Problems In the Future?? Ya Sure You Betcha

Paww...

The new development reported below potentially has no chance of being completed. Anita told me that construction lenders are not giving out dollars to potential borrowers on "SPEC" developments. Unless you got a hard and signed commitment from a potential occupant, there is no way to get a construction loan on any speculative properties. He may wear an expensive suit, but has no Millions of dollars.

Part of the the new project is speculative as mentioned by the developer at the meeting. Thus doubtful in part or whole of any forthcoming dollars as the lenders do not want to create any more unoccupied buildings.

I think this why the developer is in such a rush now. No occupant was proposed for occupying the RESTAURANT pad, or remainder of Starbucks building. Maybe a Togos, a Wendy's, a Del Taco, or Food Connection was considered as fodder.

The developer has two good clients now, only needs two to four more that agree with him and then....


Paawww....

Approved on 18th At the meeting of the City of G.T. Planning Commission the evening of the 18th, a notorious plan was presented for examination and public comment concerning a future development on the Northwest corner of Barton Road, at Mt. Vernon, a very well seen site today. This is the corner where the present day Starbucks coffee shop is located and where some demolition of offices is now going on. Most every resident ought to be familiar with the vicinity.

The meeting went on for about two hours, and an 'oft repeated sayings were noted. One of which readers ought to be familiar with now.

(1) Right or wrong, the City of G.T. staff is pretty competent and can work out the details later on based upon already established guidelines or

(2) This project will be of GREAT benefit to residents of G.T. and am sure that even though the developer is not a resident of the city, he does however have his heart in to the welfare of the City, and would not do anything to harm the residents...(If you believe in the last paragraph, there are a LOT of developers today in south New Orleans who had formerly valuable property and would be more than happy to talk to you about the sale of some land, now inundated, that can potentially get you millions in profit for a measly investment in repair and upkeep, and..)

The meeting started off on a sour note, for only three of the five commissioners were present. And thus any vote expressed by a singular commissioner was going to have far reaching consequences. Commissioner Phelps was not present, he had sent a note to city staff asking a few questions, and ought to receive a response to those questions via mail soon (See 2 above).

Main item of note was that just a few years ago, a Barton Road Specific plan was created by the city staff (See 1 above) which pertained to old and new businesses along the busy thoroughfare. This document has now created some problems. Whatever was mentioned or alluded to then had it's language projected to encompass this project. And thus if a developer has a finger of his property touching the current Barton Road right-of-way, you then can project those ideas mentioned in that document towards your way of thinking. In the instance of this development, it had far reaching implications. (Don't fall asleep here for this has unspoken benefits which affect this property only and maybe if the RDA had insisted the City Council work on a Specific Plan for Mt. Vernon, their financial troubles would have gone away too)Much of the complaints expressed during the evening, concerned the lack of parking spaces.

The developer had his representatives up front and center to talk at the podium about how this was a minor inconvenience but all numbers set forth by the Barton Road Specific Plan had been addressed (see 1 above) and then several persons from the general public came forth and expressed their concerns (see 2 above) which as expected were contrary.

The basic situation being in that due to formulae cited in the Barton Road specific plan (as was quoted numerous times by Pro-ponents and City staff) the new development would need to provide about 159 parking spaces, whereas under current subjective accounts like the city-wide zoning ordinance it would have to provide about 181 to 188 spaces. A shortfall by more than 20 parking spaces which is significant here. This was pointed out via Commissioner Comstock, the Starbucks coffee shop which he often frequents currently has about 25 spaces available to it and others right now, this is expected to be reduced to about 15 after the development takes place. A net loss (see 1 and 2 above) to potential customers.

Also expressed by many folks was that the site is being filled with buildings and not looking out for potential customers. (Oh, I lied to you on the parking space count noted above, for there are actually less in that as (see 1 above) several of those are occupied by shopping carts from the potential supermarket, and then there are a few along old Brittain Way that cannot be occupied unless the person drives off site and turns their vehicle around to gain access to them. However, any potential loss there can be made up via making a few more miniature parking spots for compact cars like the overweight residents of G.T. SHOULD be driving (as per some future ordinance yet to be handed to the Council).

For everyone knows that parking spaces do not create wealth, only occupants to structures can do that (see 2 above). Perhaps in looking back the real culprit in specifying only 159 spaces for five buildings versus the 311 of the neighboring supermarket across the street, was that adequate parking spaces was again the culprit of the Barton Road Specific Plan for it got quoted in many instances "We meet all the requirements of the Specific Plan as adopted by the City Council".

Going back here, as the property in question does touch Barton Road it can take advantage of formulae presented there, even though the majority of frontage is along Mt. Vernon Avenue. Properties along Mt. Vernon have one set of rules and regulations, and those touching Barton Road now have a second set in this particular instance, which may differ. Which is why city staff approved the forwarded the controversial site on to the G.T. Planning Commission to let them take the heat. (If anything goes wrong, it's not my fault!)

When a lady came forth and mentioned how a very serious traffic accident of a few years ago, almost cost her a fused backbone, she was brushed aside. (We don't want to hear about your problems as you are just another anti-development Complainer, so now shut up and sit down, see 1 and 2 above). Although the meeting took more than two hours to come to an approval, it overall took the air of being hurried-up, for we got our minds made up and don't want to upset anyone, and this this development will get approved to-night in one way or another. (If we do anything wrong here to-night, then blame can directly be placed at the G.T. city council for approving such a matter, not us, for they are the elected decision makers).

It was expressed that the developer is in need of fill dirt, he has a hot deal now pending with the City of Riverside which will benefit him in lowering the construction costs and development loans, and he does not want to loose out on that opportunity (see 2 above) by having an adverse decision by the P.C. that evening. At same time it was admitted by the developer's representative that hurrying along and that many of the details had not been worked out was due to time constraints, (see 1 above) things were changing every week and that the plans had been worked in to their present condition only one one week earlier (see 2 above), but overall this project would benefit the city way down the road (see 2 above) by potential tax dollars. (See previous paragraph too)

A representative of the supermarket Fresh and Easy was a spokesperson, and mentioned that the site has "potential" and if it does not work out, they will close or relocate in five or ten years from now (a representative of Wallgreen Drug stores the other potential occupant did not speak).

It was also pointed out by Jeffry McConnell that the proposed site is to contain a pad for a Walgreens Drug store when within walking distance away is another competitor, the city has already committed itself to approving third huge future drug store within 1/8th mile from this site, and there is extant a couple other smaller stores now selling medical drugs. But if either of the lessees move out in five years then we got a nice building for a potential 99 cent store, or a Tatoo parlor.

I figure that the 14,000 residents of G.T. must be awfully sick everyday in order to then warrant such a quantity of drug stores. Don't need any future Doctor's offices, for the prescription counter will take care of their needs. (see 2 above). GrandpaTerrace must add that the Drug being sold at these Drug Stores is a Liquor Store with Lipstick. We have a sufficient number of Liquor Stores that sell Drugs on the side.

But getting back to the lack of parking spaces, this item was dropped as a possible need to deny further development of the site. A potential customer will have to choose as to if they want to do business at a building at this site, or take their dollars to one in which they can readily drive up and find a spot to park at then walk right in or not (see about 311 readily available parking spaces across the street note above).

Commissioner Comstock had mentioned a similar thought that as instead of fighting any potential parking problems, he would simply take his daily business to nearby Colton and spend a couple dollars there as it was faster and easier instead of waiting the 20 minutes for a singular parking space to open up. Oh, but he did not consider that there may be some parking spaces available at an adjacent site at the future restaurant pad?

This potential parking area was pointed out by the developer, however also admitted there were zero customers had been found to occupy the pad area being set aside. But!, but once someone was found, the additional parking could then be created for the potential 100 customers per hour as stated by the new city Planning Officer.

Overall, beside the blatant lack of parking spaces there were numerous points discussed as potential problems ranging from site drainage, to sound walls, building setback violations, odd and high dirt retaining walls which were being installed to save on construction costs, and a few traffic problems in Barton Road that are due to be worked out some time after the approval of the site plan (see 1 above) which readers will not see for the plans are not brought back to any P.C. meeting, and then a few minor excessive slopes the developer's representative openly mentioned that the site has and will be of minimal drainage even though construction will result in steeper slopes than any other similar project up and down Barton Road so expect flooding, a water line in wrong location (see 1 above), how one driver of a Pepsi truck with a nasty attitude can interfere with your driving around the site to find that open parking space after, or how the submitted site plan and the submitted grading plan do not agree with one another in details (see 1 above).

Standard policy is that these potential problems are NOT brought forth to the public to discuss, but instead worked out via City Staff (see 1 above) in one way or another. In other words the developer can change the position of the buildings, improve or restrict traffic flow later on in a few months, but these are considered minor changes in which the G.T City Council, the city P.C. or the general public does not have to be made aware of for staff will handle these matters themselves.

If five buildings were approved to be built and requiring only 159 parking spaces within a few years, then any change from that has to be considered as Minor, and not beforehand or this could lead to problems (see 2 above).

In Planner's Language, the writer here is familiar as he pulled some of the same stunts in order to please the paying developer, the simple application to remove a portion of a city owned and currently maintained street for the benefit of addition parking space count which is an old ploy to permit off site parking and otherwise increase the apparent count of parking spaces by saying this is considered to be Private Property. A few years from now, that very same street can be donated BACK to the city of G.T. for their maintenance when the condition has deteriorated, and due to complaints by G.T. residents the current developer has found maintenance of the street and utilities cost prohibitive in comparison to upkeep of the site (which was approved on the 18th) and keeping all those accountants hired.

In all fairness the City P.C. did ask the developer to make a few ten cent alterations like to the color to roofing and exterior wall, convert 15 or 25 gallon trees to 24 inch box sized trees, and a few other things which could cause hundreds of dollars in expenses. The developer was asked to provide a revision to a couple of already submitted studies which again could potentially cost upwards of two or three hundred dollars (see 2 above), and I can see now that gosh we have spent nearly one thousand dollars here.

Wonder how that lady feels now that the city of G.T. is making the developer spend upwards of a thousand dollars now to put in bigger faster growing trees, but zero as to fixing her back?

But, we gotta hurry and get this development approved, for the developer needs to sign a few contracts and get that 4000 Cu. yards cheaper dirt before January. We do not have time to revise anything, or listen for whatever the City Council will say at their meeting, or the need to resolve these things on the plans (see 1 above) for that will all be cured a staff level, we gotta get these things done and approved right now (see 2 above). We will fix or overlook errors in interpretation of the Barton Road specific plan when time and money become available, but not now for the developer is in a hurry to save one thousand dollars in construction costs.

GrandpaTerrace Adds: The City Council and Planning Commission and City Planning Department have proven time and time again. Codes and Plans and Zoning only is applied to be punitive to people and businesses who criticise them or publicly disagree with them, or get in the way of their grandiose delusion of grandeur, power, self importance and greed. The problem is that they gave Jacobesen waivers on the Plan Requirements, and that opened the doors for others to negate the plan.. The developers have money to fight the City... but an individual home or business owner does not. CVS is listed for Lease, so if Wallgreens is thinking about moving to town, they had better ask the city if it needs another Liquor Store. We have seen 3 Drug stores go out of business in Grand Terrace. Stater's Brother's "New Store" is supposed to have an in house Pharmacist... So how many Liquor Stores do you need in the city? That is the question. Sales tax is not collected on Drug Sales so what is being sold that brings advantage to GT?

Perhaps the building will be the eventual Annex to the Day Care Center. However, this building may be for the Homeless, Unemployed, or Teens from the age of 13 to 18. Or perhaps a Drug Rehab Clinic... Folks with DUI's don't drive, so they don't need parking spaces. Flooding and other dangers including public personal and property risks are assumed by the city if the City allows violations of the Codes, Plans and Engineering required to build if the City is signing off on the plans. For example, if the property causes flooding onto Barton Rd, and the lot is grades and drained as planned by the Developer and signed off by the city, the city becomes a party to all lawsuits as they allowed the construction. So do I see a problem with this approval... YES...

Unless you are going to have Zero Zoning, and Local Approvals and Inspections, Grand Terrace will continue to step into a law suit every time a building or development gets approved under the current Codes, and Plans and financial arrangements.