Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/2/1987 - Minutes PC~; City of Orange Orange, California. February 2, 1937 Monday - 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the City of Orange Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Greek at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: ____ IN RE: Stan Soo-Hoo, Administrator of Current Planning & Commission Secretary; Jack McGee, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 1987 The Minutes were corrected to read: Page 6, first paragraph, third sentence - "at 7:00 p.m. -- bed and breakfast inns." The hour of 6:00 p.m. was changed to 7:00 p.m. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the P4inutes of January 19, 1987, be approved as corrected.. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, ilaster, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NOMINATIONS Moved by Commissioner. Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission nominate Pon Greek as Chairman. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek,-Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED _____ Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commissior.nominate Don .Scott as Vice-Chairman. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED REVT.SED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP .12649 - LYON-AKINS ASSOCIATES: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The applicant has requested a continuance of this item to the February 18 meeting. Planning February Page 2. ~~ IN RE: C Commission Minutes 2, 1987 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission continue Tentative Tract Map 12649 to the February 18 meeting. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED REFERRAL FROM CITY COUNCIL FOR REPORT MODIFICATION TO THE SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1556 - ELITE DEVELOPMENT: This is not a public hearing item, The Commission will not vote on it as an approval or disapproval, but will take information and try to come up with a recommendation to the City Council as they requested. Public hearing procedures will be followed, but it will not be an official hearing. Comments should be addressed only to the site plan recommended to the Commission for comments. Mr. Soo-Hoo gave the staff report on the modified site plan for a two- story 66 unit senior citizen residence located within the C-1 zone and on the southeast corner of Glassell Street and Palmyra Avenue. The Planning Commission, on December 15, denied the original proposal, before it was modified. The matter was appealed to the City Council who heard it on January 13 ,1987. Because the plan was revised, the City Council referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for a report,- The prior proposal was proposed at 74 units, three stories in height, containing 39 off-street parking spaces and vehicular access was to Orange Street on the eastern frontage of the property.. The revised site plan now being considered would contain 66 units; it would be a maximum of two stories; contain 38 off-street parking spaces, Vehicular access would be to Palmyra to the north, rather than Orange Street. And there would be a commitment to limit occupancy to those 62 years and older rather than the previously proposed 55 years. The City Council has continued their pending hearing on this matter until February 10 (next week). They will be considering Planning Commission's report at that hearing. The Council asked for a number of items to be investigated while the matter was continued: (1) The question of adequacy of infrastructure to serve the development. All members have received a copy of the memo from Frank Page, Director of Public Works. His finding is that the specific areas in question were water and sewer and are adequate for this development. (2) A question regarding the role of the Redevelopment Agency in this project was raised. Staff has spoken to Redevelopment and they are in the process of renegotiating any involvement they have with the project, but stressed their involvement is secondary to the conditional use permit process.. Tf there is no conditional use permit issued by the Planning Commission and City Council, there is no project and nothing to be involved with (3) The adequacy of off-street parking was a concern. Staff has done a survey of other cities that have parking standards for seniors developments and found the code requirement ranged between .33 per unit and 1.25 per unit. If there is a prevailing rate, it would be one per unit. This conflicts with materials the applicant has provided where they have researched actual developments in place now.. Their findings show that the actual need, ~.s opposed to code requirement, is approximately in the area of .5 per unit. They have also submitted a study that was done by the City of San Diego and that city Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1987 Page 3. endorses a standard of .5 plus .2 for guest parking; therefore, the parking requirement in San Diego for such a development is .7 per unit. The City Council also requested that the revised elevations be reviewed. New elevations have not been submitted; however, the applicant will be addressing that aspect in their presentation. Bob Mickelson, 428 N. Glassell, representing the applicant, showed a slide show of Old Towne architecture, blending new with old in an attempt to construct the seniors housing project in Old Towne. As pointed out in the presentation, there are many, many styles of architecture in Old Towne. They did survey a number of units and picked the five that were most representative of the proposed project. They had the same size of units, same occupancy (62 and above), none of them exceeded .51 parking spaces per unit. This was actual data provided in the survey. Seniors would not need a swimming .pool, but they do like the spa, a card room, and large eating area; little insignificant details that should be added into the project for the seniors benefit, Also feels the .5 parking space per unit is legitimate for the type of project that is being proposed. Pointed out in Orange 2,000 the report calls for a need of senior housing in several sections. By the year 2,000 there will be 20,000 seniors and to encourage senior housing there should be density increases, parking for seniors - 1 space per 2 units, minimum square footage of units - 400 sq. ft. efficiency units, City fee structure reduced and it was stated the City should encourage private developers to build housing for senior projects. Those speaking in favor: Jay Bush, for 19 years was the senior minister of the Presbyterian Church on Grand in Orange. He is also the Chairman of the Senior Citizen Housing Committee (Triangle Terrace). Feels all of us should be acutely conscious of how critical this .kind of housing is to the senior citizens. It became very significant in his ministry that reasonable housing for seniors is needed. Those speaking in opposition: Chuck T~aupt,- 314 E. Palmyra, concerned because Orange has no specific regulations or guidelines for senior housing development. Conducted an independent survey and contacted 10 local cities concentrating on density, parking and other amenities for senior housing. He referred to his letter he sent to the Commissioners and noted the different cities' guidelines. Feels the project is still too dense. Orange's General Plan specifies a maximum density of 24 units an acre. The Sunwest Bank site is 1.33 acres; this would be a maximum of 32 units allowed. A suggestion that would be appropriate is to allow a 25% density bonus to the 32 units allowed in the General Plan for a total of 40 units. Parking requirements were pointed out from the different cities. Study revealed none of the cities allowed compact parking for senior projects. Many of the cities require recreation and leisure areas that is more substantial than what is being proposed by Elite. Grab bars in the units and hallways have not been addressed. Feels the elevation plans are a significant part of this project and should be reviewed. Planning February Page 4, Commission Minutes 2, 1987 Chairman Greek read an excerpt from the City Council Minutes and it does not state elevation requirements need to be reviewed. Mr. Haupt said the elevation needs to be reviewed because it is such a large project and stated he received information from Mayor Perez that the plans should be reviewed. He will check this out because it is important. Commissioner Hart stated in regard to the issue of design, the Commission does not pass on design. That is the function of the Design Review Board. The residents will be notified of Design Review Board's meeting dates. Chairman Greek said the Commission was obligated to give the City Council a report this evening; it can't be postponed or cancelled. Dale Rahn, ,350 N. Harwood, resident and President of 01d Towne Preservation Association. As an Association they are opposed to the density, the inadequate parking and addressed the issue of low income affordable housing. Of 66 units in this project for rent, only 13 (20%) will be subsidized. The balance of the project (53 units) have a projected rent of $550 each -- not considered affordable for seniors. There are no guarantees that Orange residents will be the recipients of this subsidized housing. Commissioner Hart said the Orange County Housing Authority has a scale and will subsidize rents for needy senior citizens. This is aside from the units that are set aside for low income. To state the units are not affordable is really a misstatement of fact. People can qualify for rent subsidies through the Housing Authority. Bob War, 334 S. Glassell, has heard two different versions on parking. Thinks the citizens should have a more accurate picture and feels staff should report their findings. Laren Gartner, 315 S. Orange, lives directly across the street from the proposed project and is on the Board of Directors for Old Towne Preservation Association. Referenced Elite Developments' initial meeting several months ago with the residents on the proposed project. On paper this project seemed ideal; a real dream come true; however, the truth is tfiat this project is a sad attempt at what could have been a shining star in Old Towne. They realize housing for senior citizens is a real issue, but why should quantity be sacrificed for quality. Feels the project is still too dense. Concerned about the amenities for this development. Researched apartment complexes in the Orange area and compared the differences with Elite's proposed development. Phil Menard, 360 S. Orange, lives three houses to the south of the pro- posed project and is also a member of Old Towne Preservation Association. Wanted to point out some facts: These units will be rented to seniors on a first come, first serve basis; that is mandated by law. There is a possibility that seniors now living in Orange may not be living there. Questions why senior citizens would want to live in this type of housing when they could live somewhere else that has more to offer. Who is benefitting from this project? The seniors in Orange who may not be able to live there, or the City of Orange, or the developer who is using the seniors' designation to this project to gain density and parking concessions from the City of_ Orange. Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1987 page 5. Lisa Blanc, 368 S. Orange, is a member of the Old Towne Preservation Association. Ouoted Mr. P4ichelson: "I can talk about the features if you're interested in them." Thinks this is a big point. eJhy wouldn't the citizens be interested in the features? Realizes the parking and density are very important, but there are other important issues too. Concerned about the lack of amenities and the low quality of life for the senior citizens. rersonally toured The Fountains of Fullerton and found it interesting; it's a lovely senior-citizens-only condominium complex. She described The Fountains in depth for the Commissioners. Cannot understand why the developer does not commit to providing this development with similar amenities. Chairman Greek asked *4s.:Blanc to describe The Fountains in a little more detail. She visited the site because Mr. TMiichelson made reference to this development in his letter to the Planning Commission (Exhibit. B of the Staff Report)"because the environment and quality of life provided in this project do represent the quality of development proposed by Elite Development." Ms. Blanc does not agree with this as she has not heard of a commitment by Elite Development to provide an adequate environment for the seniors. Mike Harbaugh, 413 S. Orange, resident and member of OTPA, Personally visited three other facilities mentioned in Elite Development's reports and shared his observations. Of the facilities visited,-only one was similar in land use. Amenities were impressive. Adequate parking was also noted. Comparing Elite Development's proposed project to those he visited is like comparing apples to lemons. The proposed property falls short in the areas of parking, storage and recreation for the seniors. Mr. I4enard referenced a comment regarding subsidized rents and questiczaed if it were true or no t, in a worst case scenario, if this proposed project could turn into public housing? Chairman Greek said there was no way this would happen and felt the citizens were missing the point of this proposed development. Ms. Gartner wanted to reiterate to the Commission they are not paid consultants; they are concerned residents. Tt isn't easy to stand here; sometimes facts are confused. Their hearts are in the right places and they are not the bad guys against senior housing: Tremendous education has been gained in dealing with the issue of senior housing. Asked that they be forgiven foz any mistakes they might make, Chairman Greek feels there is a tremendous need for senior housing. Through- out this process, people are getting side tracked. Duncan Clark, 259 S. Glassell (real estate business). Is supportive of Old Towne; however, is quite surprised of the opposition to this project. As a former owner of the property and in no way connected with the present development, he is still supportive of senior housing for that project at that location. Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1987 age 6. Mr. Mickelson feels the information provided is very accurate. Amenities will be covered in the proposed project. Agrees with Ms. Gartner this project is an emotional issue. In reference to parking, .5 is adequate; .6 is slightly above that, which is proposed. Chairman Greek stated discussion has ended. The purpose is to prepare an advisory report from the Planning Commission to the City Council. He noted the specific areas that needed to be discussed: proper use; density; parking; ingress/egress; age of resident; and amenities. Commissioner Scott asked if the Commission was really interested in amenities. Chairman Greek said the report could reflect they were not interested in it. He is looking for items that should be discussed. Tf it is not valid, a comment should be made. Commissioner Hart stated the first issue that should be addressed is the adequacy of housing for this site because all the rest of it doesn't count if it isn't. Commissioner Master has no problem with accepting it as a proper site or acceptable site. Commissioner Bosch feels the site is acceptable for senior housing. Commissioner Scott agreed. Chairman Greek stated then the site is acceotable for senior housing. Commissioner Hart would like to expand on that .with his own thoughts. Has looked at other possible uses for this site -- commercial, strip shopping center -- it doesn't even have to come up before the Commission. Favors senior housing over that kind of use. Commissioner Scott also feels that way, It's an acceptable location for housing, senior or otherwise, than a commercial development,. Commissioner Hart pointed out it would generate less traffic, The actual bank traffic generates 88% more traffic. A study was done and i:s available. Has some problems with the parking. Chairman Greek questioned the density. Is the density adequate or inadequate? Commissioner Master feels density and parking should be considered together. If you favor density, but are against the parking, then the dennity will be lowered. Commissioner Hart said the whole parking issue has not been totally addressed. Tf parking is determined inadequate, subterrain is not out of the question. Commissioner .Scott thought as far as addressing the parking, feels they are addressing the young adult senior citizen (62 year-old). Tn the studies submitted, the average age is 75 to 77. • Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1987 page 7. Chairman Greek questioned the density. Are there any comments? Commissioner Scott can accept the density. Commissioner Master cannot accept the density by itself without parking because of the total picture. Commissioner Hart thought they needed to be tied together. Chairman Greek said to scratch density and try parking. How do you feel? Commissioner Master said on a unit basis, it was low. Wishes there were more data. Commissioner Bosch commented that parking is a major issue given the development standards for compact parking. Commissioner Hart doesn't support the parking as proposed. Commissioner Scott can accept the parking. Commissioner Master said parking has a lot to do with the amenities. If people have to go off-site for entertainment then there is a balance because people .rarely leave the site in their own vehicles. Mr. Soo-Hoo believes the density at The Fountains, Fullerton is between 60 to 70 units an acre and it was a large site, The majority of the Commission feels the parking, as proposed, is somewhat low and distribution of parking sizes questioned as being appropriate in relation to the development standards. Chairman Greek asked. about the density, If there are no other comments, he feels the density is reasonable. Commissioner Bosch commented that he could not. separate the density issue from parking and was, therefore, unable to formulate an independent reaction to it. Commissioner Master concurs with that, Density was a dead lock. Chairman Greek concerned about ingress/egress. Prefers the ingress/egress come off of Orange Street,. There are two driveways too close to a stop sign and it is not a good traffic situation. Feels the Palmyra side is too short, would rather not have ingress/egress on Glassell or on Palmyra, and feels Orange is a safer street. Commissioner Scott would have to support Palmyra, Commissioner Master also supports Palmyra. Tf it comes off of Palmyra, it can still go on Orange. ' Planning Commission Minutes February Z, 1987 .....,Page 8 . Commissioner Hart can accept the Palmyra egress. Commissioner Scott stated they are generating twice the amount of traffic now with the bank operation than they would with the senior citizens home. Has never seen a problem there with the circulation going in and out. Commissioner Bosch would be more inclined to ingress/egress on Palmyra. The ingress/egress, as .proposed, is acceptable. Chairman Greek asked for comments on age of residents. Commissioner Hart commented why the age limit is not raised to eliminate some of the ears based on the studies that have been presented. Chairman Greek is in favor of establishing a higher age limit -- not sure what it should be, but seems like 65 is minimum and maybe 70 is not unreasonable. Commissioner Hart said that would certainly take care of some of the cars.. Mr. Mickelson made two quick comments: (1) the reason the average age is 65 is that you balance the 62 against the 90's and if you raise it to 75, then you'll be balancing the 75's against the 90's...where do you stop. (2) You can't finance it if you don't have the age limit at 62 (a reasonable limit). Commissioner Scott heard that financing would be a problem if the age were raised from another source, Chairman Greek stated as the age increases, the need for cars decreases. Commissioner Master thought 62 was reasonable. Commissioner Bosch had no comment on age restrictions. Commissioner Scott has no problem with. the age. Toss up on age of residents: 2/age 62 is reasonable and 2/somewhat older. Chairman Greek wanted comments on amenities. Commissioner Scott said earlier i'le does not believe that is part of the Commissioner's charge and should not be considered. Commissioner Hart commented as far as grab bars and interior fixtures they are minor when they are put in the cost of the project. Assumes that will be taken care of. That isn't something the Commission looks at. The Building Code generally covers that sort of thing. Commissioner Bosch stated the Building Code and financing would handle second floor limitations; favors handicapped access. Is concerned with the units along Orange and the balconies not meeting the setback requirements. Planning February ,,,,Page 9. IN RE: Commission Minutes 2, 1987 Commissioner Hart spoke on the size of the units. It's not economically feasible to live in a 2,000 square foot house. A 500 square foot, one bedroom, while not all that great, it is certainly a palace to someone who doesn't have a place to live or is living in one room somewhere. From a practical, economical standpoint, the bigger the unit, the higher the rent. Unless this City bites the bullet and starts building it's own housing for senior citizens and runs it, takes the loss and charges the tax payers for it, you are not going to get that kind of development. Personally doesn't like the idea of a City-run project; they don't work - they never have. There is no incentive to keep it up. Wants to see a private enter- prise take that position. A transmittal in rough draft form wilt be prepared .for the Commissioners' review February 3, 1987; and the final caill be forwarded to the City Council. CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1563.- TUSTIN PARTNERS, LTD,: A request to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages in a restaurant and a reduction of the parking requirement in a multi-tenant commercial center on property located on the east side of Tustin Street between Mayfair Avenue and Rose Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1114 has been prepared for this project. (This item was continued from the January 19, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting.) There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the staff report was not presented. Bob Mickelson, 428 N. Glassell, has a shopping center of 30,000 square feet. Code provides when you have a Center of mixed uses in excess of 5,0.00, there is an opportunity to request up to a 15% reduction in parking because of overlapping. Mr. Pringle's report shows there is an overlap in this Center. They are only asking for 8%. The prime use for the restaurant would be in the evening. There was concern expressed regarding parking behind the building not being readily accessible. Tt might help if a sign were put up stating additional parking to the rear of the eenter. Commissioner Hart stated parking in rear was inaccessible for normal use. Realizes employees will be encouraged to park back there. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file'~egative Declaration 1114. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1987 Page 10. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission deny Conditional ,Use Permit 1563 for the following reason that the establishment of a restaurant in this shopping center would require a permitted reduction of parking, which would significantly increase parking and off-site circulation problems to the detriment of public welfare, and also deny the recommendation on the parking reduction. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1567 - ORANGE HOTEL ASSOCIATES: Proposed 105 unit hotel with 100% kitchen units, and a maximum height of 33 feet located within the C-2 zone and on the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and Rampart Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1120 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented as no one was in opposition to this project. Public hearing was opened. John Bemus, Vice-President of the franchise development for the Residents Inn Company, Wichita, Kansas, The Residents Inn Company is the nation's largest system of all suite hotels. They are all suite, one and two- bedroom units; residential style, low rise hotel, Their customer base is Fortune 500. The hotel market is a very deep commercial market. There is a real need in Orange for this facility. Their Inn does not have a bar or restaurant, it is fully secured, and it is a very quiet, upscaled, good neighbor. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file'~1Qegative Declaration 1120. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1567 for the reasons so stated by staff and to include the 27 conditions. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 0 Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1987 .Page 11. IN RE : NELd HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1569 - ORANGE COU:dTY HONDA: Proposed establishment of a motorcycle sales and service business within the M-2 (Industrial) zone located on the east side of Main Street, south of Collins Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1124 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Tom Lascales, owner of Orange County Honda, 1630 W, Chapman, wanted clarification on two items (4~3 and ~~4 on Page 3 of the staff report). Item 4~3 does not refer to overnight storage, which it should. Item 9~4 refers to motorcycles only. They also sell lawnmowers, generators, scooters, ATC's. Wanted to bring this to the Commission's attention and hopes for an approval on this proposal. Mr. Soo-Hoo does not see a problem with the applicant's interpretation. The concern staff has is great quantities of permanent storage outdoors. If the inclusion of the word overnight storage would make the applicant more at ease, that is perfectly acceptable to staff. The applicant wishes to propose is that they be allowed to display units during the day; not at night. Tor. Soo-Hoo jotted down some suggested wording: "This conditional use permit shall authorize .the sale and service of. motorcycles and/or xelated motorized equipment. Commissioner Hart suggested taking out Condition 464 because of the restrictions. The public hearing was closed. Moved by .Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 17,24. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1569 subject to the conditions as shown on the staff report (4~1-~~6), with the change in Condition ~~3 -- the word overnight shall be inserted in front of outdoor -- and Condition 4~4 be dropped, thus showing only five conditions. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1987 ..,Page 12. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS REVISIONS TO TENTATIVE TRACT 12711 - ?aILLTAM LYON COMPANY: Proposed minor modifications to a 122-unit single family residential tract within the PC (Planned Community) zone located southeast of Chapman Avenue and Newport Avenue. A staff report was not presented. Commissioner Bosch asked as a procedural matter, since they are asked to consider amending an adopted tentative tract map, are there requirements attached to that that would require more information than what was received in the packet? (ie., additional property line dimensions to demonstrate the size of the new lots involved.) Mr. Soo-Hoo indicated that information could be requested from the applicant by the Commission. The Commission. would not be expected to respond to this request without adequate information. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission continue this hearing until receipt of additional information demonstrating the exact size of the new or adjusted lots in the tentative tract map are obtained. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADDENDUM - MISCELLANEOUS Discussion about the responsibility of maintenance of horse trails by the residents of Upper Peters Canyon: Mr. Hart reported on this concern and letters have been exchanged with Bob Bennyhoff and given to the Commission. He feels the people in the 240 acre tract should not bear the burden of taking care of the horse trails. They can't have horses. These .trails are really for the exclusive use of a relatively few people. Tt~s an expensive installation because of so much land involved. ~j Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive., Orange Park Acres. The problem centers around everyone in that area has horses. The reason horses.•are not allowed in Upper Peters Canyon was a decision made by the Irvine Company. There needs to be access between Orange Park Acres'system and the County's access system. Read a segment of the Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan regarding horse trails. Orange Park Acres maintains their own horse trails. A principle is involved here. They offered three years ago to maintain this until some other arrangement was worked out. .Orange Park Acres does not want to be saddled with the responsibility of maintaining horse trails throughout the 18,000 acres. They are willing to meet with the City and talk about this problem.. Chairman Greek recollects an agreement that if~.the.City.;requires.a°horse trail. and the construction of it, the Irvine Company said they would not maintain it. Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1987 ,~p,~Page 13. o~~., '~;y,~ This was just another phase of the horse trails the Association is already maintaining. It is the responsibility of the Association to maintain that trail that is being constructed in that 240 acres. Mr. Bennyhoff disagrees with this; they only agreed to maintain it until there was an assessment district created. Chairman Greek feels Orange Park Acres has already committed to the 240 acres, but not to the 7,500 acres. Commissioner Master asked who has the liability for that trail? Mr. Minshew re-stated the homeowner has the liability. Mr. Bennyhoff stated the word horse trail is misleading. Commissioner Hart stated it was not misleading. It is a horse trail, but you can call it anything you want. Mr. Bennyhoff had .two suggestions; (1) Trying to set up a meeting with Frank Page and Al Ravera to talk about this; (2) There is a need for a policy beyond the 240 acres, Suggested the City start calling the trails recreation trails and seriously consider making the upkeep of these trails the responsibility of the adjacent property owner, as with the case of Cowan Hills, Broadmoor, Ridgeline, The Wilderness, and other sites that maintain these trails. Chairman Greek feels the problem in this case is that the homeowners are not allowed to have horses, but yet it is suggested by Orange Park Acres that they maintain the trails. A maintenance line needs to be established. Coralee Newman, Irvine Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach. It is not the appropriate time to get into a discussion about this, but we would appreciate being in the meeting on horse trails; and she does not know the details about a maintenance district, but thinks there is some time clock clicking. Is this true? Mr. Johnson said this was true.. There will be a meeting held in March. to discuss the landscape assessment district. As of that date, they will take final action and determine what should be included in the district. Ms. Newman requests any feedback or results from this meeting before the March 10 meeting. Chairman Greeks recommendation, if they are asked, is that the 240 acres should be taken care of by the Orange Park Acres Association, as stated in the Agreement. There is no discussion necessary here. And the future policy should be one that is made apart of the Policy Planning Study. Staff was directed to formally write a memo to Gty Council to that effect. A11 Commissioners were in agreement with this recommendation noted by a roll call vote. Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1987 Page 14. IN RE: OTHER ITEMS Chairman Greek made reference to the memorandum the Commissioners received from the City Manager regarding a management workshop on March 3, 1987. He is asking for topics. Interviews are set up for Tuesday, February 24 and they will be contacted for input. IN RE : ADJOURNP4ENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission adjourn to an adjourned meeting on February 3, 1987, at 4:00 p.m. in Conference Room "C", for a joint workshop with the City Council to review factors, maps., goals and objectivies for the 7,500 acre East Orange General Plan Study. This meeting will be a regular meeting of the Planning Commission for all purposes. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting will be held February 18, 1987, at 8:30 p.m,; study session at 8:00 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. ~ /sld err'