12-23-1968 - Special 2 Meeting - Minutes•
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, . CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 23, 1968.
The adjourned regular meeting of the City. Council was called to order at 6 p. m, ,
in the West Covina City Hall by Mayor -Leonard S. Gleckman. Pledge of Allegiance
led by Councilman Chappell. At 6„05 p.m. the Mayor called a recess to allow those
attending .to partake of their food prior to discussing the busilness at hand. Meeting
reconvened at 6:30 pam.
PRESENT: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Lloyd, Gillum, Mayor Gleckman
Planning Commission: Chairman Adams; Commissioners Jackson,
Mayfield
Also `-Present: George Aiassa, City Manager
H. R. Fast, . Public Services Director
-Owen Menard, Planning ,Director
R. Terzian, Ass't. City Attorney
I?A,/ ► 114ASoR, POPUTI GITy U-6911.
AMENDMENT NO. 94 - CITY INITIATED
Mayor Gleckman; Primarily the 6 p.m. dinner meeting of the Council and
Planning. Commission was called to discuss the -analysis
• and comparison of the zoning ordinance, In particular,
questions brought up with regard to the C-2 zoning that came from the Planning
Commission to the. City. Council. There were several points picked out by Council as
to whether or not we weren't being so restrictive in our Ordinances that we were
planning and pricing our. City out of the market basically and making it tougher to
encourage development rather than encourage development; and we asked the Planning
Department and invited the Planning ,Commission here because Council felt the Planning
Commission should have some reasons by. Council as to why we are questioning certain
things you pass on with recommendations to us to adopt. We thought this would be a
good time to discuss our feelings and get some ideasfrom the Commission.
One comment, prior to opening the discussion. If we could,
when presented a new Ordinance, be given the new Ordinance with the changes under-
lined rather than it just being recommended. It is difficult to weigh the Ordinances and
not definitely know what the changes are. -I would now ask.Council if they have had an
opportunity to.read the memorandum they received tonight?
Councilman Lloyd: We have had only a cursory opporunity to do so, however,
while I am going to question some of the items, .I. want to
congratulate Mr. Menard on this memo, from my quick
appraisal of it, it looks like very clear and concise report.
-Mayor Gleckman; Our discussion previously primarily had to do with two
Is particular areas: Size the recommendation from the
Planning Commission to Council regarding a certain
acre size before getting.C-2 zoning; and the other item was Hours; and also we
were concerned about getting more restrictive in our zoning instead of more liberal
in order to encourage development.
Councilman Nichols- I think, just as staff indicates, that what you are doing
now will have an effect years and years in the future and I
think it is all the more vital that we' periodically review
,A'DJ, C.C. 12-23-68 Page Two
AMENDMENT NO, 94 Continued
what we are doing and what we have done and that it is in effect accomplishing that
which we intended to do.. --As a corollary .to that, that we don't get some side effects
to offset what we hoped to achieve... I think the ten of us have an extremely vital
• responsibility in this respect. It appears to me that in a period of a few years, current
trends can be established that will have an effect on the community for many years. I
detect in my own mind two rather paradoxical thrusts that we hear repeatedly on
Council. -On the one hand the constant impetus that we have to broaden our tax base
by bringing more business into our community; the other thrust - we need to upgrade
our community, make it a real nice place to live in. I think you cross certain lines
sometimes where those two elements can be in conflict and. this has been my concern.
The survey taken and stated in this report, was of a
number of cities including Arcadia and Claremont. I don't look, in my own mind,
to compare us with either Arcadia . or Claremont. I don't feel that our City competes
with either of them, or with Montclair. I think we really compete with LaPuente,
Baldwin, Park, Covina, and the unincorporated areas right around us. It is true the
Montclair Plaza might be in competition with us but I donut think the people of West
Covina go .there to do their regular shopping. I do feel that maybe we are over -
restrictive with our neighboring communities - those within our own immediate trade
area - to the extent that developers are refusing to consider our community for direct
or indirect reasons. One thought I have - when we talk higher standards - and attempt
to maintain higher standards, I think we tend to put a certain premium on land values
in our community. When this occurs I think the economics of it enter in and I believe
a large competitflve shopping chain, whether it be White Front or whatever, when they
are talking about having to take on 20 or 30 acres of land and if the higher standards
• are going to cost them significantly more money, .I feel that might be a deciding
factor to go in the other direction. I don't know .this; but I ask that at this stage of
our development we look at where we are going, what we have accomplished and
what developments have occurred in surrounding areas - developments that might have
come into our City and ask if to any extent our zoning practices could have harmed us?
Personally I don't think West Covina will ever be an Arcadia so I am only talking about
comparison with our immediate neighbors. Again I am talking about this from my own
point of view and that is the area we are in right now. If somebody wants to trade in
a 5 mile area - for instance the White Front Store where does it want to locate?
What do our zoning restrictions do to these people that are looking for location.?
Commissioner Mayfield: You talk about this idea of competition - in what frame of
reference are you using it?
Councilman Nichols- Obviously we know as lay people, because all of us have
spent some years at it on the Planning Commission and
Council level, there are certain types of businesses
that trade in certain areas. For example to go down to the 7-11 Market, he will
come in if it is at all reasonably possible because he is only trading in a very narrow
area. So we can upgrade the 7-11 by putting those requirements in. Also other types
of stores will come in no matter what we do because they only need to reach out
a half mile or two miles. But a huge, gigantic shopping center - you may get if
everything is right, .but there are broad fields inbetween where a huge store might
• locate two miles away because of having a five or six mile trade area. So they
could locate in.Covina and be just as willing to locate there as here, They may want
to reach five miles in several directions and .moving a mile one way or the other
doesn't kill them. Now we as a City if we can't compete with them in location because
of a more restrictive business climate then I think we are doing a disservice to our
community. I don't know this - I am saying "if".
Commissioner Mayfield; From what you are saying most of the competition would
be in the C-2 and C-3 categories,
- 2 -
A DJ. C.C. 12-23-68
AMENDMENT NO; 94 Continued
Page Three
Councilman Nichols: As a general rule, I thnk that is a fair statement. I
think the typical type of business coming into the C- 1
zone is probably one that would want to get into every
little center anyhow.
Councilman Lloyd: First of all I want to say that I concur heartily with what
Councilman Nichols has brought out, Whatever the
reasons are - I probably have been involved in more
market development as a result of my profession than anyone on the Conncil, and
although I. do know that .the Mayor and City Manager in the past few days have been
involved in this area, although I do not know the developments - I think that if we
apply what Mr. Nichols has said .to the matrix of the market we would find that his
words are even more pointed than when just falling into a general category. West
Covina is certainly one of the top 5 or 6 markets as a City in .the total of the Los
Angeles area, This is the opinion of many market surveys; as a matter of fact it
ranks 4..th. The point.I would make here, as he pointed out, the developers wish to
locate so they can tap this market, Now they can tap it from Covina as evidenced by
the Sears store or maybe from La Puente with .the development of the Huntington Beach
Freeway or Walnut through Grand, because a lot of ..th6 affluent area of West Covina
exists in that area and is as close .to that area of Walnut as it would be to .the immediate
shopping area currently located in the City. The point we have to face is we are going
to have to go back to the land holder. Is the land which is available, available at a
fair market price? 'It,is my immediate considerate opinion that the .land values in
West Covina are restrictive and therefore prohibitive to the type of developers whom
we are now seeking. I concur again with Mr. Nichols when he says the 7-11 will make
all the concessions to get in and the gigantic super shopping center will accept all of
• the conditions and variances that we are prepared to make in order to bring them in -
they are. special markets. One coming entirely to us and the other where we go entirely
to them. I know some of the people here have been, talking to specific developers of the
class we are talking about but the point I am making is that I honestly believe what we
are doing has to have a flexibility in it where the standard we apply in 1968 wanting to
1969 is going to be less stringent than, that which we are looking for in 1970-71 or 72.
One other item comes to mind, we must also classify the development according to its
normal life. This too becomes one of the variables that have to be considered. If a
person builds a small apartment or a two story building, we can approve that today
with a certain amount of immunity because we know it will be gone in 10 or 15 years.
However, if we are putting up a foundry which is pretty solid equipment you can
anticipate that is going to be there for 25 to 50 years. So again we are having a
problem of receiving apples and oranges. I think this is the thing we must talk about
and recognize the demand for 'flexibilities and the application of what we are doing in
order to attract the greatest amount of financial base that we can .for our City.
Councilman Gillum: I am afraid I disagree with Councilman. Lloyd and Council-
man Nichols. It is beyond me to sit here and hear you say
let's stand still or back up, and that is what you are
saying in some of these areas, Looking at the history of the City we have had to
upgrade every zone we have because of the type of problems we have had. This is the
reason we started on these changes. For example - underground utilities. This is an
•added expense but it does add and enhance the shopping center. We sit here and talk
about the great city we are going to build and leave and how people want a City of
Beautiful Homes, and then we say - maybe we are too strong in our standards for
commercial, maybe we should compete with La Puente and Covina. I don't want to
compete with either City. To the best of my knowledge I don't know of any large
shopping center or business that has gone out of the City because of our development
standards. Sears didn't go up there for that reason, .as we all know. Mr.. Lloyd hit
it on the head - it is the price of property, Maybe some of these standards are a little
n,�er restrictive but if we stand still we are going backwards. And every City around
us is now going through. an upgrading - if you read the papers. And there must be a
reason for it. Can anyone tell me of one business that has left the City- because of our
- 3 -
ADJ. Co Co 12-23-68 Page Four
AMENDMENT NO, 94 Continued
restrictions? No matter what we -put on somebody is going to object - landscaping,
walls, trees, somebody will object. The majority of things we put on will enhance
and attract .people .to our shopping centers, Personally I don't want it to be another
La Puente. There are a couple of areas that do disturb me but the overall program
as far as upgrading the zoning ordinance I would support. If we lower our standards
we are going to get Taco Houses, 7-11 Markets, Service Stations, and the like - that
is my feeling.°
Councilman. Nichols: I am sorry Mr. Gillum misunderstood the intent of my
remarks. I certainly don't want to compete with the old
downtown area of La Puente - I meant competing with
the dollars of the people living in the communities. I think we compete with business
in Covina and. LaPuente, but in dollars spent by people, I didn't mean to compete in
that sense at all. My only thought was that perhaps it was time we did look at this
concept because I have heard -people in this room and comments from people in the
community and they all ask the same question - why one goes one place - are we
tiro restrictive? I heard some of the developers make those charges and statements
and .I don't know but I don't think the answer to the question I raise is to turn and say
"well it just cant be - there is no effect" and let it go at that. I think it is something
we need to look at because if we are wrong it is pretty hard to undo the damage in
the terms of results.
What I have had in my mind - we talked about the Planned
Development Ordinance - where are we on this subject at the present time?
• Mr. Menard: I think we have to clarify the issue as to what you are
talking about and what the Council has talked about in the
past, The Planned Development, .as I think I understand
how the Council has been talking about for some period of time is really now
represented to a more adequate degree .in the neighborhood commercial zone. The
Planned Development unit applies only to residential planned uses and a small amonnt
of commercial like the fifth floor of a highrise might have commercial in it. These
t1i g s will be submitted to the Planning Commission in a few weeks,
Councilman Nichols: About 4 or 5 years ago we began studying the deep lot
area and about that time a large number of real estate
firms in the area began buying up lots. That area has a
combination of homeowners - some 15 to 20 years on their present property and
some absentee owners - quite a mix up. As we began talking about the R-3 ordinance
zone, .as certain suggestions have been made for changing both as linked to the
Glendora Avenue and the deep lot report, if the recommendatbns were implemented
it would create certain standards for development in that zone that do not apply any-
where around the City. Lot sizes, minimum lot widths - very soon as soon as
financing in the Valley eases we will see a tremendous upsurge in building in the
valley and the thought came to me that if you create a situation where you make these
zones more .restrictive that when the upsurge came for this type of development
isn't it logical that within a given market area that the developer goes to where he
can develop the property at the least cost and those -areas that do not have a basic
• effect on the quality or nature of his development. If that is true then I said do we
have in our Ordinance requirements that on a dollar for dollar, (developer for
developer basis, it cost the developer more to develop an identical type of structure
in our City than a mile across the line? Now that is the ruib of my concern - I don't
really know and this doesn't tell me that. Is it more costly to serve the public in
our. City than by moving a half mile away? If it is then it is bound to have an effect.
Now we are talking about R-3 lots having to have certain minimum widths - very few
of the properties that we are talking about rezoning now are that way.
- 4 -
ADJ. C.C. 12-23-68 Page Five
AMENDMENT NO. 94 Continued
What happens if you .put a requirement on a piece of property .that the current owner
cannot advantageously develop it? What happens to the property? We talk about
blight areas - how they .get to be that way and in my mind the requirements we are
putting on our areas could be leading in that direction. Are we temporarily slowing
down development? .C�ErPfmmediate neighbors getting an edge on us because of
our requirements? This is something we have to resolve; we have to take a look at
the. Ordinance we have and reassure ourselves that we are not being hurt or if we are
that we are in .a way we want to be hurt.
Councilman Gillum: Well taking two pieces of R- 1 identical deep lots and
using Walnut or La Puente and we were to bring our
standards in line with their's - there is one factor we
cannot control and that is the price of the property. I believe it is our responsibility
as elected officials to select the standards and sometimes we may line them too
high. And then suppose we do set our standards with the surrounding communities
and the developer says but your property is still too high, and then say eventually the
property in those areas goes up and we have lowered our stand.:ards. I don't think
the standards of Walnut or-LaPuente are what I would like to see in our City.
Councilman Nichols: On the other hand I see a large amount of commercial
type development right on the edge of this City, just over
the line, and it doesn't all look terrible.
Councilman, Lloyd: On page 2 of the report it says - ""it is true that West
Covina development standards are more restrictive in
certain areas, namely than in .Covina or -La Puente,
• however if West Covina has lost any development because of the high development
standards we should ask ourselves the question - did we want this development? To
begin with developers who complain about our standards are generally those who
construct marginal facilities, large developers prize West Covina and want to
construct here where they know their investment will be protected, etc..... "
The 'key phrase here is "did we want tHs development to begin with", and "developers
who complain about our standards are generally.those seeking to construct...... a"
I thnk this statement is wrong and I would take the writer of this mateiia 1 to task in
making an assumption which he doesn't know to be true. Thissimply says all guys
-are bad and that is not true because a man investing his money in any given area is
going to put his dollars in where they will be most productive to himand if he
doesn't meet the standards of development for that type of business he is not going
to do business and if he doesn't do business he is not going to put his dollars into it.
At least I assume people do market studies before goy g into these things. It says
'.'quality developers prize West Covina and want to construct her(e" and the fact
remains that quality developers are not coming in here and I think we have a very
specific point and that is. Sears. I think the reason Sears is where it is is because
the land costs 3.re prohibitive in West Covina. Perhaps what we should be talking
about is .land costs rattier than what we are . Truthfully I do not know. I wish I did.
Frankly `think it is worthy of` real 'co -sideration because development that occurs in
the East. San Gabriel Talley certainly should have given West Covina consideration
whether they land here or not and if they don't I would like to know why. I think this
is what Councilman Nichols is talking about and certainly this is what I am talking
about. It seems like we are all in accord. There is actually no diversity of opinion
here. I even think Mr. Menard is not the bad guy - in his thinking he is trying to help
us find the way to bring business in. He is �re
a professional planner and as such he
wants this type of development. I think we all in consonant - it is just a case of
finding out at what point we want to enter th game.
One other point. We have a very fine. Commission-in-tke Pd,annin
Commission and. yet: on irectx n
to their recommendations. I think one of the reasons for this meeting is to say what
+-5-
ADJ. C.C. 12-23-68 Page Six
AMENDMENT NO, 94 - Continued
we wanted. I think this is another point that deserves consideration.
Mayor Gleckmano Let me say the statements being made are done so by the
individual councilmen and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of the two councilmen that have not spoken yet. I
did not want our silence to infer that we were wholeheartedly in agreement.
I would like to hear from the Commission - as to some of
the points brought out by Council up to now regarding this specific thought - are we
being too restrictive in our development standards? In the particular hearings which
you people hear they always involve a Precise Plan and once you approve in many
cases it doesn't come to use How about Variances -- what type of variances have been
sought on certain requirements? Are we having a certain amount of people coming in
saying - if I could get this or. that I would develop? I thnk when it comes to land values
thereis no doubt in my inind that it is the number 1 problem in our Community. It is
interesting to note in your report - Mr. =iVlenard - that no where along the lines, as well
as from the Planning Commission has there come a recommendation to this City Council
to look and compare what the other cities are doing as far as making land available
when land is so high priced.
Councilman Gillum and I sat with Mr.. Brutocao
and Mr. Shulman today and they quibbled back and forth about the price this guy
wanted and .that one wanted; etc, etc. , and that was what was holding up the whole.
deal., etc. , but when I said to them that the City's position was to promote and develop
the city's commercial and if they both felt they had gold on their land and couldn't come
• to some bargaining agreement with Penny's or the other outfit that wanted to develop,
then it was the obligation of the City Council and Planning Commission to seek out
other areas within t;he City to put these very same locations on at a price that these
people could acquire, and I never saw such a tremendous reversal. One party said -
I know we want $500, 000 but let them offer $300, 000 and maybe we can talk about it.
I think this is really the basis for any .type of development we are seeking for this
community. If we don't seek out some type of development to bring down the prices of
existing vacant land that is available we are always going to have this problem.
Both when I was on the Planning Commission and now the
Council I hear - look at all the vacant land we have zoned - why should we give the man
that type of zoning - look at all. the vacant zoning of that type. Nobody said but if we
make this it will then develop or they will sell it for $1.50 or $2. 00 a foot so it will be
developed instead of saying all this land is priced at $5. 00 or $6. 00 a foot and it will
remain vacant for the next 50 years or until some billionaire comes :al.ong. I think this
is the basic crux of the whole problem. The developmental standards - in that I think
Mr. Nichols has a very good point, but this is the next thing they are looking at, not the
prime thing. They say alright the land is going to cost us more but if the land is going
to cost us more then they want to build cheaper on that land or they can't give you a
quality development on high priced land and still expect to compete with a 10 mile or
even 15 mile radius let alone a 5 miles radius. So if we can't do one thing, then I
agree with all three gentlemen that have spoken. But first of all we have to decide how
we are going to force the price of land down, and if we can't will we be willing to accept
lesser standards on the high priced property just to get at developed? And the third
thing - which Councilman Lloyd spoke of and which I am not entirely clear on.... .
I don't feel as the City Council that we should say to your Commissioners this is the
line we want you to follow. Because your job is one of interpretation of our Ordinances
and our job is interpretation of our Ordinances politically. And if we tell you how we
want to go we wouldn't get what I am concerned with and that is the area of good
planning for 5 - 10 or 15 years from now. Let us knock it down. As far as I am
concerned you fellows do your job, do good planning and 'pass it on to us and we may
think it is ridiculous and knock it out because we can't live with it politically, but
that doesn't make you gentlemen wrong. You may be 10076 :right and we 10076 wrong,
but as far as I am concerned my feelings are I am not going to tell you how to go.
-6
A DJ. C.C. 12-23-68
AMENDMENT NO. 94 - Continued
Page Seven
Go the way you have been going. I think you have been doing a good job. You
recommend to us what you say the City should have-5 - 10 years from now and if we
can't live with it politically then we, have our own conscience that we have to live with.
• Those are my feelings. When we talk about development standards I think we have to
really come down to specifics, We can't say -this is too tough and that is too good. I
agree we don't want to compete with Arcadia or Claremont, if we did we would have
to back up another 20 years, We want to compete in a growing competitive
commercial residential market to make We-st Covina a well rounded community.
From that point on when. we come to developmental standards - are there particular
standards in this Ordinance that a man could go to Covina, Baldwin Park, or
LaPuente and build something we would like to see in this City but because of some
specific recommendation as far as requirements that the others don't have and we do
have ,and for that specific requirement we have lost them? I still can't believe a guy
can come in here at $4. 00 a foot and build it there at $2. 00 a foot and then on top of that
have to build one and a half times the quality that he would have to build in another
city and still compete.
Councilman Chappell: First of all I would like to say - and I am not too deeply
involved yet -.I think this idea of .the community of West
Covina being so far superior to anything else around here
is certainly erroneous and I have, ample proof of that in my travels. I think the
reason we want to look these ordinances over is to find out actually are we too
restrictive but the only way we are going to find out is by contacting people that could
have come to West Covina and didn't. And I am talking about big developments.
It doesn't mean. that much .to them to build in West Covina. We are going to have to
seek out these people that we want to come in to our community. I don't know if these
requirements are too restrictive but I think we have to tie them in with people that
haven't come in. Make a survey and ask them - why didn't you come here? We might
find it is not the cost of land that kept them out.
I am concerned with the .fact that Covina is now surpassing
us in sales tax revenue when we have been leading them for years. I saw a big
beautiful furniture store being built over there, .I don't know if we wanted that here or
not, but I am still saying we are going behind and we should know why. My biggest
concern is why Covina a town of 30, 000 people is passing us in sales tax and other
revenues. Everyone of those businesses built are jobs and additional revenue.
We have a Sizzling Platter in our Community they hire 3 to 5 people, yet I was told
by some friends of mine that Van de Camp's because their little windmill couldn"t turn
in West Covina - they aren't interested in coming here and they hire somewhere in the
neighborhood of 65 people in their restaurant - yet we let -Sizzling Platter come in that
hires 3 to 5 people.. -.So because we wouldn't let that little windmill go around it costs
us 60 jobs or more in this community and a lot more in revenue and they are a high
quality restaurant. That is just one thing that we should look .into.
Councilman Nichols: What has been said by you gentlemen is really what I
wanted to say only you said it better. I think we are
at a good point in our development where we should stop
• and see what we have achieved - what we are doing - and it may well be that we will
say we think it is going to work out in the long haul g.6i.this
route. Maybe the Chamber of Commerce should be doing these things. We have
pumped dollar after dollar in to the Chamber in the past few years and in my opinion
there has been a lot of lip service but no actual commercial developments; or whether
we can direct staff to go out and make a survey in these areas? Maybe when we
got the facts in we would find that Van de Camps never did consider West Covina but
picked that spot originally.
Mayor Gleckman: We are now at just about the end of the new General Plan,
and that General Plan as we have all agreed in the past
will act as a guAde but I think Councilman Chappell hit
7 -
ADJ. C.C. 12-23-68 Page Eight
AMENDMENT N.O. 94 Continued
it on the head .too. We as a Council in adopting this General Plan have to decide
what type of .community we want. Maybe we didn't want -Sears here. Maybe we didn't
want some of these developments .that they happened to have an area for to build in
otther places. I know some of the centers have been put in residential areas. We have^
had conversation after conversation at this City Council level regarding commercial
areas outside of this so-called downtown concept,_multiple developments alongside of
the freeway. I say you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say we want
to build a commercial area providing they go in this little corner - because then we
have done -more to drive up the land values and chase away developments more than
anybody else. You can't blame the land owner, you can't blame the Commission or
staff. The elective body of this community is supposedly charged with the
responsibility of shaping this community and going along with the idea of lip service
the Council then in its charge and its responsibility should come out as I stated once
before - take all your vacant parcels of land in this community and tell these
people what they can build on it, what we will allow on it, what we will encourage on
it, so we can get this so-called show on the road, or let's fold up our shop and say
these are the only areas we will entertain anything in and forget about competing
with Covina, Walnut or LaPuente and just have the community as often referred to
"The City of Beautiful Homes." And forget about inviting anymore commercial,
.anymore multiple development, and quit talking -about other cities passing us in
sales tax and flay they are doing it because we decided this was the kind of city we
have planned for the next 10 or -15 years and not worry about getting our cake and
eating it.
I have sat at meeting -after meeting and I say the number
.1 problem lies in the City Council - if they don't take the initiative to do these things
nobody else is going to,:'. You gentlemen instead of looking at these Ordinances and
these problems and this General Plan and continually saying we should have, we
could have, we would have - if we don't initiate it and take the action - I say then
quit kidding yourselves and forget it.
Commissioner Jackson: After hearing all of the comments I think there is con-
currence on the part of the Council that really the price
of land is it and not what we have done with it. Maybe we
didn't allow the windmill to turn, but you have an Ordinance that says there will be
no flashing lights or moving signs, etc. , and.I o n sure we have adequate
restaurants that don't require moving signs. If we gave in on the windmill then
you couldn't deny it to other people with a similar plea. You couldn't stop the
flashing lights. Variance - really wasn't meant to be a general thing and I don't
think we have seen much on variances. It Its pretty well regulated and resolves
much around the sign itself.
I don't believe there is anyone of us here that doesn't
want to see better commercial development and more of it in the City. We live on
the revenue. I don't think our requirements of tightening up on the landscaping.,
greenery, walls, etc. , hurt us. Maybe we have gone too far but this really is
an incidental cost to the developer. We are not clads ng- a, great added cost to a
developer by requiring these. Looking at your better developments such as
Broadway and Fashion Square - they put large investments in those places and they
wanted to make them attractive.
I am sure.Sears would never have objected to any of the
restrictions as far as development. And where would we have put Sears? There
isn't that kind of land available here. Also you talked about deep lots. It looks
logically like we could get some factory development there and the people there are
generally in favor of it. I think everybody agrees on what they want but it is on how
to get it. I don't think it is the place of the Commission here to do that. We don't
know who is feeling out about land. I don't think it is within. our particular
responsibility to seek out people.. We do like to look at the developing of a City and
see it develop nicely. Look at the Central Business District, there is a place where
r)
ADJ'. G.C. 12-23-68
AMENDMENT NO. 94 Continued
Page Nine
-the price of ground is high and what kind of development do you have on it? Why is
there so much vacant land - it is not because of the restrictions on it.
• Mayor Gleckrnan:. I hate to interrupt but we have a scheduled regular
Council meeting at 7:30. I feel we should schedule
another meeting to continue this conversation.
(Council and Commission members,agreed to .another meeting at Council's
direction. Commissioner Jackson to have the floor at the continuance of meeting. )
adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
• ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
1�1
On motion made, seconded and carried meeting
APPROVED
MAYOR