Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout103002 PC MinutesMINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 30, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, October 30, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Chairman Chiniaeff. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Guerriem, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: None. Aisc Present: Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Director of Planning Ubnoske, City Attorney Thorson, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Battalion Chief McBride, Fire Captain Neuman, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Associate Engineer Jimenez, Principal Planner Hogan, Principal Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Long, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of October 30, 2002. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes from September 4, 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Planninq Application No. PA02-0472 - Proposal to desi.qn and construct a new Ioadin.q door, drive aisle and associated landscapinq to an existin.q 77,500 square feet industrial buildin.q located at 41093 County Center Drive - Daniel Lonq, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0472; Pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0472, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO MAKE A MINOR MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING 77,500 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 5.65 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTY CENTER DRIVE AND YNEZ ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 910-110-041 Associate Planner Long provided an overview of the proposed project (per the staff report), highlighting the General Plan Designation (Business Park), the Zoning (Light Industrial), the proposed location for the new loading door, and the added landscaping requirements (as per Condition Nos. 11 and 12); for Commissioner Mathewson, confirmed that the applicant planned to further expand the use at a future point in time, Principal Planner Hogan advising that the original project approval included the ultimate build out of the property. Mr. Ross McCune, representing the applicant, noted that the City of Temecula was a beautiful city; relayed that the new loading door was designed for UPS truck pick-up service, and that the new asphalt paving area would be consistent with the existing driveway material. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner OIhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Planninq Application No. PA94-0073, PA99-0298, PA94-0075, PA94-0076, PA01- 0253, PA01-0230, and PA99-0299 - The annexation of 634 acres to the City of Temecula; a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element to incorporate the proposed land uses, and to include Planning Areas 33A and 33B to the Specific plan Overlay Fiqure; a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation element to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento through the project and to chanqe the designation of Butter[ield StaRe Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road from 4 lanes Specific Plan Road; a Zone Change to pre- zone the annexation property to the SP zoninq designation and to amend the Development Code Section 17.16.070 of the City of Temecula Development Code to adopt a Specific Plan for 804.7 acres to provide zoninq and development standards for the development of 2,015 dwelling units within several gated communities, 110,000 square feet of neiqhborhood commercial retail space, a 12 acre elementary school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites including a 19.7 acre Sports Park with lighted playing fields and a 4.8 acre neiqhborhood park with passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be preserved as permanent habitat, related flood control improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash; a tentative map to subdivide the proiect for conveyance purposes; a tentative map to create 509 residential lots within a qated community, a 4.8 acre private recreational facility, a .3 acre private mini park, private paseos and trails, a 5.1 acre public park site, and two open space lots (21.9 acres) to be preserved as permanent habitat; and a Development Aqreement to qrant the developer development rights for ten years and secure the construction of certain infrastructure improvements by the developer located Northeast of the City near the eventual intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road - Saied Naaseh- Shahry, Proiect Planner V RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-046 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0076). 4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: RtPlanCor t'~Wm~n ut es/103002 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-047 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE FOLLOWING: 1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0298); 2) THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0075); 3) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING STANDARDS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94- 0075); 4) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHANGE OF ZONE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0075); AND 5) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RORIPAUGH RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99- 0299); ON PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 804.7 ACRES, LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BU'I-rERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 AND 002. 4.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-048 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01- 0230 - TENTATIVE Tract Map No. 29353 FOR TIlE SUBDIVISION OF 804.7 ACRES INTO 39 LOTS AND 8 STREET LOTS, Planning Application No. 01-0253- TENTATIVE Tract Map No. 29661, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF 158 ACRES INTO 509 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 20 OPEN SPACE LOTS WITHIN PLANNING AREAS lA, 1,B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, AND 9A OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED NEAR THE EVENTUAL INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 AND 002, 957-340-001,003, 007, AND 008, 958-260-001 AND 002. Staff provided an overview of the project plan Project Planner Naaseh presented the proposed project (of record), relaying the following information: Specified the data provided via supplemental agenda material, as follows: o The complete package of resolutions and ordinances necessary for approval of the project; o The refined Conditions of Approval included in the resolutions, o information regarding the issues and concerns associated with the proposed number of units and the buffering plan, o A new errata sheet, o The refined Design Guidelines, and o A letter dated October 16, 2002, written by Roger and Jeannie Morris, outlining their concerns regarding the project, · Noted special thanks to Development Services Administrator McCarthy and Associate Engineer Jimenez, commending their hard work on the project; Presented a detailed overview of the issues associated with the proposed number of units and the buffering plan (referencing the 10-page document entitled Total Number of Units and Buffering), addressed the concerns regarding the density of the project, buffering, the placement of 2.5-acre lots to the south or east, increasing the width of the fuel modification zone, and plateau buffering, advising that staff was not recommending changes to the proposed density or the buffering plan; With respect to buffering, Chairman Chiniaeff interjected the following recommendations: Regarding the easterly property, specifically beginning at the lot designated as 47,114 square feet (a pie-shaped lot), recommended that those seven lots (from the pie-shaped lot and up through six additional lots) be reduced by three lots, advising that the remaining four lots would be approximately 1.8 acres apiece, noting that with the adjacent easement these lots would equate to the same buffering as lots slightly larger than two acres (clarifying, for Project Planner Naaseh, that he was not actually placing the easement within the lots, but referencing the buffering affect due to the lots sizes and the easement); Regarding the lots on the Vista Del Monte portion of the property, at the southeastern corner, recommended that the three lots at the end of the cul-de-sac be reduced to two lots; that at the southern portion in the area where there were five lots not at grade with the adjacent properties, recommended that two lots be removed from this area in order to enlarge the remaining three lots; that proximate to the alternate cul-de-sac where there were currently five lots, that these lots be reduced by one, increasing the size of the remaining lots; and advised that the remaining perimeter lots had a significant variation in the grade elevation and would be sufficient; and With respect to the area at the rear of the Plateau Area, recommended that there be investigation as to whether there should be additional buffering adjacent to the one residence located proximate to the property line, which appears to be located at grade. Fl:PlanComm#rin utes,'103002 5 In response to Project Planner Naaseh's queries, the Planning Commission relayed that there was a consensus regarding the above-recommended revisions. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Naaseh confirmed that the mapping was provided for informational purposes only, and that the lots called out as one-acre lots in the Specific Plan would be required to be a minimum of one acre. Mr. Pat Hirsch, representing the applicant, for Commissioner Telesio, specified the difference between natural verses native landscaping, clarifying that the applicant would install landscaping consistent with the adjacent properties; and for Commissioner Guerriero, specified the process of hydro seeding, Project Planner Naaseh advising that the plant palette was included in the Specific Plan. Noting that at various locations the trail would be as close as 25 to 30 feet to the property boundary, Chairman Chiniaeff queried whether there would be additional landscaping in this area. In response to the applicant's representative specifying the landscape plan, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended additional landscaping, specifically in the area proximate to the lot designated on the map as Lot 441. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that there would be landscaping on both sides of the trail. Continuing his presentation, referencing the document entitled Total Number of Units and Buffering, Project Planner Naaseh addressed additional concerns, which had been expressed by the Planning Commission and the residents at the previous hearing, as follows: · Addressed concerns regarding traffic and circulation; Chairman Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioner Guerriero, opined that Nicolas Road should be four lanes (to the bridge), advising that this would be the most opportune time for this project to be completed, relaying that this particular road improvement would allow traffic to flow from east and west; and additionally opined that the Calle Contento connection should continue through this project site; · Specified the proposed improvements to Butterfield Stage Road; For Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the traffic study revealed a need for Butterfield Stage Road to be six lanes between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road at build out, advising that four lanes would continue from Nicolas to Rancho California Road; and provided additional information regarding the Nicolas Road alignment, advising that there was no nexus with the proposed project which would require this applicant to build out Nicolas Road; · Addressed construction traffic and dust control measures on Nicolas Road, advising that staff was not recommending any changes in the proposal; For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that dust control would be required during construction, advising that if dirt was spilled onto City streets, the hauler would be required to clean the streets, everyday, if necessary, with a street sweeper and/or a water truck (Project Planner Naaseh additionally advising that there were Specific Mitigation Measures in the EIR which address dust control); and for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that prior to the issuance of the 108th or 250th building permit, (to be determined at the discretion of the Fire Chief per the Development Agreement) the applicant would be required to tie in to a secondary access for the Fire department; · Addressed the residents' requests that the applicant be required to improve existing private unimproved roads; In response to previous comments, provided the public with information regarding the formation of an assessment district, advising that only the future property owners within the Roripaugh Project would pay into that particular Assessment District; and specified that Vista Del Monte was within the County's boundaries; For Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that there would be transition improvements for the connection of Liefer Road to Nicolas Road as part of the improvement plans; With respect to the concerns regarding the shared access driveways in the Plateau Area, relayed that staff was recommending conditioning the project for the redesign of two of these drive aisles, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks providing additional information regarding access to these particular drive aisles, and noting that staff was recommending that the project be conditioned to have these drive aisles redesigned prior to recordation of any final maps; Addressed the issue of curb-separated sidewalks and parkways, noting the applicant's reluctance to provide this element along the major roads due to the associated reduction in the buildable pad area; relayed the agreement the applicant and staff reached to provide curb-separated parkways and wider parkways on the north and south sides of Murrieta Hot Springs Road, advising that on the north side the sidewalk would be placed next to the chain-linked fence; confirmed that staff was recommending that the front and rear setbacks of the homes backing up to Murrieta Hot Springs Road be reduced by three feet; and relayed that the applicant has been advised that the Planning Commission could opt to require curb-separated sidewalks on local streets; Commissioner Guerriero commented on the importance of inclusion of this element (curb-separated sidewalks) in the project, advising that the previous major projects that came before the Planning Commission were required to implement this element; Battalion Chief McBride clarified the revision included in the DA, which provided the Fire Chief the discretion to authorize the requirement for the construction of the Fire Department in the range of prior to the 108th building permit to the issuance of the 250th building permit; Continuing his presentation, referencing the document entitled Total Number of Units and Buffering, Project Planner Naaseh addressed the following: Regarding the request that the nature walk be eliminated, advised that it was staff's opinion that the landscaping would be sufficient to provide privacy to the homeowners in the Nicolas Valley; · Specified the location of the chain-linked fencing proposed in the project; Commissioner Telesio relayed his displeasure with the chain-linked fencing being proposed located next to the natural trail, relaying a preference for pvc ranch fencing with wire mesh; For Commissioner Olhasso, clarified that chain-linked fencing was required by the Habitat Agency proximate to the habitat area; and noted that on the combination block wall/chain-linked fence, the block wall comprised about 18 inches of the six-foot high fencing; With respect to concerns regarding the project's impacts on the water supply, advised that the City Attorney has determined that the City has met the legislative requirements of SB 221 (Local Government Omnibus Act) and SB 610 (water supply planning); · Regarding the location of the school site, advised that the property sites were determined by the School District to be appropriate; and · Specified that the Design Guidelines requires both one- and two-story homes; Additional discussion ensued regarding measures that could be implemented to ensure that the applicant proposed an adequate number of one-story homes. City Attorney Thorson advised that the Planning Commission could required certain design requirements within the Design Guidelines, which could impact the implementation of one-story homes; and additionally noted that with the agreement of the applicant, additional specific requirements could be imposed via the DA, confirming, for Commissioner Mathewson, that if the applicant was in agreement, the DA could require a certain percentage of one-story homes. Commissioner Guerriero noted the importance of all the homes not being mirrors of each dwelling, that there be a variety of elevations, staggered to create visual interest. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Naaseh read the portion of the Design Guidelines, which addressed one- and two-story dwellings, and the requirement to create varying rooflines. In light of the applicant not being agreeable to a speciifed required percentage of one- story dwellings, Chairman Chiniaeff opined that the best avenue for addressing this issue would be to address the street scene when the product review was conducted; and confirmed, for Project Planner Naaseh, that it would be the Planning Commission's desire to have language added to the Design Guidelines and the Design Element of the R:PlanCom~Ymin ut es/103C02 8 Specific Plan, indicating that the Planning Commission would be seeking a reasonable mix of one- and two-story dwellings. At this time the public was invited to comment The following individuals spoke regarding the project, but did not denote whether they were in favor or opposed to the project: [] Ms. Linda Beaudoin ~ Mr. Ed Picozzi 22380 Alameda Del Monte Wildomar (Property owner of two properties abutting this project) Nicolas Road The above-mentioned individuals relayed the following comments: · Noted opposition to the chain-linked fencing, preferring the recommendation that the pvc ranch-style fencing be installed; · That the neighbors to the east of the project would be obtaining many more benefits than the neighbors on the west, i.e., additional buffering; · That the landscaping plan along the adjacent properties was an important element; · Concurred with previous comments that Nicolas Road would be heavily traveled once Butterfield Stage Road goes through; · Relayed appreciation for the Chairman's common sense comments, including comments regarding traffic and the recommendation to have Nicolas Road be improved to four lanes; · Expressed concern regarding the impacts of increased traffic on Nicolas Road while unpaved; and · Noted that the applicant's representatives had consistently stated throughout the process that Nicolas Road would not be used as the construction road, but that Murrieta Hot Springs Road would. For Ms. Beaudoin, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that it would not be known how many one-story homes would be proposed in the Panhandle area until the product review took place. It is noted that at 7:53 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:03 P.M. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project: Ms. Jeannie Morris Mr. Hans Kernkamp [] Mr. John Sorah 33007 Vino Way 39055 Liefer Road 32050 Vista Del Monte The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project, noting the following: Expressed concern regarding the privacy of neighbors residing adjacent to the nature trail; Questioned why the school would be relocated from the Panhandle area due to the proximity to the French Valley Airport when at the current site military planes and helicopters were consistently flying over the valley (the current proposed site for the schools), opining that this would be a more significant impact than the smaller planes flying in and out of the French Valley Airport; R:l~an Comm/rnlnut es/103002 9 · Requested that the Planning Commission have the applicant further address buffering on the west side of the project; and · Relayed concern regarding the lack of irrigation on the manufactured slopes on the County side. For Ms. Morris, Mr. Peter Olah, representing the applicant, as well as Chairman Chiniaeff, provided clarification regarding the differentiation of approximately 33 feet in the elevations between her property and the multi-use trail. Addressing Mr. Kernkamp's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks and Associate Engineer Jimenez relayed that Nicolas Road would be paved prior to the issuance of the 108th building permit, Project Planner Naaseh specifying the width of the roadway improvements. In response to Mr. Sorah, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that in the manufactured slope areas within the County, the land would be addressed in a manner consistent with how the county addressed this type of property, confirming that vegetation would be replanted without irrigation, advising that it would be required to be protected from erosion and would be maintained by the County. The applicant responded to the comments and concerns expressed by the Planninq Commission and the public Mr. Kevin Everett, representing the applicant, provided the following rebuttal: Regarding buffering on the east side, specifically in the area where the Planning Commission recommended that the number of lots be reduced by seven, advised that the applicant would be agreeable to reducing the number of lots in this area, as long as the lots could be added in alternate areas in order to maintain the total number of units, 2015; O In order to recoup the loss of the seven lots that the Planning Commission has recommended for removal, proposed that in Planning Area 33A, in the cul-de-sac, where there were currently 14 one-acre and one-half acre lots that the applicant be allowed to change the one-acre lots on the south portion to half-acre lots; confirmed, for Chairman Chiniaeff, that it would be his desire to change lots 1-6 into half-acre lots. In response, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that he would not be opposed to the recommendation as long as the lots remained one-acre and one-half- acre in size. For informational purposes, Principal Planner Hogan relayed that the map (a preliminary lotting study) being referenced was not part of a submittal, advising that the number, sizes and layout would change, Chairman Chiniaeff advising that Mr. Everett was referencing the map in order to ascertain whether or not the Planning Commission would be agreeable, in general, to his proposal for modification. With respect to the applicant's provision for the Fire Department's secondary access, relayed the applicant's strong desire for this element not to be required until the 250th building permit. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that it was staff's desire that the Specific Plan and the Tentative Map require the secondary access prior to the 108th building permit and that the DA be addressed separately; For informational purposes, relayed that the Planning Commission recommendations that he did not address were recommendations by which the applicant was in complete agreement, clarifying that he would solely be addressing the items in which the applicant had issues needing further discussion, i.e., the reduction of lots in one area to which the applicant had been agreeable if additional lots could be added in another area; Regarding the recommendation for the applicant to construct Nicolas Road as four lanes, advised that the applicant would be agreeable if the half-width section project (within the County limits) on Butterfield Stage Road was removed, and the applicant would only improve Butterfield Stage Road to two lanes. In response, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that staff would have to review this recommendation, advising that it was his hope that the applicant could complete both the Nicolas Road and Butterfield Stage Road projects; · Advised that the applicant was not agreeable to improving private properties or roads outside the project; Regarding the two shared access driveways that staff was recommending to be redesigned, and which would reduce the number of lots, relayed a desire to recoup those lost lots in an alternate area. In response, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that there would be no guarantee that all the lost lots would be recoupable, particularly in light of the fact that these two shared access driveways were improperly designed. · With respect to curb-separated sidewalks, noted that the applicant was not in agreement with implementing this element on the private streets; and · Advised that the applicant would not be opposed to installing wire mesh on the property fence. Mr. Steve Albert, architect representing the applicant, referenced the Design Guidelines, advising that variety has been addressed in the language referring to elevations, street scenes, and the treatment of mass; and specified the added requirements for merchants. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Mr. Everett relayed that while the applicant would encourage placement of one-story units for visual interest, if needed, the applicant would not be willing to commit to a percentage of one-story homes on the southern portion of Planning Areas 1-4, but would prefer to have the builders come before the Planning Commission and present their proposed product. Clarifying his view, Commissioner Mathewson noted that when the products come forward to the Planning Commission, if the homes were all proposed to be two-story units, he would not support the proposal. Referencing the Design Guidelines, Project Planner Naaseh relayed the language addressing vertical and horizontal relief. The Planninq Commission relayed closinq comments (the comments in bold letterinq reflectinq unanimous concurrence and subsequently becoming part of the Planninq Commission action) Relaying that this Commission has set the bar (regarding raising the level of design expectations) on other specific plans that have come before the Planning Commission, Commissioner Guerriero recommended that curb-separated sidewalks be installed throughout this entire project for reasons of safety and aesthetics; and advised that this element was being implemented nationally, and that it encouraged pedestrian use. The Planning Commission unanimously concurred that curb-separated sidewalks should be implemented into the entire project, and that the project should be conditioned as such. With respect to the Planning Commission's specific recommendations whereas seven lots should be removed to increase the size of the surrounding lots (as specified in detail on page 5 of the minutes, in the 4th, 5th, and 6th bullets), as well as the redesigning of two of the shared access driveways (as speciifed in detail in the errata sheet and in the minutes on page 7 in the 3r~ bullet, and on page 11 in the 4th bullet) which would further reduce the number of lots, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that he was not locked into maintaining the number of units at 2015, but that if some of the lots could be recouped in the half-acre, one-acre lot area (as recommended by Mr. Everett he would not be opposed to revising the plan in an attempt to increase the lots by approximately six, subject to the approval of staff. With respect to the above-mentioned recommendation, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to condition the project as such. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to recommend that the DA include the requirements for the applicant to improve Nicolas Road to four lanes from Butterfieid Stage Road to Calle Girasol, which was approximately 247 feet in length. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the product review be held at the Planning Commission level, emphasizing that if there was not an adequate mix of one- and two-story homes the approval of the proposal may be jeopardized. Commissioner Olhasso requested that when the City Council action regarding this project takes place, that the Planning Commission be copied regarding the final action. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the project would be conditioned to improve Nicolas Road from the project site to just before the creek crossing prior to the issuance of the 108th building permit (with the exception of the DA). MOTION: Commissioner Guerriem moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation regarding Item 4.1, subject to the requirements outlined in the refined errata sheet, and the final EIR. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval unanimous approval. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve staff's recommendation regarding Item 4.2, subject to the changes outlined in the previous Planning Commission discussions (as listed and in bold print in the minutes in the previous paragraphs), as well as the refined errata sheet for the Specific plan, the final EIR, and the recommendation to include in the DA the requirement to widen Nicolas Road to four lanes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Chiniaeff who voted no, clarifying that he was not opposed to the project as such, but strongly opposed to the proposal to not extend Calle Contento through the project. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation regarding Item 4.3, subject to the changes outlined by the Planning Commission during the previous Planning Commission discussion (as listed in bold print in the minutes in the previous paragraphs.) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. In response to Project Planner Naaseh, Chairman Chiniaeff clarified that it was the Planning Commission's desire that the applicant implement the changes to the Specific Plan outlined in the refined errata sheet prior to City Council presentation. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero thanked staff for addressing the visually displeasing paint application at the Bel Villagio Project. Commending the Planning staff, Chairman Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioner Mathewson, thanked the individuals who have worked diligently on the Roripaugh Project for the two years, as well as the Subcommittee and the developer, Commissioner Telesio specifically applauding Project Planner Naaseh for his efforts, Commissioner Olhasso echoing kudos to staff. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to reschedule the January meetings for the 3rd and 5th Wednesdays in January (the 15th and the 29th). Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that all the Planning Commission has been invited to participate in an hour tour of the Harveston Project next Tuesday, November 5, 2002; and requested that the Planning Commission respond by Friday, November 1st as to whether they were going to attend. R:PlanComm/minutes/103002 13 ADJOURNMENT At 9:14 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular meeting to be held on Wednesda¥~ November 6~ 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. 'X,,,_D~nnis W. Chiniaeff, ~ Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R: Plan Comm/minut es/103002 14