Loading...
03-20-1972 - Regular Meeting - MinutesC� J • MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL and ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA MARCH 20, 1972. The joint adjourned regular meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission was called to order at 4:30 P.M., in the West Covina Council Chambers by Mayor Ken Chappell. The .Pledge of Allegiance was given. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Chappell; Councilmen: Shearer, Nichols, City Council Young, Lloyd Planning Commission Chairman Browne; Commissioner:Jackson Commissioner Cox (Arrived at 4:45 P.M.) Commissioner Adams (Arrived at 5:15 P.M.) Absent: Commissioner Mayfield Others Present: George Aiassa, City Manager Lela Preston, City Clerk H. R. Fast, Ass ° t. City Manager Richard Munsell, Planning Director George Zimmerman, City Engineer John Lippitt, Ass°t. City Engineer Bert Yamasaki, Ass°t. Planning Director Ken Winter, Planning Associate (At 4:32 P.M., Mayor Chappell with the consent of Council convened the Joint Study Session meeting to the City Manager's conference room so that a better rapport might be carried on between the Council and the Planning Commission and those members of staff present. Meeting reconvened at 4:40 P.M.) DISCUSSION RE (Mayor Chappell stated Council had questions AMENDMENT NO. 115 on Amendment No. 115 and needed clari.ficat.ion prior to coming to a decision and turned the meeting over to Chairman Browne.) Chairman Browne: First I: would like to thank you for the opportunity of meeting with the Commission in trying to iron out some of the miscon- ceptions that have come forth, both on the M.F-15 and MF-20. During the past 3 years we have seen approximately 1000 apartments completed in the City of West Covina; 450 presently under construction;and we have approved an additional 700. Over the period of time that. I have been on the Commission we have frequently called field trips to analyze what activities are in the community, if the Commission is doing an efficient job in the community and our actions as a Commission. We usually invite the Mayor or a Councilman to take these field trips with us. During this period the most objections encountered have been in the area of visiting construction sites completed or nearly completed under the MF-25 and higher than that in one instance. Repeatedly from the community we have had citizenry .input to the effect that they are not happy with the building activities in the MF-25 area. It is true the Zoning was written 3 years ago and we have one development put in under that zoning© We have another, development that came in right about the time of the change and there was some modifications made to it which possibly prompted the thinking of the Commission - - if we had done a job in the right direction or should we go back and reanalyze CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 Page Two PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 the MF-25 zoning. At the same time the Woodside Village development came in and we saw what Bren did with the MF-25 zoning and the net area covered by their buildings, we saw the open space factors, and although in the opinion of some it is not the ideal at least they • demonstrated an effort on their part to put a little aesthetic values into their development. And at the direction of the Planning Staff, who worked wholeheartedly on these projects with them, they remedied any problems that came up, and this possibly enlightened the Commission in the area of rewriting the ordinance due to the fact that we would get a better development on a site, more open space, a place more conducive to people coming in to the area and wanting to remain in the area. So the inadequacies were demonstrated and we took the steps to instruct staff to run a research and come back with an ordinance we thought we could live with. We sat in on several study sessions with them, discussing the pros and cons of the ordinance. Comparisons were made in surrounding communities and we went outside to new developments and analyzed what was going on there and what we presented to the City Council for their approval was one which we thought the City could live with and that we would be proud to have within our City. What we are striving for more than anything is an open space concept to make it more compatible to an R-1 area where they abut. We recognize the fact that in the immediate corridor along the freeway there are possibilities of development to a higher density which was built into the Ordinance. If they do upgrade and show a desire, the Commission will hear them, if they wish to put a building on a piece of property that the bonus system will work. Sometime back some of the developers living outside of the area came in and requested zone changes within areas where the General. Plan did not call for them. We looked at these very closely and in every instance turned them down. Along with that an inventory was made of the existing zoning in the City, giving dates it was zoned and some of this goes back to 1954. This indicates one thing to us that there is land. laying in the City that could have been developed far before this date. Now should at anytime (and this is another thing to think about) these people that have this current zoning if they should all. want to come in at the same time we would be overdeveloped. And another thought is these people had ample time to develop and if they are not going to develop now,we might be holding back someone that wants to develop through the feeling that at the present time we have enough of MF zoning. There might be somebody along the freeway corridor that would come in having an existing commercial, piece wanting MF and apply and we might turn him down and he might be ready to go tomorrow and comply with exactly what we want. These are some of the thoughts that went into the makeup of the ordinance and I might agree that possibly the rider that went along with it making it applicable to the new zoning might have been a very touchy situation, but after second thoughts I am in complete agreement with that. Because if a man is proposing to develop anyone of these pieces of properties (outlined to you on the map on the wall) he should be allowed to go ahead and continue with his procedure of negotiations for sales, loans, etc., and develop under the present ordinance. And this brings up another question. After a certain period of time do we have a period of effectiveness for the converting of this existing zoni.ng over to the new zoning and would it be 6 months or a year? That is one of the things we wish to discuss with you. We haven't picked any particular piece of property within the City to point a figure at. .Everything is looked at as a City-wide zoning ordinance and we are not specifically pointing - 2 - CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 Page Three out a piece of property anywhere in the City. We have prepared in rebuttal to some of the things brought up in the Dale Ingram letter this list that you have received a copy of, and we have also prepared this map which Staff will outline to you pointing • out the zoning dating back to 1954 up to the present day and also the zoning that has been developed under the existing standards or under the previous zoning standards. We have discussed land values - - is it feasible to develop MF-20 on a piece of property zoned for years? Can they build economically, practically,and come up with a finished product that a family can afford to rent? I think this picture has been blown out of proportion and Mr. Cox is pretty adept in this area, knowing land values and it was through his knowledge that this part of it was brought up in the ordinance and at the questioning time during our public hearing he handled it very well. Mr. Jackson has done a terrific amount of research work on this and having been on the Commission for a long time probably understands the previous MF zoning more than anyone of us and he can speak to the improvements brought up in this ordinance. I have nothing further to add other than say it is a pleasure to sit down with you and go over these things and try and give you a better understanding of what the Commission feels, How we feel their pulse - we do not play politics - we are trying to do a job for the City, and we want the input from the Council as well as the citizenry, which we get occasionally, and all of our decisions are made on that basis. I would like to turn this portion of the meeting over to Mr. Munsell for further comment. Mr. Munsell: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, we did go over very quickly at the Council meeting all of the significant areas of change and unless there is some objection I will try and recap them here. We have a significant change in the MF-25 zone in that it is proposed to be reducing by 20`, however with a density bonus allowing the developer to have up to 25 units per acre. Two provisions which provide density are open space and unit size. The balance of the material in the MF-20 zone are things that we have been requiring of recent developments through the precise plan requirements. The zone change procedures obviously don't affect properties zoned over a period of time and the precise plan was written in such a way that it states the zoning is of minimum and the Commission can require more 'through the precise plan. (.Explained further.) After dealing with organizations like .Larw.in we find it is very difficult to get away from that minimum when you have a pretty highpowered group storming at you and the Commission felt it would be most helpful .if these requirements that we are finding as we move into the developments were desirable, or solutions to problems created by developers in the past, that we would be much better off by putting the developer on the defensive defending why he wants to deviate from a standard then. trying to put the City on the defensive when it is not called out in the code, For an example, the width of a parking space. We have . found now that FHA wants one fully enclosed garage and one parking space, two spaces per unit, All of our standards are designed for either a carport or two car garage and if you use that same space for the garage, with some of the bigger cars you-.dould_not get out of your car. .(Explained further.) So the requirements for additional width when adjacent to a wall or when a single car garage, is one we have tried to develop with Traffic .Engineering.As a practical matter can a car swing into the space? And for the most part we have been able to accomplish the extra wide space in other apartment complexes through the precise plan requirements and we have written it in here so that eve.rytime we go through a development procedure the 3 - CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 Page Four PLANNING COMMISSION RE Amendment No. 115 the developers don't:ask well where is it in the code? The Mf-15 zone, there was no loss in density, only the increase in unit.size. The Planning Commission felt very • strongly the increase in unit size, while not necessarily an absolute for better quality development, would be one factor, and therefore requested staff to raise that. (Explained with the use of the displayed map existing zoning of the entire City. Also pointed out those properties with a precise plan on. Council asked questions during the enumeration of properties and some discussion followed on the development at Francisquito and Sunset. It was stated that the Recreation Area was increased and under an FHA. request 16 units were removed and when originally approved this project had the most recreational amenities than any other project and they were not allowed to remove these amenities in their revised precise plan because the original approval had been based on the recreational amenities. ) Councilman Shearer: I do have a number of questions. I went over the presentation that Mr. Ingram's wife made in his name and I guess he made the same one before the Commission that was made at Council so I will only discuss those things that I have a tendency to perhaps agree with. On page 3 of his letter, talking about the requirement for balconies, it says: "balconies shall not protrude into any required setbacks." Does that also include interior setbacks? The distance between buildings 10, plus 21, etc., or when the word"setback" is used is that just referring to the exterior setback from property line? Mr. Munsell: As I understand it, the question is - does the balcony have an opportunity to project into the interior yard space? Mr. Winter? (Commissioner Adams arrived at 5:15 P.M.) Mr. Winter: The balcony extends into the required setback and °'setback" is defined as a building setback from the property line. Councilman Shearer: It would not prohibit the balcony from being inside of the development into the space required such as a courtyard? Mr. Winter: Councilman Shearer: setbacks versus front and 301 in the rear. Chairman Browne: Councilman Shearer: Councilman Lloyd: Courtyard is covered in the next section, which says "balconies do not project more than 25% into the courtyard. I missed that. My comment, which is just for discussion purposes, perhaps we could allow some leeway in regard to the side and rear setbacks. We are only talking 10' for a side And the height of the building also determines the setback. That pretty well answers my question. I was concerned that we were not allowing the balconies into the inside. So I will pass on that. Are we allowing the request here - is that what you are saying? - 4 CITY COUNCIL AND 3/20/72 PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 Page .Five Mr. Munsell: No. What they are saying is they wish to project balconies into the yard spaces, front, side and rear, and in the ordinance it is written that front, side and rear is not allowed. On the interior areas you can project into the interior yard spaces of each building by up to 25% of the space. If you had a 161 distance between buildings you would not be allowed to have more than a 121 projection. Mr. Yamasaki: Some of the rationale of this was, at every public meeting we have had.people have expressed great concern about people being able to look into their rear yards, so we tried to pull back the patio balcony so they could not look down into single family yards or patios. Chairman Browne: And that also applies to sideyards in many instances. Councilman Shearer: Privacy would be more violated by a patio or balcony than by a wall with a bathroom or bedroom window. My next comment - page 10A, regarding Maximum Ground Coverage, proposing to reduce from 70% to 55%. I was wondering perhaps if we could be a little more liberal here in a situation where a man has met all the other requirements. He has the distance, the average front setback, provided all the recreation space, etc., and I think the term was used by Mr. Davies "through ingenious design" he was able to get all the other require- ments in but not comply with the 55%. Is that 55% really necessary if we get all. these other items? Is it really necessary to say .55% in addition to all the other minimum requirements? Maybe this is rather steep. Mr. Winter: The Bren Development has 460 units constructed now and has a ground coverage of 50% including the paved areas, carports, landscaping, etc. Councilman Shearer: The point I was making is we are going -to end up with the same thing but is it necessary to say you can't have more than 55%? Perhaps 1. am just trying to smooth over some of the objection to the ordinance. If we end up getting it because of the requirements that they be this far apart, because of the setbacks, etc., there is no way this can develop with more than 55% ground coverage so is it necessary to spell. it out and perhaps antagonize them by stating this? (Explained further.) What is so sacred about the ground coverage? Commissioner Adams: I think this ground coverage thing is a carryover from the days when they didn't specify a certain percentage for the land- scaping and these kinds of things. This has been my experience. Chairman Browne: You might have an extraordinary piece of land to develop where you had a hillside going up the backside. I think in this situation when they come into staff, staff makes a recommendation based on the surround- ing area. Commissioner Cox: I think maybe some understanding of the intent of the new ordinance might help. The thing the Planning Commission is working to is a broadening of the open space concept. All of the developments we have observed that had an expansive open space created a better environment which we really think creates a better higher value return. And one that exceeded the 55% coverage is now under construction and I am afraid it is going to be cluttered and.the whole move now in planning is to try and get as much open space as you can, green belts and things of that nature. Actually some of this may require more • • CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 PLANNING COMMISSION RE Amendment No. 115 vertical growth. The whole concept from a horizontal plane and tending This is a change. Like downtown Los years ago it was horizontal, and the to vertical. Page Six of development is going away to go into a vertical movement. Angeles - all vertical; ten MF zoning does tend to push it Mr. Munsell: In addition to that we have talked about flexibility, about requiring the developer to defend himself.but still have flexibility. On page 3 of your Development Standards it says "the following development standards shall apply to all medium density multiple. family zoned land unless a waiver of one or more of the standards has been granted by the Architectural Review Committee, Planning Commission, and/or City Council at the time of precise plan approval. A request for waiver and the justification thereof shall be filed at the time that the application for a precise plan of design .is filed-. etc. etc." What we are saying is: 1 - we have added an Architectural Review Committee and we have put in more standards. We recognize someone is going to come in with an odd shaped parcel and .it is reasonable to vary from these standards but unreasonable to require another $100. fee and call it a variance. Two Commissioners will review it several weeks before the Commission gets it, to take these kinds of things into consideration, so we can say we can compensate for this landscaping removed from here by putting in a fountain or some other kind of things. A good example of this is the development in the Brutocao properties. We have a tremendous slope on the northside of the property, the zoning ordinance requires a 61 masonry wall on that property line and some of the people who live on top of that slope have built walls, most of them have built nothing because they do not want to disturb their view. And frankly it would be a bad situation if the City were to require it if people didn't want it. So we have asked the developer, amongst other things he wants to deviate from, to file a variance request and we have already through conversations with people who have called us wanting to know what it will look like, have indicated that we will have a meeting with those people up there so we can work out between the developer and those people what's going to be the best solution for that boundary situation. In this ordinance he wouldn't have to apply for a variance, the staff could review it and contact the people and it wouldn't be a formal variance request. That is the kind of situation we hope to have on these things. Councilman Shearer*. What you are saying is that you feel both a maximum coverage as well as increased setbacks, specified distances between buildings, specified minimum recreational areas in order to qualify, all of these things are necessary-6r desirable in order to administer the ordinance? Mr. Munsell. We think it is desirable. We have a number of inquiries when the developer comes in. to develop and that is his quick way of .looking at the land. A lot of them will tell us what kind of .land coverage they have. If you want to pin me down and say is that particular one necessary then I think Mr. Adams is right, it is another one of these things where one developer doesn't think anything about land coverage at all, not concerned about it, and another one is, Commissioner Adams: A Riverside County complex permits only 50/ ground coverage, but they have different .definitions of ground coverage. (Further comments on this subject by Mr. Jackson and Mr. Adams.) - 6 CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 Page Seven PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 Councilman Shearer: The point I was making is if all of the other requirements are met and 55/ comes out as a result anyway maybe we could remove some of the objection to the ordinance if we removed the 55/ because you are going to get it anyway. Commissioner Jackson: I don't know if that was really a legitimate objection and it makes it a lot easier for staff if we have these yardsticks to measure these things. Councilman Shearer: Okay, that's the answer to my question. Commissirner Adams: When we considered this we were concerned about whether the developer could meet all these figures and we went over it quite thoroughly and I think until we really get one and measure it against this criteria we won't know how practical it is. Councilman Young: A question on this. It seemed to me the provi- sions mentioned here on page 3, 206.5 - ® I don't know if some independence of criteria could be developed, or that the Architectural Review Committee would consider valid to grant the waivers requested? Mr. Munsell: We are in the process of developing that criteria and we anticipate it will be apart of the enabling legislation which sets up the. Architectural Review Committee. Yes, we definitely feel there has to be some subjective material so the developer doesn't go away wringing his hands, otherwise it sounds just like another arbitrary group to hear it. We agree that .is important. Councilman Shearer: The next comment I have is with regard to the unit size and I think the statement was made that unit sizes were not terribly important. In Mr. Ingram°s presentation he used a lot of percentages and tried to make them sound quite drastic and in some cases they are. What type of investigation or research was done to determine that a one bedroom apartment should be 725 square feet over 650 square feet? I can't quite envision this because I live in a house that is much bigger than all of these figures, but does a 650 square foot that we are proposing to change result in an apartment that is exceptionally small and is that really of concern to the City? How big the inside of the apartment is if we get everything we want on the outside? What is the rationale there? Commissioner Jackson: I think we went through the same kind of an argument when we set up the Area Districts in town. Those have a square foot requirement and a lot size requirement, and it seemed like the farther east you went the more overbuilt you were. Councilman Shearer: I wasn't aware that we did specify footage in the R-1. Chairman Browne: Yes that is throughout the whole City. Councilman Shearer: .For information what is the smallest 3 bedroom house you can build in the City? Mr. Winter. Area District l-A is a 6000 square foot lot size in the County area and I think it .is 950 square feet. In Area District 1 there is a 1000 square foot size which is our 7500 square foot Area District. 7 - U CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 Page Eight PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 Councilman Shearer: Mr. Munsell: Councilman Shearer: the reason for 725? Why do we require apartments to be bigger than,a three bedroom house? That is a minimum for a house and it isn't broken down per bedroom. You could build a one bedroom or a four bedroom house® I don't want to get hung up on this, but I am wondering if that is a good sized apartment or maybe it is too small or too big. What was Mr. Munsell: Some of the initial input was how do we insure that the apartments that go into the City are "quality". Most of the discussion originated around maybe we should have Area Districts for apartments too, plus a lot of the vacant land is in the larger area districts. The land up near Frandisquito and Azusa, for example,,is in Area District 4 and Area District 2A and Area District 3. Area District 3 has a minimum house size of 1400 square feet. There was some discussion that maybe some of the areas in the community do not themselves have anything about them which could generate a little better quality apartment with better rent and that the City should strive to assure that kind of quality. Staff, after working with the Area Districts found this was a pretty difficult thing to work with in terms of do you just upgrade the bedroom size in the areas where homes are required to be bigger and leave them smaller in other areas? The Planning Commission then indicated perhaps with all the hassle going on with Area Districts and the possibility of exclusionary zoning being ruled invalid that perhaps we better back away from that and initiate a slightly higher standard for all apartments in terms of unit size. (Explained further.) The intent was to try and make those areas currently vacant more compatible with the surrounding areas and the larger homes with the anticipation the larger unit size would create a little higher rent and therefore require more quality. Mr. Aiassa: . At one time we did some field studies on this and this I believe was before Mr. Munsell°s time, and if you physically see the construction the little difference in size does make a much more appealing apartment. Councilman Shearer: That is what I am trying to get at - is a 725 square foot one bedroom apartment better? Because we could also make it so big that it isn't appealing. Mr. Aiassa: One thing I can add. We did make a physical study on the size of apartments and at that time when we compromised on the size of R-1 because of County annexations and Home Savings we found even a 10000 house is not a big house and when we went back into the apartments that is when. we adopted the 650 square foot minimum and looking at surrounding areas with 750 square feet it appeared much more attractive with less vacancies. Councilman Young: Of course the cost of the development is based somewhat on the unit size and the rent is based on the cost of the apartment and so the rent more or less sets or encourages the type of renter you will get. Mr. Aiassa: Basically what Mr. Young is pointing out .is whether we make it too --low in square footage or too high and I think 750 square feet was just about what averaged out in the type of accomodati.on people were looking for® 8 �, CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 Page Nine PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 Councilman Shearer: At California and Cameron, the potential slum that I don't think has turned into a slum if you can get the Olive tree replaced that is dead, what size were those apartments? I haven't been inside. • Mr. Aiassa: We were inside and they have a long hallway which I don't know if that is counted or not. Mayor Chappell: While Mr. Winter is looking that up, we insure a number of people living in apartments and frankly I was happy to see us enlarging the size of apartments just so they would be livable. We have some apartments in West Covina and you wonder how people can even live in them, they are so small. That was one of the things I liked among others in this new ordinance because you were giving them a little bigger living space. Councilman Nichols: Of course we are going right into the C-2 zones and letting people build what we call"motels" at 200 square feet and they are renting them full-time to people, month by month, year by year, and they are apartments in terms of use. You people don't think that these motels going up along Garvey Boulevard is because we have such a great demand for motel business in West Covina? It is because we have such a big demand for substandard type apartments in West Covina. And that is absolutely true. We don't have people coming through this town dying to stay overnight but we have a lot of them that want to pay $90. or $80. a month for some dingbat apartment. So they build apartments in our commercial zones and call them motels and rent them out by the month. We are going all over our ordinance with what we are doing on the freeway. Mayor Chappell: Don't we have some ordinances to prohibit them from doing that? Councilman Nichols: I yelled pretty loud about that last time we went through .it. Commissioner Adams: We have a definition of a motel versus apartment. Mr. Munse.11. The unit going up next to the El Dorado Motel is an apartment and does meet the apartment standards. Councilman Nichols: You and I both know the bulk of our motels in West Covina are renting on a monthly basis. Mr. Munsell: Basically the difference is they are getting maid service. Councilman Nichols. The point I am making is we spend quite a bit of time talking about minimum sizes .for apartments when day after day in -our City we are renting/ on a full-time basis to people/apartments which functionally are half of the minimum we are talking about. I think we have to be honest with ourselves. Commissioner Jackson: That doesn't necessarily mean we should drop the unit size here? Councilman Nichols: No, I didn't mean to imply that. Mr. Winter: On the California Cameron apartments one bedroom 750 square feet, 2 bedroom 846 square feet, 3 bedroom (2 sizes) 1060 and 1023, and they have eight 4 bedrooms at 1.175. Also when I drafted the Ordinance I looked - 9 - C, • CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 Page Ten at the unit sizes in Arcadia, Pomona and Covina; and at the time we were drafting Covina was adopting their new ordinance with one bedroom at 800, 2 at 1000 and 3 at 1200. Pomona°s generally ranged 1 bedroom average 700 square feet; Arcadia 1 bedroom 800, 2 bedroom 1100, 3 bedroom or more 1300. This survey was made in November. Chairman Browne: There were many comparisons made throughout the area based on what surrounding communities are doing. Councilman Shearer: Okay that answers my question. The point is this proposal is not out of line with what has already been built and w1.th 'what other cities around us are requiring. So when people get up-. and say you are going to drive all the apartment building outland they have to build a bigger apartment in surrounding areas, then I don't know where the rationale comes in on this. On page 4 he talks about the screening of air conditioners. I assume the ordinance as written requires all air conditions even though it is a front type conditioner to be internally screened? What was your rationale there? Mr. Munsell: Basically under the ordinance it required only roof screening. Cameron and California were the first to come in with the window units and obviously those sticking out on the Cameron side were undesirable. At the time the Mayer apartments came in at Barranca we put up a requirement that all units from the street shall be screened and we are still hassling on this. We had to have four meetings and we finally got Mr. Mayer down and said either you screen that or we are not opening up anymore buildings and as you walk inside of his buildings it sounds like a beehive in there. It is just an aesthetic thing that we are looking at. (Explained further.) Mayor Chappell: We went into the Bren Development one day on a tour and here were these houses with the air conditioners sticking out of the windows and it just spoilt the whole thing. They actually had them held up by broom handles . you just couldn't believe it. Mr. Munsell: They are all gone now. Councilman Young: This requirement applies to the developer but I suppose a tenant could put in a air conditioner that could be propped up with a broom handle. Mr. Munsell: No, the zoning does not allow it and the apartment complex is to the developer and if the zone says all air conditioning must be screened then they must be that 'way forever more. If a tenant sticks a unit in his window then he is technically in violation. Councilman Young: Essentially the owner then would be well advised to place such a restriction in the lease regarding this. Mr. Munsell: Yes. And. this is where our flexibility with the Architectural Review Committee comes in. We have reviewed some apartments where the developer says weare going to have a very fine louvred unit flush with the wall and the units will stick out on the inside of the building will this satisfy and taking a, look at it - we said yes that is fine. It blends in with the wall and for all practical purposes physically it cuts down on the exposure outside. ® 10 CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 Page Eleven PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 Councilman Lloyd: I have a comment on the square footage. I honestly believe in commensurate with the comments made by Mr. Nichols regarding the motels I frankly admit I never really thought of it that way and I find it offensive but since I have no immediate solution to that problem I think that in the thrust of our urbanization and development of our social and cultural patterns that we can anticipate more people (because of the economics) going into multiple dwelling units of this type. I think we ought to review very carefully the square footage we have been discussing and my immediate reaction is - having been one of thos people, as a result of my past employment, enforced into renting these great available apartments, and I at one time resided with my family in a 1200 square foot unit and as a family of three it was flat out inadequate, at least for our needs. Perhaps we are overly critical but at that time the Navy didn't seem to think so since we were never over our approved rental allowance but it would have to be assumed we were at the maximum set. I think when talking about three bedrooms at 1200 square feet or less you are kidding yourselves because you are building slums. Human beings need space. This is one of the immediate crises throughout our society and if we do not take into consideration this space for people then we are building more problems. I think 750 square feet starting off is inadequate and it ought to be larger. I think in the philosophy of everything that when we get up to 4 bedrooms I think it is absolutely inadequate. Mr. Munsell: The Mir-20 has slightly smaller units than the MF-15. The MF-15 starts at 800 and the MF-20 starts at 725. Councilman Lloyd: I would like to see those figures upgraded. I am sure there was some very good and justi- fiable reasons for coining to that decision, but it is my opinion for the future of West Covina in multiple housing that we should reconsider and make that figure upward. I have never seen any behavioral studies on this but I think it goes back to the fact that two people can actually experience remedial problems as a result of restriction and this can lead--.to.manyo:ther problems including police, fire and all kinds of things. I think in this City we ought to give consideration to the psychological aspects. I would say 800 square feet for two people or even 900 square feet for a one bedroom apartment. I think we must consider the people who come here to live and if you would - quote "bring in people that are going to have more happiness in your Ci.ty88 one of the ways of doing it is to be sure that living accommodations are adequate for the needs of our society and I think the space proposed is too small. Chairman Browne: Are you speaking to both the MF-15 and 20? Councilman Lloyd: Yes, I am not separating. I think 1200 should be an absolute minimum on 3 bedrooms, and I would like to see something even greater. Chairman Browne: What about the one bedroom? . Councilman Lloyd: 800 minimum or 900. Commissioner Cox: As you were talking I laid out a 2 bedroom apartment with a 12 x 12 bedroom, which is a pretty good size room and allowing about 50 square feet for a central hall, a kitchen 10 x 15 or 1501, two bedrooms of 10 x 10 2001, a living room 14 x 20 (which is good size) and a dining room 10 x 101 all in 1210 square feet. - 11 - CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 Page Twelve PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 Councilman Young: I note from Mr. Ingram's analysis here, which I assume is correct, that we are already increasing existing requirements under the new ordinance and he is complaining about that. The difficulty I find with • Mr. Lloyd's request here, No. 1 - I think there has been a careful study given to the sizes selected and a comparison made with surround- ing communities and a general overall standard involved and I think we should recognize that and--stsy_within.the market :�o to -speak and not do the' -Very thing they are crying about here which is to drive development out. And No. 2 - a happy family is sometimes a family with somewhere to live rather than nowhere to live. And we are dealing with definite economics here in terms of is the unit priced completely out of their reach? This is where we end up in bankruptcy, drug traffic, fund raising projects, etc., to pay the rent. I am worried about monkeying too much with the economics for a family that needs two bedrooms and is bringing home a pay of $1.25 to $130 a week. That is why I would be inclined to stay with what is recommended in the ordinance. Councilman Shearer: My concern was somewhat the opposite of Mr. Lloyd's. When Mr. Ingram says it .is an increase of 10/ or 20/ that doesn't bother me. What I am concerned with is the end result m is that of sufficient size or is it too small or too big? Is that apartment adequate for what it proposes to be? I can relate to 1200 square feet, three bedrooms, because that is the house my wife and I started with. I personally feel that was big enough for a small family. When we got a second child we moved to a larger house. I would be satisfied to accept the sizes as they are now spelled out and of course we have the bonus on density which would take care of those wanting to go higher. Councilman Lloyd: And the bonus will take care of Councilman Young's feeling and .it goes somewhat into what I am thinking of. Mayor Chappell: When staff and the Commission made the study you took economics into it and came up with the livable figures that a man can easily rent to and be basically comfortable? Mr. M.unsell: The MF-20 is pretty close to the Cameron . California development and the Bren Development has units very close to that size. In the MF:-15 because we are talking almost exclusively condominiums we have gone to the Bren type 4®plex to evaluate those unit sizes and these are comparable to the 4-®plexes, Councilman Nichols: Actually the whole area we are talking about here is not poor people housing anyway. People with $130. take home pay I rent to those kinds of people in my little old flats in Covina and nothing we are building now, even our 700 or 800 square .foot apartments, are for those kinds of people. The Barranca development is $160. for one bedroom, $190. for two bedrooms .- those are for middleclass working people. Poor people can't rent there. Councilman Young; Of course, when we do an ordinance like this we are dealing in the area of supply and demand, we are placing encumbrances upon free enterprise and I happen to be one Democrat who still_ -prefers a little bit of free enterprise .left, so let's not overdo restrictions here, Commissioner Cox: Sometimes you get too close to a picture but if you get outside of the community and look .- 12 CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 Page Thirteen PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 at rent levels young people are paying, I made one survey around the airport and you will find working people -.airline stewardess sharing an apartment and paying $250.00 a month as compared to $175.4200. here. Our levels are quite a bit lower. If you get outside of this area you find people paying.substantially more money for their apartments and I am not too concerned that we are developing a standard here that is going to be uneconomical. Councilman Young: There is a urgent need for the $130. apartment for a divorced woman with two children. Mayor Chappell.:.... But even in Baldwin Park you can't find them. Councilman Nichols: We are talking about what is going to be built. What we are planning for in the competitive market of today, the houses being built today $160 to $175 for one bedroom in West Covina, and as he points out that is the bottom of the rental level_ in Southern California. So anyone renting for $120 or $130 they are in subsidized housing or older houses which will gradually go up anyway. So we are not building houses in this City for the very poor, we are building for the working middleclasses. Commissioner Jackson: I think that is the area. I. know my daughter has lived in various apartments in Bellflower where it is more. -reasonable for a two bedroom apartment then around the airport. So I agree with you, but we have a task here to try and provide as much housing as we can for all people. I don't know that we can provide in this area housing for the very poor. Councilman Lloyd: I don't feel I have a task to provide housing for all people. First of all the properties we are dealing with belongs to people, not the City Fathers, but to people and what we are really discussing here is those people want to build units which will provide for them a maximum amount of income for a minimum amount of investment. That. is their right and that is what they are trying to do, but if we are under the erroneous impression that this is somehow a philanthropic endeavor, although it may turn out that way, well Commissioner Jackson: I don't think you understood what I said. Councilman Lloyd: Yes - what you are saying to me is I am pushing the scale up too high and I may keep somebody out and you are absolutely right. I have no objection to that. We may philosophically disagree on that point. You are absolutely right if your assumption is that. I am looking at the cost of providing those police services - which we are talking about salary increases for at the present moment m fire protection and services that this City provides. It costs dough and right now unless there has been some great reversal of the situation, particularly in support of schools and the many services that we provide, these people simply do not pay it and we have to build • another base. I am not saying this property tax situation is one I agree with but so long as I am required to live in the perimeters of that situation then yes, indeed, I am looking at a situation where I can bring in people with economic capability that can afford the services they are demanding. Maybe my philosophy is all. wrong. Commissioner Jackson: I think we are somewhat alike here but I still feel the restrictions we have plus the area of development we have if we force these minimums any higher we won't have any development at all. 13 - • • CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 Page Fourteen Councilman Lloyd: You are right and I am saying I am not really that enthralled about development. Commissioner Jackson: Speaking only to the size, these sizes hold it down to the middleclass and I do know if they overbuild - and this is the tendency when money gets cheap - then they all go to pot. Councilman Lloyd: Well how many apartments did you say we had on tap? Chairman Browne: Over 1000. Councilman Lloyd: And if everybody built tomorrow we would be overbuilt - is that correct? (Answered: Yes). So then why not increase your requirements and hold the market down? (Further discussion followed regarding the market and the economics.) Councilman Young: In terms of what you are talking about we do have a distinct interest in successful apart- ments and we have every reason to abhor the unsuccessful development and there is no way we are going to structure a perfect community here. I think we are getting tight and I don't think we should get too tight. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, that is all the questions I had with the specific items of the ordinance. I have a couple of other questions to do with the point Mr. Ingram made about all the MF-25 that is now developed and remodeling if someone has a fire. (Gave an example of someone he knew in a fire situation with the building completely burnt out but with a good foundation.) So what can a man do or what can't he do in such a situation? Mr. Munsell: If the building is significantly damaged and that is usually in the 70/ bracket, then he has to start all over again and build to the new ordinance, unless he is successful, for example, in coming in and saying the building .is 70/ damaged but I have a good foundation and there is no way I can meet the new ordinance regirements, I need a variance. And perhaps some variances might. be.granted. He has the alternative of taking his .insurance money and going, or taking his insurance money and building under the new ordinance requirements, or if he has a particular problem coming in for variances. Councilman Shearer: That would be the situation today if he had built under a standard that was not compatible to the present MF-25? (Yes, Mr. Munsell advised.) So this would not create a new and unique situation, which is the sort of impression I got from the presentation. Mr. Munsell: No. This is standard procedure in the L.A. Basin. Mayor Chappell: This is not unusual because I have had two insured commercials where the buildings burnt down and they had to build far better buildings because the fire code and building codes wouldn't allow them to build the same type of buildings. Councilman Shearer: One further point. We have had quite a bit of objections from people .regarding the proposed downgrading but I didn't hear any objection from the same people when we went from MF-10 to .MF-15 about a year ago and I believe one of the objectors received a benefit .from that - 14 - CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 when he went from MF-10 to MF-15. Page Fifteen Woodside Village - the statement was made that this doesn't cover anything in Woodside Village because it is a Planned Community Development. Under the present Master Plan how much' more acreage is included in the medium density? Mr. Munsell: There is a total of just under 100 acres of MF-25 which does not have a development plan on at this time. 20.7 acres of MF-15 with 4-plexes on now and 1262 acres of undeveloped M.F-25. 22.5 are developed and out of that 126 acres there are about 20 more acres that has a development plan approved. (Pointed out on displayed map.) Councilman Shearer: The remaining acreage, what type of control do we have in that area with regard to ground percentage coverage, setbacks, etc. Granted they have already developed some, but on the next piece what kind of control do we have? Mr. Munsell: Their Master Plan would maintain the MF-25 ordinance until modified. We are very close to having a total revision to that Master Plan, this year I think it will be accomplished® at which time we would anticipate upgrading that ordinance to what we have accomplished here if this is acceptable.- (.Explained why it is being upgraded and pointed out the various areas on the map that have changed such as the School situation, Walnut property exchange, etc.) Councilman Shearer: One of the major objections raised to me is you have 50 acres here and twice that size in Woodside Village and this doesn't cover Woodside. Do we have a tool on the Council whereby by a precise plan or whatever, we can force a reasonable compliance with the provisions we are proposing here? Such as air condition screening, etc.? Mr. Munsell- Yes, We do that now anyway. Bren has accepted -it, they have screened their air conditioning units. In fact Bren has volunteered and innovated a good many of the things we are writing into the proposed ordinance. Councilman Shearer: So even though Bren is not covered by this Ordinance we can say we will get the same kind of things supplied or at least reasonably close in Woodside Village? Mr. Munsell: Yes. Let me caution you about one other thing. These density segments just point out the number of units. It is possible to have a MF-25 density development in this location as long as he compensates by open spaces. Dwellings per unit. This particular zoning is different than any other,, If in fact he does come in and requests to leave good acreage around here it would be possible to have a multiple family type development other than where it is designated as a density segment. Any place in this zone that there is a multiple family development Bren Company has to live up at this time to the MF-25 zone standards and whatever we require in the development plan is what we would require in any multiple family any place else in the City. Mr. Yamasaki: And there is still a precise plan review by the Commission and Council. - is - CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 Page Sixteen PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 Mr. Munsell: In any event we have had a little time to'mature with regard to our Master Plan and we would like to change the overall master zoning.on here to insure that we get those open spaces as stated at the last joint meeting we had on this. The main thing we have been waiting on has been the Rowland Unified School District's special study which is being funded through the State. So we have the boundary change, the school district and some possible changes in the density zoning and at that time we would like to proceed with upgrading, changing it from MF-25 to hanging it on this MF-20, if that is an acceptable zone. Councilman Shearer: How soon might you envision this overall re- evaluation and change? Mr. Munsell: We have been waiting for Bren to move, they have slowed down somewhat. We have also been waiting to see when Nogales goes through which has to do with the cities of Walnut and West Covina and we are waiting for the school district. If you directed us to proceed I would say we would have something in the next 3 or 4 months. Chairman Browne: We haven't discussed the time element factor yet of reverting to the new zoning. Councilman Lloyd: A very quick answer. I had a chance to chat with you and my;attitude was between 90 and 180 days. I don't know how the rest of Council feels. Mayor Chappell: I picked it up somewhere in the 6 month area. (Discussion followed by Council and the Commission on the time element.and how the time element might affect people going through escrow at the present time and the length of time the ordinance would-be known prior to becoming effective and that too much time might bring people rushing in to get in under the old ordinance thereby getting approval of precise plans that might hold for two years, thus defeating the purpose of the new ordinance.) Mr. Munsell: The precise plan does not have to last for two years. The .Planning Commission can say you have 6 months or 1 year to start construction. Councilman Shearer: I would go along with a 90 day period .if there was also some provision that any precise plan approved expired within a year or some other reasonable time. Mr. Munsell: That can be a directive to the Commission, it doesn't need to be in the ordinance. Chairman Browne: We also get into another area - how do we control development of certain parcels in the City? A man has zoning for 20 years on a piece of property, somewhere along the line his time limitation should run out, because through the General Plan we might change the whole concept of the City and that piece of property still remains as a MF or whatever it might be. If we had a scale in the City of setting a time limit on zoning we could control this. Mayor Chappell: I asked about this when I came on Council and it seems to me the attorney said that was an illegal situation, but it is something we might pursue. Commissioner Adams: In many places they will go back and review after a period of time and in the case of - 16 - CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 Page Seventeen PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 Riverside County and mobilehome sites after two years if not developed they review it and that may not rezone it. Mr. Munsell: The ideal situation would be at the time of a zone change to earmark the calendar and say in 2 years the City Council will review this and if not developed we will set for public hearing to rezone to something more appropriate. Or you could even today state on all property zoned for two years that two years from this date if the property has not been developed we can go back and give them a time limit. Mayor Chappell: It is something to think about. Councilman Young: The 90 day period you are talking about, this would be the grandfather clause in operation, is that right? (Mr. Munsell answered ','yes" ) It would give Mr. Brutoco or anybody else a limitation, it places that limitation on them to fish or cut bait within the framework of their expectations up until this ordinance came into effect. Is that right? (Mr. Munsell answered "yes".) Councilman Young: Have you talked to .Brutoco about it? Chairman Browne: His own letter indicates all he wants is a 90 day extension. Councilman Young: It wouldn't be a special favor to him if we did it? Mr. Munsell: Not really. Councilman Young: Would it be a special hardship to somebody else? (Discussion followed on this; Mayor Chappell said the time factor is 180 days and sending it back to the Planning Commission; Mr. Munsell said unless the Council desired it was not necessary to send .it back to the Commission just for a change in time.) Councilman Shearer: I would prefer if we can legally do :it to take action and get the ball rolling. Because if we refer it back that is another 30 day delay added to the 90 days, etc. (Further discussion on the time factor.) Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, to adopt Amendment No. 115 with an effective date of 90 days following the final enactment of. the Ordinance with the stipulation that any precise plan approved in that 90 day period has a one year time limit, and further that this be subject to City Attorney approval. Councilman Nichols: If you have the capability inhouse at the present time of .implementing this ordinance to the precise 0 plan requirements - what's the rush? Why is the time element at all essential? Why 90 days or 120 days if you can implement this ordinance by precise plan now then what is the urgency? Commissioner Cox: I don't think we can. Councilman Nichols: That has been said here in this meeting, that functionally the requirements of this ordinance can be applied at Woodside Village or at future developments or any others ® so that what we are applying to the 17 - • • CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 Brutocao properties and others would land elsewhere in the City with that that let's know what we are talking procedure here and then a couple of screaming that someone else is able If we adopt this and make it 90 days put on the Brutocao property than on the City including Woodside Village, restrictive than any other? I think we have to answer. Page Eighteen be no different than applied to zoning on. Now if we can't do about before we implement a months from now someone is to develop under different terms. will there be more restrictions any other acreage existing in or will that be no more that is the key element that Mr. Munsell: I think that the Brutocao property would have the most precisely spelled out 'restrictions. Yes. I think that it will be difficult for us in the Bren property, for example, to specifically say in unit size that you will develop instead of the 650, which the minimum allows, you will develop X number. Most of the other requirements in terms of landscaping, size of parking space, etc., we will not have any problem at all in terms of placing that type of restriction on. I will clarify and say for the most part we can get the same standards in the Bren Development but probably the density requirement which we now have and which we can impress upon him. The problem at present being the burden of proof is upon the Planning staff or the Planning Commission to say if you have 21.5 dwellings per acre instead of 28 dwellings per acre that it doesn't meet the criteria of the precise plan. We are weaker trying to require that situation. Chairman Browne: I think Mr. Brutoco indicates that he realizes that under the PCD there is a differential on his property. I think I read that in one of his letters. Mr. Munsell: I think he did recognize there was a total of 1200 acres and all inter -related, but Councilman Nichols' comment is appropriate. The reason we want the ordinance is that it puts the burden of proof that the project is going to be a good one or the developer and gives staff the automatic ability to waive under the scrutiny of the Architectural Review Committee, whereas under the Woodside Village project the developer can start with the minimums and staff has to beat him down in the open spaces. Councilman Nichols: There is one thing that concerns me and it is the cruz of my feelings on this, and I am not lobbying for Brutoco or anyone else, but the zone requirements we have now are not very old and everything the Planning Commission adopted in the MF-25 zone and Council adopted, came as a result - so we understood ® of very careful staff analysis, careful staff work, and Planning Commission study, so we put it on our books. We thought we were upgrading the multiple zones in our City and we got on just in time, we thought, for very broad application. And here came Bren. We have hundreds and hundreds of acres there that we agreed can develop in the City under certain stipulated conditions, PCD or whatever you want to call it, and what is left in our City interms of gross acreage is indeed minor. The 50 or 60 remaining acres plus here and there is so insignificant a part of that great huge chunk. So what we are really saying then is that we are not going to change anything that is going .in on this great area down here where hundreds of units can be built including a lot of junk, but we are going to come closer to the heart of town with smaller parcels and make that more restrictive. This is for the people that have been developers and have invested in the community for years and years. I don't see any equity in that at all. I am prepared to tighten this up and. I am prepared to say we don't want any more apartmentst at all in the CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 Page Nineteen PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 City. I am prepared to say to Brutoco and the others you have been around long enough and if you haven't done it by now then you are out of gas. But I am not prepared to say you people down there in the hills because you are really big pie and you have hundreds of acres • and you goofed two years ago you can keep on doing this but because the guys closer in with smaller acreage well you have to do this. I can't go that route. We have to come up with changes that are uniformly applicable to everybody that hasn't built a stick on the ground yet or set some applicable time date and then it applies to everybody. But I don't see how you can play one game with one developer and on another basis with others. You let one come in under one basis and the other can't because he hasn't followed the PCD. I think we have to be fair and treat each person exactly the same. If we are prepared to call Bren back in and say lets upgrade it at the sametime then I am all for it, but I am not for this thing allowing one to go along in their routine way and the other can't. Councilman Lloyd: I was under the impression it was applicable to everyone equally. Or maybe I didn't read it right. Mr. Munsell: Specifically, Woodside Village is not included in here. Councilman Shearer: How can we make it applicable? Mr. Munsell: Since you are talking about an effective time limit I think we can within a month or two of the time you are talking about we can have the ordinance revised and probably have it to City Council, assuming that what you see here is what you want on the Bren as well. Councilman Nichols: Yes, the day we can say to every soul in this City they are all going to build to these requirements. Commissioner Cox: But Bren is under a different ordinance that goes beyond just the MF-25 and what we have to do is take and revise the whole PCD ordinance which would incorporate the MF-20, but we have to do this a step at a time and I think that is our intent to incorporate this when we amend the PCD. Mayor Chappell: Tell me where I missed it 'because when we were voting on Bren we gave them an initial number of acres for the PCD and we said if anything didn't work in that land area we can change it in the next development phase. Why is this no longer a true statement? Mr. Munsell: We can. The development plan can be changed if it comes through and they have come back for changes on the first two plans. (Explained restrictions placed on plans that came through since the first plan.) Mayor Chappell. It was my understanding that a good part of this matched what .Bren was doing, or was less in restriction than what we required Bren to do, Mr. Munsell: For the most part it is what they were doing rather than the minimums they could have done. However, I might remind you that Bren did come in for more units on their multiple family area and the staff and the Planning Commission said "no, you are not going to do that you are gi ng to keep up the open spaces, we like it the way it is" and there was a great deal of crying and wailing on keeping the density at 20 dwellings per acre, ® 19 CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 Page Twenty PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 and that is what you are going to live with. We can get you to a final hearing on Bren within approximately 4 months of the effective date of the ordinance. • Councilman Lloyd: Then the motion as it stands and the way.things are, well I have to turn around and vote against the motion because it is not equally applicable, or have I missed it? Commissioner Cox:: The ordinance that applies to Bren is entirely different than the MFm25. Councilman Lloyd: I understand that now. I was under the impression we were doing it for everybody. Mayor Chappell: And you say this can be done at the same time? Mr. Munsell: I am saying if you have an effective date of 4 months from now we can also tie in the effective date for the change in the Bren plan with that. As fast as we can do it I. think it will take us about 4 months® Councilman Shearer: Then my motion for 90 days it not enough. Mr. Munsell: We need at least 120 days. Councilman Young: I would say two things® I didn't come here tonight prepared to vote on a motion of any kind because this is a Study Session. I prefer to have a motion when the public is participating and we have only one member of the public present here tonight. We announced this would be on the agenda on the March 27th meeting. I think that is when we should consider a motion. Secondly, we introduced a thought which I don't think staff or the Planning Commission considered and that is the revising of the Planned Community Development to bring it into line. I don't particularly like to rush staff and the Planning Commission into something that might be considered a major change with the Bren people. I think these people should be worked with. I don't want to kill that development or slow it down particularly and a rush sometimes makes that kind of a waste. I am saying I won't vote for this motion without more time. Councilman Shearer: Could the staff by Monday,be more specific as to how long it will take? Here we are talking about -a-waiting period, that we will give a grace period and unless we are also going to be considering that on the PCD..... Will you be able to give us a week from tonight a 3 month, 4 month or 5 month period so we can go ahead and move on this ordinance and make it effective to whatever period of time you say to back up with the hearing on the other ordinance. Mr. Munsell: Yes. Councilman Shearer: Then I would recommend a "no" vote on my motion. Motion failed, all voting "no." Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, all of us recognize that the PCD ordinance has a function of its own, there is greater flexibility built in but I think both from the standpoint of sound planning and political leadership - 20 CITY COUNCIL and 3/20/72 Page Twenty-one PLANNING COMMISSION Re Amendment No. 115 in the community it is valid that both ordinances, the MF-25 and the PCD, if there is an upgrading of one that they should come as near in consummation as possible in time. If that throws -an extra load on the Planning Commission I am sorry about that, but if it is possible to slow one down so that they both come into focus in the community at the same time for upgrading I think this is then good business by City Government. Mayor Chappell: I now speak for the whole Council, we think you have done a very good job in upgrading these zones and we wish to commend you on ,your efforts and we look forward to your next upgrading in the Planned Community Development ordinance. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young and carried, to adjourn this meeting at 6:50 P.M. ATTEST: CITY CLERK • APPROVED: MAYOR 21 -