional opinion, is that realignment better for the City than what is currently on our General Plan? The Planning Director replied, "Yes." Councilmember Evans asked the Planning Director if he could justify why. The Planning Director stated he felt the applicant talked about some of the reasons. Basically, the current alignment runs along this easement here (indicating place on map). What that is going to produce is the strip of commercial here that does not allow for interior parking of the adjacent two structures. He stated it continues on down into the next section of properties along the freeway, and the easement is down there also and this alignment will allow us to dissect the property and allow a cluster of developments on either side. Councilmember Evans asked, "for better utilization of all the area?" The Planning Director replied, "that is correct." Councilmember Evans asked The City Engineer, from an engineering standpoint, if we were to go with this realignment and continue with it south of DeBerry, in your professional opinion as an engineer is this a better realignment than the current General Plan? The City Engineer replied he had no doubt that it is a better alignment than the one on the current General Plan. Councilmember Evans stated his position would be at this particular point is we got it from our Consultants, our staff, that that's probably what we should go with. Mayor Matteson asked if he could get some input from the Planning Commission? Planning Chairman Caouette stated that initially having been through a Commission former review project, he agreed with the consensus. Commissioner Commissioner Hawkinson stated he concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Planning Pfennighausen as far as what the Commissioners attempted to do Commission with an overlay, and he felt this is what they were looking for, this type of development. Mayor Matteson asked if there were any property owners here who would like to speak on this subject? Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 7 Tony Petta Mr. Petta made reference to the alignment and to the streets. First he pointed out that the present alignment was designed along the flood control right-of-way with the minimum impaction upon the property owners. He stated that was designed to be a frontage road. He stated it doesn't mean a realignment wouldn't be better, it's possible it could be. However, in order for the property owners to be able to intelligently discuss the realignment, we need to know where it is. Mayor Matteson asked the Planning Director to move the map where the audience could see. The Planning Director showed the audience where the realignment was located on the map. Mr. Petta stated if that is the location of the alignment, then the alignment will affect his property and it will also affect the property which is south of him. He stated one of his questions had been answered, the indication that the road would be on the property and half on either side. The Planning Director stated that is what he understood the recommendation to be. The Planning Director stated, we can assume recommendation could be made at this time, for discussion purposes. Mr. Petta stated if that is the case, let him point out that half of this road, which would be the west side, at DeBerry and Commerce Way, the southwest corner, is a duplex and that duplex would be in the way of the road. He stated that since that property has already been developed, it would be ages before the City could force the owner to put in a road at that particular point. He asked if that would create a problem for the City? Mr. Bacani stated they are aligning the new road with one of the edges of the right-of-way, to be the edge of the 30-foot water easement line. He indicated a property on the map that looks like it is abandoned. Mr. Petta asked Mr. Bacani if he was north of DeBerry now, and the response was yes. The Planning Director stated this is the 30-foot easement that Mr. Bacani is talking about coming down through this area here (indicating a place on the map). He stated this is the easement for the water line and across the street there is a green pressure pop -off valve on the other side of DeBerry. He stated he wasn't sure if that is dead center in that easement, but you can kind of get a picture of where this road is going to be. It is going to be a little bit east of the green valve that is on the other side. He indicated this easement is Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 8 already existing and felt it has about 60" of water line that runs down through the high pressure. Mayor Matteson wanted to know where the duplex was that Mr. Bacani was referring to. The Planning Director stated he wasn't sure where Victor Construction Company property was and asked them to come up and point out their property. After the explanation and indication on the map, Mayor Matteson asked if that duplex was to the west of that water cap. Mr. Peloquin stated he wasn't sure. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Harber to point out on the map where his property was in relationship to where they were talking about and then share with us your ideas. Mr. Harber indicated if he understood it right, it's across from Mr. Petta's property. He stated he really had no problem with the possibility of a half street on each side of the property line and felt it would be a good asset and felt it would be advantageous to others in the area. Councilmember Evans stated if he understood his position then, you don't have any objections at all to continue Commerce Way from this particular development southward as long as it divides the property line. Mr. Harber replied, no, he did not have any objections to that and felt that it appears as though the development that is proposed here has had some good planning done and he does not object to the realignment nor the development. Councilmember Evans stated he felt the general consensus of what has been proposed is probably the best utilization for everyone right now. Mr. Harber stated that in his opinion, yes, and he agrees with that. Mayor Matteson asked if there was anyone who objected to this realignment. Mr. Petta stated that his conversation was not in the form of an objection, but his question was specifically about the duplex at the corner. He stated he really saw no real objections to that situation. He questioned if the Planners had considered that? Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 9 The Planning Director stated that he believed Mr. Petta explained two of the options that are available. We could either let the property stay there and when it is no longer useful, we could put it in our plan or else decide it is needed and we could purchase the property, but that decision would be up to Council at that time. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated, due to the fact that the General Plan Consultants have not come in with their recommendations of land use in the area located between DeBerry and Van Buren, it is very difficult for us at this time to project what will happen to that duplex. She stated there didn't seem to be a great deal of concern about what would happen to that duplex when the proposed Regional Shopping Mall was in place, but either a wall or blacktop would take its place. She felt that at such time as the property would develop, she was certain the owner of that duplex, all things being given, if the price were right, the property would be sold and the road would go through. She indicated she would have great concern over an alignment that would take this alignment from Commerce Way to DeBerry, then jogger over to the freeway, down to Van Buren and then some other way from Van Buren. She stated she was very concerned as to where roads are going to go and alignment and street widths. She noted the General Plan Consultants have not come in with their recommendations. The property owners in that area have not had an opportunity, as well as public forum, to come forward and give their recommendations of what they would like to see developed in the area. She hoped that is going to happen, Council has recommended it. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen felt what the developers are asking us for tonight is a conceptual okay with the adjusted street width and the realignment, in order to proceed with the project in a timely manner. She indicated the developer understands that we can't make any decisions tonight, he is just trying to get a feel. She stated she would like to hear from the Planning Commission and she introduced the new Planning Commissioner, Jimmy Sims. Councilmember Grant indicated regardless of what the Consultant ultimately recommends in the area south of DeBerry, there is most likely going to be a need for the extension of this road, so you cannot very well put your head in the sand and ignore the fact the duplex is there. He indicated he is delighted to see that this project is attempting to be approved and as far as the width of the roads are concerned, he has concerns, as well as the Mayor, about parking with red lining. He stated they had better look at that very seriously now when we can do something about it. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 10 Mayor Matteson stated it seems to be the consensus of the Planning Commission, the property owners and the City Council, that the alignment is for the best interest of the City and he felt you can almost take that as a direction. He indicated the other issue is the width and there seem to be some controversy on that. He opened discussion on width. Seth Armstead Mr. Armstead stated he is an absentee owner for Grand Terrace, but he would like to go on record that Mr. Petta and he are fifty-fifty on this proposition and he is in favor of the extension of Commerce Way, because you are going to need the local use of sales tax. Commissioner Sims stated that one thing he noticed on the plan is that the parkway seemed to be fully landscaped discouraging any kind of pedestrian movements at all and asked the Planning Director is that the intent. The Planning Director stated one of the options that was discussed at the Planning Commission level was whether or not sidewalks would be appropriate for this type of development. He stated sidewalks were in the original recommendations from the City Engineer, but the Planning Commission felt that for this type of development pedestrian walkways along Commerce Way was not what they were intending to encourage. Commissioner Sims stated in his mind he was relating back to the concern of the roadway width and what would happen beyond the illegal parking flow. In an emergency situation if a vehicle breaks down, naturally they will go to the side of the road, and there doesn't seem to be any provision for escape along the side of the road except in the roadway itself. He indicated being interested in seeing what the Consultants have prepared on this and really would like to see what they say. Mayor Matteson concurred with Commissioner Sims and felt width is very important. Dick Yost Mr. Yost stated either he missed something or something has not 23247 Barton Road been pointed out that he felt would be rather obvious. He questioned about parking on either side which would take about another 12 ft. total or 24 ft. on either side. He asked why couldn't there be a 12-foot turn -lane right down through the middle of it? He stated we are talking about taking up 12 ft. instead of 24 ft. total, so that will have an impact on your cost factor there too, but a lesser cost factor than an additional 12 ft. for parking. Lee Swertfeger Mr. Swertfeger stated he really liked the sound of the whole 12438 Michigan project and agreed with Mr. Yost. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 11 Councilmember Evans stated he thought the purpose of this meeting was to try and get a feel for the developers. He stated he hoped that the issue of realignment has been addressed to your satisfaction. The issue of width of the street, we can't give you any definitive directions because we don't know what the consultant is going to propose south of DeBerry. Councilmember Evans stated as far as traffic hazards, he felt that staff has given you direction, we can put up "No Parking" signs, that is no problem. Obviously in the event of an emergency, people may have to park where they are not going to be able to get off the roadway. His concern was that of decreasing it down to 48 ft. He felt it is imperative that we do provide some kind of turning lane and as to what will be appropriate, that will have to be worked out through staff and the Engineering Department. He felt they cannot eliminate the utilization of landscaping. He feels the City needs to heavily emphasize landscaping, because it sets a tone and he is not prepared to cut back on that. Chairman Caouette Chairman Caouette stated he really does appreciate the scale and scope of this particular project and felt all of us would like to see this project and more like it. Vice -Chairman Van Gelder stated she does not have a problem with a slightly narrower street, but she did feel it is important to have a center -turn lane. She did not feel that red lining the curb is going to be a problem. She is very pleased with the project and hopes we can give it every support possible. Commissioner Hawkinson stated that he concurred with everything that had been said as far as the project itself and is very delighted to see something like this being proposed. He indicated he is more in favor of a wider width of street, specifically the turning lane in the center. Commissioner Hargrave felt we would need a turning lane on Commerce Way, as a minimum, and felt it might be prudent to have the developer, when they come in with their proposal, give us some of the numbers. He stated perhaps we can mitigate the number of parking spaces that we have in this particular project as a way of having what we want as far as the traffic, which he felt is far more important and has a higher priority than getting an exact number of parking stalls. He stated he would be happy to give up some of the parking spaces in that complex to get a turning lane on that road. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 12 Commissioner Hargrave stated he would like to see some numbers. If we put a turning lane on Commerce Way, how many parking spaces in this project would we lose, and then look at that. If it is reasonable and not too far out of line, then maybe that is a good trade off. Commissioner Hargrave asked the Planning Director if the project contains approximately 35,000 square feet of floor space, is this rentable or usable floor space or are we talking gross floor space? The Planning Director stated the square footage was figured on gross within the buildings themselves. It does not take into account sidewalks or walkways in between the buildings, but it does include storage areas within the buildings. Commissioner Hargrave stated so, in that case, the square footage that we have represented here, really is more square footage than is going to be used for commercial sense. He noted if we could get a little better idea on the actual square footage that this project might have as far as resale floor space then you might be able to better equate that into the actual number of parking stalls that we would need. Commissioner Sims indicated he heard a lot of good comments; his concern revolved around an emergency situation. He concurred with Commissioner Hargrave in making sure the road is wide enough. Mr. Peloquin stated in general, and understood the conservative approach that was mentioned in regard to the error in widening of the street or going conservative to an wider asphalt buffer in there. He stated the problem that you face is that the street is not a tax -generating source for the City and it never will be. The square footage of the buildings that is allowed to be put on that property is a tax -generated basis and is an income for the City. If you error too large in a wide street, it just goes perpetually for years and years and never earns you any income. So it's a thought process in there, of at least getting to a happy medium of getting the amount of square footage that's both profitable for us as developers and also to develop to generate income for the City. He indicated a left -turn pocket is not going to be traveled at a high speed, it's mostly slow down and turning to the left. He indicated we have a tremendous amount of landscaping which is to allow us to have approximately an 8-foot landscape buffer on either side, four 12-foot lanes and a 10-foot left -turn pocket lane within the right-of-way. He felt we will still end up with the ultimate width of approximately 72 feet. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 13 Comissioner Hargrave stated if developers come in and don't do their homework economically and make generic overtones and know they haven't done it, and you come in and say this is the square foot this project needs and you have done your homework properly, he felt you can make a good case, indicating most Planning Departments will go along with it. Mr. Peloquin stated he appreciated what Commissioner Hargrave was saying, but we do have some physical constraints and what you are seeing on the board up there is not just a one afternoon shot at getting the best utilization of the property. It was well thought out for many, many weeks. He indicated they have some physical constraints as far as the width between the buildings; the width of the right-of-way that has to be put in for the travel lanes within the parking area and then the parking stalls themselves and that by virtue of those constraints end up almost dictating where the property line has to be. He stated they might go back and try to do something with that, but he wasn't sure how they can. (Indicating going over to the board), if we just move, for example, this right-of-way over 3 or 4 feet, it will eliminate this entire row of parking, because we have to have a 25 foot width, plus the parking stall links in here. Mayor Matteson stated or you can adjust the building, you don't have to lose all the parking, you're talking 3 feet, adjust the building by 3 feet or come up with different designs. Mr. Bacani stated one solution which would strike a happy medium between the problem of curb -to -curb that will allow a left -turn pocket (allowing a right-of-way of 72 ft.), 72 ft. divided into 12 (12 on a 4-12 lane) is 48 ft. and a 10 ft. left-hand pocket (58 ft.). He indicated subtracting that from the 72 ft. right-of-way, (14 ft.). Mr. Bacani indicated if you allow 6 to 7 ft. of landscaping, (6 ft. on both sides), you have 5-12 ft. lanes, (12-foot width curb -to -curb). Mr. Bacani explained a 6-foot landscape buffer on the both sides of road would be more than enough, depending on the kind of landscaping (inside and outside). He stated, Victor Construction emphasizes beautiful landscaping on the buildings that he owns. Mr. Bacani agreed with Councilmember Evans that landscaping attracts people. He stated, they could perhaps propose instead of the 15-foot landscaping buffer they have drawn, they can accommodate the road 4 lanes of 12 ft. and a center -lane pocket of 10 to 12 ft. and the remainder will be 6 ft. on either side for landscaping where we can have trees and shrubs. He stated if you even want to put sidewalks, you can accommodate it. Still it comes to 72 ft. right-of-way and if that is acceptable by the City, then what they are after here tonight is direction. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 14 Mr. Peloquin noted that Mr. Bacani had been spending about $30,000.00 a month to carry available funds. He indicated one of the greatest difficulties in development of a project is to get a lender. This project, in particular, because we have got a joint -venture partner and a lender who has been sold on the idea and has carried the interest for so many months now. There comes a time when they can carry no more, and this is the reason we are asking the Planning Director to give us some direction so we can proceed with the hard-line drawings. Once we have the hard-line drawings, we can look forward to submitting building plans as fast as we can and move forward with the project. Mr. Bacani asked for the extremes of the dimensions and we will try to work with them. If our proposition of a 72-foot right-of-way is acceptable, then we can proceed. The Planning Director stated the purpose of tonight's meeting is to try to give the developers some idea of how the Council may act in the future regarding the width and the alignment of the road. We are getting into some detailed information that really deals with site plans, not Site and Architectural Review, but unfortunately it does affect the width of the road. We've talked about the turning lanes, the parking, the width and we are now touching on landscaping. He stated, and while you are making that decision about how you would want to comment on that. We are asking Council to realize that the landscaping being proposed is within the right-of-way in a normal development the way the code is written up. The 15-foot landscaping buffer has to be on their property (the development property), not in the City right-of-way. The problem with that is that we need to make sure that we have all of the width that we want now, including the parking and the turn lane. He noted, because in the future if we are going to approve a project which allows less than the 15-foot landscape buffer within the right-of-way in order to widen it, we will be eliminating all of the landscaping in the future. Mayor Matteson indicated, okay, let's finish up with the Planning Commissioner's opinions. Commissioner Munson stated, the minimum width of the street should be the four lanes plus the turning lane. However, he will be happy to compromise on the landscaping or the parking. He felt we can't be set in what we demand, you have to negotiate and would negotiate with the landscaping and parking. He did not feel all of the parking will be used all of the time. Commissioner Cole stated, he too, had concerns about the street width, but felt the left turn lanes were needed. He indicated, his reluctance to give in on the landscaping because he believed the landscaping establishes the tone and setting for Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 15 the entire project. He felt 6-foot landscaping on either side of the street would be a minimum amount that would be just a place to collect gum wrappers. As far as negotiating or giving in on the parking, he guessed he would take objection to that also. He indicated we would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we cut down on the amount of parking required for the buildings and he would not be in favor of that suggestion. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated, she would like to summarize where she stood at this point. She stated, she is particularly cognizant of the fact that a vehicle may break down and she didn't think that when roads and freeways are planned they keep adding additional lanes for the fact that someone may break down on one and, therefore, you add another to accommodate and so on. She stated, usually, vehicles are removed rather rapidly when they find themselves in that situation. The road width is of concern and she felt that the two lanes in each direction with a turning -lane is advisable and she did not feel she would be in favor in reducing to a 6-foot landscaping buffer. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she appreciated Commissioner Hargrave calling to our attention the fact that, the number of square feet within each building does not accommodate customers and, therefore, that's where we are associating square footage to a retail space, not storage space. She stated if she had to move off center of anything, she would like to retain the landscape buffer and negotiate on the parking based on usable retail space. She stated she would ask all the Planning Commissioners and all the members of the Council to audit the local shopping centers and see that there is probably only one season of the year when cars park the entire parking lot available, and that is Christmas. Otherwise, the perimeter parking space is never used because Americans have become traditionally lazy and they do not want to walk more than 50 feet. Barney Karger Mr. Karger stated he is very much in favor of a wider street 11668 Bernardo and less greenery. Now, the parking as you said, is used only Way at certain times, so he would compromise on that. Also remember that you do not have to consider your greenery as horizontal, it can also be vertical. If you have ferns that make 8 ft. look like 15 ft. or have more trees so that you have more greenery and looks bigger. So, if the developer can assure the Planning Department and convince them that he is going to have a greenery affect, he sees no reason for not giving up some of the greenery space. Councilmember Evans stated, he felt the purpose of the meeting tonight has been to give direction; that everyone is agreeable to the realignment. He stated the fact of the matter is that they are not going to bend on the street width. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 16 He thought the developers have heard that we are ready to compromise and the compromise will probably be in parking, maybe some in landscaping. The City Attorney stated, the Council has not indicated they are going to compromise on parking. That, requires a variance and we certainly cannot commit to granting variances and making those findings and felt it is simply one of the areas you would consider. Councilmember Evans stated, that is the direction he is hearing, they are willing to do that. The Planning Director stated in the Code, there is some flexibility for parking that is allowed for the developer and the Planning Director to compromise on. He indicated that we could do some of this without having to go through the variance requirements which would, in essence, allow us to do it because the findings for a variance could be very difficult in this situation. Mayor Matteson stated, basically, everyone is for the project; it's a good project; everybody is for the alignment, but you are going to have problems with that street width, so that is your basis. Mr. Peloquin Mr. Peloquin stated, in regard to the street width from the City Engineer, The Planning Director and anyone who might be an expertise on it. If four 12-foot lanes, two in either direction, and a 10-foot left -turn pocket would be acceptable, we might be able to go back and start with that. If we are told, that, it is 12 ft., then he wasn't sure if the lanes could all be 11 ft., this are somethings he would like to have some direction on if, in fact, anyone knows. The City Engineer stated, basically, what the City Council has discussed this evening appears to him is that we are back to the original staff recommendation of 60 ft. In that respect, he would suggest that as the rest of the property develops along Commerce Way, he has a feeling we are going to have a "No Parking" situation all along Commerce Way if there is going to be a turning lane. He asked, we are talking right now about 2 ft., is that what you are talking about, am I correct, the difference between a 10 and 12-foot turning lane? Mr. Peloquin stated it is not that they are objecting to that, it is just that they could solve more landscaping buffer problems with two more feet of landscaping than we could in putting in more asphalt. So, it is almost one in the same as far as cost, it's just they are trying to get a happy medium to accommodate everyone's need. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 17 The City Engineer stated, strictly from an engineering stand point, if someone came to him five years from now and said Joe, why the 1-foot indentation in the curb, he would have a hard time trying to explain that to him, but it doesn't make sense, if it is that critical, lets look at it again. He stated there are certain things we can live with and everyone understands until someone says why did they do this? Mr. Peloquin stated they have a beautiful project coming into the City and they are very proud of what they are going to be doing. He indicated they are now buffered against Commerce Way, that is, going up into Michigan with a very very wide street. They are promoting bringing in a beautiful project to the City. A lot of color, a lot of elegance into the window of the City coming in. They stated they do need some concession to make this a very viable and very successful project for the City. He thanked everyone for their concerns and indicated they will go back and give some consideration to the width of the street, but he didn't necessarily see how that they are going to automatically open it up to be a 80 or 90-foot wide street. Mayor Matteson stated he realized the maximum you get out of property is the more money you can make and as a business man that's your purpose, but at the same token we have to consider everything that is involved. Councilmember Evans stated he did not know if the City Engineer answered his question, do you start from the base of 58 ft. or do you start from 60 ft. The City Engineer replied there are no decisions to be made here, theoretically, you should be starting with the base of 88 ft. of right-of-way and 64 ft. curb -to -curb. He stated staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission was that a minimum of 60 ft. curb -to -curb be followed and that is what we are recommending right now. That will give us two lanes in either direction, plus a turning lane. Councilmember Evans asked a question from an engineering standpoint. He has been out to too many traffic accidents and has had to measure streets, lane widths, what have you. Most of his experience shows that a turning lane generally averages 10 ft., is that a correct assumption? The City Engineer replied your affected width for all practical purposes is probably 10 ft. because you are not going to drive in the gutter lane, you basically have 10 ft. of pavement to drive on. He stated he has known of some streets that are 10-feet wide and they certainly impede the traffic and they also caused more accidents in the area. He felt a 12-foot lane is what should be used in the public street. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 18 Mayor Matteson stated that is why Officer Evans was out there on the accident because of the 10 ft. He thanked Mr. Peloquin and stated he hoped they had given them enough information to work that night. Mayor Matteson indicated Item #2, Temporary Restraining Order against Fieldcrest Homes. The Planning Director read the staff report regarding testimonies from local residents that live adjacent to the Fieldcrest Development and primarily their complaints about the violation of the City Municipal Code Section 8.108.030 Noise. He stated, present this evening is a representative of the Fieldcrest Development and if Council so desires, staff would suggest opening the floor and affording him the opportunity to give a testimony. The City Attorney stated we really are here to give the developers the opportunity to respond, and if he does not respond and if the testimony that you hear is such that you deem if a public nuisance, you should declare it and direct the City Attorney to obtain a preliminary injunction, Temporary Restraining Order. He stated he did contact the developer's representative and they indicated they would be present this evening and he believed they were present. He stated he felt they should have the opportunity to respond, he generally conveyed to them what the complaints were and he will let them tell you what their response is in their own words. John Neggie Mr. Neggie stated they have a problem and they have tried to Superintendent solve it. He believes some of it has been a little bit for Fieldcrest exaggerated. He indicated according to an officer by the name Development of Riggs said that the last seven days they have not had a violation called in, with the exception of today. He stated they had one that was stupidly done by one of the workmen and he told the officer it was his first day there when it wasn't. He stated they sent out letters to all the subcontractors that starting before 7:00 a.m. will not be tolerated and if they continue to do this, they will no longer be working on the Fieldcrest Project. He stated they have signs up, they will put fences up, if necessary. He stated he did not know what else to do except shut the whole thing down. He stated it is very difficult to talk to people who can't speak English. He stated most of them understand now because they have been cited a couple of times and he hopes this will be the end of this so that they can go on with the building. Mayor Matteson asked if there were any residents that would like to speak on this. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 19 Bill Dodge Mr. Dodge said that he was here at the September 10, 1987 22887 Finch meeting and a couple of his neighbors addressed Council with these problems. He stated he gave Council copies of the logs that he and his neighbors kept of the violations for the last four or five days since the last meeting. This past Sunday, he went down into the development and chased off two gentlemen who were trying to deliver scaffolding, and when he asked them aren't you aware of this ordinance, they said nobody ever told us about it. He stated the only thing that discouraged them was the possibility of the $50.00 cite. He stated he has not done his job. He has not done anything about avoiding or creating less of a nuisance. Mr. Dodge stated he was here tonight to act as a representative for all the neighbors who border this project to ask that, in fact, that this project be considered a public nuisance and that an injunction be started against them. He indicated this is the only way these people are going to understand it. Mr. Dodge said as far as what he wants and what his neighbors want is their peace and quiet and the only way they are going to get it is get an injunction process started to have this company declared a public nuisance. He stated they also want to know why, out of the thirty-six times that the sheriff was out, he cited only twice. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Neggie if he wanted to answer that? Mr. Neggie stated the signs were made out and brought out today, one sign, a double sided sign. He stated there will be two more signs which will cover up the two streets coming in, that will be Van Buren and Cardinal. Mr. Neggie stated there is no problem getting those put up and they will also put fences up on the existing streets, coming up Cardinal and also on Van Buren and will lock those. They will lock the street on Observation, and it will not be opened until 7:00 a.m. because he will have the only key. Marilyn Dodge Mrs. Dodge stated on Sunday, she also had to call the sheriff because there was a roofer out there using a saw to cut the cement tiles. She did not believe that sheriff had any trouble communicating with that roofer because the roofer ultimately got down, packed up his tools and left. She stated she did not think there is a problem with communication in English. Mayor Matteson thanked Mrs. Dodge and asked what if we give Mr. Neggie an opportunity to fence that, lock the gates and also give Mr. Dodge your phone number, so that if there is a problem, you call Mr. Neggie and try to solve it in that manner. He asked would that be satisfactory to you Mr. Dodge? Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 20 Mr. Dodge replied sure, he will go along with that. Mr. Dodge stated he wants a date when it will be put up and in place. He stated if we don't we will be leaving them with an open-end situation, and he has found it does not work. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Neggie when could he have that fence put up. Mr. Neggie said he will have the contractor out tomorrow and it shouldn't be no more than two or three days. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Dodge and Mr. Neggie to please exchange phone numbers and Mr. Neggie could call and give Mr. Dodge a date and also call the City and give the City that date. Mrs. Dodge stated Mr. Faries, who was not here tonight, was concerned about them undercutting his back fence. Mayor Matteson asked them to give Mr. Faries the phone number of Mr. Neggie. Mrs. Dodge asked how about the run-off ditch? What's going to happen on that? Mayor Matteson stated the City Engineer will handle that. She wanted is there a deadline on that? The City Engineer stated they will get with Mr. Neggie and resolve all these problems in the very near future. The City Engineer stated yes he understood and, Mr. Dodge, in the past, that these are some of the problems we've had and this was before Mr. Neggie's appearance on the job. He stated he was not saying that this developer is exceptional or that he is the worst in the world, he is saying that since this has been brought to our attention, you and I spoke approximately about a week or so ago, he wasn't aware of all the problems, unfortunately, not that he could have solved them. He stated his experience has been that working with them, they try to be reasonable and all he is saying is that he would like to sit down with Mr. Neggie and try to resolve those problems and then come back and give a definite date as to when they will be resolved if not before we get back together. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Dodge if he would get Mr. Neggie's phone number so you can reach him 24-hours a day. Mr. Neggie said in the background that his main office number and home phone number is on there. Councilmember Evans stated it sounds as if we are dealing with two problems, a building engineering problem and the noise ordinance problem. He stated he will only address the noise because he thinks that is the primary concern this evening. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Neggie, you are prepared to put up a fence around the whole project, is that correct? Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 21 Mr. Neggie stated they will have to. That is the only way they are going to be able to keep those people out before 7:00 a.m. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Neggie from your experience in the past, how long will it take to get a fence up? Mr. Neggie stated anywhere from three to four days. Councilmember Evans stated one week from this Thursday, Council will be meeting again, if it is not, he would like to request right now that matter be put on the agenda for review. If it is agreeable with Mr. Dodge and if the problems have not been resolved at that time, they will seriously consider taking the Temporary Restraining Order. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated the thing that disturbs her about this whole thing is that Grand Terrace is a quality community and we encourage development with quality developers. She stated Fieldcrest was not the original company that we were dealing with and she has had nothing but problems come out of that development ever since it broke ground. She stated she cannot imagine how a company the size of Fieldcrest cannot have a fence up around the perimeter of that facility in less than four days, if they really wanted to. She stated a quality developer comes in, understands the area he is in, and works responsibly and cooperatively with the community. Fieldcrest owes that to Grand Terrace and we intend to see that Fieldcrest gives it to us. Commissioner Sims indicated as one of the owners, he thinks the fence is a good idea, but he wanted to stress that you are putting up a barrier to prevent people from getting in before 7:00 a.m., but you won't be doing anything to prevent the people from milling around those lock gates and quite possibly creating a disturbance at the same early hours. Mr. Neggie gave Council a copy of what they sent out to all their subcontractors. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated there is an amazing mechanism and it is called a payroll check. It has an amazing quality of being able to control what that man does. Mayor Matteson stated we have discussed this thing and now hopefully we have a solution worked out between Mr. Neggie and Mr. Dodge. This is not going to be perfect no matter which way it goes, there has to be a little give and take, so hopefully both of you will work together and try to come up with a solution. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 22 1 Councilmember Evans stated just so he understands, this will be on for the next meeting for review? The Planning Director stated if Council so desires. Councilmember Evans stated he feels it is imperative. Also, Mr. Neggie, if you have legal counsel, have them explain to you what a Temporary Restraining Order is all about and the power of a Peace Officer, if someone violates it. Mayor Matteson adjourned t next regular City Council September 25, 1987 at 5:30 Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 23 he meeting at 9:45 p.m. until the meeting which will be held Thursday, p.m. Respectfully submitted: uty City Cleft APPROVED: