The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About060706 PC Agenda I) In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the Cily 10 make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting (28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE June 7, 2006 - 6:00 P.M. ******** Next in Order: Resolution No. 06-46 ~ALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: Commissioner Chiniaeff RollCall: Carey, Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, and Telesio PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of May 17, 2006 R:\PLANCOMM\Agendas\2006\06-07 -06.doc COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Planning Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. New Items 2 Plannino Aoolication No. PA06-0055. a Develooment Plan. submitted bv Scott Frick of Lennar Homes. for 76 detached sinale-familv cluster homes in Tracts 32436-1 and 32436-F. located on the north side of Date Street adiacent to the northeast corner of the intersection of Ynez Road and Date Street in the Harveston Soecific Plan. Christine Damko. Associate Planner. 3 Plan nino Aoolication No. PA06-0046. a Develooment Plan. submitted bv Paul Guota of Binaca Properties. for three retail buildinas totalina 29.498 sauare feet on 3.46 aross acres. located on the southeast corner of Maraarita Road and DePortola Road. Dana Schuma. Associate Planner. 4 Plannino Aoolication Nos PA06-0079 and PA03-0634. an Extension of Time for a previous Iv aoproved Development Plan and Home Product Review. submitted bv Tanamera Homes. for 113 detached sinale-familv homes. located in Plannina Area 48 of the Rorioauah Ranch Soecific Plan. south of Murrieta Hot Sorinos Road and west of Butterfield Staae Road. Dana Schuma. Associate Planner. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ~DJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Wednesday, June 21, 2006, 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\PLANCOMM\Agendas\2006\06-07 -06.doc 2 ITEM #1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 2006 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Guerriero thanked Ms. Eve Craig for the prelude music. ALLEGIANCE Chairman Carey led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Carey, Chiniaeff, Harter, Telesio, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of April 19, 2006. 1.2 Approve the Minutes of May 3, 2006. 2 Director's Hearina Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for April, 2006. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R\MinutesPCI051706 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Continued from Apri/19, 2006 3 Plannina Application No. PA05-0390, a Maior Modification submitted bv Greaorv Islas of Sian Methods Inc.. to an approved Comprehensive Sian Proaram for the Etco Plaza Buildinas. located at 27270 throuah 27290 Madison Avenue Associate Planner Oamko presented a staff report (of record). At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Gregory Islas, representing Sign Methods, spoke in favor of the proposed project, noting that the sign program was updated to accommodate the City's codes and specifications. Mr. Afshin Etebar, representing Etco Investments, thanked staff for their efforts with regard to the proposed sign program and stated that he would be looking forward to moving the project forward. Ms. Jeanne McClellan, representing the University of Redlands, relayed her support for the proposed project. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Expressing appreciation for the aesthetics of the proposed building, Commissioner Telesio stated that it would be his opinion that there would be too many architectural elements on the front elevations, and queried why the applicant did not request logos in the original proposal. Recapulating past history of the project, Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that the proposed project would be in compliance with the existing sign program, with the exception of the colors; and that his concern would be the array of colors that may be displayed on the proposed building. Via overhead, Mr. Etebar provided the Planning Commission with a color chart. With regard to logos, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that perhaps the Commission would be willing to make an exception for the University of Redlands, and deal with logos on a case-by- case basis allowing this to be worked out at a staff level. Thanking the applicant for the aesthetics of the building, Commissioner Guerriero stated that it would be his opinion that the applicant would not add signage that would detract from the aesthetics of the proposed building; and that because staff will be involved, he would be in support of the moving the project forward. For the Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that it would be in the Planning Commission's purview to allow The University of Redlands its logo, and deal with logos on a case-by-case basis. R:lMinutesPCI051706 2 Clarifying for the Commission, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that as long as the Planning Commission reviews the overall aesthetics and does not focus on the content regulation, or pass any judgment, the Planning Commission may deal with logos on a case-by- case basis. For the Planning Commission, Mr. Afshin offered the following comments: . That there would be two primary signs per building . That there would be two secondary signs per building . That one primary and one secondary sign would face the freeway . That the applicant would be cautious with regard to what signs would be allowed to be placed on the buildings . That due to the fact that the University of Redlands would be a nationally recognized facility, the applicant would be desirous of adding its own logo on the building . That the colors shown via overhead, would be the allowable colors . That a small tenant occupying a small retail space on the ground floor would not be eligible for a logo. At this time, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation, subject to the change of logos being limited to one primary and one secondary logo with approval at staff level on the front and rear of the building. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-039 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0390 TO MODIFY AN APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM FOR ETCO PLAZA GENERALLY LOCA TED AT THE TERMINUS OF SANBORN DRIVE AT MADISON AVENUE New 'terns 4 Plannina Apolication No. PA06-0034. a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessitv. submitted by Orchard's Markel. to authorize wine tastina throuah the issuance of a Tvpe-42 license inside their existina store. located at 27473 Ynez Road Per PowerPoint Presentation, Planning Technician Le Comte provided the Planning Commission with a staff report (of record). At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Waleed Donald, representing Orchard Market, offered the following comments: . That the proposal would be for wine tasting only, not beer . That the wine tasting would be within the business hours of the store . That a designated person would be present throughout the event . That the wine testing area will be closed off when events are not taking place. R:lMinutesPC\051706 3 At this time, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 5 Plannina Application No. PA06-0053. a Maior Modification. submitted bv Ashbv USA. LLC. to Conditions of Aoproval for the Tentative Tract Maos. located within Roripauoh Ranch at the future intersections of Murrieta Hot Sprinas Road and Butterfield Staae Road and Nicholas Road and Butterfield Staae Road Associate Planner Kitzerow provided the Commission with a staff report (of written material), noting the following: . That Condition of Approval No. 15 of the map would prohibit the issuance of building permits, with the exception of the fire station site for any lots created by the tentative map . That Condition of Approval No. 19 will require that all of the streets within Roripaugh would be private and that all of the landscaping would be HOA maintained; that Community Services Department (CSD) landscaping would occur on the public streets; and that the CSD areas would be handled in a different Condition of Approval that would already exist. For the Commission, Development Services Administrator McCarthy advised that the landscape plans for the proposed project have been approved. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. David Hogan, representing the applicant, thanked staff for their efforts and advised that he would be available for questions. At this time, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Carey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R:\MinutesPCI051706 4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-040 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA06-0053, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS WITHIN RORIPAUGH RANCH. SPECIFICALLY, TO MODIFY CONDITION NO. 15 FOR TRACT 29353 TO ALLOW THE ISSUANCE OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS. ALSO INCLUDED IN THE REQUEST IS A MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS NOS. 19 AND 27 FOR TRACT 29661 AND NO. 24 FOR TRACT 32004 TO CLARIFY TIMING OF LANDSCAPE PLAN APPROVAL AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE BOND SUBMITTAL FOR COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING. THE PROJECT SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE FUTURE INTERSECTIONS OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICHOLAS ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD 6 Plannina Application Nos. PA05-0236 and PA05-0235. a Tentative Tract Map and Development Plan. submitted bv Vicki Mata. to create one lot for condo purooses and construct 110 age-restricted units on 7.5 acres. located at the northwest corner of Maraarita Boad and Dartolo Road Assistant Planner Linton provided a staff report (of record). It was noted that prior to the hearing, staff received a letter from a neighbor (distributed), voicing concern with landscaping; and queried if exterior walls were going to be constructed adjacent to the property site. In response to the letter of concern, Ms. Linton advised that the applicant has proposed a wall which will be resubmitted for final approval by staff. For the Planning Commission, Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that although he was not the attorney reviewing the Conditions of Approval, nor did he change the 37 percent of proposed landscaping to 30 percent, it would be his opinion that City Attorney Thorson has carefully and critically reviewed the change; and advised that the reduction of 37 percent to 30 percent landscaping would be in keeping with the intent of the Development Code and Design Guidelines. In response to Commissioner Harter's query, Assistant Planner Linton noted that per the Development Code, senior housing would require a half-covered parking space per unit; that the applicant will be providing garages for each unit; and that there will be six motorcycle spaces available on site. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Thanking staff for their efforts with the proposed project, Ms. Vicki, Mata, representing Trumark Companies, stated that the applicant would be in agreement with the Conditions of Approval (COA) but did express concern with COA No. 47, advising that internalizing gutters and downspouts would become a burden and liability to the builders, and requested that the Condition of Approval be deleted. R:lMinutesPCI051706 5 At this time, Ms. Vicki Mata presented the Planning Commission with a PowerPoint Presentation, highlighting on the following: . Requested Actions . Aerial Regions . Site Plan . Project Information . Project Objectives . Why Seniors . Why Silver Oak . Demand . Entrance . Plans . Building Locations . Unit Locations . Examples . Clubhouse Elevations . Clubhouse/Pool Plan . Project Benefits . Benefits of Residential . Traffic Reduction Commissioner Telesio stated that it would be his opinion that the front elevations may have too many architectural features. In response to the Commission's queries, Ms. Mata offered the additional comments: . That roofing materials would be stone flat tile . That the rear elevations would face Margarita and Dartolo Roads . That if it were the desire of the Planning Commission, the applicant would be willing to work with staff and remove some of the architectural elements that would be a concern for Commissioner Telesio . That exiting off Dartolo Road onto Margarita Road would be a right-turn only, no left-turn would be allowed. Mr. Dave Stolte, representing NAI Capital, advised the Planning Commission of the need for senior housing in the community. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Understanding the need for senior housing in the community, Commissioner Harter echoed Commissioner Telesio's concern of too many architectural features on the front elevations. Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred with the applicant's concern of internalizing mounted gutters and downspouts, and advised that this would not be appropriate. R:\MinutesPCI051706 6 Commissioner Telesio noted that he would be in agreement that internalizing mounted gutters and downspouts would not be appropriate; but if it were the desire of the Planning Commission, he would be in favor of the applicant working with staff to remove some architectural elements on the front elevations. Stating that, in his opinion, Chairman Guerriero would not concur with removing any architectural elements on the front elevations. Referencing a block wall that will be reviewed by staff, Chairman Guerriero noted that he would be in favor of a decorative wall and, not a green wall; and that he would also be desirous of decorative features to the entrance of the gate off Margarita Road. For the Planning Commission, Assistant Planner Linton noted that the applicant has proposed an open wrought iron fence with pilasters that will be installed along Dartolo Road and Margarita Road to provide a more pedestrian feel in these areas, and to enhance the overall appearance of the site. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation subject to the deletion of Condition of Approval No. 47, as requested by the applicant; and that staff work with the applicant to enhance the architectural features with regard to the wall along the perimeter, adjacent to Margarita Road and Dartolo Road. Commissioner Carey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-041 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0236, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33891 TO CREATE ONE LOT FOR CONDO PURPOSES ON 7.5 ACRES TO BE LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND DARTOLO ROAD At 7:32 p.m., the Planning Commission took a break and reconvened at 7:42 p.m. 7 Plannino Application No. PA05-0378. a Development Plan. submitted bv Matthew Faaan representina Lennar Homes. for 130 detached sinale-familv homes. located in the Harveston Specific Plan Associate Planner Damko presented a staff report (of written material), and requested that Condition of Approval Nos. 21, 24, 26, 34b, 35, and 38 be deleted, advising that those conditions are repeated conditions and currently exist in staff's report. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing Lennar Homes, spoke in favor of the proposed project and advised that he would be available for any questions. At this time, the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission thanked the applicant for th~ four-sided architecture. R:\MinutesPCI0517D6 7 MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve staff recommendation with the deletion of Condition of Approval Nos. 21, 24, 26, 34b, 35, and 38, as requested by staff. Commissioner Carey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0378, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PRODUCT REVIEW) FOR 130 DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES (BARRINGTON), ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DATE STREET, ADJACENT TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND DATE STREET IN THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN 8 Plannina Application No. PA06-0037. a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. submitted bv David Kniff of KEA Architecture. for a 22.522 sauare foot. three-storv mixed use commercial/residential buildina consistina of approximatelv 4.669 square feet of retail ~;oace and 22 affordable apartment units. located on the north side of Fifth Street approximatelv 200 feet east of Front Street Associate Planner Damko provided a staff report (of record). At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Bill Dalton, applicant, spoke in favor of the proposed project and noted that he would be . available for any questions. At this time, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-043 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA06-0037, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 22,522 SQUARE FOOT MIXED USE COMMERCIAURESIDENTlAL BUILDING KNOWN AS DALTON III 9 Plannina Application No. PA06-0048. a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. submitted bv James Cappadocia. to construct and oDe rate an aulomobile dealership buildina with associated service facilities totalina 32.560 sauare feet on 3.7 acres. located at the southwest corner of Ynez Road and DLR Drive R:\MinutesPCI051706 8 Associate Planner Fisk presented the Planning Commission with a PowerPoint PresentatiOfl (of written material), and stated that the developer of the adjacent site to the west will be providing a 45 foot wide by 20 foot high landscaped down slope. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that there would be an area along DLR Drive, west of the driveway entrance that will be set aside for loading and unloading of trucks. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Jim Cappadocia, applicant, relayed that he would be available for any questions. At this time, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-044 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA06-0048, A REQUEST FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLANICONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED SERVICE FACILITIES TOTALING 32,560 SQUARE FEET ON 3.7 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND DLR DRIVE COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Chairman Guerriero advised that he would not be able to attend the Tuesday, May 23, 2006, City Council meeting. For Chairman Guerriero, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that he would attend the Tuesday, May 23, 2006, City Council meeting in his absence. Chairman Guerriero advised the Planning Commission of a trip he took to San Antonio, Texas. Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern with the Home Depot on 79 South, advising that some of the driveways have been closed off and some parking spaces are being utilized for loading and unloading of merchandise. Referencing Commissioner Chiniaeff's concern with regard to Home Depot on the 79 South, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that this has been an ongoing issue with Home Depot and Code Enforcement will address the situation. In response to Commissioner Telesio's query, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the cleared dirt area north of Pauba Street, between the Lutheran Church and the new library, would be a borrowed site for the grading of Pauba Road. Chairman Guerriero thanked staff for their PowerPoint Presentations. R:\MinutesPC\051706 9 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No reports at this time. ADJOURNMENT At 8:10 p.m., Chairman Guerriero fonmally adjourned to Wednesdav. June 7.. at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron Guerriero Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinulesPC\051706 10 ITEM #2 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Date of Meeting: June 7, 2006 Prepared by: Christine Damko Title: Associate Planner Project Description: Planning Application No. PA06-0055, submitted by Scott Frick representing Lennar Homes, is a Development Plan (Product Review) for 76 detached single-family cluster homes located in Tracts 32436-1 and 32436-F, on the north side of Date Street, adjacent to the northeast corner of the intersection of Ynez Road and Date Street in the Harveston Specific Plan Plan 1, two- story, 1,906 square feet (27 units) Monterey (5 units) Italian (10 units) Cottage (12 units) Plan 2, two-story, 2,133 square feet (21 units) Monterey (5 units) Italian (7 units) Cottage ( 9 units) Plan 3, two-story, 2,304 square feet (28 units) Monterey (8 units) Italian (5 units) Cottage (15 units) Recommendation: C8J Approve with Conditions D Deny D Continue for Redesign D Continue to: D Recommend Approval with Conditions D Recommend Denial G:\Planning\2006\PA06.Q055 Emery Place - Product ReviewlPlanning\STAFF REPORT.docl 1 CECA: C8J Notice of Determination No further review required (Section) 15162 Subsequent ND o Negative Declaration o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan DEIR PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Applicant: Scott Frick, Lennar Hornes Completion Date: February 27, 2006 Mandatory Action Deadline Date: June 7, 2006 General Plan Designation: Harveston Specific Plan Zoning Designation: Low Medium Density (LM) Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: Vacant North: South: East: West: Existinq Sinqle-Family Residences ( City of Murrieta) Arroyo Park! Proposed Sinole-Familv Residences Proposed Sinqle Familv-Residences Vacant land Lot Area: 2,500 square feet minimum required/3,654 square feet minimum proposed Maximum Lot Coverage: N/A Landscape Area/Coverage: N/A Parking Required/Provided: 2 covered required / 2 car qaraqes provided BACKGROUND SUMMARY Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0055 Emery Place - Product ReviewlPlanning\STAFF REPORT.doc2 2 ANALYSIS Development Plan (Product Review) Architectural Review The project proposes three floor plans and three architectural styles for each floor plan. The architectural styles include Monterey, Italian, and Cottage. Due to cluster lot design and the close proximity of the homes, the project proposes both front and side loaded garage variations of the same floorplan and special enhanced side and rear elevations on lots with a high level of public view. Staff believes that with the attached conditions of approval, the project meets the intent of the Development Code and the Harveston Specific Plan. The proposed elevations achieve an overarching design to create a street scene with strong character as well as function, and visual variety. The various materials and features proposed include the following for each architectural style: . Monterev: Light lace stucco finish, Concrete low profile "S" roof tiles, light lace stucco finish, decorative wrought iron balcony element, rounded entry with stucco over foam shape accents, decorative chimney cap, decorative shutters, flower pot shelves (on all sides), recessed windows on prominent locations, roof pitch variations with a typical roof pitch of 4:12, decorative fireplace on side elevation, covered porch extending out over six feet from home, projected bay and roof element on front, side, and rear elevations, decorative vent pipe elements on all sides, and four sided architecture. . Italian: Concrete low profile "S" tile, light lace stucco finish, decorative wrought iron elernents on windows, decorative covered porch extending out over six feet from home on front elevation, rounded windows (front and rear elevations), decorative chimney cap, roof pitch variations with a typical roof pitch of 4:12, recessed windows decorative trim accenting main entry, foam trim around side and rear elevation windows, projecting bay and roof element extending out 18 inches, decorative shutters on prominent windows (including side and rear elevations), and one story elements on side and rear elevations. . Cottaae: Flat concrete roof tile, light lace stucco finish, decorative stone accenting main entry, decorative shutters and window trim (including side and rear elevations), stone veneer on front elevation wrapping around the sides, decorative wood beams with knee braces on front, side, and rear elevations, roof pitch variations with a typical roof pitch of 6:12, covered porch extending over six feet from the home, sloped roof element on front elevation, single story element on second story floor plan, decorative window grids (on all sides),and decorative chirnney cap. The applicant has provided specific details, which are unique to each style proposed on each elevation, including roof line variations, materials, and window trim. Specifically, the varied roof plans provide single-story architectural detailing to these two-story homes. In addition, the homes include four-sided architecture. Materials such as wood detailing, stone veneer, roof type, pitch, and shutters add to the overall silhouette and architectural theme of the homes. G:IPlanning\2006IPA06-0055 Emery Place - Product ReviewlPlanninglSTAFF REPORT.doc3 3 Buildina Elements/Mass_ Heiaht. and Scal~ The proposed project includes three two-story floor plans with three elevations. The maximum height for the units is 27 feet, which meets the development standards and Harveston Specific Plan requirements of the 35-foot maximum height regulation. The units provide adequate articulation in roof forms and offsets to reduce massing and the elevations are visually broken up with offset facade stories, changes in materials, architectural banding and/or sloping roof lines. Proposed enhancements include second story and single-story roofline fac;:ade elements, decorative wood details, brick veneer, window shutters, and faux wood siding on elevations, as well as window and door trim. Staff believes the proposed standard and enhanced elevations meet the requirements of the Development Code and Harveston Specific Plan. The proposed units include well pronounced front entries with the use of arched entries, extended porches, and the use of different materials around the entry. Front doors will be conditioned to be distinct and compatible with the architectural style (Condition 18). The proposed roof pitches provide variety in the street scene and they are representative of the architectural style. Materials and Colors The project includes variation in building materials, such as stone, stucco variation, and colors which help to provide for a varied and interesting streetscape. Each of the proposed elevation styles provide four different color schemes, which will result in twelve compatible color schemes for the 76 home developrnent. The proposed colors coordinate and enhance the architectural theme of the unit. Roof materials are compatible with the elevation style and complement the prjrnary building colors. Product Placement The units have been plotted to avoid repetition in plan and elevation type, which creates an interesting and varied streetscape. In addition, the units also have varied front yard setbacks for additional visual interest. The front yard setbacks vary from 7 feet to rnore than 61 feet with a minimum average setback of ten feel. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project is consistent with the EIR that was prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan and certified by the City Council. Therefore, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of Determination will be issued in compliance with CEQA Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR. CONCLUSIONlRECOMMENDATION Staff has determined that this project is consistent with the original intent of the General Plan, Development Code, and Harveston Specific Plan and recomrnends approval based on the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. G:\Planning\200SIPAOS-0055 Emery Place - Product ReviewlPlanninglSTAFF REPORT.d0c4 4 FINDINGS Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F) 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City. The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density Residential (LM) land use designation standards contained in the City's General Plan, Development Code, and the Harveston Specific Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and fire and building codes. 2. The overall developrnent of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall design of the single-family homes, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with the surrounding area, and intended to protect the health and safety of those living and working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. ATTACHMENTS 1. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 7 2. PC Resolution No. 06-_ - Blue Page 8 Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval G:IPlanning\2006\PAOS-0055 Emery Place. Product ReviewlPlanninglSTAFF REPORT.docS 5 ATTACHMENT NO.1 PLAN REDUCTIONS G:IPlanning\2006\PAOS-DOSS Emery Place - Product ReviewlPlanninglSTAFF REPORT.d0c6 S - ( =-=--- '1 E:"::J -~~l = = = '" t- 10'-:', L...."""::'" ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ c=., __ - L~~ .,.~----.J -.--.-_ _n ~ " .. .. ~ ~ ~ '. :>, (~ ,. .' 1;;-- =-"$" ~ ~~ a! "[ k".-!J:'~:"~n~ I I ~ ;1 ~ , , N , . ~, ii" call iIl!:!l . , , I I , 11 ___ Ii ]~~' q ~ 0" 9.r1J!iI. 'I , I , ' 7 .~.{-~ K~~.I , , , 4 8 . ~ i , , , =-=-.-+1 T': ~--- _.!:-< !: I I I " I , I I , I , I -1 .,0.-.01 .- k." , ~l ., lJ ~. ~ J :; :, -I :, I :1 1 or: ' " ~ ,:.J ,: ,- ,: " ,: " - 4-- ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~ 4- , , I I ., I .__ffi !:! ) Q~---- I ~ , , , I _.-::. I .)-,11 .,..ft ..,.W ~ o mi i~~ u ~ : ..0-.11 ......... . 1......... 1 ~ 1'1 " 11~ 11111 I,! . Q i ~ ~ ~ vi ~<D~ ~ Z10U Ol}O~@ _~ 10 l" E- -5 I-< z.CI)UU i ~~~ ~ 0 ~ ~ . ...... U . ~ ~ \ .' ..: is 0:: o ~lR~ ,l(] jg S lBI/)..:;j: .;.,..~0'" ~ - <t'i .~ zr- ~~:z: 000 __ 0::- ~ so:n ,..,0~ h ~ m a ! I ~ m II g ~~ ! ~Hm i; h Indi IlUmhll~~~~~~:~~ ~ 4!oltJool...O~""", G) ; ~ ~ g ~ ~ (,Q ~ o Z tf) U ~1 0 ~ ~ ~i ~ u ~ .-< ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ --< 0 ~ ~ ..... · U ;':;,,,. :~~ ;1;: _ 1.,: '",,' ,-,";J ~.;'. ,;-"., .', ~r'; .... . '. ;',," (0) OJ . . . ........ . j f! II I; jill, E . l" , : I Jl I i~ 11.)1 Ii ~ t5 ~~~ ,~~ -<: ~ 'O~U"., .:r: ..(, .<t; zt:: ~:<: .0 c() ~~3~g !:SfIJ80 ".., ~"'l',. "'[',1 ,',' I" I] UJ-=--' l'~":"'":''' I, "I, " ..~ r----, L___ RIGHT ~.~...... :.111, ,!i1iii ili:!!1 11r"""1I1 _.~ - Iml i~~c':,::c:~~,,:,,:..~j ::: ::: H: ::: I,' " _.______..._h_+l.~j~..+uuu_u_____ _____on: ~ =~ 1O#~"I! '-____1.___" REAR .. 1TI1T! i !II 11 !l!: 'I';: , I"~ ,. ''''1 ,I"i I 'I' .! '1:1:1 ii:l:; I !1! !I Iii):] Ie gijii '1::F"'"l!F-~-'U--"- : Ii I ~I nfllfl- . '<, ,'.', I.' .',' ,'.',::, ,'.",' ',',:,.'.' '.',',' ,,'.:,',' .. i~,,:,,:,:~ ~Gu",-J""H:;'h,;,.,~L:.l _~......"......;~......,,~L___ _____nu_____u__un_____u____ ___ ,~ r I ... . :111Iil! j LEFT ~ LENNAR HOMES - CORONA 391 N. MAIN STREET CORONA, CA 92880 (951) 817 - 354Q A - MONTEREY PLAN 1 illV ATIONS SCALE.:l/4".l'-(l" MAS11!R HAlL BEDROOM SECTION A-A OREATllOOJ.t ENrR.Y . IiARVESTON PA-ll · TRACT 32436 CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ~ ~~ PORCH ~ i] , !.:' ~. --- _.~~..,.1. 3 L'GCN -:;--.."*'''':'' --"'-'- -- '_.06 JO!l"'~313 !~.,,-- ;F --1/< ,OOI\J"'! , ,~ I., IT I / __' BA.2 Il: "--=---=---=-~-~..~~~~~~:>, .g!~j Lr--n------~; SThIGLESTOR't'Il00f ITAUAN B . " 2ND Pl.OOlt. &. PARTIAL RooP PLAN IT ALlAN 1ST FL(X)R !!. SCALE: 114".1'-()" LENNAR. m~ilililJ "j~," ~lL1~1,&, . LENNAR HOMES - CORONA 391 N. MAIN ~ll<LCl CORONA, CA 92880 (951) 817 - 3540 f: .~' ..\ ---r I 'j I :...,.. 1 .1 J _ _ _ B~3 l--~___--~-----1 ...L.do.l" I / I " I ,,/ I " , , , , == .--:~--::_]---_.. SlNGU. STORY ROOf COTI'AGE 2ND FLOOR A PARTIAL R.OOP PLAN r-""'........-. --------j~~~~~J;. ~ ~ COTI'AGE 1ST PLOOR 5CA1..J1.:1"'".1'.(I" PLAN 1- ADDr.NDA ~;114._1'.(l. · IiARVESTON PA-ll · TRACT 32436 ell Y OF TI'MECULA. CALIFORNIA II~~.~~ \j C C ~ \"o""-'OB \i.,Oi ~ r---- __ ... " . ~. -.. WSfNIAN 1.4 .........01.,,,.........,.... L'(UoIl -.......- _.......~.:;;;;- -_...-..;::::;;;- =- 04J;lll.lIfi JOa't:J66.O:lJU .1 II ,~, y; m~1 :~:'ii i i; fB 5"'", Em""""'l =?~ Ilml .........~i -..............1 -w EL.:.~' C:.}J nnU' ~ I ! I I I II , I -~.~tcl .1 if r =_ I ,nnn - . 1E:'!31 ~II I I i ~ r1 12 I ~ ! . . ., /,~ i n'l~: ~!I Vm',:uu~m 8 i, "'-".,/ 1>:11 [EEl1 :~:~ I~ [8] .m~ -~.-'~'il nu' --83 --,- I '~;m~unn.. jnmn ~ nuun .J i i l!"') ~ . . - ~ 3 'ff!1111 " ~ ~ i!~l JI! - ~ ~1l ; · s ::: ~ 1 0 CIi < ~ 5 P-; \C) ~ ~ ~ z QU ~~iO~~ t:: iLl E-< f-; ~ I _~(/)UU ~ ~ > ~~ p... 0::::: < 0 :r:: ~ · tl ;€ o <>: _0 ~...~ - ~~~~ :z::23.(,,;, ~~zt:: ~z2~ -0- ~u~ Ii I ~~lll 111~'''l"u 41Hn HJ 1_",,, jjmR.J.~ p].... m:.=I. -~~~: :;; 1 EJ____.; (H - .~.._<: - .1 EBJ I____J '. "- - ,~ : 1~J 1m E ::::.::::::j ~ t aIJ _ "''''''''1 J1 ,~' m E.m" ' R, ffif --of' ~NJ I"'!~ ~ ! I i I I it [! Ii ~~ . ~ '" n'~ 1 l ! , . : 'U. l~:1 ~!I '1 ,~; ~ ; Jl. 'I i . if-.... '"'J; Oi, )'r-6'''t'''-nmjm~j ~ I ! '.u.L.., ~~ ' ~jl ) ~~I c [EEJy J~_ c. . ~ 'l!l:lI ~I ! I <0 ~ ~ ....... , ~ 10 I~HlI ~ ~ i~ il!lJ I ~ , I !I( ~ ; I . ~ ::: ~ l 0 <r: ~ ~ ~\O~ t5Q zQU ~~~o~-< 8~~f-ct-<~ \ .-<~(/)~U~ U ~ ~~ :J :> t-< p... P:::: ~ <r: 0 :r::: ~ · 0 ~ 2 ~E~ -l~~~~ i~:r::~~~ c .000 i ZP::Q ~ .....OIlJ ~ ~()2 ~I ~\ I ; ~--------- --;- ~L=-=-== I' I I I I , , i~~~~~::~~~--~-,JI L.....' '" A' I I I ~,: I I ,11 n": I' o 01(1 ~_j BA.2 II~ \jl I I r y y y y ';l , I-""t-~-~-~ D 8 " J __________! ~' 'n ~ '-'1 GARAGE ;..__:! ~i -----~ ' - d 1=.L_t::J-..A.-~J-.. SlNGU.STORYROOf w~ ~~TI F. "A. I . I I I , I. I I I I , I DBN I I~:L* 12..:!.. I I I I ~ I " I L_ ~___ '" + BLDO:ltr. 't"+~.-6" ;,; BEDRM 2 G; ,;>.2""..2. ~ MONTEREY A 2ND FLOOR a: PAlt.llAL RooP PLAN 'J,~,~,,:::"it:{~\\,~~j::~f/;'i .. ~ ~ ~" ~. :L ' , I , , I , I ~ ,.--- ..r------~ jMur... J,cREY 1ST FLOOR I LENNAR HOMES - CORONA 391 N. MAIN STREET CORONA, CA 92880 (951) 817 - 3540 ;-\~y '";',;"7'""" ),~;;,~;;",;~:.~c'i;:;" ..~'"'~ ;r~:;'i~'~r:: It>\~'r~;,.;~,,,,,,-~~~.'''~.G-li?'}~~~ , . ........A SCAl.l?,1J4""1''{)" RIGI-IT PLAN 1 X A - MONTEREY SIDE ENTRY GARAGE SCALE ,1/4--1'-0" · IiARVESTON P A-II. TRACT 32436 CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA IYoSSEN1m LK.CN ~-='..-_'":'" -::='"'-:' JOBt':366..0UL~ 0) ,~~) . 1.7 G4.OS.oos t (0 'q ~h ~ . -------- ...-------- /' , ' ' ,," / I ...... ' I ..." J I '.ft.( / "-Ii ~"!, ~ /, , ii/ , ~, ... lA"'" , " ...... '...... "... ...... -1;-- " .-' , I , I ,------ , , I , I ltl} \ \ . ~\ ~~ -~-~}L4------ ~ . . . . .,-< ~Il\ \l.-' (j ~; \ ~ 4. ~ ~ ~;R'i ~ Z~U ~\O~~ ~\t;uu ::i ~ ~% 4- ? r< >:. "/. ltl" ~ 1)..< \ ~ 4. 0 ~ ';C b 7-. · (j 4- ~ p... ~ ~~ \::~ _,,---1 , I , I , I , <( '6 C<'< S 9- ~01\ K1'iZ~ '::1:\j;,(O O\O~ ;l:: <1.' ~ z.t;::: ~ .0'" ~~8~ ~, I , , , , , I I I I I , ' _------ __--i:'"_-~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~-- / , , , " ; .i1 // /_.~.v.." "'Q...~ ...... , ' ...... " ~~ ~-1' '--/ ~~ #-, i II 'I I ---------;:-1 ~ ~lJ. ~~i BEDRM 2 ,/ II : I t ___ --t-1~_~ jl >: _ I ___--"-<<...e.../ : \ : iLJ ~= ~ Jl BA-2 II: . _m_m_m____~ /~~i~", [JI \J 1 --'1 "~'--"'- !, df. SlNGLfSJORYRCXl!:' i COTI'AGE C . 2ND PL001l" PARTIAL ll.OOF PLAN , , " :1 " : , ' , , ' , : " ,~~~~ I,' I , , ~ , iI. I :...... ~ - ~_____________.J" COTI'AGE 1ST PLOOR LENNAR HOMES - CORONA 391 N. MAIN STREET CORONA CA 92880 (951) 817 - 3540 Y '/ Y Y 'j ~ iI/'I:..,t,-=....ij- -0- '--I , , , , i---:I , ,l .-., --, " " , ' " " , ' , ' ---~ ~ ~ -<--------------- ~l <===.. .="'. c ~ !<:t.U;lJ4".l'..o- PLAN 1 X C 8 ~ BLDO.In'. "!"+27'.()" ~, \ . .j"~'~"j ~~:~:~~f:~""~j'_~., ~f;;:;;~i;;r'n.~-:~~,,~' " .- -- ---" co; n '''J C-COITAGE ( ;.1:w:ifii;f;t!!t;;. .,r-"1\c.., ,: ~'F~~,~\' ". ~' ,Ii' ,,~. ."" " ~. Il:~. ,.1:' ~';;"':V:."'" ;, :'i~\~~Jf~ft1!ii::~ ,.~~~ r;q'i:d. " i-'iti( ..~\~.,17 .f,,~~.,.I'_;~ l':JDDD[][ Ii DDD::JDCr.:: '1,-ltl,lr-IC'1 ~Z~~&~~'~J,~tV'd"t~i RIGIiT COTTAGE SIDE ENTRY GARAGE SCALI!: 1/""_1'-0" · IiARVESTON PA-ll · TRACT 32436 CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA IYISSENIAN 1.9 ..........,.....-..."..... LJ<:a< ~7.~""'!" ~..:'....-::'" .~~.----....-~_.O<.O'.l)6 JOll.,3605.-W.)13 <r: ::: ~ ~ g ;:...; p-. >-J . 1O<l: - ~ r0U . ".n - , I() Z '1' . g.' ... ..., - i ';.." 0 G'l ~ t ---- .-.--- OJ ~ r0 1: OJ ~ ~ E- f:5 ~tl _ir i~ A-. ~ ~~'i' r: ,~ ~ O! i: h ......r4 0 I I i':J ..........., I I ~ ....... >- f: ~ ~ {I" cu;, 'u' . U..... I, I, 1 1 ,- 1 1 , , 1 1 I 1 , I' 1 1 I , , ~l _ __uuJ! I [, - I I _~Jt=~ : : . [II: , I I ~ I I rrrnj,~~, ...., N ,/ ti , 1 ..~; ; <~_~~_____ I I , . - l' , I '. 1 . ~~-~ ~ ~ ~ f ..It.OI . , I ~ I , , , I " ;, " . ~ ...~ I I 1 I t ! 10 n-n OWl I~~~ ~ L .' .9",tl .~,u ..,.., .. ,0-,$ . ..,W ..... . OJ ~ f ~ j~ ~rJ III ~ ~, il,]! . l ~ ~ i~ ~~ .~ . 2 ..! ~ ~ <-;...~ ~!~~ :r::~~,,;, ~~z"" ~z,ooa ~- ~8g )~ ~ 2P ~ ~e~ 3 I ~ g !~~m III~; i ~ n~w~~~ ihimU ~ !!5~mme~~hm~ .coH.I.aol' . ,. ~o~~~~J~ . :z;o,.; c:5'o1.. 0~ I,', ~~ ~ .~ . 'H ~ 0, ~~~ .~ . .~ ~ ~. "-' ~ 6 U ~ <0 G\I G\I ~ , . I; I of,' I ~3 ] jill' ,- i~ 'ji' " i 1.11 ~ I! ; ~ (/) ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ _ <D<l:: ~ zQU ~~ 0 01 ~ ....1" E- tI') ~ ~~ (/) b U ~ ~~~ <r: 0 ~ ~ . - U ~ o Cl c.;!E~ .~~~ iotl1<tO ,:c~u;l; ~ "" <( ";' ::< zr- ~~zO<i5 ~ _0:::;- , 0\0:1) ,,-,U2' i I ===:i . ~cc, fHB ~i1 I~ ,,~i ~~ I~':j[ ~"-<I b~:: .~'I''";:'~:'; ~, H. . i ,/?,'.~; ...: ----------:~ . . . "~::'" .':"':::';:':~ -'-:1 ,H" [ II . UH ~ I, If ~".::"J , I I II tJ I c f ~ di- I & ill i ~:H'(i . " '" Ii: I II ~ l') . C'J - . ~lo f 11 II " ~ ~~ j /l j ~ 1 ,) . , ~ <: , <: ~ ~ j 2 VJ ~ ..... >-i3~lD~ ~ ~ Z QU >~oC'ol~ { tf) o ~p- f-- ~C'J.(/)UU ~ ~ >= ~~ P-. ~ ~ <t: 0 ::c ~ . ..... U z o B III Ul ~ ~ ~ l~~~~ ':r:: ~ U:8 ; ~ <(, "l <: z....... >;~z'ooo . ~- ~ 0;0<1 "1U!2! . \"'''' ,2s-nJB 2 i ,,1', '\j l) , I "l', ",' n: ,/ ~Bo~"2 " ( I _ : 101 '0,','):' "', 0 LAU 'rt i i I --- //','" .= '7J'!J: .~ -~---------. " ,," ,/ ','..--------f-'-o , .' 1______.' "I ~r--------.. l~l---------l c : ' ,C , , , :C , ~IO ~--=--- ^ '" ";Bk~2 1~~II1!, , '0 ' ' , ' , LAU , , , I II' 1.<-_-1": I iT, : '..IL c '. 1 SlNCl..f STORY ROOf SlNGU.sro~YIl.00' j ITALIAN B COTTAGE C 2ND P'LOOR" PARTIAL R.<X>P PLAN' 2ND FLOOR &. PARTIAL )lOOP Pl...AN .... ~ ~~. I \"""iE 3d \LJI \::==-JI'"~ =~.='- 1t!P .~. .. ! ~ if1i:iFF __~ - --------1------.....::.. ~. '~I~ ,________~:.... , r I .~~.1 , j;PORCH I I _. ' I II" I --. -- ~------~-----------~-- ~ rT\==" '\~~~/\ ~ !p, I \ / \ : ~)~~g~____- - ~.:__-_-_-_-_-__:.~;;--....c.. ~, , -- r I ... ~ ~~II \=<<:POkfH __ DR .. l' _..J ~ :jJ l___!:___ I I ITALIAN 1ST FLOOR B COTTAGE 1ST FLOOR c $CAUl: 114~.l'.q' 9CAUl:IJ4".\'-o- LENNAR PLAN '2 - ADDENDA SCAL.B.;II4...."..(l" _~./.. ~W.~. :toli_.&" LENNAR liOMES - CORONA 391N. MAIN STREET CORONA, CA 92880 (951) 817 - 3540 · IiARVESTON P A-Ii. TRACT 32436 CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA lY\SS&IIm '2.4 ..................,......, VCCN *::--= ..':...- '":'" ~-~ -- --.---- '''4.(lf,-06 ~...~U] ~.." . I.. ..,.~, .~ L J' ~,"il,:i:'i;ii;i!:[iil!;iilii"!!!;::'!11 ;""'I!"",':i:i~:::~:!!i!:,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ~ "''''''';'''''~:llj!!!i)::~I.'"", ','.1,1 mm__ ~,.~D1 m. --- m ~ I~ ~~I ~lromTI h.u.. :~",,;,-)j ....u..LJ..J........':",jj""i,.':..;:',J"... ~ _AG~ ir! I, ." ',' " " .' . " .' ' _______n___..'L...".,_____uu__________._____~ RIGHT REAR ~Wl. : ! ! 1: ~: , : I~-::':':~~ __1___ LEFT LENNAR. e :!!iiJ::ii, ~. u.muum~W'muum! ,...... m m-:;;jlffi]~ nmr I:: I:: ,,< ,. 'o~':':~...: _ ~.... r:: . ~OF PLAN __frmII',u.,lI.wo. .........,.....,...,.. B - ITALIAN PLAN 2 illV ATIONS SCAU:I",-.!'-o" I :t,..... ",~('J' J/{,,(J, il./, LENNAR liOMES - CORONA 391N. MAIN STREET CORONA, CA 9'2880 (951) 817 - 3540 · IiARVESTON PA-l1 · TRACT 32436 CITY OF TEMECUlA, CALIFORNIA -- -- ~~ O'.$SENIN>I '1 . 5 _,..01..........,;,... lJ'C.CN ~~ ~~=- ____Ool..(lUlIIi JOB_,:!0605-0SllJ .........."~ ~...~~~ . ~ ~ ~ . % BlfJ-- . [l RIGHT ~ ~~ ~JJ-Hc"_"'H PL;r~:: r1B ::: ~: I :,,,,<,, --:,l n i it~~l _.-,...,. Irill ',' ," '.' '" '.' '" '.' '" '.' '" '.' ,,, ',' '" __u_____uJ;._._~~u_u___ LEFT LENNAR ~oloWlijjjjl, ,j,,ljjj, .mriLlj"j~, ~". .~.~...~"~ I . ~~~~ ~~~ ~.+'~~2z~=~~i~ -~ J!Ir1IIt'jm:~ =- -_.- [[]I -- Ilr I r'l fll ! In ----~~~~~_~_____ ____ jmu~nm~l._____j ;~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?~ . REAR ~ ROOF PLAN ~ """"'"""" "........... OCALI'............ C - COTIAGE PLAN 2 ELEVATIONS SCA1..B:ll4"_t'..()" LENNAR HOMES - CORONA 391 N. MAIN STRill CORONA. CA 92880 (951) 817 - 3540 · IiARVESTON PA-ll · TRACT 32436 CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA l%5ENlAN "l . 6 "....,.",I.A........O;',..... UGON ":-"-=......_~ 0:-._"-__" U__" ___OoI.llll.or. 108.,366-0:5313 ) ~ \ ?'.. ~ ~\.. Q\ i ~~ \ ~ ~ % ---- -~ -~----------- ,.I ~ ~) %~ .~ ~- , , , , , , , , , , , -----"' , --.:1-- I -yj\..--" ~ , , , , . -, , , , , , , I , , , ~. ~, a .~ .0 , , , ~ ' i.~ , . , . <::;:-0:. ""?!---- , g g . t-" C'1 ~~,\ \ p..l C) ..s:. r:e. ~~ \ 'P 4. ;....! ~ ~ \0 ':? o >-7' () 0 if, ~ '<t' r~O~~ p..l~ ? ~~~\ "1.~ ~ 4. 0 ~ ~ ~ ~. U ..s:. ....l p... <>: B ~ S ~ 4\6~ g, '" ..... <, ~ .B$ ~~Bg .tl------------. " '1 , , /1[: , , / , BBOAM 3 : ~1.K" jO I , , ,1'\ : " , , , Sl~srQRYROOf' .-----"------------ -------------- OARAOB ----- ~'-----;-i1 ~llr F~~ ,.:::!ii ][l.J:.':'~==mn~J ITALIAN B , 2ND FLOOR &. PARTIAL ROOF PLAN ~et~ [~9-, " 'PORCH ~.,.. I I I ---. , ....._...L_~I__ ~-----~---~~J____ _ ____" ,ITALIAN 1ST FLOOR B. !lCAI2:lJ40..1',q' LENNAR cs " BLOO.lIT. -}+2-4'..o" ;; @ ~lii""6~ "" .';';"';;''X "1:;~: ,'.~~ ""1 ~~"f\ .' , , .... . , B - ITALIAN , . I. \ ". ... ;-":~r+"":..." .~~'~.;'...,,:'.;_';:~~:=;.~:~;:~~ _ r~-tt-t:"1:~[<:~~.;"i.~,.~.."'}.:,>;,~.,,.:"i.; PLAN2XB - ITALIAN SIDE ENTRY GARAGE 2.8 !lCAI2:1,."_I'.()' LENNAR HOMES - CORONA 391N. MAIN STRff.T CORONA, CA 92880 (951) 817 - 3540 · IiARVESTON P A-11 . TRACT 32436 CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ,.~,.j,j. .~,j,,, "","""z" MSSENlAN , UCCNl -............,...... --..-.. --..- ~---",,_____OoI.oa.G6 .IOIlft:~111 i- - --- - _J-I1- : ~ )- ""-"~;'J----\1 ," - --~,-" , . ' , ~ ' : a -- ~ 5' : . ~': ~ ~ I ,- ' ,- , " ' . /~ : ~ ~., (:-=i!---~ ,<;,.,.'" . . ~-- 0" \~i\ 0\ ~ "', 1~~!j\11 I- IM~ ' . - ~ U-1 C) <C e<:: <C. S C) ~ Z >-- ~ ~ \2~ \ 0 0Z <C \::l "" ILl P-c >-i U-1 10< 9. zQU Vl~OC\l~ U-1i {) l? .. r--< <c~c/)tu S ~~~ u ~ \9 u <C 0 ; ~ b ~ · U ,....l p.. -< :z 2 .8 ,~~ !~E;~~ <:r;~ '" ~~~~~ '~ .0"" j ~~;g tl')U9 =, ~^ "II.II;::-'L'~' "1,. ........-~~ ,I,' ~........--....::::::: .lIa~=-' '" -tln B I ~ --. ~ !',:i;!!::j!.:!!,i:i:iii::::ii:~:I!i'" !li"",,:!:''-~,~i;:i,.',!I'\.''I;''''.. "!"",,,'~I:i;;:!~"",;I'!..:,'" --- I.. ~JIII~'.,. IE H!----I --~ D ~-IDL =~~ '.. ~ ! i i]! i! i !!i ~ i ' , , r....n....' ,'~--.-~, : ' _nn_ ouu_. L .:! ;:1 r--.. ,____J.________________ ~ ---, LEFT - M.....n..~y - 2YA_ LEFT - ITALIAN - 2YB ~~..~ ,~ ~'j.-~~~ --" " ~ ' .~ -:0 Pm-lf ~. LEFT - COTrAGE - 2YC LENNAR. PLAN 2 SPECIAL ELEVATIONS AT SELECTEDLOTS SCAI.S:ll4"_I'-o- · IiARVESTON PA-ll · TRACT 32436 CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA "..""" ,~j"., ..."...~". UNNAR HOMES - CORONA 39IN. MAIN STREET CORONA CA 92880 (951) 817 - 3540 I , ~ 2.10 ...........,ol,;,.,~.._ LOD:N --=="'-..'-- ~ --...-- ~~~ 108.;366-0:1313 [, " , , " , , , ~____________~ ______1 _ '-- 51 \1 \' - " , , , , \ \ \ i --- ~ \ i~ \ ~ \ ""~ l ~ ~ ~~ \ i ~\ !J -------- _:~------~ ----~~~~-------~------- ~ ;: ~-: .. n . - o ~ -i ;r------------.1 l' .t r,1 ..,::il ~ - ......It --- I \ I --------~--3_ \i \;I .~k:~t ~ ~ \ II ~:~i -- . . L-------- II Il -----_..~--------------- ------ ....~ ll.----~ ...'" " ...... . . . 1,\~I~1 \ to ; i \ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~lO~ ~~zo~u~ -- . II) OJ 3 r< r-< to ~ c/.) UU ~ ~ ~~ ...1 p.... ~ 11-< ~ 0 ~ k · t3 \ /\ \ O' \ \' \ n\ \lU \ , \~ , ~~~ \ U~ \u \ _J ..... --~ .0: z ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ :c :;r ..{ "; <;i:tzt:: ~.O"" Z~~ -0'" ~u9 Ii ~~ =~ . " <( Ii ~~ . ~ " <( "-' ~) (>) c.) C'l . l<") ~ . rd. '1 I ~ l!!l I~ 'jI t'll I. ,! ~ <0 ~ l 0 (/) ~ l::: a ~(Q~ ~ zQU ~i 8 ~ ~ l<")~CI)UU j ~~~ p.... ~ ~ 0 !:: ~ . - U . ~ ~ ~ <0 "-' ~ ~ ~ o 0 u....'" ~~~~ :c~..:";' ~~zt:: ~z~~ -0- O>u~ ,..., - (~ (x) \..-;') (U) T Co) 00 Cl < B u u II ~I m ~i i . m d ~ i a@~l~ 'I l~1 · ~.. iii~~ii~~ 'i~i'!II' ~~s~~s~~~~e~i~.~~~! I ~ ~~u~~~d=~~~JJid.a~~ I J Cl <( B u u l3 i1: ~ It') ~ It') ~ J If"I,.ll ~ 13 IH,t " ~i~ !Ip i ~; '11'11 . 1 It \ , ~ ; ~ 1 2 (/) --< ...... ~ ~ <D ~ t== z Q U <:t::~ C'J ~ ~~ 0 If) tLi.. ~ t-< ~l ~ ~ ~ P-< ~ ~ --< 0 ~ b · U < ~ ,,: .0 0 u,...,~ ~~~J; :r:~/; ~~ .~\i3 z~-;::;- -0"-' ~U2!. Jii ill!!: :::. i" !,' !.: ;,;1:'" i.: I, !:, !,' i!li :;! ii ~ ,~ nil!!:!! ' . . ~!"i:'I'i"I"!:!['.':"II'I';'~':i";"i" :!~____________~:::,.,I I ' I ,I ";;,ii" ' .. :'b-- --::~r:!i, I] :i:; ::;':i'''' ~ leml _:0 . fTlm+lm iliil: mmm rmm ~I'::::ie ~ ~ '~l- =~ ~ uuuuuuuO - 1m __L DDDDDDDD ~ffi . DDDDDDDD ___ nnnnnnnn,j_~ _ u_mu__mumnn I,ill 1111'1 1'1!"1 Ilil! I !ml IflrTlll. fill rn:I-~- :~".~-::".b,,:-:~ [i.~_:':J~':':':':~"::':uL.~:Ji : :ji ~ ::: ':. _.... _. =_umH..L ___________________nuLjL;:~_-~~;;:;;:;;:;;:L._ "_nl!~-_~-_-_-=-L;_o;_;_.) RIGHT REAR ill, '" ;1!!Jlilillili!ii)jij "I!' !11111'lllq!I'!1 i:!!i ii!!:I:::I:!/:i!: '" Ii! ,'! iil!!i!!!!. 'InliflJl1 ~~lilkilii~liil t _.JD -- II LAU. HALL MMTIlR BEDROOM n i ]~,:-:.Jj n: 1~ !~ ' !!! ~ j i ____nun.':<'- __'. >.'nuuu_uuouun_nuuunu.: ~ 1<rramN l - SECTION ~ . DININO ORBATROOM EI'O'RY SA.' 1. LEFT ga LENNAR HOMES - CORONA 391 N. MAIN STRm CORONA, CA 92880 (951) 817 - YHO A - MONTEREY PLAN 3 illV ATIONS SCALE:ll4".t'..o- · liAR VESTON P A-II · TRACT 32436 CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA I%SENIAN ................-...;..,..,J L'GCN 3.4 ":-...:,-,,,::" ~.:=- -~ IOBlI:lOl6..(l.'IJ13 ~. , , , , , , , ,- , , , , ~ , , , :1 : I , , , , , , , , :~ , . , . " , ~ , , , , , , , , , , -L._ 1-:"_ -1-'"'" , , \1' , , : ' ~, Om! J! ----~ II , , , , , , , , , ~ ' ....1 C__::t " , , , , , , v III ~~ 6 u~ , , , , " ..___-;________1 - ~ .~ ~ -1 Q - ----------------------. -----/~ ~: ,," ~..,. , . , , I: , , , , , , t==:l I , , , , , ilK \l , , : [ : ~ , III ~---. , , , "I .,,/ " . ~~ ~~ , , , , , , , , , ~----------..,-~ , . ", , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , / , i-I / t~' , , , - ' ---------------------~~ u > - I rE iri ~ <i ~ u~ ] ~i~~ c----,---, ::::t-----:-=--;---I--'l=" : , :,/: , ' I) : ~- ' -4- : , , , , , , , , , , , , ,- - -_:''---; ,~ I"~ ~ : ". ~ -----, , , , \ , , , 1 , , , , , , , , , , -~ l} !i f,~~,\ ~~ !::~ ~ 7 ] ~_~~~;::::-~1i'1 . , ' : .. I , \ , \ , , , \ , , , , , , , , , , " ~-------_... lC) ~ t'I ~ .. .- j 13 ~~!l : ~ ~ ~~ illll 'i i ;1'\11 ~ i . ~ ;: ~ ~ g a ~ ~ ~ zQU g~o~~ -< ~ f-< l-< :) \~(/)uu ~ ~~~ -< :> r-< ~ p: ~ ~ --< 0 ~ ~ . - u ~ 2 .~ ~ ~fi~~ OZUol"l :r::;>..,:"": ~iZt:: .0"" z"'- o;o~ ",0$ ~I!ill ~'ili;II!:, ____ ....... r^'--... fwwwwwwwt1l 100000000 _ 00000000 - ............;,_..nnnnnr]nn1 . !il!li!!iliil:i~:I.II~ ,HHJam W.JI m ~ __L m 110[0] 11n-11 I~I I ____m_uuun _m_..mmm_uu. __m_m_i;~::;:;:,:L,~~"x. _~m.~~~-.-;_:__-i:;_:__j RIGHT REAR. ',,, " ',,, ',' : :~~-:~~ '" .. ',' .. ',' '" " .. ',' "' " '" ______________________________u__n__"",_____..L___ '"l\ .~ .L__ ~nmnnm ! -... ___uum__nnmu:: .- i : ... : i ,! I ~'''~i , ~, i ~ ~ momnmn..n! ! ~ : 0000 : ._~'!.lI""'~1 1L' ~' ! _ l Z' moo n'.n~.m.' :i ..1.1 ). : --- : . . __nnuun___ _ _" fn _.s m -- ROOF PLAN LEFr ......tnaO"u,tI.<>.>< LENNAR. B - ITALIAN PLAN 3 illV ATIONS SCALE: ~...I'.q' ....Ujw. ~.,j,.../Ir.".!../.., . IiARVESTON PA-l1 . TRACT 32436 CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ""',""IAN 3.6 I LENNAR HOMES - CORONA 39\ N. MAIN STREET CORONA, CA 92880 (951) 8\7 - 3540 ...........,'"......- VCCN ~-=~-~ ~:.~ _____1)4.0IU)fi 101I...366-0531) gIJ---- : f ~.~ c=.........u1~ ., ~ u..~: ,If! ,~",u i\ '. ~, "'''', "11~ ="""..u: 4!fJ" ~ ..uui "h'; Ki '\\--- ::nu" 1101~jcll E """1, I HJ, ifv '~ :j~F ,+ tF' , . uJi :'fl =, E"",,::::; 'f 111-. { c'"'''' 1( ~. 'j!l m..~\ .'.1.....: E.. 'i[ : , - ~: . --.f. ...._, - } H"_', " r C--.Jl ~" 'ill! E :",1' HJ JI "1 ill' .. R] ~ ,",-~ t~ i [EFCII ' u__ ~ 0' ----: '~ '/ ';'i::i ' , , ' , ' - Ii _. Ln~ ~ l. / ';mr. , -', 1 81 t.:~ ~ i ~, ~. i _ J,", "., .---- , \___u_n____nu__ ~ I ! ri" ~ Ii! t- ~ . ~ tI") " , . I ~ ~b f~! II; ~j~ 1!lll j i . ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~\O~ o zt<lU ~p 'If' ~~~Of;)~ !:: ~ ! E-< I-1-< P-< P:::; IL< ~ 0 :r:: b · U ~ ~ ~ 0<: 8 0 '!B~ - .~~-o:~ jO~(j:8 i~:t: ~~ · .0'" I. 3~~ ! ',i!\ UQ) Ii Ii' ~jj ~ . 8 <\ \ >' ~\ ~~ L -t~ , ~ , , , , , , , , , __ t., , , , , , , , , , , -----" < ~! ~~ -----, r:__-__ \ , , , i , I \.~ . ',0 , ' ~ ,I / \ I ~ " VI (~--- , , , , , - \------ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ IJ\ </l ~ ~ .: i ~ ~ 0 o ~ ~ ~ ~\O~ ~ ztl"lU ~. ~~ e:q 0 tl"l ;:) ~~~ Gu , ~~~ ~ ~ 11-< \ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ \/') · D ~ <( 8 '" 8...,~ '~8\ ~"'~~ g~ '" ..... <, ~ .5~ ~:Z:c':"" 5~8g (3 @ k, BU)Q. HT. ~n'-4" .v @ 3 'E' ....,. "" ,.._._.... ,,-"0 Si>,~v:.':-?r,::.._,;,..l!::::f!)/: , GARAGE fACE - B - ITAllAN '. ,,~r~:r.~";< ut1J.";~:' . . r ~"$'Yla~.l ~fifl'1v.:." ~t';: '" '~-i!'-~':')':;:-' . ] "'11'fO'''''''' ...j~,\ ;J:....;'*.. ~ ~ ".\ ' DDDDCDD i I' DDDDDDD - ~ nili:nl' ,.," :~ ~~,..:;.~~,w ;"..'";....,.. .1,.1;'~?o*,t".~'.....~_",,~_~ ! ......... B - ITAllAN '11~,y>~,.., ,', " ", I~"I"'" "" I IL_~" ,", ,I I _.." ,,," ,: ~~ ---./ " ~'--- L_____________l IT ALlAN 2ND FLOOR B ~ .~--i~ __ _~ I I , UI'UU'Uol.!:'" I I , 2<>~ ~=<>---- I . I' , " " "" I . , , .=___=~ I ;~_ ______:-:-:-=-~.:__ __ ____l IT ALlAN B. 1S'!' FLOOR PLAN 3XB - ITALIAN SPECIAL LOT ELEVATIONS SCA.L!!.,lJ4".I...o- LENNAR HOMl'S _ CORONA 391N. MAIN STREET CORONA, CA 92880 (951) 817 - 3540 . IiARVESTON PA-ll · TRACT 32436 CITY OF TEMECUlA CALIFORNIA B'.SSENIAN 3.9 ......,,,.,....,...m...,.. lJ'CCN --................. .............-... -........-- .=.. --.- ___~O.ulf..06 JOIl"~1]3 PRODUCT REVIEW PLANS HARVESTON PHASE 3 CiviL ENGINEER, ReF CONellL TING 4"81" COUNTY CENTE~ DRIVE, SUITE 10el TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA '32S'31 (S51) 616.e.rtl42 ph ('3&1) 616-1240 fax CONTACT, Mr. Joh1 TaMer. MASTER DEVELOPER, LENNAR COMMUNITIEe 3'31 NORTI-I MAIN 5TREET, eUITE 3"1 CO~A, CA. '32880 (S51) 811-:%.31 ph. (<3&1) 811-361'3 fax CONTACT Mr. KelvIn L8neh. ElUILDER, LENNAR COMMUNITIEe 3':31 NORTI-I MAIN 5TREET, 8UITE .3lZ1rZl CORONA, CA. '328e>(Z) (9&1) 811-:3500 ph. (951) 811-35'32 fax CONTACT, Mr. JIm Young/ Mr. Scott Frick. ARCI-IITECT, eAe!lENIAN LAGONI ARCl-IITECTe 2031 O~I-IARD DRIVE, &UITE liZllZ> NEWPOR.T eEACI-I, CA '32660 (94'3) 5S3.'3I~ ph ('34'3) 5503-0548 filX CONTACT, Mr. ErnIe Gorrlll. LANDS.CAPE ARCl--lITECT, DAVID NEAUl. T AeeocIATEe, INC. 4\811 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTI-l eum:: 14" iEMECULA, CALlFOFiltUA '32S'9" (<3&\) 2'96-,343'" ph (<351) 2'91:>-3431 fax CCNTACT: Me. 5UUlnne M. Palmer. Tract No. 32436-1 & 32436-F PROJECT KEY MAP ,/ "'ENERAL NOTES L J..u....mLrratI... TO_ ~ecp. ~6W(lWMC>~L AU. YTll..fTlI!'CI'll..~IOI.._AN::> ""*MC1!~"'fr:~_ ~-.rI,[n.ll1urOGeTWl!l'IlflolQlClClllrOIlC:l\lCll!-'O<I. ~_01'l,ITlLrral'O(I'rOLOCII(LtcI!""M"T'I!!"_f1<<lUCll.l'\'". ~""~~M<D0E:IICII'0l~ LlTILmn. l"l..Ll.eI! Al..eCll...OC.l.TI! AU.. L_~'ON~>>C __N,Ir,T~_MOCCIN'\.lcr'W"" TNU. o...-?OMl..(IC.I,TlOI01'LIT1\.ITII!'..re"'~_AL.~"'OC)"'NCmITOI"'I._I'ClICATII:.(l; J1.IATTHI!~0!II.6H.oILLCOi'lT.ICITHI!L~~f"IIIlOllllTO_~eeA"lUOlIIK eoTl4lt,TTHI!~~m!!crc..tl<l"""RJT\oI!!~rLITILrTTL.DC.I.T~.loNI:;IIlEV&I"'I._ ~NGL T 1'0 IIU.l..Y eeMeN AU.. LlTILml!6 ~ vm.t OlecLAf'1EIIIo ..;:::'!"-..:::::---;'C":.~ ::.::.:...~-..;::r...-''''-=-::-i"'''~ =:E-:...e.t=-_;.::.:: -:.:=. - ---....---- ::?:.;.._..::.~"?:;.-:::r:;...-:,;:w'":: EMERY PLACE City of Temecu1a, Ca. PROJECT VICINITY """",0' LOCArlON 'e \. , VICINIT"r MAr=' Sl-lEET INDEX TITLE SHEET I TTPICAL FFroNT "r ARDS (\0 SCALE) 2 T"rPICAL PRlvATEL"r OUNED SLOPE (30 5CALE)_ 3 . 4 !-lOA COMMON AREA (30 8CAlE,' 5' . b !-lOA COMMON AREA LEGEND . NOTES 1 FENCE AND WALL PLAN (30 SCALE; CON8Tp;aJCTfON DETAil ... 'I ~~l'tsV~. 951129613430 --- <t 'tS ~u ,W .r: oW ~ .... . .. 'U ~ ~ U ~~I~ ~['l' ~>-<ll e"W ~~E ~ r ... 0'1 0 ill Q ~ .~ I~~ IL ~ ~~ 8 ~~~ 2 or tJ)8~<(~3 UJ ..I;:u,.:.o >OC-r '05>- (\/ <( o;'? 10 lL<:;:ZO.....'SÈ"4: wii>tl~L.. ~ I-l"'U......r: I .01 ~I " I " , " "' ^ I, ::.. A'.'~~r ~' O~i "" ._, L-I 01 10_ R"g ~~I . ~~ ! S~'7 J. lNO<>!,l 'd-Ol 3::lV'"l::l~;...a I o;NV""1c:i mal^~ .l:::mc~ V'1n:J3J....131 =0 J...J.):;l I ,t-'K"~tl-'K7~.L:7I>'<l!I! . ! t,~ I.! ., 1" ~!l ,. I l~ , '- ., . Ii ,~. Hi '-~ r r: i \ \ ' \ \ i \ IU. \'\ ~ \ . \ \ ~ \ \ ~~; ,. \ \ ~ <\ \ \ """~ '3 \\ \ I,,'(I'J \ \ , \ If \; . , \ _ -1,-. \..__.~.__...., . , . . ~I. ~! 611l'OJ.. '''If.lJ..l ~€:-l.lg(ltSb) 0'B91:t. V'? 'l?lO(;;'Jo:) 00<0: Oll'rlS W;O>49 U!I?W l.i\.lDf'lI'C€: S31.t.!NfiL...J1..IO:) ~'tl'2'8' f 3S';1Hd N01S3A~';1H I N' , --," . 11 , I, ~ ~ . .. ~ 1 1 J ,". ~ W ~ 11 ,!m ,........, . I, i> 'I I, !I J' III III W 111\ - I 11" 1 1 1111 ..... ..... .", , , ~ ~ ~ H~I WH ~HH ~ W ~ . 2 ~ I III I I' ! I III !d I II IiI! 1Ill! iiI/I 1111 III d! lillI, , . J f . I l~ it II! II .1\ : I I I I IiI ~~! '1111' hll lit! III II! ! I ld ~dl ~ I III! iillllHlll illl,.illljllll ~ I;, lull ;111 ~ 11.0110 I. 0 I. 0 II @ ,I }I,rn !!l!o- I ~'lNvl NOa\:ll4~'o f,.~ ~'*-. ,,~"W .....---, ". '-. j"V __'""\" /'Y . '- ~' ih '- -,' ( !.cD aij 1 y ~~ ~' a: 1I'j, ~ ' L ~ Cf) 1 in '4., ~~~. , -~---\ i: r: '- ~-' ~I I~~~"'~J!~ (D . '. !\ . ~~ x 4:::. : ~ ~ -" ~rc ~ .l'!'1111l f:l....-Il ~r~l. ll,jtt! H I r,Hj vt ll~l~~ii ~tu l""~' I" II!"l; li.jj :lilhl I I i , I \(0 ~- ~t I I _____~__.~ J.........._..'u..._._.._..._. , gj ;;:; bll .S ~ a ;;:; ~ o ..-1 .... o OJ ...... ta u .~ I-> I.~~!. ~~I 8~ ! '""____"........ao~~._ ..._<<.,....<<~ &unO..lllllr ~J,..I ~I~ i ~ ! WlI0S'O:-L1>; (10;'0) _ _ _ _ _ _ :! rC\ 099C'O '9''':}'I?UO..lC>:) I 00t 9111''9 t=.I19 1I!i"j...j l.fl~ON Ie.t .. ---.J ~ S31.Lll"fll..JI..lO? (:,l.....l'<N31 t: 39'o'Hd N0193A~'o'H (< <,<,< l,t i I i ~: <;NV'"1d 3d01S 3.1'V'Ar.sd 3?'V'"ld .ut3W3 'iONV1o:l mal^~ .J.?nCI~ 'V"in?3W31 :20 J..1I':J ::I-'K"'~O;:;'I-9'i.",.to;:;J.~ . { , . , , \ ~ \ ~ \, \\ -\,- II \ ~\, T\ . ! . I, Ii' XB I ~> "' Ii ~iid~ ~j 2u -I~g ~/-- ~.' 0 - :l~~ .. r =:rr--;; 1:23 ~ .!.~ i ~. t:l;~ ~ 111)' --L..----. ,~. J[J. ' -__ I H I '.'llt1 .~.~ : I L'" __..~_ iL ~~'.... 11 !~ ~~13N'1l A l"hWm ...., . ~\~ --- -- ~ ,i l+'~__ ~,33~~11H:n\l'W. " Ii ~~~~ i ' .~<~~~ ~.\!.o~ ~nr~~ I ' ,-ll ,c<\ 't '" c<\ .... U ~ .... rl.!llf,fl 1111lAh JlF'ijlJ: !I.!tl,ln 'lf~HdJft IJnln~j! ~ tiIU,,"q,! Illlllo" I' Wt' ,'!l/:Ullll ! .. ,j !' ! i if !: i I II i:\l, q ili I' . ii: ;;;; I;;; I;;;;;; ;; i 2 ~~ I 1111 I lillll if I I ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ J ! III II l I ~ II ~ i I ~ i ~~; Ii, i I II! 1!11 I j il j 't J l! llUluhlllli I ~ _ IJi 8 I~l _Ell _Ie I - TRACT 32431-1 ----r:r 'I, I ~ _ _ _ - - - - "'~- \JR6 0 - . ----ifJ~.~ ' ~ cW ~ ~,~ I J I ..I il CI) ~ - '. - '1' '.: Cl r~ " \ , ~.O!!r ~ 'I ' >< \ u' I'I...~-r'l.-J 11 '" m t Xi'; , ~, ,;;A_ i I \ ~ I - ! I '\l\:/ -; r'\:', ~!I\ .. -lei. .: kJ ! : " /1J Z I- ! [ I ~ \ . i ~ ~! 2 .' / qi < ! ~, Ej , . I : ~~ h .~ ~~ ~~ << o. ~r , I ~i [ 11 ~ d : ~~ ~ U ~ ~l ! n II Iij .~O ~;; j~ 6~... w'r":.-Q)':'-~~'~j' T: Yl"-'~ I <2/0t;;E-Ug (1%) ~ ,; ~ "'If ~~ 'v":;<VUQ.}O:J -----. - I ""E~11r.;;""'.IlSU!FI-l4;JONIC;E ~ ~~ .'... ----1!il <;311IHl""U-JC)?<:fV/'>I"<3'1 ~ ~ I <0 39'tHd N0193A,,"V'H < (( ( It il , SN'\11d 3dO"19 31'tAI<Sd 3?'\7'1d .-U!I3L-E1 9NV'"ldlTl3I^3SJ.::ll"KIO<!k:i 'tln:::>3W31 ,jQ J.ll:::> ,,-"'rZEr(-,*7tE~ .IL I ' ,,I) ,", -v N "' r o ~ r I ~ ~~ 1l . ~ -'\~ J .. ~ ~ ~ ,; ~ l'!H !. ! 1111 d I 'j U !I" I rlQ 1 II!~ !' , : i i: ~I ::;: :;;1 ;;;;;; :: I; t ~ I I II I ~IU illl III III !I Ii I ! l. i I II! Ii ,I i iI j i ! III IIh 1I,lli 1111 !~i 0 li@~ (1) JIII, ~: . 2. '- .I,llll,P, fil'. i Uflh! 1!,llij1ii I rhhfll[ htill't!l! f liI',frf!!j 't!i Ill'" i In IHIHI , ',\ . '\ ! i ~t ~-- Cf\ ~;. .. r, I ~:' r ,~'I .jlJ ~ - - 1ll. i-l, '_ 'z r IQ . i~1 ~ ,'1 I r 1ft "'ill ~ I, t> I (~ .. ~ ~'L" " ti ~:~;[;__,' 5:~ ~I~-, . ~ I~ ~I . r I .- ,~ .. ;- :,..m 'I ,ti ~~~ .jj~ Iro 0 ~ 00-' , 'I l ' i' " i l ~ lj 2 If !i ; ; ~ . . "2 . I I' ! ! , ~! ~ ~@ ! < 1/ ~ "' "Ill ~ ~. I, II '. fl ili ~ !i1 III I!J ~~ o. , Sir I I -----'" '-1'- pl~.4_., ~~.r-"-- ~~"""'"::'..s-'" :T:'~- :;::;::-:-"'::...- ':-. ~=::- = ~==~"'.3:~~. ....:..':......:==:....~.....~=-- -- ........"::! -"'""'" ~N3'I"t.~TARC eloll!ET l..-,. LATOUT lM!E --:~==l-:-- ~---'t- .~- , ...J I- W W -I1 Wi ~'1' ...J ' ~ ~/ ! n__m_~_____ - " ~DAn;:.n-e.z ~~eT.Al.~~1"L.AN& """'" T~CT 324;-;-1 0","", .... I &'TT"eOL. I.JIlII!IC I!lOTANlC:.A!.1'UI/'1! O~.'6 ~:: -- .. ~,...- -, _.- --- _.~.......'" -.- ;;::::..-"- -- - -~- -,- =..,_G ="'...... . . \~~_. o '-.&T_ ~ _ _..-,.. ~_""""'-.&T_'" =..",,=-~~"""L"'L_' -...-...-. co . .. .. .............. II DovId "EAU'T ASSOCIAJESlnc. ~1~9613430 ^ -A " -A _!\ diMfl: - - .., .. .. ,:f ~ < ~ ~ ~~~ ,Iii ,0'6 ~ ~ ~~~ i5 H "' " w " <J) . '<:( .~ :r ~~ II ~ i~ ~~~~ ~ 8~~ ~ ~ ~1:k:5l.)_cQ ~~....,~,.. <l~~E~~ :I -l~8~t ~ 9~"! ='1 -'I I ! ,-I ........l 0._ ._, -! .....'....~ I L -;; ! of I" -... ."g ~;;; ~I 6~... w,,-;:" -O~:-<-tl-I~'ljl i1"'~": j lZIG!'<S~-ll~ (1<;1;) .,,,.,. ~ _ _ __ _ _ ilO- L \:OJ ~ ~~ 'V?'l?I.IO.IO;:) ~y~ I iZlo2't ~l'!'19 \9OlJlS U!I?J....lI.{1...oN Ibt I~r 6 -.. .....J 9 S3IlINl'\l..Jl...lO? ~'VNN3' ~ . i J. .. \0 3SV'Hd N01S3^,,"V'H < (( (( I ~ ! I ! , , " 'V~V' NO/....IL...O":) ....OH ?7It"ld J213W3 '9NV''1dITSI^~.l.:xl(J~d "it,n:JaW3,l. :::iO )..ll? ...~to'~tl-9'i1>t€~ lIi L ~ I! ~ ';- '" '" I- U ~ I- ~ I! II. l HUII!!I-l!l'j HllJl I i ~ ~ i . . I ~ II I..;". II HUldu I o~o ~ftW. · !. 0 .' . . ! 1 l l'l! I : ! i ill' I' II III " ~ D~~ iii , 1.1 ;I I '" ~ ' ~ ff- (f\ r~; I- I! U __.' ~ ' . I-JlIJ. Z' - ~ I ;~'! &1 '" , r, ~ ~! I I- I, U ~.~ I- ',' I / II ~i ;!/ i'l I! II ~~ _ 1/: . ~I >~: 'I' ;, :1 Ii 'I , , ---4~-., ',- --+-Ji I , I il I , ---i. "'1:1!l , :;j I "l1 ~. I ;- ~I til ~I I- I .- ~: I I : rl.!l,flfl "'\"'1 llJr..,iJ. Il'lffltH , F,lhft'! Ilttl!lfH{ !!U'"f~!! i'l: !'~lll- ,I l ,ull >-~ ~ii .U ~~~ It ~~~ ,.O'~CT'OLAN"'C'" ""lOn'''"w'T'"''''~ ",I,,, 1'...'''..".......... r"." I I I I : ::;::::;:;::::;::.:~': I m"'~,"~,;-~'''-'-_ I "',,;,;v:~7..7:'';~~-,.,, ;-,,, ,n,' ,..., (illYl ~'''-'--'-'-i-I .~" .....1 , , d.. ----.-"'., h.<;' I ~~":,:,:;;;:i?;"i;::"" .....< I::::::::;::;::;;" , "'..".""........0.....".,....... .."'..,,~;::~~::~~;.::f"._ _- _I:. _ ~~,-~'l1'll!~ I ---.. ~...- -- -....-..- -."..-- --., ----~QJIII~ '-~ ......,.".~'Ql::I..., _.~ -~ =-~..- -- 1 ~=- -""--- ~=--~-- -n.-___ OI&CLA1I'1El'to "::-~-..r=-"-:'C":,~ .....~..:=r-........r.~.. ______.::r:.:::::r =-..:::,:.-~"":.~-...":E.....~_ =~..,'r;"~'"::.~~=F'....:~ -,......--- !"'Il!In' I"L.IICI; &~~ MoD~,6Q ~1-.AU.etTE~- 1__- 1_ :"-1- ~-~--..':lIII fJ$.O=== c::p ==- 'l),O .~ :.:.--=- ~ ---. -..--. --- -',-- --- --- :;::: ::~:~~,:_, i I .1"'. ....."u.,...."..o..~..""~~. 1I,,;i> I ..,....,'."..,"",..,,"". ......,.....-,::::.::: :~ ~~. ~rl.,;."ih'. ._. .1.._ j_~ : _:-:: '""'.C_T."..",noCAP'''R'''..TK>IIW''..'''.ril '1"'. . 1___._~~~-'!.~~'1"'''' I f----f-----+.-~ ::' ,::::,:::::::::.::-- ::: i ,':: I':: :::.' I, ";;,,,",<.,., "~'i-''';,"<~ ~"4",;,'I,;,,"'I-:;-i;:<:'~;~'~1 1 ~ ;r~'_O_~l_,_",._,,_!_..._"!'_!"'II)lT'S>_'~"'_~~'::J;'! '0,.".'.'. " :.'~:.' ..,;'......J ...~.."'."'".'lj.,...QO....'.?"......- ,... .:.~. '. .-1 I ..".,'....'~.'.-.....""' ".1'1 "n>l 111"-"" I ::iiiiiiili:iii- I '"..,....".'."....~n' I I (I" ~",. .0iI- :::::::::'::~.., T'J ",I I ,",~.:".,~':"':~:'m',:."_.." ,';,'. .~:. ::~ ~.<, I I :'::: ::::':':::=.::.'.::.'.::::,: ':+. .--: r~ _._ ;;;:" I~-:~.;:~~;,:~.;:;;;.:.~. !_ I "" o -',-- --- @ ----~ -- -'-- --- ~....... ~ ~.- ~ --- $ ==--'"r.=-~ I!' =====:c. . <r- J"'ll'~,I"lj.J,~,'''' O!l ---- ~ 1Il--"-- I \ . :0:---" ~ -- --- - - .- : .- . : - .- ; 1'- .- 1'- .- - 1;,,_-=--::1 I:: " I " " A I UTILITY TRAN5FOR'1ER PLANTING &eRE-EN N.T.6 PROJECT KEY MAP Kl!YM.A1- -~ ~_~ftI-~NllTI!, ,~ ...-....----.......-......-- -- 7~;:'=: ..-----.,"' "'..----....-... . ...................100I<1'1oOI._""" =><O!OCL,-"",-...c.:.o.""". . ...................=><O!OCL.....o-e::o:...... ot.._~..oc..o....... ~I :,1.~ . ----------------\.: :..~--_.~ -:'- ." --, ~;;F---~_r~:.- I __ ..J.-.-----_\__- -----l-~-- ~~~~~~-...;;.-_....__-._.~~,,--------- --_-.-......,.~. " DavId nEAlSLT ASSOCIATES he. 951129613430 . - <I' ,-, ~ <l ~ ~ ~~~ ~ hi ~n'G ~ I- ~~~ i g ~~~ '" ~ ill . ~ ~ :I ~~ o..~;;~ Zt:~~ () ~~~. t- l: Q m tJ) ~l!~ ~ ~~~ -il)>-- 1lo:~~L~ <;{ iJJ;pO:fl '"- ~ :Ie"::" I ,,~'l .-. -"'1 , I ! i ;""-1 o. ....=if .., ,,' ;\ .~ ." -~. - _ell"', .~..I 1 L-1 " ~ - , -- . ~r.c::~I~j'E ~EET L:... / ~ ~~ "~m ~onr .ji h, \b . - . . ~' , jlllnllil" ,1'~1\~1 iii "1\1\1 l.j ,I Mil 1"I\UiHi lllil.~h1 I,. ~l;tll ill 1ft ! \ . ,@ . --~ ~ @@)(')@@J@ @J e e i 0-\\-1"11' !. ~~ ! ':: ~ ~ ~ ~& ~ ~ ~ i~ ~~~~ .to .t-l I "'"I' ". ""I" ~1~~!I~l:~ I I in! i i!,I\~ Illq t I H "I! III' lj\jl!l'l jq,dill i t d I '\1 Iii I i\t \W!i pll' d\i Hll "I _II j' I! I~ i .... '19 ~ Ii' ~ \>> ... .to. I . ~ i ~.. - ' Ii1 1\; i j" >>,>'>'>' . I-IARvE5TON pl-lA5E 3 jji ~.. ,. ~ l-Et>NA~ CQt1l"'fl.l'llTIE5 6 r . ,. . '1\ !)':ll North H",n StrC!'e1. 5ult~ 3"'" I I 1 c.orQl'la. C;A ':l2ae0 I \S.) ~ h - - - - - -, ~ ('?I!:>D ~n-:}~0 ~li~tl I I .~ .Mr.JlmTOIJI'g ~_.,._.~_,~,o."..,.,.,.,,_~-,-o;nT\. . _G~;:';~;;;~A'11 PRODUCt Fi!:EylEW Ft..AN5 ,I FEN~~.rct~LAN , ~~d' ~~~ ffi! ~" , ..UI .~A .';;:'-07 --'-'ii 'i'r'-.~ i !Z'09<:-LI<a (190) ~ ~: <fl 0'I;'g~'C v::> 'I'UO~O::> l I 0010 '"'w'S 1~J'l':> U!E'j...j Lj'l-lON IOO( ~ ~~ &. i II' --.-l g 93111~ ~Vt-.N31 ~ . i! \0 39'1Hd N0193A<S'1H (< (<<,I. II , I NV'ld l1vm t 3::;lN3::I 3?v'''ld ~3>-l3 'a'f'(V'''''''' m31~ .I.?n~ <;tln:::>3W3l ,jQ All:::> :I-,*lo'l[rl"9'i:7~'.I.~ li,- u. , 'i II , .g : I ~ CO< '" I- U ~ I- r ' II III I'! !!~ II! I jI i IjlH III i I! ill I !' I 'I I . i , I , Iii ll!j III, Iii I IMI il:!l1~~l!! ~ ~! ~ ! ~! ~ ~.. ii . llR; glll-t. I.~ ~ l he 8 @ @@@6@@ I!!!I V'W -- .0---::- fL~ II i I '. ~'J I- I I ~ 1- I :l't: t- :~ I ~~I '" - -1 I lies ;,.~ ,0 1Z ~ ,<1>; :;;- '1511 ~j Ii ~ I- I Ii o ; I, :! t-t. ii, , I!: '"j";>l 41 lJ ~ ~c~_ _--': :.-:._:~c:? x: .'~-t. t~ r: ,~ ~:~I(! " ~I ~- tl ~I I .- I ~l fl i! "~ 11 ~~ . , , 'I ~, . I n i i ; ; I :1 J I 'i _, ., Ii ~i . I ' rlJllI1Il 11-.t..j' . 'Ill 'II' Ji"j' II,flt;IH i rlJ~dJlt l!~l~~li{ ! Id- "~l! . fri Iffl"ll I 'Ii JUt II ~~ ..!~~ in .~. i[~ ii~~ .'" ~f~ Rt-O ~ ~11V'13a NCl!l~lSNO? 3's b ~~ ),:~aL.S ill" I 9N'V'1=1 m31A3<!I .J.:ma~ _ ~ V'ln:::l3J..J31 ;;!O J..11? g!a: i ....~t-~.l-...t-!,.!:::>'?'NJ. "! ~r ..~~ II!! g.~l ~i' Ii! llii~ iitl~: I~~l ~ ~l! ~ili l!~!~ i~5~~i ~!>~~ ~I> ~Il d"~1 I~'~n I 'l !l~ :ill ~llll !1\1,~ .~ll i II ~ t!i j,. I ~i :d Hi ee e 6) @@ i, ~, '{ ,!~ ~~, " " z \t ll~~~ u ~ , i( '~b1' ! ,"1 .--tl:~ l' , I: I -,...--IT'=: ~ ,~ "l j.~ . ,. ""I 11< [ ~~~ ii!i~t ~ :i~ Ii ~n r~h!I~; ~~;! 12i i "[ !I~ h~~li!~ dd ill I ~ee @ @@ .9-," ~~ ,r . ff ~ , - ,.. \ ;- -I - - J"I_-J- - !~ ~ - ~- .!t<.. '-.....! ~ ~ _ 0--;~[--__ l.J:L J ~ - - ; -i~---- ~ ~, ~ " 'I ~ I !I ill . ~ II III_ W lill' ~ I ~ld ;11 ~ W ~ W G ~ ~ ~ '" o ?i ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ (Ii oj) ~ I: Ii '" , U ~ W ~ ~ [ ili 11/ ~ ~ ~ Z " >-' " '" ~ ~ 6~oJ.. ~!~~ ...no:-:-r~' -.T~ i~"--~'& ! 0\;?g~~SI~u~~;~ 1-;- <2l<2I'i: '-1.1'''\9 19;;l~~ V!~ 4lJON IE.€ ~ ~f ft I I g ---l !l! S311JNnj..J..JO? ~'V'NN3' ~ -- i ~ J ( 3S'1Hd N01S3A<SWH < < < (<.i. ! _ , , , I 1 1 1 !il ~" '9 '" , 11 , : . :. i!l , I' , : . '" iil IlP H H ll, ,- II I . l ~, 'I' ~ '" ~ '" .. .. .. i1 ~ eEl @@@@El j ~.I ~! Ii' '3 I!ll ;1.11~ ili !Ig ~._, HI': I ~ ~.c t1~ ..8.... ~' ~ ll;, l~,l~ ~l.l !i~ 3 ,. . if .!f3 . ~ ~!i~l !il~! ~~~~ ~I~ ~ ilL I . ,. ,I f! ! \; !, I R, I' ; :' ~i ;1 ~ ~~ ~ Q ~ ~ .,. ...ll "'~ .. .. aee @ 00 ~ ~~ <<~ ~6 ! -, '1 . ~~ W i'~t ~ '\91 ! -mFd ~ ~ ~ " " z t!,l'lr,r~ Ill,! I( "I!!'ll l""j i '1,ltl,IH i f.HIIJ!! 1!~I~Ai! ~11~lani ~ll:hli!hi II - ! I! . . ~~ 1- 18 u ::; ~ i( l'; 3 W " 7 \; z W U z W ~ ! ~f i .' 'l ' L ~~;~ I II ~ ~ . ~ 4' c. ~! 'I' I I I 1"- l! ; JIII~~I~Ji~ll~ !i I '" . ~ ~ ~ p- (11]--- Ic.jil F " ""'1- I g 2 " " '" W " " z ;....::::;.:'.:::_~=.::..'='..:.::-:.w l~!' !!'l rl ~iiul ~ ~~ i' ,I~ Ill! Iii, ii !Ill! !i I~ ,I li!II:I!!!1 i!!lhd II !Illl .i iji!I~!ill!II!llflif.1 liil bi ;I.I.lIH!,,!i III Ii ~ 8 8 0 <9 00 000 @ i:l ~ W G ~ ~ 3 ~. W ~ '" ~ ~ [ 3 o ~ ~" , ~. . . - u " " z ~ ~ ~ x 2 ~ " I: -' ~ z " ~ W di - '" " ~ ~ ~OOV'J\<<<"'''''\..voJ\.. """"-I[-...."....llnd-<O<II<IWl\SlIllll<<J\ ""HIIllO/."', Z3QNWN0<3 / . ! I ! ~ ! . d ~ i , , I . Ii i: I , i III I'" " III L.. "I ! l WAVERLY ------ i ----- ..-\ '" ~ i i~ ~ ll~ ~ ~~ > a: 0( J: , ill ! IIi I Iii i Ii i l'~ , ., . " , , , , , "i II ili II'! lull j /~r\ \ II ,\" III \,\ \ \ \1\, II ,I il \,1 I ! I I I I H Ii III Iii tI If ! f . .\1 . \ </ \. \\\ \ \ \ \ \,\~ \ \ \; \ \ \. \ \ \ ,_;\ 1.\ \~ . \ ------~~======== . ~ __~....--:~~ 'd --------,------ ~ J\;\ ~Wi ~ \ .. \ ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ \ \ \ \ .,.rt.~W"'",~,\~~...,.r..", .-I1,_~.tI"'~'\:>>~ -'-....,"""',,~~ \ \' . \H f.~ ~ ....0 \ I 1 <f) ~ ~ \~ ~ ~ ~ l\ ~ '" :x: ---- "i'. \ ; ATTACHMENT NO.2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-_ G:IPlanning\2006\PA06-0055 Emery Place - Product ReviewlPlanninglSTAFF REPORT.doc? 7 PC RESOLUTION NO, 06- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO, PA 06-0055, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PRODUCT REVIEW) FOR 76 DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY CLUSTER HOMES LOCATED IN TRACTS 32436-1 AND 32436-F, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DATE STREET, ADJACENT TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND DATE STREET IN THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN. Section 1, Scott Frick representing Lennar Homes, filed Planning Application No. PA06-0055, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Section 2. Planning Application No. PA06-0055 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and rnanner prescribed by State and local law. Section 3. The Planning Commission, at a reguiar meeting, considered Planning Application No. PA06-0055 on June 7, 2006, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. Section 4. At the conclusion of Ihe Planning Commission Hearing and after due consideralion of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA06-0055 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application PA06-0055 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Section 5. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and wilh all applicable requirements of stale law and olher ordinances of the Cily; The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density Residential (LM) land use designation standards contained in the City's General Plan, Development Code, and the Harveston Specific Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and fire and building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; The overall design of the single-family homes, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those living and working in and around the site. The G.\Planning\2006\PA06-0055 Emery Place - Product Review\Planning\PC RESOLUTION NO.doc I project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Section 6. Environmental Comoliance. A Notice of Deterrnination for Planning Application No. PA06-0055 was prepared per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of Determination will be issued in compliance with CEQA Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR. The previously approved EIR was prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan. Section 7, Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves the Application PA06-0055, all of the foregoing reasons and subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together wilh any and all other necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. G:\PJanning\2006\PA06-0055 Emery Place - Product Review\Planning\PC RESOLUTION NO.doc 2 Section 8. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 7th day of June 2006. Ron Guerriero, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Cornrnission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 06- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the y'h day of June 2006, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary G:\Planning\2006\PA06-OO55 Emery Place - Product Review\Planning\PC RESOLUTION NO.doc ) EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL G:\Planning\2006\PAOb-OOS5 Emery Place - Product Review\Planning\PC RESOLUTION NO.doc 4 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No,: PA06-0055 Project Description: A Development Plan to construct 76 detached single- family cluster homes on the north side of Date Street, adjacent to the northeast corner of the intersection of Ynez Road and Date Street in the Harveston Specific Plan Assessor's Parcel No, 916-410-005 MSHCP Category: N/A per Development Agreement DIF Category: N/A per Development Agreement TUMF Category: N/A per Development Agreement Approval Date: June 7, 2006 Expiration Date: June 7, 2008 WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT Planning Department 1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination wilh a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Seclion 15075. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department Ihe check as required above, Ihe approval for Ihe project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condilion (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0055 Emery Place - Product Review\Planning\Draft COAs.doc 1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS G:\Planning\2006\PAOe-0055 Emery Place - Product Review\Planning\Orafl COAs.doc 2 Planning Department 2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. 3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City 10 attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elecled or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 4. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this development plan. 5. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 6. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 7. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Final Environmental Impact F.leportforthe Harveston Specific Plan, and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program thereof. 8. This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the City or other regulatory or service agencies from applying additional requirements and/or conditions consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building and other necessary permits and approvals for the project. 9. A Lot Line Adjustment on Tract 32436-1 , lots 13 and 14 will be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval before issuance of building permits. 10. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the approved colors and materials contained on file with the Planning Department, or as amended herein. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. Staff may elect to reject the request to amend or substitute materials and colors, G:\Planning\2006\PA06-Q055 Emery Place - Product Review\Planning\Draft COAs.doc 3 in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. 11. Applicant shall oblain the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for any work done in Ihe City's right-of-way, and Building Permit from the Building and Safety Department. 12. Fire Hydrants shall be installed prior to the start of any construction at the site. 13. Driveway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards. In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be Iimiled to 24' maximum. 14. All lots shall be built in accordance with the Site Plans labeled as "Elevations". 15. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-Q055 Emery Place. Product Review\Planning\Draft COAs.doc 4 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS G:\PJannlng\2006\PA06-0055 Emery Place - Product Review\Planning\Draft COAs.doc 5 Planning Department 16. The following shall be included in Ihe Noles Section of Ihe Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construclion of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and Ihe City shall cause all further excavation or other dislurbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discrelion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost 10 the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determinalion and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon delermining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or developmenl may lake place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning." G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0055 Emery Place - Product Review\Planning\Draft COAs.doc 6 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT G:\Planning\2006\PA06-Q055 Emery Place - Product Review\Planning\Draft COAs.doc 7 Planning Department 17. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. 18. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday: 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday: 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays 19. Prior to construction of the Model Home complex, the applicant shall apply for a Model Home complex permit. 20. Construction building plans shall include upgraded front doors to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 21. Wall and fence plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. 22. Provide a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (fresh air intake) for all homes facing Ynez Road and Date Street. Fresh intake ducts at these homes should be based on the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements that state "in lieu of exterior openings for natural ventilation, a mechanical ventilating system may be provided. Such a system shall be capable of providing two air changes per hour with minimum outside fresh air requirements. 23. Provide standard upgraded windows with a Sound Transmission (STC) rating 27 or higher for all first floor windows on homes facing Date Street or Ynez Road. 24. Homes facing Date Street and Ynez Road should be provided with weather-stripped solid core exterior doors and exterior wall/roof assembles should be free of cut outs and openings. 25. All window and door assemblies used throughout the project shall be free of cut outs and openings and shall be well fitted and well weather-stripped. 26. Provide exterior walls with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 46. Typical walls with this rating will have 2X4 studs or greater, 16" O.c. with R-13 insulation, a minimum 7/8" exterior surface of cement plaster and a minimum interior surface of %" gypsum board. 27. Provide roof/ceiling system utilizing minimum Yz" plywood sheathing that is well sealed to form a continuous barrier with minimum R-19 batt insulation in the joist cavities. 28. Construct a six-foot high noise barrier for lots facing Ynez Road and Date Street. 29. Three copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0055 Emery Place - Product Review\Planning\Draft COAs.doc 8 conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and conlainer size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of T emecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. Provide an agronomic soils report with the construction landscape plans. c. One copy of the approved grading plan. d. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). e. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). I. The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map. g. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials 10 assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0055 Emery Place - Product Review\Planning\Draft COAs.doc 9 PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY THIS PERMIT G:\Planning\2006\PAOe-0055 Emery Place - Product Review\Planning\Draft CQAs.doc 10 Planning Department 30. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 31. Fronl yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection. 32. HOA landscaping shall be completed for inspection prior 10 issuance of occupancy for those lots adjacent to HOA landscaped area. 33. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, Ihe bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 34. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. By placing my signature below, J confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance wilh these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Communily Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Applicant's Printed Name G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0055 Emery Place - Product Review\Planning\Draft COAs.doc 11 ITEM #3 DATE OF MEETING: PREPARED BY: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDATION: CEaA: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 7. 2006 Dana Schuma Associate Planner TITLE: Planning Application No, PA06-0046, a Development Plan application to construct three retail buildings totaling 29,498 square feet on 3.46 gross acres at the southeast corner of Margarita Road and DePortola Road [is! Approve with Conditions D Deny o Continue for Redesign o Continue to: o Recommend Approval with Conditions o Recommend Denial o Categorically Exempt (Section) (Class) [is! Notice of Determination (Section) 15162 o Negative Declaration o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan DEIR G:IPlanning\2006IPA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - PPIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc 1 PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: Paul Gupta, Binaca Properties Date of Completion: Februarv 22, 2006 Mandatory Action Deadline Date: June 7, 2006 General Plan Designation: Neiqhborhood Commercial (NC) Zoning Designation: Paloma del Sol Specific Plan 4 (SP-4) - Neighborhood Corn mercia I (NC) Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: Vacant North: South: East: West: Vacant land and Sinqle-family residences Vacant land Vacant land Vacant land Lot Area: 3.46 qross acres Total Floor Area/Ratio: 29.498 SF/0.20 FAR Landscape Area/Coverage: 23,045 SF/20% Coveraqe Parking Required/Provided: 143 required/148 provided 138 standard and 5 handicapped/142 standard and 6 handicapped BACKGROUND SUMMARY Slaff has worked with the applicanl to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and Ihe applicant concurs with the recomrnended Conditions of Approval. A pre-application for the retail shopping center was submitted on November 23, 2005. Development comments for the pre-application were provided on January 6, 2006. An application for a Development Plan was submitted on February 22, 2006. A DRC meeting was held on April 6, 2006 to discuss sile, landscaping, architecture and other departmental issues. A supplemental meeting was held on May 1, 2006 to further discuss architectural and landscape comments. The applicant submitted revised plans on May 4, 2006. The elevations were slightly modified to address Building and Safety requirements for emergency exits and architectural enhancernents recommended by Planning staff. G:\Planning\2006\PAoe.0046 Redhawk Pavilion - OP\Planning\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 2 ANALYSIS Site Plan The three retail buildings range in size from 4,686 square feet to 10,746 square feet. The main building (Building 1) will be located on the eastern portion of the site. Building 1 is 47 feet in height with two stories consisting of retail uses on the first floor and a mix of retail use and restaurants on the second floor. Building 2 is 32 feet in height, located on the south end of the site. Building 3 is 33 feel in height located on the north end of the sile. Both Buildings 2 and 3 will consist of retail uses only. The project conforms to the development regulations of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (SP-4) zoning ordinance. The building setbacks, separations, and heights meet the minimum requirements of the Specific Plan, and the 0.20 Floor Area Ratio is below the target ratio of 0.25 for the zoning district. The proposed 20 percent lot coverage is also below the maximum permitted lot coverage of 25 percent. The proposed site plan provides adequate circulation for vehicles. Architecture The proposed buildings are consistent with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Design Guidelines. The commercial buildings feature an architectural style which incorporates eclectic Spanish features. All of the buildings will have a low profile mission concrete tile roof. The buildings will be constructed with architectural enhancements to include prominent arches above entryways accented by columns, arcaded walkways, and covered balconies eXlending off the main roof form. The building exteriors will consist of a painted stucco body with two body colors, one accent color, one trirn color, stone veneer along the base, and precast columns with painted trirn. The buildings include various breaks in the wall planes and parapet design and height which, in conjunction with landscaping, breaks up building mass from the street view. Landscapina The landscape plan conforms to the landscape requirements of the Specific Plan and Design Guidelines. Tree and shrub placement will serve to effectively screen on site parking areas and soften building elevations. The project proposes to landscape 23,045 square feet or 20 percent of the site. The project will include a total of 105 new trees consisting of Weeping Bottlebrushes, Queen Palrns, Chinese Flames, Camphors, and Bradford Pears. In addition, decorative paving and outdoor seating areas with shade structures are proposed to enhance the commercial center. The landscaping at the enlries off Margarita Road and DePortola Road will be enhanced, as well as the northwest corner of the site. The Specific Plan requires a 60-foot radius landscaped "Minor entry statement" at the corner of Margarita Road and DePortola Road. (Section III.B.36.c.2 of SP-4) Because this requirement was discovered late in the process, the project has been conditioned to revise the landscape design to comply with the Specific Plan. (Condition of Approval No. 65.a) Additionally, staff has conditioned the project to upgrade the landscaping along Margarita Road from 15 gallon size trees to 24-inch box trees to better buffer the site from traffic and enhance the project's visual image. (Section 1I1.8.a of SP-4) (Condition of Approval No. 65.b) With the above changes incorporated, the project is consistent and meets the intent of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan landscape standards. G:IPlanningI2006IPAOS-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - PPIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc 3 Access. Circulation. and Parkinq The Department of Public Works has analyzed the proposed traffic impact of the project and has determined thai the impacts are consistent with the traffic volumes projected for the site by the previously approved City of Temecula General Plan EIR and Palorna del Sol Specific Plan EIR. The Fire Department has also reviewed the plan and deterrnined that there is proper access and circulation to provide emergency services to the site. Access to the proposed shopping center will be provided by Ihree access points. The first access point measures 30 feet wide and is located on the west side of the property off of Margarita Road (right in/right out). The second access point measures 28 feet wide and is located on the north side of the property off of DePortola Road (right in/right out). The third access will allow access from the future retail center to the south of the project. The proposed project provides 148 parking spaces, while the parking requirement for retail and restaurant uses is 143. The project also includes, in compliance with SP-4 requirements, two pedestrian connections located on the south and east areas of the site, which provide access to PA 1 and PA 38. Two loading spaces have been provided within the inlernal portion of the commercial cenler, which meels the requirements of Section 17.24.060 of the Development Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the previously approved Paloma del Sol Specific Plan EIR and is, therefore, exempt from further Environmental Review (CEQA Section 15162 subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations). CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Staff has determined that the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and all applicable ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Development Plan, PA06-0046, based upon the findings and with the attached conditions of approval. FINDINGS Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F) 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City. The proposed commercial center is permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation contained in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation contained in the General Plan. The General Plan identifies commercial, retail, and offices as typical uses in the Neighborhood Commercial designation. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type of commercial development proposed. The project, as G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavjjjon - DPIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc 4 conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The overall design of the commercial center, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 6 2. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 7 3. PC Resolution 06-_ - Blue Page 8 Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval 4. City Landscape Architect Consultant Comment Letter - Blue Page 9 G:\Planning\2006IPA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO, 1 VICINITY MAP G:IPlanning\2006IPA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DPIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc 6 --, / '< ,p o '" . . 0 .' " '. '. " '''-'' .~_/ / ',,- ''''.'' " ';/'; 7 ' '6 \ 7 , ~ j 0 , " / ( .-.-' \ ~ " .--' / , "- ". ,/ ~'1"O\o0~~,. __---O/>.\:<'. ", ". ./ '\ '\-' . /. \\ \ \ ~-~. .J-~../---- / " ~/ ./' / ~/' 0( -- (r'~'" \ ' ~>/ -~~'~ ~ " --\ -~.::;::;:::~ ',\\ \::.\- --'~>"""" \"/ ,\..,.>-- '\ \. __/' ", \~, -c....-:::--____ ~~P,"I~~~ '~\~ \ ~\ #~~ 'A\\~ ~ . \~\. \ -t. \!t<fill;,./' .__- 2:.\ \ 'i -.-'O.T _ ,-'~ )~\ ,./ J.. ': \ ',- ----.-. if/~\ ' / / I , ! -, '. / < 0'" ,,' .,~(~ \ .." / ''-.'.. '. '. '~O ' / ;'\0", "- ., '- ';.. ,0"f ,,~~;~, / , "1'( / ~"'1,.'\ , '. . /\ /' / ../ .:..,~-- ,'-', c. .-/- \. .\.:-:'----_.::~- . ....' / o\J"I\-'I /- 'l'If"-'l1"9S ~\Gt\ _~ .--.~\---,.,,-- \ <..- \ \ , \ ~) \ \ ........./-<\ \----,:;,<\\ \ \ , '. '\ , \ ) " , .I' , , \ \/Y\ \ ').r-;;oO ~~:~~\~\ \ ,>~' > ~ ~"'~!"R~~" cJ:,:I;,. \ j '~h ; '. 7--." ..... n 0-1 .' '.""" , " Os .< 'e o. ~, :Q;}<f'.~ 'uv:l ,:-;:::'v( (;'it< 'y, . . ". ',/' " "// / / .I' ., , , Project Site ". '. , '. , , ..--., ., \ \ , \ \. / __........-<;-\9 _,,-r \. -~~/--- \ \ \ ------~-- \ \ \ \ \ ~\ \ \. \ ~---)..-,,~,-:;:/, y--- , \ , .. 11((; \ \ O..y~ "" \ "'.,. , / "- ~ x:: '\" "-.. ", ' " -'V)/' /fr-...., ~, // (/ 0 100~200 /,( - ~ '::",' / \.. ..-,,, ~/'-':;;; \ 0' 'f- .'" "L 7~ .' \-...., " / .-~' -~-~ \ \ \ '"" ,.' f S"lOI\t.....1-.-------- \('10"-' r- ~ \ , ,...-", -J\;S~~~~~~~ . _.-, " , \ '. ;--. ! , , --\,/" % d ."'.- W ~ <00 "",- 000 Feot ATTACHMENT NO, 2 PLAN REDUCTIONS G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 7 ".-"-,",-~,,._., ~ ~ S~l~P~~~V-~Md'~ ~ ~ ' .I ~\'ir.\\.-: 1 ~\l\,<"'" . --l!'.""~'\"'''~ ::'~A="; ~-, \ t~"""'" i " \\,...,t.:<-"o't ~.",~l, \. /-"',,"""---" '-, ,,7 ~, <<_~~'~1 ~,/--;'(:j\ 'II - !'. I l .<IJ"'....' i<~' J <, .."'\ ,.....' j' /;~. '&", \:,;" ~~ I "'... \ '~i < "':"""'4 -(,<'''''\'''1 r ',/t. .. I'-./~ .......~ "10\ ~ ,,' \ \\ I q 0", ~ ~ ~;::z ~" o<Q ~:'i M;il~ ([UJo( ~J ''-'I;Q. O!.~ '~- , , , D- ' --r!d. ~ j, <{ y ;;: ~ I,\~ ~ 1 ! z' '-it , Q~ >g , -i l , @ " " ~ '..-J "..., 0" \1- 71.", /, I ! , , ~ : ~ ~ ': .: ~ ; ! II IliE l ", "", '.'" ~ ~ to ~ l.. '. ' I?~ ~i~~ b ~~~ i! I;;i I!.!!!!!l ~~~,~~~~* ~~i'il'j~~ Z~~l~ig~~! ~~~~~~5~ WE'! gES~~ i~l~a~~2 t'J llJ eee0@0eeE!l1:1lt T D~ ~Q~ g ~ ; ~ i ~ ~ > , II ,! " ~ ~ 5 E;;~ ~ .~~:~ ~~:,:,<: ~~ ~ ~.3 ~. ~tJ:::,e~~ ~~ ~:.. '~<H. i';:: uu.... ~~ >8 n~2gu ~ ~~ uUH ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~!!~; ~ ql:; ,.~ri ~ .'H!,I. ; ~ ~~ b;ii; .. , II ",.. l!,l', ; :?~~~ -~ : ~i ;~" ~e ~ ; 'i"i! il;. ;" "Ii." .. .'. ~ r;;/~~~ ~~,,~ : ~i". h~~~n ~~ 1 ~.:i ..ililzz.... ~I . ~~ ~U99~~ ~.. ~:t~ ~llilii:::',2 f~ I ! ,.j, ~;h~ ~"'" d~gi! ~:H ~ , I~ 5~~~~ ~, ! 6 ~: ~"':i~; ~ ~ ~~ e:~~~! : ~ :. "~tQl!~ ~ali ! 11l!'.1' :11 '0'0",1 'j' ~ ~~ 8;~l: h~ -, " !l -_i _"-, - tc ~ ~;~ ~~~ . :~~ 5~t'~~~ g;:l~~<l l!i:::~~B ~~ ~~ ~~ I' II !~ ~~ e., ~~ " i ! ~~ "': ~ 7 .... ~ ~ ~ "" ~ ~ ~ ",,"':; :0 ;0;; e ~ ~~ . ~: 5 '" "'.."'."'i n ~ : ~1 ~ - ~ ~~ ~ >-: I... w ~~~ ;..... ,; ".." ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~~;~~ ~....~::: o o ~ 9' . Q ~ ~ 3: ~ (r 1 j ~ ~ j I i llll '.- IHI 'I" l,iJl ,Ii"1 I"" ,;j~ I ! ,- <( , ! : ~ ~ Ii,' >~l. ;,. ~1: - ~i3 -~~.. ~ I . , jJ ;-=:1. . , ;1:' (.I !::, l '~ " 'I~ i' ~~!1 ~~ II :1:' , c 1.. . I C , ft~ I I~" II , 0 <{ 0 a: <{ I- a: HI! -~ <{ t'J a: <{ ;;: z :'i "- I- Z w ;;: "- o .J W > W o W' 1-' (jj~ 8 ~ " r JU , < 0 r II. i , Olf08 r i!. ! ! IflO.L80d 30 0 w ..j , " ~~~ Ii;' ! 0 ;::m S" OC ~ Q l;~ n~g '~ ~ ' II ~o I ! l i! 1 < --tt ij .- I'" \ '2 :0. r ~ T:-J ~ "l~{_ ~,-~ J ~~ ~od! ~ .,.-.. '~-;;:;-\ ~ ,-., -. , ;~ i -+--It . 'lS'il".1 I ~ ~ till ,31m' -+-- Itl~ '1 AI '-~--I I II --L It =~ It ~~. - '::, ~ . .. '! 1 .. :<~: ':-1" __:-:1 =~. .,.j ~~#i~~Jd~~1\i\ ~~ \" . \~~ ill " -'" ~ c~ ~ ~ ?, ~' \ ~ ~ >- ~ - " . ~ \. ".-.- ':, ~ \\ ~ ~ , , \\ ~ ,,', ~;, " ~,l .' ?")~ "'~i .I<~ ~\~~ "'~i -~_._---- -~------- ------~~ W\~\ \l\ h \ " n \ . ~\\ \~\i\\ ~i! i'l! \ \\ I"~ l~ j\h ,\i\\ ;!~~\ \ -~~ \ \ \ Ii , ~r:) ~ ) 0 ,- \ \ \ , \ , L~J ~t~ \ , ~ , \ , \ . L~J "l. L~J t i;\ '5~; "'t 't t ~r\ .~ d i;~ t " '\ '. :>::Ii 5 ",.t , . ~ It \ 0 ~g"" z ~a~ 8~ w' ". .' ~ ~\l\ ~' ~\~~ ~- i~ . $ "\<l ,,::'" ",.;<. 'i.l ~'il;): ~~l ,,// """""",J1. ~ ;~~~=1>..~... 'l>t; ", , --".-._-".... ~'I." , 06<;16'O-..el j_""~"'-.puw.~,. "" S8l8pOSS'v' "l? d>l . ~ - . ' I f J dl 8 " o:i; I II il o z OJ ~ z :! gl~ e [~] , _I, L.J , I .~.......~. :) , ~3 ?-II ~j_m~lm , . . - m''';lm__m~, OJ ~--J! : ~. : ~ , , " J II ~~ r! nm_~ J L "1'_ ,,, ~S~ S~1 O>;:i ~ ~I:.i: . " " " ~.,! --- ;;;~~ ih ," !;.l jr--, '~II ! " " ~; ~ ~vl ) i , , I I I" ih - dJlJ ,." Cf) . l!;h <( . I l '!!!il Id .f 1 !ii:/! .il. ------1 11 t[ , _I l~ ! ~~; h ! . ,h r I ~LjJ ! i e:I .rl \ " ~ ~ /' lit!, ~I \ " 0 u~~ " I I ~ - , u w U " < < " " . I, o. ~ o. hn " . !k C":l i~H h;i i ~ ~m i -I,i "'''~ ~~~ ~- -~l- dt f ~_ji: j . , . L H 'lW! ,"~1 ~~ 0-.-.".-_-_-_-.-- ~_ I "Id ~s~ :;>;;. "'~i "I' i w,,' ~~~ -~ '~ -4 I 1I~ )'- " ~~ f-. o d z OJ 5 . ~ " ",,-n,,--_~i ~~ I ',. fJ ~I:! ~ii1 "'-i . I [~J . , ,L , ., \ 2 Ii , 'f , [~J " h ,1 ~!~ ~ , , I I j, [~] L_-,' d z o ~ z ~ . 8 ! 0::. o 0 ,,! , Z ~ e '- a ~ :~ ~ z a z ~ a < ~ ~ ~ " ~ g ; /', " e . , ;;;, ~ w. J", <. . " ~ ~!t w, 8 N) j ,I ~,1~ j I : : : ~ n: ::~ t ' T .- --- -- ~ _"..~,,,,.......,,...o.,., ;~~~;;'-V~~d~ ~ .1 -i I ~. .e. ( ll!lll .' iri ..' jQIEIlI- ...... . tc"2,- :.~...if :..::.--Jft ',j - 'I 1~ €33 ,IE il C' '.J ~ I ~.L. -------" 831 !f~ ~ ,~', {! II U ~f ' ., I~ ~ B . - JJI III I ~ i ! L 1 . ,~.,." I "." ':~".I'h "-1.1 , :'~i~i~li' ~L. ~ ~; , d.J,Iu: ! J : ~ ~ ! f . ~ ~ 1 1 Pi 1 dlll , , I', 'I J'l~J ld ;';: ~ !, f ~f J -1 ~I . tEll' ~ .~ !J- ~l_ EtE, IE o : EB3 -----:-113" l i;:- ~:? ! g~ !5~ Ij!! ,.,. ~; i!il1 qh'l I <( !ilH; r ! Ii!. i III Ii! I ! i I . h ~ J ~j t.. . ~l'; ~~il~ H Un~ H 8: ,,~ a~ il U ~~ ~~ il !iii ::~ ~~ ~! ~i rl ~~ '~ Ii ~ ~ ~,d HnHHHnl~H;!~!~H ElEl8808EJ0E1flCl(;,) IG I I , . @ , ~ , z , , , " z :;: ~ Lu ,. " I (-:J - - - B ~~ I , :l 1 !II <T.... .. n 'I.~ r' . , I .1 -"~-i I ,.. ! [( I :~ 'I'@;J I i r:-r ~ 1\ Lr Ww> : ,1:::['* - - o ". \fa i t-~ ~ ! I}j I ., 'j, ~"".1 f' ; : j J~ ~ -; z; t r ~- -, -. ..."w....,., ...._ ~ --"....o_..,_."",.@= 06';;,~ V::>""--1 .~ ""OS ... _ I S8l8!::lOSS'v' 's> d>l I:l __! } J Fl It 1 --;--::- ] ~ ~ , l [ 8 :J : ~ :] V t,(iv ~I f ' r' ~ ' - 'h=f~ .J j ~\,\/. I :'\ I /... {) : t I. ~ ~l I ,! .i :' d.!~; ~~ ~!~1'! ~ -- .-.~. ~~ I -- i! ) I I ; I I i I H i'i' I ' 1 i 1", ~ I n 'I h ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 . i I" i ' , Ii, , , . 'I ! ., 11 'I'IH; :z ~i ~~ ~~ ~~ ~I n i! Ii S ~. ~~ r! ~; ;~ :~ :! h ~l l~ ~f ' i< ~~ H ~I ~~ Ii F ~!i ~~ I' 1t ~ J h ~: o ~ B' B' ~_~ ~~ B'_~ B ~ I ~'~..- ..--" J 'j ~ , a e < ~ " Q . ~~: a:, M a , 9 ~ , a ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ; .I (7' -~'111111'i111111ll1111111111 :111 '~,I-~. .~I '-r-:9 ~ I~ "f ~ ,I! ~! :] ~l J J ~ ~ T L (::) ,6 ~ 8 I l . > jJ~H l'l' ~ I ~!~ 1 J'!;; J!! ~ n ~ ! ~ ;. i~;; ~! ~; i t'J! ~ f~' f j~~H i!~ I J ~ J b II ~ ! J !; ~ ~ = ,I, ~ " , o ~ < it o Q . ~. ~~ . a , 9 ~ , Q e < , " , j ~ ~ ~r<- I €-\ E :r :1 ~~~Jt ' , , ~ ,.t~ ~ i. ~; :: 'I'; i; , : ~ ~ H ; \ u. 1-'" _. u -.:...~_---=~.J I - I :~ : I E~ I. '1 o ~ol _B~: I :j ~(:3 83 I ~ ;t~ ",1 "I , I C I ii' ~ I ~ h=:J ! 1:1 ~ I '; ~ -~i ~ IfW! i 'l! ;; ~ +U~,: . ~ ~ he. _ '~ . . F~ .... ~ ........-. ~ I" p. LO . ,.. !, ,Hi, <{ l'lf :I.\:J I !ilH! f___ , ~ 9 ~ , o ~ ~ . o . e I ~ a , 9 ~ , o ~ ~ " o " @) , , ,- ~-~ I~ - _ ~H s s ,\.~ (8 , a , C ~ 1 ~z o ~ ~ I ~ ~ . 8~~ ~-f ~1; ~ ('::J 'l: ,~! .~ ~l:L:l ,i q H ~ ~_.,~ .. .~ H . -1 ' ..~ .... - = -. I r '.'H":INITYMAP NOSCA!1: 1'<a~AS CUlllE' PAGF; 979 _ E/2 APPUCANT .,O.....""P''I1UOHlLC <<>NT""", .....p""~" .""500"""". ''< 2'IJJCO....tR<:ECEHmlDllM "'""0...... c.o 'l"~ ~EPRESENTArrVE{ENGJNEER. ..(""'-""0 tNCIN"~' ~ """"""Tn ea"'>CT.~.""""""w_........,..,..p.E. ;:~;~"~.,r:.~"'"".. "0. :sum. ~ '[L' \'''\-'''~'''' .",. (...1 '''-MlS' ~GAL DESCRIPTION L.Of 2> or"""" "D."",..",'O".,.OFTE""",,,^ ~,~",~:';1, 0:,;'0':0:' ;a.;:::.:~::",g,~,ru~rn."'" fSsrSSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER. UTILITY PVRVEYORS ..,[Jl ......0..0 ""-"0""" ...,1"[" ~"'",CT " ... =..w"",C~....'fU""""C'T (00.)2.._1_ (000) "'-"'J (L-t""',cnY SOuT1<UH tJ{J"o.~' 'O,,~" co~"'" ('00) ..3-~'$ "'uT>iC""'-'<JrO"""_oo~""" "'('''''"! """"0" ('00)'2'-2'00 ('00)4"_1000 """'"" _110._ '''S'f",CCOHTO"" .. "..,..UO,IoC' Ie ",.. 0' CIJ~. " nOO'lJ.< r..,so<o"-"",, """..0...._ """::r",,,o.-rww IE:i3 ~llogoloodlngl_'_1I& 'JII:\. ",,",,~....~..,....,_...........,.,..... lM-ll~~"".5n W .,......:. .~.. PIl_ l'll) f~~l; . f.. (IS'I ..~~. CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN FOR APN: 959-050-006 CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA Ilf.~1 )~ 'J i ,I 'I - / _I 1 HI I J ~~~~:o , '<;," '1 ..-+-~ ~ ~ "I- '\", ___ .& .~x,~~'1 .'~KG ~--t~ " -1>- " , -..-/ A KIT A " \ '" ''----... .,.Jf:<u A ~I"' ,. " " \-" " -~g,."-"''' ~.;o :~~"("r L t: ^~''''''~'' ;0 .2- ]i ,,' /'.CV" _", r----1{,"-rs , co" -+ P';-i.I_J" '---I"C""""<\: (,1..UI.N~{! nrHlI. I CITY OF lei T[MECULA D(~.~n.F:Nl or pua",c W()~~\ CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN .. REDHAWK PAVIUON, L.L.C. S.l:. COR. MARGARITA & DEPORTOL\. RD ~ ~""""' "0 I'":~ '~','~ CRAPlllCSCALE " I.U W~1't.,^, . . -"-.: T CONCRETE RIBBON GUTTER DETAIL l~:-:;:)~ .'.' <^ ::lo .. I .. ~' l.1 "'...."....~"' 1 I ,XI" ~w J$..,,"1 '/'oi r ' "',," .. ""'. ~ owm:. "". ," cu.".. ""TO<" srr.Tl()N "A-A" ". ," I I,....L-- '.' L..:#j' ," , ~"s" ," "'.O"~' '0>0 (""fl.","'""",, """'."""'''" \''''''-''''''OC"'''' SFr.TION "R-R" '" " 1 ~ n.rs 5rrT1/"lN "r_r" I' " I ~..7.- '" II 2Fr.TI()N "n-[]" .'.j ~ONSTRl1CTlON NOTES o 00'''"''01. .< ""'~'N' (]) Q) G ,]) (i) G '" Co) " @ " " e " e {j .. CO""""C',-,"C\.ASSIJ', "O><'TllUC,,'CU"O."OI"""'I." "ON$"'UeT'"CV"B...oum.,,'C1""'" 200 ",,"''''utT,'CONe .',.01<""1"1[""'0...... CON"'''UC'''-'''D' , ,",,,,,CRETE''''. CON$"'JC'<;O~".O.. ",",Ow., ",PMAC><.'. "0. 10'" C""".oel CO.<"ITt ~O(*.... (SCE '"O"'1l;C~. P,^N) CONe.,,,, ^,";[n"~' O""".uCT"" 0<.."(.0'00"""-"'.,,,,, ""N' "'.01'''. ....~'"' '''"0.. ~/ 'TO 'CC[SS"uT'1'''ON p^,., ,. . " .eel....",,,, fl...... ~I "" "'u. ........ c"",,,"ue,.,,,,w,.o'O.u OO"TOUOT ..- . ,,- ""-OP"" <.,'" '0". ~I "..,-nO "","' ,.'" ,,""(00 ,ou" Co",,,,",,,,'P,","""" CO,<,,"uO' "" P,""O..,.. ,oo"".ucr"OO".......'.. ""0" ,~n. "CWO. P.;t~("T ,I B '~ ~ ,~ ~.~ ,- "\~'~'~"W'W'~';--'@~" 0'-'" ~INNV1d S3I1nIJ\fJ,Nl)llVJ~:JJIl (J L ~OC, 'su,~~ ,"u,gl',oJ _, . 3~nl.:l31JH:JMV 3dVJSONVl ~ . . J df)()tIO VH8YWH1V ~ ~ ~., - - ~Vd)w'\l1-kEl:l NOnIAVd llMVH<EH (:' I: I: ! I I l I'l!! ii' ,"1 .,1! ' II"; I Iltl!! .," II' '~!l d "llI!l! <<llt!,l!,.! ~ ~hr (~( JS'<:}o,t<<Xl.1::l.lJ/IOOl....-"OO>(Il'i8l""~"""'''''''C''O..........'f'j~ <nOIdYlIlf'I'OM'I_ ~" l' ~.. -I- j, ! I ---.',,' , ""--~".\.,....."..-....q..... - _\ 0" 00" " 00 " " " :::' 1m If: -- ,.- . __ o-.,~ :, - .~~ f ' ( E I, ~. - -.I. 11 u " lil 'i ~ ~ ~ li ' ~ ~ . ;~ ". i~h ~ ~ ~ ~ "d i i I ( r I ) ,'~~ C~ .__m' :1 i , ' I. ,I -~~-L-,.J illlil.~~ III ~ ~ ~ I I @ I -- ~ . , , ! ~ t~ i. -- t -) -.~ ~ I ~ ,Z (~llLm__ I,' = ~-~~- , I ~j_::~'~' _ -- -_:::~~J2'~~:_ '~,<;';~:~i~:};::l.~-,.:--~.:' ",.~.;.,.,:.~: '\T ,};;;:....,~5>.~::,:y-:I~ _ ., ~..~';:Vi/'.Vn(ffi;~~~:'.,~ ~ ~"'V~; ,.: ~,,;:.-_.:. ",:; ':.' i,^:,,-},-,.~.,:>,..;\0t'_":-";:"P,\tt>>' i ----------= avOl:llflOlOOd 3Q ~ i , ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ IIH! o 51 ~ i ~ ~ Ii on > > <9000 """'" ;:] w~ . 0 W _ ~-5 ~ @ " !j jj " '" ~ a II ; ~ ~ ..; ~ ::: ., , ~ ~ ,q Z ~ :; I ; ~ ~ k ~ .. ;; ~ ~ _ ~1~1~ " ;iliii Illi!!>! I! ~E~~~ ~~~::: 11 li,_' I iHU Ug~~~ ~ i ~ ~ . ~ :i o " ~ ~ ~ .. ~ j , ! , , Un nil! ~~~~~~ UT- , I. ~!! !: II ! !!!L ------ . o ~ 'llXlllOA'fI\ Z <( ...J a.. ell z, ~i <(I ...J~ a.. I >-! 0:, <(, Z' - . :::.;j :Ji w. 0:1 a.. , I E . i I i I . I , , I I I I I , o III ' I,d !llP I, j 'lh. !l'lln ! I ! J I Iii ! !1!ll! ~ I ! 'II i d.H ILl!! . ! , - _uu u_u_ -J- ! ," , 0 . ~ ! ~' "- ~ ' . .. l " ".' ~ li. i"; m I ~ i i;! il ;,11;; i!J i IE! L ~!000 o00ff;1f!J ~ 008@0 ATTACHMENT NO.3 PC RESOLUTION 06-_ G:IPlanning\200SIPAOS-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DPIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc 8 PC RESOLUTION NO. 06- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO, PA06-0046, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 29,498 SQUARE FOOT NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER THAT INCLUDES THREE BUILDINGS ON 3,46 GROSS ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND DEPORTOLA ROAD Section 1, Paul Gupta, submitted Planning Application No. PA06-0046 on February 22, 2006, in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Section 2. Planning Application No. PA06-0046 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. Section 3. The Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA06- 0046 on June 7, 2006 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. Section 4, At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the lestimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA06-0046 subject to Conditions of Approval and based upon Ihe findings set forth hereunder; Section 5. That the above recitations are Irue and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 6. Findinos. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City; The proposed commercial center is permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation standards contained in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; The overall design of the commercial center, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has G"\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Draft Reso.doc been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Section 7. Environmental Compliance. The Planning Commission finds, based on the administrative record, that the EIR certified for the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan properly addressed all of the environmental issues encompassed within the Development Plan and that: (1) there have been no substantial changes in the Project which require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severily of previously identified significant effects; (2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to Ihe circumstances under which the Project has been undertaken which require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and (3) no new information of substanlial importance exists, which was not know or could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of the EIR which shows the Project would have one or more significant effects or a more severe significant impact not discussed in the EIR or that mitigation measures or alternatives not found feasible would in fact be feasible or that other mitigation measures or alternatives would substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects. Therefore, neither a subsequent nor a supplemental EIR is required and Ihe Planning Commission recommends that a Notice of Determination (Determination of Consistency) for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously adopted (Section 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) be filed. Section 8, Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA06-0046, a request for a Development Plan to construct a 29,498 square foot neighborhood commercial shopping center on 3.46 gross acres located on the southeast corner of Margarita Road and DePortola Road, Assessor's Parcel No. 959-050-006. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Draft Reso,doc Section 9, PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Ternecula Planning Commission this 7th day of June 2006. Ron Guerriero, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 06-0046 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 2006, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Draft Reso.doc EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA06-0046 Project Description: A Development Plan request to construct three retail buildings totaling 29,498 square feet on 3,46 gross acres located at 44060 Margarita Road Assessor's Parcel No. 959-050-006 MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: Retail Commercial TUMF Category: Retail Commercial Approval Date: June 7, 2006 Expiration Date: June 7, 2008 WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT Planning Department 1. The applicanVdeveloper shall deliver to the Riverside County Clerk's Office a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. The City of Temecula Planning Department, within 48 hours of the approval of the project, shall have completed and signed a Notice of Determination to be obtained by the ApplicanVDeveloper 10 be delivered to the County Clerk with Ihe appropriale check within five working days from Ihe approval of the project. An affidavit of receipt shall also be signed, at this time, by Ihe ApplicanVDeveloper to acknowledge their receipt of the Notice of Determination, and their responsibility for filing the Notice of Determination within five working days from the approval of the project with Ihe Riverside County Clerk's office. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-Q046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Oraft COA.doc 1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS G:\Planning\2006\PA06~0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Dra1t COA.doc 2 Planning Department 2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. 3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 4. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this development plan. 5. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 6. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within 30 days prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 7. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 8. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department. 9. The conditions of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party,in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. 10. This project is limited to a total of 7,000 square feet of restaurant use due to parking requirements. 11. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly below and with the Color and Materials Board contained on file with the Planning Department. G:\Planning\2006\PA06.Q046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Draft COA.doc 3 Buildina Bodv Main Wall A (Stucco): Main Wall B (Stucco): Accent Color A: Descriotion - Color Omega Stucco No. 15 - Birch White Omega Stucco No. 420 - Floral White Smooth Stucco painted with DEA 152 - Deep Crimson COL 1 Column - Trim painted with CDI Paint No. WC60 Precast Column and trim: Corbels and Parapet Walls: Corbels painted with DEA 152 - Deep Crimson; Parapet Wall Continuous Foam Cap painted with Frazee Paint No. 8773M - Dauphin Gray Stone Veneer: 12" X 12" Slate - Wildfire Concrete Tile Roof: Product No. SMC8807b, Camino Real - Mission Carmel (Brushed) Windows and Doors: Aluminum Storefront System - Glass at Windows and Doors are Clear Hollow Metal Doors painted with Frazee Paint No. 8661W - Light Almond Railing and Light Fixtures: WI-45/2 Wrought Iron Railing - Grill painted with RAL Colors No. 3009 Cast Aluminum Exterior Light Fixture No. 8992-61-PL 12. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 13. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on site plan. 14. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Oraft COA.doc 4 Public Works Department 15. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 16. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 17. All grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. 18. The project shall include construction-phase pollution prevention controls and permanent post-construction water quality protection measures into the design of the project to prevent non-permitted runoff from discharging offsite or entering any storm drain system or receiving water. 19. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to the City. The WQMP will include site design BMPs (Best Management Practices), source controls, and treatment mechanisms. 20. The proposed access on Margarita Road shall be restricted to a right in/right out movement. 21. The proposed access on De Portola Road shall be restricted to a right in/right out movement. Building and Safety Department 22. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2004 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. 23. The City of T emecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Upon the adoption of this ordinance on March 31, 2003, this project will be subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance. The fees shall be subject to the provisions of Ordinance 03-01 and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 24. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street-lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 25. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 26. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Draft COA.doc 5 27. Show all building setbacks. 28. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998). 29. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 30. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 31. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 32. Signage shall be posted conspicuously atthe entrance to the projectthat indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays Fire Prevention 33. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 34. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1750 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a total fire flow of 2150 GPM with 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A). 35. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 400 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feel from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B). 36. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the faciiity, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required (CFC 903.2). G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Draft COA.doc 6 37. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection (CFC 105). 38. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2). Community Services Department 39. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as, regular solid waste containers. 40. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. 41. The Applicant shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance. 42. All parkways, landscaping, fencing and on site lighting shall be maintained by the maintenance association. Police Department 43. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings should be removed or painted over within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Report all crimes to the Temecula Police 24- hour dispatch center (951) 696-HELP. 44. Any public telephones located on the exterior of the buildings should be placed in a well- lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of the buildings. 45. All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be marked in accordance with section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. 46. Recommend project manager contact the Temecula Police Department regarding pre- qualifying the units as a "Crime-free Multi-housing unit. This program involves the Police and Fire Departments. All managers must attend a mandatory training course; pass all lighting and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) inspections dealing with landscaping. Upon completion, the complex will be granted status as being a crime- free multi-housing complex with proper signage posted at the entrance to the complex. Requalification is done on an annual basis. Furthermore, the definition of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) as developed by the National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI) at the University of Louisville as '1he proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to reduction in the fear and incidence of crime, and an improvement in the quality of life." 47. Any business that serves or sell any type of alcoholic beverages will comply with all guidelines within the Business and Profession Codes and all other guidelines associated with the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. Contact the Temecula Police Department for inspections and training for both employees and owners. This includes special events held at business location where alcohol will be serviced for a fee and the event is open to the general public. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion. OP\Planning\Oraft COA.doc 7 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Oraft COA.doc 8 Planning Department 48. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 49. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 50. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning. Public Works Department 51. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 52. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 53. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 54. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of liquefaction. 55. Construction-phase pollution prevention controls shall be consistent with the City's Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance and associated technical manual, and the City's standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-Q046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Draft COA.doc 9 56. The project shall demonstrate coverage under the State NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities by providing a copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SW PPP) shall be available at the site throughout the duration of construction activities. 57. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District b. Planning Department c. Department of Public Works 58. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 59. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 60. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 61. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-Q046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Draft COA.doc 10 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Oraft COA.doc 11 Planning Department 62. A comprehensive sign program application shall be filed with the Planning Department before the issuance of a sign permit. 63. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lot to the Planning Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees. 64. All downspouts shall be internalized. 65. Three copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of T emecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. Provide a minimum five foot wide planter to be installed at the perimeter of all parking areas. Curbs, walkways, etc. are not to infringe on this area. c. Provide an agronomic soils report with the construction landscape plans. d. One copy of the approved grading plan. e. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). f. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). g. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. 66. The Construction Landscape Plans shall reflect the following conditions: a. The landscape plan shall be modified to provide a minor project entry statement at the intersection of Margarita Road and DePortola Road atthe northwest boundary of the project site. The entry statement shall be designed in compliance with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Design Guidelines, Figure 35 and Figure 36. b. The landscape plan shall be modified to provide 24" Box Camphor trees along Margarita Road. c. A minimum of one broad canopy type tree shall be provided per four parking spaces. The trees shall be in close proximity to the parking spaces they are to shade. Additional planting area shall be provided as required to allow for these trees. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Oraft COA.doc 12 d. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a 3' clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after-thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 67. Building Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor seating areas including, but not limited to, trellises, decorative furniture, fountains, and hardscape to match the style of the building subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 68. The building construction plans shall include details for all trash enclosures for the project, which shall include a trellis structure over the top of the enclosure, a concrete floor and a concrete stress pad to reduce pavement damage from disposal trucks. 69. Building plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." 70. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a 9-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inches apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. Public Works Department 71. Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of T emecula Standard No. 207 A. c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401 and 402. d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. e. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 72. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include installation of sidewalk, drainage facilities and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. Improve De Portola Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include installation of sidewalk, drainage facilities and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Draft COAdoc 13 73. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: sidewalks and drive approaches b. Sewer and domestic water systems c. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 74. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. 75. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 76. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property (Parcel 7 of Parcel Map 28384). 77. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 78. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. Building and Safety Department Prior to Suhmittino for Plan Review 79. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. At Plan Review Submittal 80. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. 81. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work for plan review. 82. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 83. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with disabilities. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - OP\Planning\Draft COA.doc 14 Fire Prevention 84. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1). 85. Prior to building permit issuance, a full technical report may be required to be submitted and to the Fire Prevention Bureau. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life safety measures per 2001 CFC,2001 CBC, NFPA - 13, 24, 72 and 231-C. Community Services Department 86. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. 87. Prior to the first building permit or installation of additional street lighting which ever occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit an approved Edison Streetlight Plan and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of street lighting into the TCSD maintenance program. Police Department 88. Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding all buildings are kept at a height of no more than three feet or below the ground floor windowsills. Plants, hedges and shrubbery should be defensible plants to deter would-be intruders from breaking into the buildings utilizing lower level windows. a. Applicant shall ensure all trees surrounding all building roof tops be kept at a distance so as to deter roof accessibility by "would-be burglars." Trees also act as a natural ladder. Prune tree branches with at least a 6 feet clearance from the buildings. b. Any burms should not exceed 3' in height. c. The placement of all landscaping should be in compliance with guidelines from Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) (See conditions item #9 below). 89. All parking lot lighting surrounding the complex should be energy-saving and minimized after hours of darkness and in compliance with the State of California Lighting Ordinance, California Government Code 8565. Furthermore, recommend all exterior lighting be in compliance with Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance 665 requiring low-pressure sodium lighting. a. Recommend all exterior doors have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above each door. The doors should be illuminated with a minimum one (1) foot candle illumination at ground level, evenly dispersed. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Oraft COA.doc 15 b. All exterior night lighting should be wall mount light fixtures to provide sufficient lighting during hours of darkness and to prevent problems on the premises. c. The Governors Order to address the power crisis became effective March 18,2001. This bill calls for a substantial reduction from businesses to cut usage during non- business hours. The order, in part, states: "All California retail establishments, including but not limited to shopping centers, auto malls and dealerships, shall substantially reduce maximum outdoor lighting capability during non-business hours except as necessary for the health and safety of the public, employees or property." d. "Failure to comply with this order following a warning by law enforcement officials shall be punishable as a misdemeanor with a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 in accordance with section 8565 of the California Government Code." 90. Recommend all doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware is commercial or institution grade. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-Q046 Redhawk Paviljon - DP\Planning\Draft COA.doc16 PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY THIS PERMIT G:\Planning\2006\PAOS.0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Draft COA.doc 17 Planning Department 91. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof element or other screening jf reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. 92. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 93. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 94. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place', at each entrance to the 011- street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 951 696-3000." 95. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 96. All site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 97. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Public Works Department 98. The project shall demonstrate that the pollution prevention BMPs outlined in the WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and are ready for immediate implementation. G:\Planning\2006\PA06.0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Draft COA.doc 18 99. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 100. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 101. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. Building and Safety Department Prior to Permit Issuance 102. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. Prior to Beoinnina Construction 103. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Fire Prevention 104. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surlace designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet (CFC sec 902). 105. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3). 106. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors (CFC 901.4.4). 107. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9). G:\Planning\2006\PAOS-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Oraft COA.doc 19 108. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10). 109. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door (CFC 902.4). 110. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. 111. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2). 112. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 902.2.1). Police Department 113. Upon completion of construction, the buildings shall have a monitored alarm system installed and monitored 24-hours a day by a designated private alarm company, to notify the Temecula Police Department of any intrusion. All multi-tenant offices/suites/businesses located within a specific building should have their own alarm system. G:\Planning\2006\PAOe-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Draft COAdoc 20 OUTSIDE AGENCIES G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - DP\Planning\Draft COA.doc 21 114. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter from Rancho California Water District dated March 7, 2006. 115. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter from Riverside County Department of Environmental Health dated March 6, 2006. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Applicant's Printed Name G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion. DP\Planning\Draft COAdoc 22 ( @ Bancho later BOludofDir..ctors Ben R. Drake Pr..sldent Stephen J. Corona Sr VicePresid.mt Ralph H. Daily I,isa D. Herman .John E. Hoagland Michael R.. McMillan William E. PhlllUJler Officers: Brian J. Brady Gen\!ral Manager Phillip L. Forbes Assistant ~Ileral Manager I Chief Fllw.ncial Officer E. P. "Bob" Lemons Director of EnglDl'ering Perry R. Louck Director of Planning Jeff D. Armstrong Conlroll';Jf Kelli E. Garcia DlstnctSeCT",Iary C. Michael Cowett Best Best & Krieger LLP GeneralCounseJ '\ March 7, 2006 Veronica McCoy, Project Planner City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER A V AILABILITY REDHA WK PAVILION COMMERCIAL CENTER LOT NO. 25 OF TRACT NO. 3752; APN 959-050-006 PA06-0046 [PAUL GUPTA] Dear Ms. McCoy: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. This project has the potential to become a commercial condominium development, with individual building owners and an Owner's Association maintaining the common property and private water, fire protection and landscape irrigation facilities. RCWD requires that the City of Temecula include a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement for these on-site private water facilities, as a condition of approval for the project. In addition to this agreement, RCWD would require individual water meters for each condominium unit. The project should be conditioned to. use re~yc1ed "vater far landecape irrigation. Requirements for the use of recycled water are available from RCWD. If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT o ~~~ U 'W~ n' fl f~AR 0 8 2006 c.> By_ . Planning Dsp:,;'meil! Michael G. Meyerpeter, P.E. Development Engineering Manager cc: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor 06\MMJm055\FEG Rancho Califoruia Water District 4~1:~.'} Winclw~t..r R""rJ . P"st om",.. R".. Q017 . 'f'..m"""l,, I'~hf"rm" QQ'>Rq.QfII7 ~ (0<:;1\ 'Jq" ""UlU. I<IIV 10<:;1 \ <)q,:: ,::,,,,,, ~ w COUNTY OF RlVERSIDE.!-. \.LTH SERVICES AGENCY U, ~ ~"I"'"~~'~'~~'~!~~~'I!I?'~';'~~!i~~:.:!I~,~~!~~';~j~\~~!2~t! March 6, 2006 City ofTemecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Veronica McCoy RE: Development Plan No. PA06-0046 Dear Ms. McCoy: Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the development plan for a commercial center consisting of three buildings totaling 29,498 square feet located on Deportola and Margarita Road. Although, the site plan does not indicate that either water and sewer services are existing, we assume that these services are in and are available. I. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE REQUIRED: a) "WiII-serve" letters from the appropriate water district. b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific reference, contact Food Facility Plan Examiners at (951) 461.0284. c) Ifthere are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (951 )955-5055) will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: . Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4. . Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3. . Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2). . Waste reduction management. '\ 3~ Sam Martine (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Department of Envi.. _._.....;..J Health clearance. Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials ising Environmental Health Specialist '=\ rc:: (-C'" rc:: n. \\r1 'C" r DJ LS,-, LS u '!!! l~ !n ill I";)" "'10" Ill/ _: ~ 'i:,: j:!'::~ '____.- Local Enforc.ement Agency. PO. Box 12HU, RiWfslrk, CA 92502~12RO . (909) Y55.89:52 ~ FAX (gOY) 781-9653 . 40S0 Lf:IIIOII Sbt'et 9th Floor, Riversioe, CA 92.;Ul land Use and Water Enaineerinu . P.O. Box 1206. Riverside. CA 92502-1206 . (909) 955-X:JHU . FAX (909) 955 8903 . 4080 Lemu5iS/tleet, ~nd Floor. Riverside. CA Y2S01 cc: ATTACHMENT NO.4 CITY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CONSULTANT COMMENT LETTER GIPlanning\2006IPA06-0046 Redhawk Pavilion - OPIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc 9 March 17, 2006 Ms. Veronica McCoy CITY OF TEMECULA Community Development Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92589-9033 RE: PA06-0046 - Redhawk Pavilion Margarita Road @ De Portola Road Dear Veronica, I have reviewed the conceptual landscape plans for the above referenced project and have attached comments and observations. Comments are broken down into two groups (site planning issues and landscape issues). Please route the comments to the appropriate project consultant. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office. Sincerely, PELA Michael G. Elliott Landscape Architect, No. 2011 attachments: comments red line plans digital copy (sent e-mail) cc: Roger Cantrell c:\Myfiles\City of Temecula Plan Checks\Planning\2006 Planning Plan Checks\06-0046 637 Arden Drive Encinitas California 92024 (760) 944-8463 PA06-0046 - Redhawk Pavilion Conceptual Review March 17, 2006 2 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW Bold comments refer to site planning or grading issues. Non-bold comments refer to landscape issues. 1. Outdoor eating areas are proposed at the west end of building 3 and the east end of building 2. These large paved areas are very sterile with no landscaping or articulation. It is recommended that landscaping along with other amenities (i.e. water fountains, flower pots, benches, specialty paving, raised planters, etc.) be added to these areas to provide interest and create inviting spaces. 2. A large paved area is proposed at the west end of building 2. It is unclear how this paved area will be used as it does not appear that an entry is located on this side of the building. It is recommended that this paved area be revised to landscaping. 3. Plantings appear to be somewhat random, merely filling in landscape area around the buildings. Landscape should both enhance and strengthen the architecture, helping to create spatial sequences and focal points. It is recommended that the landscaping be re-designed to enhance architectural elements (ie. rounded towers), create focal points (i.e. site and building entries) and develop overall site interest. 4. Code requires proposed plantings to be compatible with adjacent project plantings. Please revise plantings along Margarita Road to be compatible with plantings along this street to the south (i.e. California Pepper, Sycamore and Pines, etc.). 5. It is recommended that larger planting areas be provided along the south side of building 3, west side of building 1 and north side of building 2 to allow appropriate area for plantings (to include trees) to both soften and enhance building elevations and to allow area to develop landscape themes and focal points. 6. Code requires a minimum of one broad canopy type tree per 4 parking spaces. Thc trees are to be in close proximity to the parking spaces they are to shade. Please provide for this requirement. Additional planting area appears to be needed. 7. Please revise the north arrow as appropriate. ITEM #4 DATE OF MEETING: PREPARED BY: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDATION: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 7, 2006 Dana Schuma TITLE: Associate Planner Planning Application No. PA06-0079, submitted by Tanamera Homes, is a request for the first one-year Extension of Time for a previously approved Development Plan, Planning Application No. PA03-0634 Planning Application No. PA03-0634 is a Home Product Review application for 113 detached single-family homes within Planning Area 4B of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of Butterfield Stage Road (Tract 29661-5) Plan 1, one-story 2,346 square feet (19 units) Spanish Revival (8 units) Prairie (5 units) East Coast Traditional (6 units) Plan 2, two-story 2,589 square feet (22 units) Spanish Revival (7 units) Prairie (6 units) East Coast Traditional (9 units) Plan 3, two-story 2,715 square feet (31 units) Spanish Revival (10 units) Prairie (9 units) East Coast Traditional (12 units) Plan 4, two-story 2,915 square feet (41 units) Spanish Revival (13 units) Prairie (15 units) East Coast Traditional (13 units) [8] Approve with Conditions o Deny o Continue for Redesign D Continue to: D Recommend Approval with Conditions D Recommend Denial G:IPlanning\2006IPA06-0079 Hamptons at Roripaugh PA 4B . EOT\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc 1 CEQA: o Categorically Exempt (Section) (Class) IZI Notice of Determination o Negative Declaration (Section) 15162 o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan DEIR PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant Ray Park, Tanamera Homes Date of Completion: March 23, 2006 Mandatory Action Deadline Date: June 23, 2006 General Plan Designation: Low Medium Residential (LM) Zoning Designation: SP-11, Roripauqh Ranch - Low Medium Residential (LM) Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: Vacant North: South: East: West Open Space Open Space and existinq Very Low Density Residential (VL) Open Space and Neiqhborhood Commercial Vacant, Low Medium Residential (LM) Lot Area: 5,000 square foot minimum (range: 5,250 sq. ft. -15,678 Sq. ft.) Total Floor Area/Ratio: N/A Landscape Area/Coverage: N/A Parking Required/Provided: 2 enclosed spaces (20' X 20') required/2 enclosed spaces (20' X 20') provided BACKGROUND SUMMARY The Planning Commission approved Planning Application PA03-0634 on May 19, 2004. The expiration of this approval was May 19, 2006. The applicant filed an Extension of Time application on March 23, 2006 prior to the expiration date of the original approval, pursuant to Section 17.05.010H of the Development Code. No changes are proposed to the originally approved project. G:IPlanning\2006IPA06-0079 Hamptons at Roripaugh PA 48 - EOl\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc 2 ANALYSIS An Extension of Time has been requested for the following reasons: (1) since the time of the original Product Review approval, Tanamera Homes purchased the property from Meeker Companies; and (2) prior to the expiration date, the Roripaugh Ranch master developer had not completed all requirements per the approval of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, EIR and Development Agreement required for the issuance of the first building permit. Architectural Review The project proposes four floor plans and three architectural styles that are consistent with the Residential Architectural Guidelines found in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Section 4.10, and meet the purpose of the Guidelines. The applicant chose the option of Design Group E (pages 4-97) from the Specific Plan, which allows the use of one style from the design groups A-D. The project includes Spanish Revival, Prairie, and East Coast Traditional architectural styles for all four floor plans. This concept is consistent with the design guidelines of the Specific Plan and allows for additional variety within the planning area. The various materials and features proposed include the following for each architectural style: Spanish Revival: Smooth stucco finish 20/30 aggregate, 4: 12 - 5: 12 roof pitch, terra-cotta "S" style concrete roof tile, wrought iron detail, ceramic tile accents, arched focal point, exposed beam headers, and recessed windows and niches. Prairie: Smooth stucco finish 16/20 aggregate, 4:12 - 5:12 roof pitch, concrete flat tile roof, brick veneer, trim band accents, prairie muntin window breakups, and recessed windows. East Coast Traditional: Smooth stucco finish 16/20 aggregate, 4:12 - 5:12 roof pitch, concrete flat tile roof, boxed overhangs, covered front porch entry, attic vent accents, multi- pane windows, and recessed windows. Sinale Storv The Specific Plan states, ''The requirement for one-story products shall be determined by the market or as determined by staff as long as some single story products are required in the single family detached areas." The applicant has provided one single story product (Plan 1), which makes up 19 of the 113 residences. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the previously approved Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR and is, therefore, exempt from further Environmental Review (CEQA Section 15162 subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations). G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0079 Hamptons at Roripaugh PA 48 - E01\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc 3 CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Staff has determined that the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and all applicable ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Extension of Time, PA06-0079, based upon the findings and with the attached conditions of approval. FINDINGS Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.01 OF) 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City. The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The overall design of the single-family homes, Including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map - Slue Page 5 2. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 6 3. PC Resolution 06-_ - Blue Page 7 Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval 4. Planning Commission Minutes Dated April 21, 2004 and May 19, 2006 - Blue Page 8 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 21, 2004 and Memorandum dated May 19, 2006 - Blue Page 9 G:IPlanningI2006\PA06.0079 Hamptons at Roripaugh PA 48. EOT\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO.1 VICINITY MAP G:IPlanning\2006\PA06-0079 Hamptons at Roripaugh PA 48. EOT\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc 5 'IF!! < -U" :w' !~(- it,- 1/)'-,( , . . ~" " C ~ z \ ~, 0' .0' o .-;W ~ o \: :~;~~" /-. prOiectSi:el '- , / -'-.., / :' ;' ,/ /~/ }~"I(', 11:/ '/;' /9-/ '-. ,~ '! -'7 ! I ; I , I / I . I I --~~."-. f J / ~--- -== - -~..,. ~-"!!...f:f:;SfY~~-""~ ~ " I - ""~~ \.-.--- ,--.,< '-.--"'<:::.~..' \-.. I !~-'~~:::y' , \ \ o <r )..1 0' t? ~ o . J ),- i_,,,"..:~~~,~~;~,~Z;', r , ' I -'1__ '-"t.. . ,// /,' :&~ -~~-'-':b/'-/ ,<' :'. - .~'I~t,----j "~['..'-___")" ", '" \"Jr " ""'" - _c",~,.o"'\\ : ->-'-!~~ ,~:: ~9\~"'-i,.". I I, r-; . ... ';0 '-iJ., . > -; LL,'<' . tj~rTd!Zr--3__~J C::LJ U LL,',,\ '. '.,_r-nr._:_-, 'T-.,._~.!:!'r~ OoVELN- l~ ": LJ;:! 1;..) alln , i; f rf'~!~';--'r: ~ ~....... ~__~___ '/'~ '! ! I ! j / i J i,l /'-.,.,,['-... \' --.-'\" - ~\-l.-1.-..J..-'l....J.-.L( r' IJ ;' j /""( 0,'~ _. " ,. "-r--'i-!-'1'~,~e-€%~i' ,I .' , ' ,''''' I / ~ , i, ; I } """-~f:f?c:'~' I " ; ;J;;~iJdJ/1~: ",0'9 . "--~':."- ..1__ +'.1 -1 ,; iz' 1.--:lI-,. -lO.__: _,_. ~- ..... -1i - --r--;g;,.1 ' ' i0=\:':~- .:.:::\~:.:_____:; \QI-I--I,.,. '1-.)0 -(--I . . 'I~t~~:~ L-r- - ;t:T:1 ,-; ". .-L,/ \:CO;;"Y"~V~W:R\L;::,,~ ~ ;"'~"'-i-;"-n'ii"ii':' ,\~ (' , i Ii: ' , i , , :: 'i: !J',. ,"co '.L.!.! ..; ,,,:.1.J.,...,,_,.... ......-c::;_v,,'I1'lO" ii' .-n-r -.,,"", r -, : I L \ '. ." -'-- I I' l' I I , I ------{ / / I "", I / /1 I '-\ .,' " I I I I I /\ / \ / / /, , \ \ I /\ / \ \ \ \ , // ~ '~\ \~\ "&\ / \- \ , \, , ; " \ .-', ~..r- \. J / //. \ ,~__",J' V , /' \// " \. /' /' \'R-O-- \ ~r;J# \ "\ \ ./' -)/ /' \ j , \, ./ ,/ "\' / ,,\ ~// \\~15 ".,. 6S0 ,...'/ '\ , \ 325 o '~&2,5 - -' /' \,/" \\ '---"--_. "~OO . ,feel ~ ,z 'U lx' ;:;: "\;'f! w !Uj ;u: '0 __"_____,.~., ~o "PI,.::. .__ , '1v~~ VALLEY RO_ - \ \ .\ {J '<'5' ; ,~ '''" '....JQ !iJ' "-, ,$ :....0 " (~ . <lI ~ " ",0",):'_,_, , """'~" "" '~~~ - \ 1 ATTACHMENT NO.2 PLAN REDUCTIONS G:IPlanning\200SIPAOS.0079 Hamptons at Roripaugh PA 46 - EOTlPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc S <ll'W(O...,.tOIll I .:>NI S3INVdWO.:::> 'U'3:>I3aJi\! VIJrtJ'HO.ifl'TV'::> ..V"1n....."'"-.......a..I. I H::>N'VH HDfiVdll:IO"N TVAIA:nI HSINVdS 1 NV'd :mrrv>Id 'ZNV'd 'IVNOUlav1i.L .LSVO::> ~SV:iI to: NV'd 'TVAIA:nI HSINVdS ... NV"Id ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ \ \ \ \ . i '\ "--'~' \ L------- ----------- _...------ .-"' -~::~~\ 'to \14 g. ~~ ~ fo\ ;0 \~~ ,~~ fO .,..I D \ z \ ~\ \ ~io ~ ~u ~ 1 ~\\ ~~ \ ~ \ ~ \ \ \ \, tI\\ hW \ .' \ ~~\h -. \ , .-'~.-'...-.-''i .<-----1 .. .._________, _4::::-:-:\ . \ \ \>------ --- . . ~ . " . . , " , .\ ~ ",,:-::::J , . . _, -______0 , \ --=:::~--~~\ , , -"':::~~~~\ 'i ~---------------,.--- . _"'c:::~:~\ ''''::::-:::-\ ---------~_. ~_:::::-::-\ ~ >----~---~-~ ~ \ , .~::-::-::~\ , , , ~' _L:::::m \ (I.\,!Q ~ "'~-------_/,/-//-_/_'//'/ ' 4:12 ~ " PLANI-C !__m____~----- , , , /:; ~i~ _~_ l.r PLANI-A __m__m _;{ Q /i , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , : /<<7 /_[4 4.12 ~ PLANI-B 4:12 ~ , , , , , , , , -I' , ~_~l__l, RORIPAUGH RANCH I TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMMLnu.w.S 2of40. ~ ~~~ _~l>.nlplamlrij ---.......,....,........... .........._.u.,.. -- ..- +----.---------------------+-- I I I (>: -- __m_ I ~ patio I ' 5'..()' 4O'()': IO'-o'n '. ~I !- I I I I I I ~ I I i I I I ,... ! -rq~n .~'u' : /I;:, '1' !_.1__ ", family l~o,)lo ""~~'-' walk \ .~__ m I :'" closet, ~',_, /1 i:~~~'='~ - L'~ " hall ': ~::. ---: :t , " b'~~~'T 2 ~I~ b'-O . , bedroom 3 , , ~ '0 \: 1<:~? Ih I \ )aunJl;'Y",: I' , :~,<>, j i/,_ " nook I I I I I I I i Ulaster bedruulll 1'\1;0 ! I p, ..; 0 OW O " " master I' b,th u kitchen ;- ---I[B1-------: dinmg 110~n' liVing "7 -:::Cf"lO IUI "~"I entry ;) . " -- - ij , I I i i , cb' i - _m_mum I I _ -~----------- garll.ge JO';. 20' "bedroom 4 - /opt ofJice , Q II "I [W I.".",Jl . , ~ ~ ..~~ 3or_'!!..._~:..~__ RORIPAUGH RANCH I TEMEC1JLA.. CALIFORNIA MEEKRR CCOMMTlNITTRS )!;' I I ~ ----j- - PUN 1 SQV4RBFOOTAGE lSTFLOOR TOTAL TARGET 2346 SF 2346 SF 2360 SF 1, ~ , )>1 'I '! \ , L CMla<l<FlolVId!q<>i 2. ~"U'n4R~ i sn-. '. .t, />.m...I""",,,Do.. 1 W_F.. (' MOKljI:s,...y...... 1.1I1ldrr........ l. ~_~_~ , 1....--....' 111..~II'.LG1<<I ll.- hc<#H__NkJ,. IJ.,SfJ'i'o~ 11. W~1.a;su., 14.._",..g.,.J1,~. ,,- I{~J''''' .11. St.too_F_SJod[. U.SfIu:t;p.~p~o,ti<! ..d~O , ~ .l\i @~ iA- SP4NIS:H REVIVAL :.t.n,.. PRA1RlE PLAN 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH I TEMECULA. ~QRN1A -MEEKER.'COMJ\.iL.l""'.L .a..e.S ..~ -~- ) , ~ ~ AJ'~b<>oI ..r..,.c.;.'S'c.......i.JWtlk .-...__...-10pa01lorJ '_~lrwo(;ool ..l"'_~_~J'ltV .~y-...._""" .",.., .""",,-.....,.-00. ..~8Mf....._....u.z-. .~_..........;. . ...n.t____n;" ...H.....__ .'-lHor.oo"II/1"4,,,,,, Q/UsJChtI,~ .,,,,,,"~r:--.n.~ :~~~ .-.........., . '''~'7l4J_>'......_ ~ ~bJ~ .Ot/Iaobn..~ ...... ....... ......""'-.-- -:_- """~I. .lIJ....DJ...-.....' -~ . LEFT "mLJ mm REAR , 1 RIGHT , 'PLAN 1 lA - ~PANlSH REVIVAL ~ ~~ ~loo\o.nl~ --.-................ 101~~'" RORIPAUGH RANCH I ....,..,.&C-....'-'LA, CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMMtJl..,U..,s Sof411 _I LEFt' ..~ ~iITf.--.... .: · ... . - -- --- -' --" - . .. . ^ l_i_ REAR ~ ~~:- _ .-(1h ._....;; . ~" ~ ~ ~~, . .' '~, -.. ': '.. _' .'. n~~ - -- ~..--- ~-~~;:... . -q--- .:'II;_;~::'. .__.._' .' ..~ - .... --- -'-- -~- lllGlIT PLAN 1 IB - PRAIRIE ~ ~~~ artN\K\l.nl~ _...,...._.......o<>>a> ..".:;:.,...~.;;:;.. ........ RORIPAUGH RANCH I ....,..,.....,........JLA. CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMMlH"u""S IOnf40 I_,~'-:-:-::::::::" ::-:'::::. ""'--- ?--c .,,_w.t~"-"._"'~~~'"~""m'~-'.m"- .._....-"n-..~....~ LE:FT "":~~ REAR RIGHT PLAN 1 'Ie - :EAST COt\ST TRADIT]ONA~ RORIPAUGH RANCH I TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMMUNITffiS ~ ~~~ "cHtoeltn&~ ----............... ....~~~..,_. ""--- . .' >' ~ ~, ~. ~nu:1 0J~\;,."a",.""............,,,,,u.o....~,, ",,;~'..;r LEFT ~ ~ ('II I t;Ma.uFl..,fld...r' l- c""cnJ<'S'fl'IR.f/ ",- 4. S'<JU~<l.u..,,'!loOt $. W.o#F4sbJ 6.N-"'-s.",.r...... I. BrieJlr...... 1.~_Fo.ioTU.. ,. r..:..--V..... 'Ill; n.",;"...."'.J.G,m lI.R~_i'IWI. l'J.,-S,._C""'- /J."..0t4~ U 1Vr.>"l.lll"",",iIIo&. 1.. S~""'" 14.~Y"" 17. s""""....F_.si..'f 11. St>.J;<"""'--~1i;d t i1Jm I ~7',,"('/ I ._,_....__..i REAR t , , ~ .,!lJ a ~..1 . '}1gj~ '-"-lBr ,"- f'" "'. , ,- ~ 0'-'-- ~ lUGHT __:_________J.:..l . ENHANCEDJUEVA..nONS PLAN t IA - ~PANISH RE~IVAL :~ ~b)~ ~l~ ---...... _uo._....,.. .-- RORIPAUGH RANCH I TEMECULA, CALIFoRNiA MEEKER .COMMU, ,~u."s ~. ,I ~ :1-; '-Jl~~IHf: . ~.'fh;i~:::~:::;~..";:f.' _ [c,;,.I.' ~"'~~-"'-"'''''m' ,....'" ~IDJ' . ".....,_,~J.J..". ~, .' W . "r~ I - -.-------- LEFT' . ,: ~ 1, ;<1", 1. C..cr",".'TU.R..j 1.. Co>.ooem"S'llkJ:.o9{ 1 """..... ... .x-oH;.,.,,{)oo, l ",_F_ .. H_.s./r,V....... 7.6rl<Ar",", ..~~r_T'I... 1. u......l'w 11>. Pc.owo......,L""U J1. It<<.".:;,,,,,,,rr,,.. 1l. ~t.....lAJ","" 11. "'o04J/gj/1nf U /!''''Ml'''f".J,,.J~ J! S,""",,, If. o<<,.,"~",r_ 17. Ss"<,,.._H.~S~'1f JI. Sl"=''HfF..",''''~1 REAR .~ :;:f~~--U~ .......... ........... .... x.::~~::,..__~..'..~~_.. -~.......... . - ._- . . \ " ~ " i-- ~ ) ~ RIGHT . ENlIANClCD ELEVATIONS PLA:i"( 1 1:8 -'PRAIRIE .~ ~t ~'l~ --..:~- ........-....... ~~..r RORIPAUGH RANCH I TEMECULA,. CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMMUNITIES ,LL --: - - .~.. II ~ ~-_:::: - -""'" ~, ~. , ~ , , . " '- . ~._._-~-,~~----...,...,.---- LEFT ,j ~ 1 L """--- 1. ~<nI.F1<fru.1I,>.f ~ C'''<nf,'S'tIldli>>f 1. &>_. 4. S",r>>oolGuq.D_ S- "'..J'",,,, ~ H""",Sl4~V_. 7. ~rkkV...... &~...,.F....n.... ~ Li",,,Y<.<t lo.~W.J,GNJ. U_~'-"'M<J.. l1.Sf.....~ 1J.W_~ U. W"o,:"wnl!<iIIng U Sh......, 16.D...'_r.... 17.S'''''''',.."Fo"",SIo''l 11 :S,"_~F"",,,c.,id ,,'If:,~ ~AR ~, [' ~ , c "'" @- _:.. ~- RlGIIT ENHAN~~VATIONS" ;PLAN 1 'Ie - ~T COAST TRADITIONAL C uUilO<:bn.l.~ - -.......,.. -... ....'ul.o-....... -:'".-- ./ RORIPAUGH RANCH I '~CALIFORNIA- .l\-.-..r..~~COMML.L'u..1~S r----~--- -~--- , :.; if i ^~ j V ~ I "12~ : 45:12 :-= , '/ ' , , , " 1~_~.L'_>7____~ 4 I:m_~_ ;1 , , , d PLAN 2- C / --~ , , , , , , , , , 4'"~: : ~, , , , v, ~~ ,~~.,,~! :_ _ ~____L/ : " , I ~r'7---IV:~~ PLAN2-B 1.-------- ------, , , , , , ~ , , , j~ 5:]2 d .----~~ , , , ' I . ~ -- ---, I ~ ' : I 5;12 I , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1:~;"~~-~':--1~-j- _______J v , , , , , I 4:12 ~ 5;12 ~ PLAN2-A RORIPAUGH RANCH I TEMEClILA,. CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMMU,'.uucS ~ ~~ .........,..... - -.-,....,.. "'- .....u....".,Im,... ~.....OUCII; ~ ~..~~~ 12-~f401..cH*,"'.!~ +"-"-"-"-"-"-'-"-"-"r : I I , : I I , i I I , ~ : I I 0, , : I I Fn..mm-n.~ , 'I' 5'''''. :10'-0': ~~~- opt patio I r.~ ',"" I I "<,,,0 "1, ",,. I I ~ I I e 0 I;; m__n.~o.,::._ j-':' I , ,~~~~'om ,n El ' , . :s:: I ; n oo:,:;j! I I ;; "i~ :: -~'t'hen '~' : ~ ,I', 'l:>il ";;d,y: Ii"l>::: .'" . ..m: I', 7~: ' --:1-1- L I .---."j dirung , I', garage If" 1~ I,' .21t.nf' I '...____m. E ~ i li~ng I I, 2-nnnm p'coh , I (,> POfW(ATELEV 2 I if"}L..._~,_iL~,;'_mm.i@j I j "-"-'-'--'''-''-''--- . ~ RORIPAUGH RANCH I ....".., ...:!.......'-'LA" CALIFORNIA l\J(1i'.1=i'.1l'"1i''D rnl\ltl\lfT,,,,... ..-It;;: ~-J I ! _._..~, PLAN 2 SQUARE FOOTAGE :tSTFlA>OR U1.9SF 2 NV" FLOOR 1270 SF TOTAL 2589 SF ~ .~~t lJof4D,orciil8ob.nL~ --~='="'--'" bedroom 2 nOxld c =~_==,=. o r I j I i master bedroom "Ox Ie' :(--nnnn-nuuji :: :1 1, " :: opt deck :: I, " I, " IL' II " " :J~1k~ I I master 0 ' , " bath '~ IC> 0 , '-.-.-----' .-----~ , , , , rrE~~~~~~-~~ ~: ......'1- I TO EnOl I ~ ) I I~. , , , , - F:Nb" i :~ ,,' i~~~m 3 ',I' ~ ,(,10' ' ~--.u;;;;:.d LJl " " , r-' .n........~ loft opt or 4 JOo.I1' , , , , , , f'ORC.flATEI..EV : r IHG , J.:__ _______________l RORIPAUGH RANCH I TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMMUNITIES PLAN 2 SQU4Rlt FOOTAGE 1 ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR TOTAL TARGET 1319 SF 1270 SF 2589 SF '!-c.ul1m' UJ ~ , ........;__________ . ..~H(p n;>of sh",pes .,.' '--__.____-."'!-.-. ~Fj/ll.tti.le or ahJngle roofs / /' r ......."l".......,.""'i"~f,.Io~2:qntal pmportlons ,,,' ....'''' /,,... ',.' 1='I.....l!"le muntln window breakups " ,.. ... . ,'-' ,_ Tl1m blOnd accent ". .; ./ ,-Smooth exterior plaster waUs - - -- ~<;:Mfer roofline accents , , 1 . '101- 2B - PRAIRIE 0- ',~ ~ ~"I, ~'"' ~ .~ \ i , , ) , ~ , l- c.,.a...Tkt1lkllH/ 1~'S'11kRH.f ,- 4.. .f~.....;.pPHr So -MoNI'_ " MM'II~J'._ '.6ridlP_ l__F_nu. ~ u.-y""" Ill_W.L(MJJ lJ..ouu.I$tw:a>NltM USf_'~ 11-1i'..4~ U.~I<II,.,.h!IiIig IS, .J.I-. 1<1. ~,,_ U. ~_F__SUfF. if.. _~F_~ 14of40 , , .r.l!- @ 2A - SPANISRREVIVA1. Design Features: j ~ , - 1 . - @@~'-1;'^~TCOA.STTRA.DITi9NAL ~@"@'. PLAN" 2 RORIPAUGH Ri\.NCH.1 TEr.mcu1.A. CAl,IroRNI,\ ~.lU\..l!iK COl\4ML1,,(.I..L~S <1;"l"'frrMrrNTS .()~.,u_ _' " .1~==-::t;:i~ :~~rM<:iUJ-' . :""".l_Md<C....~.5ioV :_-v_0If4_m.. ~,~ . .1T..~I-J'TIk' .~RMF""N".u.Jr.- r,u.-~~ -..---,.,. :-'-_Boo/I)'~ -~~ Q;.s/c;.;..- TJ4n-,J"""",",,JII<'1-J' ~.s:::::.,~llIP.,.,jGdloRW '~/M"O'''''- ." ~.~~..~ ~ ~ onHlo~l~ --................ -.:=-~.... BS -'--- LEFT - DJill ill REAR n H RIGHT PLAN 2 2A - SPANISH REVIVAL TEMECtJI.A. CALlFORNlA ME.I!.~ COl\fl.\ofL!'\l......~ ~ ~~ ---....... -_.....,....... -- .."Ul-IIOIOI,sft.... ~J..- RORIPAUGH RANCH I 15Qf4Q 160f40 ';<& LEFT 4 .. ' [ illill ill REAR .., RIGHT PLAN 2 2B - PRAIRIE RORIPAUGH RANCH I -rEMECULA. CALIFORNlA MEEKER COMMl.""u-""S ~ ~~~ ..oHl..,lI.nt~ ---....,.,.......... ...".....-....... -- .- ~ 8 8 'IS! a-- "-------+- LEFr ,~ rum ill RE....R -'~ [) C1 aDD <'~'~~;"~ " ~"J'~_' "._.....~lTI_'mM~.~ ~ RIGHT PLAN 2 '2C - EAST COAST TRADITIONAL TEMEC1JLA, CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMMUNITIES ~ ~b.d~ _..,:::~~-- .,~~,.. RORIPAUGH RANCH I j ~ 11 "".. . , , ~ , n r LEn: ) I , ~~ REAR 1. cA,,,,,,~F1,,r.I.I:"f ;I. C.""....'S.TlI.IJ.../ j s,."". 4. ;."'''''01(7......,..0-0.- , W.~F"',. G. M""",S"';,V..", ,. B.,uV",.... " Sr"''''...."r....T,;.. p, u,,,",,V..., 1'" P"..._WJ.<>.aI 11 R,"""JSl.....M..I.. n.. S....,.C."'- 1J.R""JjJ.,;III"l 1<. W"'<l'~lr",.R"u" If_ ShM.'" JG.C>."".......I'.... n, s''''''''....E..-S..1{ 11. S'''<<d...,F__c",F..1 --.....~.,--~ '" @ tf-r. I"i"" RIGHT ENJIA.NCED..ELEY.ATIONS PLAN 2 2A - SPANISH REVIVAL RORIPAUGH RANCH I T'EMECUlA. CALIFORNIA ME.r...IU:!,K COl\o'll\{{.,... l.LA........s o~@:, L ,:~._-',~@ ~ ~~t roHl--.&~ ___7"""'_ <.....u..._""'-,.. -- _.~ \ <D ., ~ 1; F. -' .;.F_ 190f4O J ~~~ ~ m if P." 'n - LEFT " ., ~ "r ".F. I C<mcr...n.'nl<ll.../. 2. c.m"""'S.~Roo/ J. Sw= 4. s<<'umof~<D_ 5. lI'""dF""i< 6. M....q:S"",.V...... 7 :BrkkV"".... ! S"""'....'F..II<1h<t ~ x......,. V"", I~ J)<<o;,:,/!..lI'.l GNIl lL1fL<'-.lS"""'!I'd<. J2.Sf"""=""'" JJ.1I"<!<i~I"'t U'II'""qktb""R,,g;,.: H.Sh,".... u n.,,,,.ti,,, V."' 17..su.t&......JI.""S/o<if 1& Sn=....rF<4i;.C"'hi ...........~..... ---. . ...:. , 1JiIjjI ,r [ ". ..'-.;- .~,~~...,,,,,, REAR . " "-+++-" - i_HF~#~ ...,.---:t RIGHT ENHANCED ELEVATIONS PLAN 2 2B -PRAJRIE RORIPAUGII RANCH: I ~ AS.s..-..."..."",S ar<:hlleo\I.l-ol.fIIonr*,g ..........,..,.,...........- ..........-."-... ~=... TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA MEEKER eOMML. .u..,."s . , ., ~ , -'~-~ --- :LEF'I' ~ '. r RJ'AR I. CoM<<I<n.c!U<i'.o;f J. C",,_"S'TlJd!~ 1 $",_ <-S<di<""~'P." l. "'<>OJF"*' ,. M"4$14~''''"'''' 1._1'...." l S"..",..."l'_rrim ,. Lo_r"" I(I.!l<<ef_W..l.(;.<ll 11..1<<<4U4SJ_./<l<.. l1.S,,,,,,,,COI""'" 11 W""dROm., lL W"'''1"ltL....R....., lS.SkIJlU1' J6.D"oroliuY,"" n=...,,)'..,.Sld/ 11.-=..,,,1',,.,;.,...<1 ; "i , j;.l- ~~<D "::'~~ ?- ,ill-II ~" I ~: @ ~k -~~~.P~- h , , .. n- il 'I " _-,-_,,~ - RIGl'Q:' EN'IIANCED E.LEV....TI~NS_ PLAN 2 ':z.c - EAST COAsT TRADTI1:0N'AL RORIPAUGH RANOal ..~......~~ CA,LIFORNIA. MEEKER COl\1Ml>. 'o-""S ~ ~~ v~,.~ - ---"" -- "'''....-....'" -- -- ~ r~~ --~/- - /11 I 1 ~ I : : [} ~' " " ;'; 4 ~,12 45:12 ._, I I I I : : r(" I I I "I V;~) ~~~-~ 4 ~i- 'U2 I PLAN3-C ~ f --~---Ji Ij ~/: I I 0 I :; :] I 44:12 I 45,12 1 I I I I I I ! j ~~~ :.' I }(~~ "{ V~--;;~r ~ : I /,,/ I 1/;:';" ~.: PLAN3-B ,. - - - ..... - - - -1- - - - ., I I I I I I I I I I I' ,I : ~' ~' I I I I J "<:7 I V, ~_4 ~ ,----' I " ~_j I ~ I 1- ------;4 ~I I 4.lZl o 44<12 ~'" PLAN3-A RORIPAUGH RANCH I ...a:....~......JLA, CALIFORNIA ME.e~ COlMMUNITffiS 21of40 ~ ~~t .,cNIooII.n&~ - -....--. ........ .....~......,..,.....'. . ~,::0If, " l! 1-------------------------+ I I I I I I '~ ~ .~l 6< ,. , ~, ". . " . tl]:f'.,'----;- ~""'-i I ;:;:'~, , ,~~~f [1 ~. I 'I i -,i 181- = kG/u----- \J--'--J::l_~h~~~ \ I r:7l"~nd: I I I ' ~~;' 1~~, ~~:~ II I I. ,- .' ,TIll:' I', : : ~ ; living r ,...., , ""7 :E![.: I', garage: . !i--! \, 20~"": I, ,------.-~~-------1_.:~=_.:~~':..-.:~__. ~ _ _ _!~;- ---- ---- ----~-: I' ii' "~;J;d L.! I' ! i ..::ap~rc~ _ i L_ u__!.. b":,:~,~ 5 - -': I,' ~ . 'I',' I to_ f-"'1 I' [-- c ~'!_ __ u:!;] I I _+___n_______...____________+ ~ ~ 1.1d4G~~t _..~~~.... _......IlIIK:H,.~,.. ~~.... PLAN 3 ~FOOTAGE 1 S:rPA>OB. Z~. Jti,.ooa ",Q'l',<J. TARGET RORIPAUGH RANCH I TEMECVLA, CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMMUNITIES 1S29 SF 11.. SF 2715 SF 2710 SF ~ 23Gf40~~ .oNloctur.l~ --...........- "'''LO<.___", ~1IUaI. ~. ~ b,dwom 4 =7 IOo~11o ::::;: ~=='iI" c.1 LC- BEDROOM 4 OPrION 6 r---"--------- . . : : : -, , " , , " :1 ~ = master bedroom "8,, 150 n V 1 l i~k l~rv1~m.---n'~--~.-.~. a closet r,-, ;~II j I :___n~ ' bedroom 2 ...)._~_____=.=_=.~.-. I08x 10' II I .il..~ 1Fr loft / bedroom 4 100,,110 - L bedroom 3 If"d g'-'i--- ~ RORIPAUGH RANCH I ~CAl.IFORNIA MF~~ COMMLJ.'U,I.,U!..S PLAN 3 ~Y4JlEJ4'OOTAGE 1 ST Jl'U)OR 2; NP nOOK TOTAL TARGET 1529 SF lllI6SF Z7U SF Z710 SF Lc.._n..11Io<....0/ 1; c....:.-'3..m..""f ,- ~ _~PW .t W~F_ . " M..",.s....V....... 1.&Io:kr_ .. SIa<<>>_F_r_ ~ ~_r"!f 1ll._W.LGnlT 'lL~.....NIdu l1..$f.oi-~ 1J.W~~ ;~=~~. 1"~r.... .17.SIa<<>>,.....,_~ 1,,__F_C<<i . \ '~i:X'0c~ V ,- -,-"""...;,.;".J.S "1 .. ",1,;", @~ ~3A- SPANISH REVIVAL \ } .I , ~ , } . @ 3B-PRAIR....e..- ([) ~ , } .'J1 ~ :,id' S1T{J;l!l."""""" .(l~R../w,/ :T..uc...W:c........h4/11J< .~1no_....~~"""_ ~~_-...,lotkoo/}rlJl- . , _......'Mdo._Aq..~ l~)7-"'''lsr--rn. "..... I =-..~.:-{.r:-,.u.&.. !_NJt<_1'oItUto ;1IriotJf'~..t_nw. jr:i~= Q_(M..-~ 'n.r;r_......7oIoRMf ........~~--RHjl .".......~....~II'If_ '):_A..,,_ .,.14'...,-...........,-..-.-,,_ . ~' - ~ "''''. @ .-/ 3C -EAST COAST_TRADmONAL PLAN: 3 RORIPAUGH RANCH I 'I'EME~CALIFORNL\ l\<.......~ COMMUNITIES ~ ~~ ~,lfloto*v -'-"'?""""............... ...m...-._.... """::"'..::"" ,:<' 250140 LEFT ;<j , .] LU REAR q "!"'. .. 6mdB J .Y'~~}m[I] ill RIGHT PLAN 3 3A - SPANISH REVIVAL ~ TEMEC~ CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMMlJ"Uu.S RORIPAUGH RANCH I ~ ;1~~ orcllio<;lo.rol.plorrq --...''''''''....... 2~o!40 _,IS. j~~..: "~H"'.lLJ(jIl!Sl""Ia Jell' .., ~III.:- ----=._;,." D ][J .LEFT ~~> ~,.... ';Inlllt~ ~~1I1 .___-'_...".. rn,J_', _REAR ] mill m "!!"Ie" RIGHT .PLANa 3B - PRAIRIE RORIPAUGH RANCH I ~ ~~~ ....1itoclu".4~ _ _"~7.-n ........ ....~~,.. &4<.,.....",.....~ CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMl\f1;n.l....u!.S 27 or~o ~ u.. ..........:..-''J. ..---....... . ' lip 1111 -~"~-~'UO .. tr IOL n . .11'-" o o LEFT --"" m- lJ1t1t" REAR , ~. r~ n DJrn ill .RIGH"I PLAN 3 3C _ EAST COAST ~ITIO.NAL RORIPAUGH RANCH I ~ ~~~ -,- _ __nun __ ..."u<_srt.,.. ~-- TEMEC~ CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMMUNITIES 130(40 \ I , .....,.,c ~llbJl LEFT " , J ! , L ~<7.",FWT/J.RMf l. c..._<'S'~R..f ,- 4.S~o1,~Po", ~ < W<>04F..w 6 M.."if._V""" 7. BrieJV""<7 8. Sb<<=<1"'erE()480Trlm 9. L......V...' 111. DccoraIiY<W.J.G..m 1.1. Jl..-dS""=Mdo. Il.Sj>.....""~ lJ.JJ'oN~ U_",llJ<..Ji;...wy. I1-.SJlII&n 1&<><;""";...0'_ ~':=.= ..;. ..," , . -. ,",,' . f., ,. -"--,--0 ~@ ..~. I<.EAR + @ , , ~ 'I ~ i . ... ~@ "0 illll ill 1 ~ ~GH'l' ENHANCED'ELEVATIONS PLAN 3 3A - SJ.>ANIS~ REVIVAL RORIPAUGH RANCH I ~CA1p'ORNIA . l\r~~ CO~J.iI......u!.S c .............. __~OUOCI _...."""""m._ -- -- , ., , , 1- ,---. " ,~ :~:LEFX . ~ ~ .> ,J1!t~ _."."-",.,,,.. L C.1U:I'IJ.jl'(T1h~f l Con<nil'If'1fI4J/...j J._- 4,J'<<&,.m~>>- i W.IRlF<1ii4 ,n 'Ii. M....Iif,St"",".....' 1. Bn<-tr",.u 8. S"",......F=;it1>1>t ,. (,Q~V.,,1 l~~!l".l:G.>/Il 1J.J(to_sr-NI<1N lJ.S~c.~ . 13.'W~~_ 'U'~"I:Ii'u",,~. JJ.$.lo........ . 16.~Y..... 11-3n<<"'''-P04mS/ldf 'II. Sto<i<n,aroo,;,CoIWI .3'E:AR, <D~_ @@) 111111 nlll [11(11 " . ,. ., i ":1- M." ...... Ii J' J ".1 """"A, ~ ., ..- ..."""."" ."~rw' ~. ~ iHmElmi~- ~F '~@ @'":-.1 ~ .,........,..' o 'RIG:BT ,..ENUANCED.ELEV ATlONS ~PJ ,A l"o;[~3_ . 3B ~ FRAlRlE TEMIiX:ULA. CALIFORNIA. l\o.......-......I'I>.:.COl\.f1.\flJLU:.&.~. C ~l~ - --- - .....__&ft.. ~..::""" RORIPAUGH RANCHl . . 1.~of40 > , ~ , , J ~ ,> '-.- "300140 CD - . . '. 1"1 "; ........H:.'. . I - @, . @J~, . . ., r:B HIm-ill- II- " ~. -' .......ta~IoIo.Aloo EJ"' 'l.MIl~~. ~"'~."""'-"""~~,_~.u."'ll.Il~~ -~ . ~~----r .' . i: I --- - LEE:I:. ~~ ~Im .... . ) ~ >i ..REAR @- ,. / L c...<rtUFldru.~.f :l, c..<Y<i4'S'rlkRo.! ,- to s.uio,w*,~.Do.,. " lfI.dF_ 6. 11.../.:......,....... ,. .11_1".._ I: St>.<<o_f....Trlrn l' ,r.,.....V_ . ,~ D..........."'l""'~ u.'-J!ouu.,~1'Ii<.V 11S,.",.00"",," 11. "~'R",tbot u.~I>",oR:a1/Dos l~ S'-'" I6.~Vq>t I1.S'-=_f,,-S>.4/. 1!Sl..t<p~To","c""O<l ,~ --iJ) --r- @-c-"' JUom ~Cm>ELEVATlONS' PLAN 3 '3C - EAST COAST ~:fRgN# RORIPAUGH.RANCEI I TEMECUI...A. CALIFORNIA.. MRRKEJt.C(j:M::1\1tJ.l_....A~S "'~,,~'.' C flI'Cl1hcb1&.~ - ---. ......" .......""_mc.... ~O<, : iT ~\~'m mu: '';-1;~ PLAN4-C PLAN4-B ummu ___uu~,mm u --;t-,', i : 4 ~ :v: ~ = ! ~' ~ : , , , ' , , , ' mmm ,:m4u _~ _ m: ~__4." uuUl [~l;'ll PLAN4-A RORIPAUGH RANCH I TEMltCULA. CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMML. .u",,-S 310f40 ~ ~~ .vll""kn!~ --..,.........-- ..."".."""""nL'. _...CI/, ~- -tn-n----n----n-----------t-- I I I I I I 9 i ,'-0" _ <0'.' ".. t ~ ., , " . I: 1,'1 ill _.." .. _. Ii' DEr~I"~ ,I ,,8~ 150 100.150 , \\= blohen ~ I ,~. ,H~H..m!"Efl ,I ~ - .... .". I I I I.nd,m j' dinin, : :' I,' II~."O II 90.1:l~ : Ii;ng. I I b~:-:-: ",,, I ~ I 7 ! I' -. \- 20';26' I ____~-~-~---___nn - I i l i m..'n" I -~::1' :';,' I I' ,:,: - I'! ,I covered porch ~ " ~- ;-'~;::::::--::~ ,! &!.:::::__Jilli ~ I I i , ' _+___._n_n_,_n______n_n~ ~ ,- ~ 3hHO ~~~ ..cH\ootu'.l~ ---................ -...-....,.. -- PLAN 4 $qV~FOOTAGE 1 $'I' J11..9QR 2 $I) FLOOR TOT~ TARGET RORIPAUGH RANCH I T~CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMMlhuur,S 1473 SF 1418 SF 29S1SF :z850SF 8lo~Jj-y} Joft r 120~ 1." ill[ JLJF"l LOFI' OPTION ~_====__====~__=o II II II II II II II 1>'1\. II II <f<I' II II 1I II 11 --~ ) Fr-;:::-:::-~~~--. ).rL~ '1 in V ~',-....a ~' cloMt j'1 o ~ master =~~, ~ ";c. ~ }b~~~~:~' ,,\,o'U 0 i IT'v' r _wi I . - i L_ ~) " I bll 2 ~I I tech bedroom 3 beJrO<lffi 4 alcove , , . , ~ ~ L IlxlO 11.10 12,12 I ! --~=~~-~-~j ~~~':1 I -. - .- rum ill I , , , , , , ,----------_.. , I TEMECULA. CALIFOIlNIA MEEKER COMMlJ..Uu.S RORIPAUGH RANCH I ~ ! PLAN 4 SQY~FOOTAGE 1 'trrli'LOOa $l'!m FLOOR TOT.,U. T~GET 1473 SF 1478 SF 2951 SF 2850 SF .~ ,t- ><-' j , " , ~ :""" ~ GJ J .:...4.(\.-SPANISHREVlVAL 1: F j- ~ , ~ , ~ ~ , DeSign Features: ,.......Hlpl gable oornbiru"lon roof shap..s ...... ..._Multl_pane w.ndows ,.c....:;:....... .._Stucpo trim detailing CD ........:........ ..;..... .......Exte.rlor pi",..,.., walls ........ ....m. ","" ;;' ....Coveree;l front porch en1ry ....... +f: ..,~,..aoxed overhangs .... '\!!J"/ ..-Flat arch openmgs i'/,,<~/6 ~''''. i =~::R~ i ,- ..~~dhN, J. Wtx>iF<r1b< .. M...'!f.$lmuY_ J. .lIJW</,,,,,_ '- _.....P_niIo " "-....y- u'~".LGrla 11.R_~N1<M' J;l..!!,-..~ 11W,.u~. Ii. -'/Uw.I.~. H.sJuitI<n J.I:-~""" .l1.'~_F._1;M1f 1t~_F.....C.""1 ~j ,~1 ( ,Pt."-:v I ~.....sv~~ " GJ ----------- . . ~ ' ,4" ___ 4.c..~r.c.QJ\SrTRADr:nONAL '@ <TYl.EF.1~r.rnrr.1 >(O.r,..I>l_ ) . T_c-7.c.....r...R~1lI< .R___..l-"'-~.." ,_~bontGrlll ._.--........_SJupJS1u/1 .-..J;....__,.,.. PLAN 4 .,- . #'lMo.-Rooj"n. . ~&oof_U'__ .~-- . _w_.__ .~-~~ ._J>-.;l~ QRwc.-r_ '.~r_","""",,:rv.L<I .~l~11l#..wG-'ltJ"</l f : =s::''':~- .M..It/_"FId_...Y....... 'i1tMEcvLA..CALIFOJlNIA ~Il'VQ. COMMUNITffiS C ordlt.c\onlp.;.q - ----- ..........-""". ""'"'er'..::""" RORIPAUGH RANCH I . . ,.,... ,/ -LEET... ~ ! III I ~ :J;tEAR ~ ~ com CJ RIGHT PLAN 4 4A - SPANISH REVIVAL TEMECULA.,. CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMMl", ..uu!.S o A"'''''__.r..';S -'...... --.............-- ......,,_m.... .~..::- RORIPAUGH RANCH I J5of40 36DI40 ~~~~ ..... -"'"TIT" m. 'E1~r- .. ... ....~ ~:~ . ~ L-- LEFT ill. wlm REAR ~ -' -............-.----..--. "'. I~....... i. ......... -, ' '. . "'-'F"?i .,' ._..... . .. I ~. t:::e:! ww - RIGHT PLAN 4 4B ~ PRAIRIE RORIPAUGH RANCH I ~ ~~ ...oNlo<-lInJ.~ --- --.......... ..- .....~"--_... ""'tr..::'otl.. TEMECmA. CALIFORNIA MEEKER COl\1l.\fLrJ...I..I..JJ!,S 37of4Q t;;;) ~..... LEFT ~;it, ill Willi - REAR L t:I::] ]]] ~~ PLAN 4 4C - EAST COAST TRADITIONAL RORIPAUGH RANCH I ~ ~~ .",hit9clu-o!.p.rn.g - --,....., -... ....,.."'_.<"-1110 ~..:- TEMECtJLA. CAUFORNIA MEEKER COl\lMlJnu..,.,s i ! 1:~ '_~. ,,,-, ..., .LEFT ~ I i ~.. - '><l~, , "-' ~II"''' ,j /"".,., ," , , "I)' REAR / ~~(,) ~ ., . '\ m @~l"!". Rl.GaT ~EJ,l.ELHYATlONS. PLAN 4 4A_ SPANISH REVIVAL ROR][PAUGH RANCH I TEMECULl. CALIFOIlNrA I\mEKER COJ.\.fML""I..I.:a LC.S . t. ,"~"_r"'1'lk""if ~ c.~""'. 'S'rII<1.../ , =- ~ S""'....W.,.D..' 1 ,.,0.;,11.... f. )(""uf.SI.~V...e 'l~_ ;''''..",,,..r,,,, il.J:so<="",ro""'Sh.f/ ;J. S""'oo .....1""'" C'f~.J @ /' (. '"--' @- ~ ~t .oHtOCllnl~ - -.....--- ........ ...........-"."..... -""-,,.::"" ~(~. ..- ._-;;~ . ~ -. ~ I [ I ' liTIil7t<llllffi . ., 1 ; .' . , ~~_1-"- r LEFT . 1 r ~ +6~~. j' .~,~",,'I f REAR 1. c.h".,.~11l.J~ 1. Con"'d.'S'TIh/l"r 1. su,<e> .( S<<J1o....J/;",.pJJ.., .i W~F...!o ( M~SlmuV...u 7. &t<ky."... 8. StJ.=_F_r.... ~ r.",,,..,v_ ID.~"'.LGrilI 1L~Sti=4Nw.. U.J"fldU~ IJ.IV../~ u.1J'i.-"("'.r....~f 15.Shll", U.1>"""",",Y.,., 17. S1o<<....,.F.""'S~,q IlS"'=owrFoiDO~fI (f; ---- CD @ @-; ~i -- . , ., ~ rnrn. j C;-. -0 @- . . . RIGHT RNn' A ~""Ii'~ ELEVATIONS PLAN 4 4B - :PRAIRIE RORIPAUGH RANt)ul 'I'EMECULA.~ ~.......-A l"""''''IUl.... COMMUNITIES , ~ ~ "'t- ~-'--,--- ~- ;."" LEFT , " " . " ~-'"'''' REAR 1. c.~<td<n,'1II.A..u ~ Co&u<l<'S'flkRoaj J. $<""'" . 4. S__c;.r.pII<>M J. "-ZF.... 4. Mnuif.su,..".._ ,. Jl1'ldYQftl' I Sti<<<<>.....F_TlW ,. J,b""...I'<><t 17,SI.__y....Sh<J/ !"$r=<....,r_C<>rH! 0) " 1m' ,=~@ Imi rmll@ ~ - .~. -@J@c--. ~- (,:--- . , . ~ '" ;~;,~- @-~1flL -w . ffi-~ II II ...~ "T ]I ,jBnilJl __::d J_ ENA'AN"""lln.ELEVAXI~' PLAN 4 4c _ EAST COA,ST TRADmONAL .~ ~t. ~I.~ - -~ -- """'.:.:...:r-='" ~- RORIPAUGB RANCK I ~c..u.IFO~ - . l\:"""'~ COl\lM1J".."..,.S 4j)of~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ o ~ ~ r:f1 ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ C6 :3 <C ~ - \ ,li- ~ ~ \ n';[ND rOl'or"""'_,_ ><?or....,-HO!"" .,."'00<<""""....... "''''Of'''....'''' _n."",",, --= "HI,,.,,,,,. """""""""".. ,."..0"''''''''.,..... ....-...". """'110<-"'__ ,,'...- "......,.,..,."".m'...... m..'" . _.OS .- ^ ......f> ........01. ...r< ".- NDT!C~ ta CONTRA.CTlJR grNr"::/'I/JARI<' :'~~'1iN;;:'.r:"':w ~~r,,- _orf..ft..~f<<;''1J.r.i<.;;~" ~~~~9:W--r~, OWNER IIttKfRCOMPANJ('S :';;:"'ci.\;:-.""'" '!'.."1..r::'l,,';'~jk"'" TOPOGRAPHY SOURCE ~T=~PCRrOR"'C09r, '" ~ """'" ""'" ".." ,'" ,,,,,,,,<,,,It,,. "'''''mol'''-.... ,.."".,..,...,, ~OILS [NOINErR UIClirON A~D ASSOCJAfCS, 'NC. "'.....,....,.,""""-"','-"".. ~:::'"= ""(f")~"'..m A<:<:.<:<:flR<:PAPrn Mil.".,. 957_J4D_OOI PALfONTOLOGIST AND ARCHE"OLOGIST TIIC'DSSltIlUNffR ~~ ~~$,r-' """" I'" ornc<i...Jon...." ,.../OOf1 ""__ ~ V I C I N IT r MAP _.-,0((..... U.derJro...d Sorvl.. AI..t ~10 RT Cal~TOLLnn ""00 .u7-2.600 ......."....""........" ._~I. 'l-! ENGiNEERS """-~.-.--.-.~ nf,.~...'m.'i:rF.1.l1"G,i:s~= ~1OH'm>1IO ""1"1 -- I>'oTrOOW"m'" l 1""1='1 ----+-1--1 SITE PLAN, WALL AND FENCE PLAN FOR TRACT NO. 29661~5 IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA +>;-~/..., "," - --:-..; ---.-. . __ f.'~" ------- -...=:;::: ":!.'T."" - ---- - ____' ", ~'1: "'1.-, I -------/-U--U--il I I I I I I I I I I / / / I / / I I I I I I I / / I / , / I , (--- Q'" _ ~DEXMAP ~ Lk.._ SCAltl",.tOO' .-----~---7 , F'rNCf: LEGEND """"",,--ffJQ._,-""--~ """,,1t1lC(~ ..."..._,_...._._,_,_ """'_'.m _________ """','...,,- ~_._",rr, c....~" J, A l~'''', "~, .un<> "POl!> '/lrJ/fJ' , , CITY OF I::~: :T~~f,~C~.~:- ~l ~'OR' GRADING NO rES " "', ""'''''' ".." - '" '''' "N CO,_... __ "'~, ,",,""" "",'roJ.J,;s"",."""........ot..." ,_""........,""'''''''_''''''''''''''....UM.'',_''' l:1."IJ.',"j\i,~;"'~,"',..~...."''""'''''''''o.'".......o<,. ~ ..."",,.=,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,.(1 ~~~ ""'... " """.,.. '" """'''''"".,,, "" ",." "" J>J. ,,-on, .1<.L""""""."'''..,.._...._'''''''''''.oo.wmtHt,'''-< ,_"""""S"'Ll ",.""...,"" "'...."'.".,.,"-,PW:t.__ """.""""''''''l''''__..''''''''',.'nu'o....''''"''. ~="~...'m.~1::"'':~(.J''"...:r.,~.t.'.0",<l'"'''' """""""''''''''''-'''''_.....'''....,..........'''...- =....,."."O....u.....""c.......~""""'''''''_'''''"'... i"'='....I>m\O<>>Ot01D_""''''''...-".......'''''''''''' .,--"""""'''''''...-,..,''''......,.,-''-'.............''''''''''...., , ,.._'"'''''''..''''''..__0(<:___....''''' = ~r=r:'" :.='f."" =r~ ~~.::,:,g, or "" "- """__""""""'" ","''''~._<l"""",'''''''''f_ 't:.,~"":'.._'_....IIf<"-"".-"'............... ,o""''''''''''''''''......."'''''...~''''''''r..'r''''''''''''''''''~ Jb.'JMOL """.....",..,.",,___.......0. ".,__ "",.",-.n-'! ID"",,_"__""-"''''''''''''''''''.''', """""""......,__, (let) ...-.." ,'- M........_..""................___I:li$lM;S """''''''' _~S_,."_""""'...,,.."""""_.....os -"""'.",.,,"" ........."""'.---..""'''- ~~~~~"":'!i:1~r>.. " Htl"--'_,.."""''''''''''...._........_...._ ""......or."''", D<__~L._"""'''"'''..'.'''''''- " ~..."'__""""'__""'''"'..'''''IP,..._ ~':!%~~"':/"...."'!:~=-':.".""'";~"''''';':''.;,. " ---.....-.-"""'.."""'''''''"''''''''''.....'''' =_~~"'"fo'~<g;:"'.....~..._"ro " """''''''11(''''''''''''"''''''''''''''''''''''''"'"'''---' ,.",,"""""_""""',""""'-.-e,""....t.-........"'''''''''''''' """"""........""".,-, "",,,,",,,,"""""""'- =~_"....'ro"""n"_."""'.""'""""," ~Ll.it"~,'rir"'_~"'~,,~tJ:~:"'~...r'~~~\!vl) ""''''''''''''0'''''''''''''''''''''''''''. r......"""""""".,..",._".....,,"""'"',,"',,_.... W'~fu= ~~~~""'~~~"re~'ir;.rg-,b..~"!r':f'" =",,,,=," d ..1M'fD. "" """" "",..., <AM 1>1, _ot/{) """"" " _""'_ ."""Ol""om""'."......".""'''''''''''''''''''" "'''''Cf'''''''''"___''''''" >I."""""'''''' """""''''''''""'_ro_......''''',,,''''''''''_........, ~=~=~5~=:?~~tr;:""~...... _r""'''''''''''''.''''.._''''M IO'"""'_SlWt..""".'..''''''.AU'''''''''''...'''''..,-=.... ,/0''''_'''''''''''''''''''''''''', "...-......".,"'''''''''''''''''....'''''''..".--,..-. ".J<"_~""""""""'o<l>><rA"""""~nD_," """"""",or...""",_ ,J,__or""""""".....""""",..",,,""',..,-_,,.,. _".,._,.. _.-."".,-....",.roo...""..,,;_or """""",__",,,,,,,,,,,<,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,"-_,,,,,,,",",r>Of ~,.J::t"~"""tt_'~",...arr""""" ....._"'__s,""-"""'''''''''~'''''''''''....,"'' __ "..-.:u""""",.",.._""",..-.mow.c"", """""""''''''''''''''''''''''.....''''''''''"'''''Rf.''''at<,as.... ~=:.~_roo",.~ng':"r:;:;. fARTHWORK OUANTlnES ~~~l"'..:"~""''''''''''-'''''"'' SHEfr INDEX D<S<:Ilrpj)(l~ irrro:,;, -~ "_. TEMECULA D,p'RT"r~T or pua(Jc WORKS --- TRACT No. 29661-5 SITE PJ.JlN. II'All ANt! FENCE PLAN ,""",ot, ~:/ , " '" 'i Ii ii :, " ~ 0 on< 0 !.~ ~ ~ . I , "'~ ",< ~ ~ > "'~ ~ ~ ~ ~.; " ('i~ ~,ni!~ ~ oj z. I ~ >-~ u, u "', ~ "'~ >-" i: , :r~! ",' L..J L..J VJ ~" "- ----- -~1~"~ ~~-"d,-~::"-: "::1 '-- ~ ~~$'~~~,,::i- -.: -:.=-=--::: -- -- , I' --"" o--C- _}_ , -....--..:-1;.-- - --- ',"",-- ----- ~" "~ ---- --'--':-- _:-..:_~-:r-_ --c~c..-~.: ~ .........,.-,.... ,,",,- ~ ! ~ g ~ n~~ i! !f1jd : i ~ ! " 1;2 ~ O~ . ~_J 8,. II, ~ q~ Ii , ~~ !; ~~ II I . . , , . - - ! I . " " I' " j ~ I '[,1'1"1' 5l'I'H' "n ~ ~ '" ~ , ! ! " ~- . , t" I I . I ~ !!! !! , II! OJ , / / / I / / I / / / / / / / / / / / / / / I i / ! i / / f il '"' , , " on, , l~ , on" on' . "'" . "~ ~ ~~ :; ~~ " <.>, u ~~ ~ ~" i:! . .. ~ 0 ! >- (I) ~ G I "",3 q~ f~ ! ,. !1 !, , ~~ I ! , ~ - ~ , , ! , , , " , !~ ~ i~ i ~ '~'_o -. - ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ , ", '. ~' o '~, 0' " , "'\ ~ lilt ~h~~ ~ """'HS~',. Jk~ ~_ --~~~~---~~ ."'" -------....._~-- --~~---~~~ -------- -y--- "+-:!"" ,L"\ ~ / / .<;;:l / / / ,.' ,/ /' "../ ,~ / // ~./ -' ""'" /~ =:r ) =-=T~~ / , I ! , ~ o on" H~~ <:> '4)'i $ <1l~ l N~ ;t 'd g ~;:. Ii :;"''1 ~ ;:l u... ~ D ..<t;", '<l. ~ c;.~ .. ~ . "" "" ~ , . or ~ I I i I I I I I , I I \ . \ \ ':....-......J~J ~~~, 7-,.. ~,,,I' I ' l ~ \\\. ~ \ \ : IiI" ,.," ','1 '! t \ \ \ ...~ ~ ~ ~\ll~i ~\\i~l ~ ~ ~\ \ ~ \\\ \ } ~ .. , ~ I 'A .. \' \fj\\ \\\ /r;:==:'';;::''':~:::~, // ""......-- ~.~~..~J .',~~.~. SI ()PF. TRA>J<;..T'''''' L' ":, \~~"l%sfl?:H."-' \ \ ryp SmrnRD ,ENCF IiHAIL /--:~$,s.~;'-_""""'."N"" irITi ' '..-'.-.-,-:...=,...-.::......:;.:;~=" . //r..-~t:~i:-' ....-.~.......~I ~~;.'"- .r===-';;:;:' ---~~ ::,rr--"..::--.-..-__,._.."~. ~- _ 11I/.- -.-_:.._- {,-....-- - .- .: .t '('L, :;.r:;:".,""':.""'" <_...=.f! . _.....: '\~'f~;:- ~..'!r lJwlotp1Iu...! Stm"" ...1.11 ~ ,,,,,"'U.U ,..'" '., ..."....,,2.:~:.:':".,. - '''''''1''1 r~_1 I.~ --h=1 ..,..-""""<EI!"O ..g'VAr'_V ~rN"''''''' AT ~g"NT ,,~ ..."..r<: - ....."'''(n''"''''"''~"'''''_,, I CITY OF TEMECULA Dr~A~,..rNT or fU8tIC >t'O~~s I",~D" "''''- .L TRACT No. 29661-5 I"'""""'.... ""'- SITE PIAN. 1IAlLANO fENCE PLAN ~""'''''''''''''''llC'-' . A.<L""-.,,,. (>~'..!<l..., {'"'''' .lS"N~D"..'w"&<T ._".1 6 ~'''''. ~'~-"-- .."",u, !!! J ~ .,.......... ~ .. ,6J -I i__ -,-~ =__J.l....... .TYPICAL IIH DRAIN.o,Qf rrec:?::=:::>-.::.-:::= 'I /? -~~/ ~~,~I;.T.. ~:t!::.. ,~~_.~. ,~ ,. ._ _ ..".~. r-"""""'--"--' / -..."",..- Ai]=-...---.---- -"",............-.......-.-.............. .. c__"__'_"""_ ~L....~fi~~ ~.A;.r/~~.~._."n"r .,~....,m"... C~,~ ",,,,n.o.<.HH"""""""'JfJ/O' ":, 1 " ...____ '" '''"' I ""'......".. . - .~- '~."- TYP.SIDErARDOr1'All J-~:::::-..,.~z':.".::.. / .r'--" m~' j -..- "n-, .' " =~ W. ,," ".,.ftl . " , ~1i~~tV :'-}-:;_.'" ' l I~ ..' , lOW W., I I."'" P'&If~" r"""'"-'" /-..-......."""'.....,.......,.. ;j=::::.::.:'" 4-- ~~&T..~~,l,,~;~J~A~5crT,J.?~. _.___ "'WI"" d ~ <C () rJ1 ~ <C ~ riI,........- I i i j~r')r:(')\ll:QA . w:",;~~.jK'''' ! ~~',~-~~'i::,..",o,.""~,,,. I .,"",o..~""~,,,," 1"10"'....~ CA~~.,' I~..' :. ; ..~~I ,. ",~ '-,,'"~......'" C<....""'"""-"~ i i I I I f I i t i / i ! I I I ./ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I TYPICAL FRONT YARD PLAN r- ~ I Roripaugli ~ Ranch Up.~~r-:.AJ">;::'I~ CD ...,..,,_e<>;e. ~n~ BIll""- ~""" '2'''~CC>L'''''~OOO::6r'''''"~..rt."'' \V 'ACC."'_~ @ COl.""'""" "'.t...~"~CCWT""'''",, CC>L."....".".... @CC>L""'cor>!:,,''''.....'''''. PI Ll.Ni I Fr..FNq ~ cP;~~:="- ....,.."........_.nl.-.."",.,. ~~~ .......U!"'......~.....''''"''''''~..._.... ,."',,,",,,....,,,,""'..'.-.-"'''''',,. O.....'A'..,,"...,Y\.,. ~."'".CA".......... ~~~..:.::;:: C~"'''~~ ,."""",~.."... ..'.....0......' '''''~..."'~.~,~..,,'c. o .-.rr.......I'....._=,tII~....u"" ....L"'_~..... P"~....",-.~. ~...,.."o ..."",. ~~....c.~'c--.rt..LA 5~~~e.... @........~ "B."" <>RANOF,,,,,,-" ,""~~""...," ..""e.. ~,rt""~""'-"v_<>AlA "~"""""A,"",,'C\!1 'e,_",,,, .,""""-,,,",.,,~ ,,,"'"..,,,,...\"'.", "....,...........,'..'""""roM...,. oCf~.."~'.Cl"'" @,- ..n'''''''''''''''H'''..''..'.....''Ero:'lOW_ '~''''C>'''''''"''''';. .,,,,,-,.- """'''''''''''"A, ,""~~<>,,,,.. "~'~A c'"""'....",""""'" """"" r....o~""'r ""'"""~ .,..>O""""'.~ """"_'f>J""". _"""'.o.LLl6_, N....,......oOH..lJOA ~.'.....OF''''....,'' ~.... v'SO!ON"FO,,'..... ,~"""",OOf'.,'t"..,....."..,'~a''''.. MAINTENANCE AREAS _"""",,,.~""',",",._..or~ll."""<> tt~..,..","" '.....0""..... ~ ~~"E~~:ri,~~~~~~,,~ ~~~.:.~::.~;:~~~"::,, ~~~,:.:~~~..""~~~~..c"'""" PREPARED BY; ""01'00> ,.~ " ""' IMEEKER COMPANIES INC ~ NORTH ~ PRl:~ARED FOR. ,J, !1 11 i '" "J Ii ~E I 2 ~ . ! ~ i" ,'." , i , E . $. ',l '. 'I Hi, t 1 'f' I" '!' ; 'I!i"./I Iii. I' I!!I "II '. . d .. i ';1 i!,~ - g'i~g Ii 'J i' i! d 1m It! ,"! I' ii' if,!!I'j Ill: 5/lif HI i'.; ~ '"' '1'1~ , , '. ,., II" 'u "'illl I " .'. 0' ;"'-t'e fHI/! ilii ,!l iJ!! > Sf g3; Md I~' r.~ '. 0 Ii! ! 1 1rl1I~dJ ~J ii i/y,tIl1 U ~ @ $ ;,,____ fj'}[jjj I 2 """"', .cf ~ - '~t < ;;j . I I "..,~, .., '" ' 'i, I "f... ~. illl ill "" :;) i ~f !; i ,.' ,..., I ..M' H/, !l K il! ~ "51J a :3 aa a IiI: ~ {g :r Ge e G ~ '2' ;;>. ~ F-- 2 o ~ f;.L, ~ ~ U "-I ~ ;;>. F-- ! , ''-.......''''' " '" ". '""~ ''', , '" ", "" " " '" ". ;<'" u Z ... '" '" ... Z <l1 I'>. ~ o u <:<: '" ~' ~ PL1i , ~ i : 1;1 d ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ · . ;"\ 1'" i i. 3 : ~~ \~ P g~~~ .~. r ~j B ~2 ~i iH! .II!; if I! ". I' I' Illi ! iw; l;l,i1il,! IE ~q;%o 0 '. "--, -.........,......... o z ~ " r Z " " z ~ ~ ~ ..c: u !:i oj ~ ~ l;:q OJ) :::l cd 0.. ...... .... I ~ o ~ ~ >-c E-< Z o ~ ~ ~ ~ U - '-, "- ! , , ~!l1 j ~ ~ ~ " ~" - . t : l! :!I ~ C ' I" " <, l'U ~~~~~ij" ~ eG 0 G) Ii I', <, ,', ;h :i\1~ ii~ "I I'. iiil , '. ", , -..........,"- I , . \ . " z ~ ~ ~ ;;j .; ~ I 1 ~~H"l'h H ~~~ :;o~ hi ~al~~> ii~~~d~ ~~~!i~~ ~ de<;g~~~ llBH; ~ ~H~~:':t:<" ii:" " l , ~p I0 ~ &, ~ - ~ ~f~ ~ , i; :~~~ u ~ ~ ,,~~:~~ ; ! ~ ;tw ~~ ~~~~ ~U ~ z~;5: 1~~~ ~~~ I I~ ;g~ ~~~! <T" ~i~. ~~ tit! ~lt~ C. '.l ~ 11 ~1I ~~'1' ~~'iaz ~ '!" j ~ ~~ ..",~ ~L~ C -z ~ ~\< ~~w ~H~ t ~ ~~~ z"'" ~ l~1 ~ ~ii' I ---, "--,,- -----------... --.... -------+-. ~t '. ~ ~ " , , ~ -~~~~ '1"~111 , "'"il . 1',' ! ~~i~~l!! ~l~f~ ;~ !il~'l~ .~ I'll ---+----,-. . -~---- I i 1 i .---.1 u Z <JJ '" - -, Z <<: ~ :;:: o u ~ '" ;oG '" ~ ~i . . o "'-J T"-_, C/ '""'" / I I ;' ("..~()liN!':lCov!=;R5 , jZ:'~;;',:'i;:;;.j-= .I ~~:~~~,".""->v<,,.., / """"""""""'Tl06>1ON'.."'''''.....' F\"::;':..,-'!r"'",'''T1!.",,,,",,<><~-M",-G" I ~AINTENANCE AR:EA& j __ ~~~~~"g~:::;AL'-.c OHO / ~ ~Fl:;:!~{'~" ~~';;~~~D ~~ i I f i i l- I i / ! / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ; / / ; .' TYPICAL FRONT YARD PLAN .. ~ Roripaugn ~ Ranch ~~J;CA1=e L.EGEND CD ~"'-<Io<"""c. ""~","'X""""''''' q.. &u""'."c"-,,,,,c.;..t. ~'''''' ~..,w.,.. \V . ,o,c.c~t",.~''''''C'''''''''''''' c"c""""~.... o ~"""",,,c><,,...,,~....,.,.,. "m. AU.-~''''l<lU.e~''''-C-=""",," ANOO<>""'-'....."I!..'T"..."....'P"NC< ~..... ,,"""''',"D .>I'~_M._~ / ,L / / EhtlliL~ ~ cPo ==..~~=~~ It A_""OO ~~,!I''''''A...,'';'.l.. v""~ .u>..~,,~ ><;~"".,.,,,,-... ...."......___."'..cIo6Uo.t...... ..".'"""'~. ~"",,~ ~I.u.~."" '~~,,".. "._,,,, -"<<'""A_..'OUA'...........""'b. C.w.'A..E~-""''\.l... P~"'" C.o\C,.T"",,, """'''W1~q.A.._.'. ~""'Qc.-.,.~..'OC'u... c...,'....~.. '.........N1'!!M"'. ,~,'"''''..... '''''.~"''''''H'.,'C''~. o ....,...,..,._..~....._.."'.-....a< ...Caf""'"'.... ."..~I""'-.P'. "'''-''0-''' """"" ~....'A.....,"~"",. ~ 0~=: A.,.-',......""",...""" ........"'-~.." "Ole. ..,.,,:...'.',.,...,V....,~",. ,..,>1.......,J"""""""'"".'......M .."""."","",... CI.tIJ.,.."~......",, c.."'o...,."..."."."O~I''''''''...'. ~"":_~"'''.4Cmoo ~"...""". ..,'I'f"'''''''''"'lO.''...._..'~...'''"_ ,~~-c>"-A"..."~'~ ..'....04..... ....""""M""""" ""'A!"<O,.",""OIC~ "IOtIJ.,,,,-,,,,",,,uu, """T,"""'ON\.T ""......., "~......,.""~ ""....""'''''''.- _"""'....C,._ """""'"~ """"'"',~.. 100>.............."',,"".,'. "'........~-""',,"" ,..4C...CO!.F.,.,.,"""~,...,,,.O,C>.E. ~~":'~~,~~.i..:i~ _CL...,...T...c~"eT.""""'''''"'''....~. _""'"'''''''''BT~""",""",,,''' HeTO"^"' '.5""" ~ Nol"" .r-\....~ PIH.PJ>.\\ECfOl'..: .-.. MEEKER COMPANIES, 2 ~ ...:( ~ ~~ O~ 0./) ~ g ~ ,'8' >-< ~ '- f-t 2 o ~ i:J:., ~ ~ U !o-; ~ >-< f-t J , i , I ' '$. t $ i if ~ , ' ." '" . ^ '. . g <~, ",' . , , '. . '. I .; '" ;,,, R, I I , 'i 1 , 11 .IE . ,g:" J !l i.' Ai ,; 2.1' .> g ; '. 'I ! 'I ;/,', ' "1"1 1', '. " "I,;, "l 'I' . , ',.." r'i i N~, fa;: 11 jf ij f:il iff!l>'!j II ,it li!!;!j; :l!: /1 jl f:ft ! 't. ,u, 1\ tg g! ,I f? Iii! 1 Jill;!;! H!E! i!iil/t~ /i' j U =; ,11, r.\ Qs::) "0 I i'!'I1lI"I!ii iIIlilil Iii I 'illl ilil nl""-: lffO l~ i !"jiHi'i" "'. -.........'........., ~ -'" '", ""'1-.-. '", ''''f... ""~ '" ----------------- 'fj i:; ctl (:( l g 1$1 ,,~ fJ '" 11" '" - n : i "HUH Hnu ;}eeeG ~r "'. , '. ", Y. , I r! '" -. :z; -<: Ii., ~ o u ~ iJ :; Jl~l ". '. '" r1j"",- / / I / "~"::I_l~nf':/"'J'VI"'~ . c::;::'",~"":;j"," I ~;:-:~~~~"'O~'""~"" / A""''''''.........,O.'"'''"'"..,C''O'~, P;"''',;':,''''!'-''N'-'''.'''''''"-'<O'<_,""CCO< i i i i i f i i 1- / I i i I i i i / / / / / i i i / i / i i i I- / TYPICAL FRONT YARD PLAN ~ ~ I Roripaugh ~ Ranch i HA~~r.LiPF ! l=C~END <D '<l<.O<OCOI<,...""""''''B'''''''"," (i)~r==''''''",''''''~..''OON Q) ~g:~<;:~~"N~O'''''AO''"," @ "OL""'co.c.."~,,,,,,,,," PREPARED FOR; 1MEEKER PI LiN, I. F("..FNn ~ cP' -- .._~ '0 ~~jc~::--~ ",""JOro-..,. """"""",,-,,,.n'..~""" U>TaJC><..... ~. ~,~.,,,,... ~"','"~ ,.,-,'~" .""',."...-.,,,::....""".,.""... G...,~LEptO~"n.l~ ..,."".CA"~,..,..N.. .-"",~.,".~I... alp......'... ~Oc-....~~"""c,... ~~"Al..O ,...__--'~'"N.,. '~,'.k ,,_ 'Me"",,,,,,,H,,, "'IOILO o """""""...."....""~.III&a.oLl-<I< poO;~u,.,_"_ "'_""',""M~"'G""Au" ~"",,,,,.,~v,~"n.lA ~ 0"'":::'='~~"~'"'''' ...._QLiFI~INP'C... D,,,,,,~O",,, yo"",...'" l'~"or""'J""ON''''''' ,.,."..~ .""..'-1.0'<,....... ~~'"5""_"'". c."""'''''_,"'.U>''''~,''''',...c,. corc><!AO""L""',"O. ~''''IU\ ...""'''~''''''N..."e(".'''D-<A... LA',~""."",,,,, ...'.....'A_ ~"""'"'....."'MA. ...~"'''~'. ,,,,,,.,,,, C"""'Al.v,,,",,""' '~T""'''''''''L''' 0,j"'0'" "~"';"".~L.'" ""...~'-NtWJO .~~ ~"""AI."""" "-"'O'"-"D<>"1"'''CA ..."".,..~'''''~ "'..'c'..... "e..'"~'..."""'-.-" ,"-"<.';""".,.......,.",~ >>...."0'''.. t:JA.ti:!If!':l~N9F Af2F~ _ a.>cI<y~...,"'""~..M....l."~N" ..~IN''''''"'''L....''.~'''''' ~ ~~~~~~~~~'~';.~~~~~~~ "'"""""'''''''''''' ~1."""'0CAI"1""'''''"'-'''".'''"....~,... ~ ~~~~';; ~~L:'O.'~',~:~:~..'c:.." ~".,..'N'A...""'...""."'""""- PREPARED BY '''''01'00: Fo""'''' ~ ~,V NORTH COMPANIES, ., "" ~ } , ~ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \\ ,~\d 1.. 1 . ., it Ii ., 1<" , ~ ~,. \ ~l n ~~ \, h:\' ,\~\~ \' ~t ;' ~\ ,\ \"~ ~ !W" \~ \: :. '\ i\ \~q \~Ob~ ;:: ~ ~ Ji! cD ~ .~ H ~ z ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ -r t--' Z o ~ ~ ~ ~ U ...-. ~ -r t--' ~ ~n ~@ \ \ill .. ~ " "n ~~t \ \ u \ \'\ \~\"1 , , ' ., ,1~' ," .1 ';~\1' \11, ,\ It, t,~ nt-.1>~t1 '8;d~ \'>:,:;~ $-\i~ &,,\1\,\ \11'\ t ,t\ ~'\ ;~,\ ,,\~'''' I'~\' ,~~'. .... l\\n\H ~ \ j ,H, \;: i~;i . ~ ;,11. ,.\~ '" \hl ~~ _~, ~ l\ , " i \ ' ~ .' h '. ,~l\ ,.., " ~<~, 1-~'i, U ',", ,,' '\' " ~..'C". J' )..t.\!'i1 . ;~w,ti m\\! \ (ln~rJ,y, ~~,:lit t ~ i ~ ~ I; ~ , ~ ~ " \ ~ '\ t\', , ~. ',~ i " 2~" u ni\\ \ 40060> '~. .~ ~, -, - --. .~ '- .~ .~ --+-~ ---------- , ' -,-.- -1--- u ~\ """ ~' o u ~ '" .~\ ~ \~d ~ l j j, ~ \ \ \ '\ t !. ~ \~ H ~ '" \ ~ ~~ lj, 1'" r. ~} . i' " ll' t\ "I" t . ~. ~ ~~ 1'\; ~~ ~t ~~~t .P"'~~ " ~1 ,. 'j '!'t\'" 0-" , """,; ,,, ;, I " . l--" '% '. <, h" ,'" \ib~~\ z ~ .J p.. o ~ ~ ,... 'i:'-' Z o ~ ~ .J ~ U )oo"'l p.. '?"' 'i:'-' ..g ~ if! on ~ .~ b ~ .~. ~ .~ .~. ~ 'It ;( t t \ \.< ! ~ U 1 -\\ i\~\ ll. ... i " >, ~ ~1 H!~ ,. \ I . . . ., j " . , ..'\ .!" "" "1',1 "\' H ': tl~' n\hm \\,\\\ \\ ;1\\\ \ \\\1 \\ ill ~\\\ ,.n"" !IO'\" ,0 'I"" ,~, I 'I I"~ ,,' I ,\!\j~n 1,1 \! i\ im' 'Ii \ '. l'i ,Ll 1""1,,, ," 'Co ." ' ~ in ~ 1\ ,11 ~H, f~ ~ ;- Jill,'" .L:.. .~ ~~. ~. ~. -+- .-.-., r------. I , >1 ~ 1 \ ~ ~ ~:o ; , II. I ~ ~t it i ~ ,,~ ~~ ~ ~ n \~ \ s ,. "s . 16<300 u z ,..< ~ .~. '" '" ... Z <t p.. ~ o u ~ ~' \ o,J \!~. ~ ~. "--. ~ .~ .~ ~ .~ .~. ~ ---;... ~ t:/,...."'" I i i i ~~;r:(')v;::~ . m.....};:~;jOOO / ~::-:~~~~"''',:"'''HA' I .""''*,.."...,..."....,....,...."......,."" , F'''::: .;-:.~.1'. n'~ "AH~ '""""" "'" ~"" t'h.II.C" I i i i i f i i f i / / ! / ,I i i I i ,I / .I / i ,I ,I i i ,I ,I i !- i TYPICAL FRONT YARD PLAN 1- ROriPaUgh~ Ranch !::!A~j)P,l"':Ll.PF" I I=I'3END CD c"'-""COI<C."'"...'~.......,''''' CD "Ai"l"ttCOlOlOC<><C."""""AM""" ..OCC~''''''''O' G:l ~;:="':'V''''''"",,,l'''''''''''' o c",-"","'c>.;o~"~~""'C<J" ~. .U08HO''''''.....'NI''AC'''''''''''''"''' -""DC,,","'''''''''.'''''","''''',,"O'''''''' r"l."".__"<O"~_...""T PREPARED FOR, ~EEKER COMPANIES, INC. L.----- f'lANTIl:r-,;::m ~ ~O._-~._~ Or . '\ :.;':::-:~~:~~~" U ~'"''''D_~'' >C"""'1OLL[ -..n....,,,,,,,,,,, "'''-'''''''''''' L.<>l"""""'M. ~'....". <.'~A""'''' '''''AJtu ......,_~> """'~'AAM="A'........-c"~OC. c"..,.lO"'<>I"><'T'l.lA ~T~.C",C'Oh~. ~.coI.REU'U"'_"'~'A rocooc",""", ~~""'C'.~ CUi,.,... tA"""""""""~,,,,. D"-' 1oQ1,"""'OEnlAIN"",,' o """"""......."'An<>""".'''.......L.ON ,.....LOT """"..... .........C\..p".n'""o"L..'..." C"",AL'~'OG"'(LL. ~~ 0"~: A~.L.IA""_C~''''''-" ~".~"'-..." ",,,,eA ~''''''''''''''''''''Y_I<a<<''' ".,,"'........'A~"....""'"",.<_~ ~~;'Z'.:.;."' ~.A,,<.,..,''''''',.,."'~O~'f'''''''....' Co't~~"'.~L~C""" *''''''""5 ""f"'"~'''8'....'...."''...,~.''-' ~~~--::"'~ ".'" ~,. ~"O"""" "~AA ~".,.,OI....." "~,,,. ~'..\,. ...."'''''L'U. ''''''''r-o~'''''-' cu'""u ""-OOOI"'~""~ ...-"",.......... >&....~O<:...". .... ~...,,~.,,"".."c~ ,.."...........,.""'IC....." ~.......<"",""~L.'''' l~'L."''''I''.''101J~''''t40'D'' ~~I\jP.If("'~~ _~u.""...!,....,..uoo...o "'''''',.,''''"'c....,~ ~ !;:m,.~'"E~iL.';,,~';,~~:':;~..T ~ ~~~~.,;~~~~g~~.1'~.. ...~'I.......T...L.<>bT'...C>S<""CQ"u _., ~""'f."ID l>Y """!C""."'. PREPARfoav ..e,,,,,O' fE"""O' l' "0'''" '" ,. .~ I -.:::>Nl S3INVdWO::> 'H3.>.l33W VINl:IO.;:IT''IV;:) .v,n;:)3W::FI..L I H;::)NVH HDfiVdmOH a.N::KOS.L:EI::ErH.LS .c:a..... >..!:L<& 'TVAlA:ilH HSINVdS vNV"'ld ''TVN:OUIQVlI.L .LSVO;:) .LSV3: ENV"Td :iInIlV'Hd Z::1>..'"V"J:d 'VAIA:iI1:I HSINVdS 'lNV1d ATTACHMENT NO.3 PC RESOLUTION 06-_ G:IPlanning\2006IPA06-0079 Hamptons at Rorlpaugh PA 46 - E01\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc 7 PC RESOLUTION NO. 06- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA06-0079, THE FIRST ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0634, A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR 113 DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 48 OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD Section 1. Planning Application No. PA03-0634 was originally approved by the Temecula Planning Commission on May 19, 2004 and this approval expired on May 19, 2006. Section 2. Tanamera Homes, submitted Planning Application No. PA06-0079 on March 23, 2006, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Section 3. Planning Application No. PA06-0079 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. Section 4. The Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA06- 0079 on June 7, 2006 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this maUer. Section 5. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA06-0079. Section 6. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 7. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City; The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of the residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0079 Hamptolls at Roripaugh PA 4B - EOT\Planning\Draft Reso,doc The overall design of the single-family homes, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Section 8. Environmental Comoliance. On November 26, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 02-111 certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and Related Planning Applications, including the Development Agreement ("EIR"). The Planning Commission finds, based on the administrative record, that the EIR properly addressed all of the environmental issues encompassed within the Extension of Time and that: (1) there have been no substantial changes in the Project which require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project has been undertaken which require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and (3) no new information of substantial importance exists, which was not know or could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of the EIR which shows the Project would have one or more significant effects or a more severe significant impact not discussed in the EIR or that mitigation measures or alternatives not found feasible would in fact be feasible or that other mitigation measures or alternatives would substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects. Therefore, neither a subsequent nor a supplemental EIR is required and the Planning Commission recommends that a Notice of Determination (Determination of Consistency) for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously adopted (Section 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) be filed, Section 9. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby originally approves Planning Application No. PA06-0079 for an Extension of Time for a Product Review for detached single family residences within Planning Area 4B of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Stage Road, Assessor's Parcel No. 957-350-003, Tract Map 29661-5. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A attached. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0079 Hamptons at Roripaugh PA 48 - EOnPlanning\Draft Reso.doc Section 10. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 7th day of June 2006. Ron Guerriero, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 06- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 2006, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0079 Hamptons at Roripaugh PA 48 - EOT\Planning\Draft Reso.doc EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0079 Hamptons at Roripaugh PA 48 - E01\Planning\Draft Reso.doc EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA06-0079 Project Description: A request for the first one-year Extension of Time for a previously approved Development Plan (Planning Application, PA03-0634). Planning Application No. PA03- 0634 is a Home Product Review application for 113 detached single-family homes within Planning Area 4B of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of Butterfield Stage Road (Tract 29661-5) Assessor's Parcel No. 957-350-003 MSHCP Category: Per Development Agreement DIF Category: Per Development Agreement TUMF Category: Per Development Agreement Approval Date: June 7,2006 Expiration Date: June 7, 2007 WITHIN FIVE WORKING DAYS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT 1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Riverside County Clerk's Office a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. The City of T emecula Planning Department, within 48 hours of the approval of the project, shall have completed and signed a Notice of Determination to be obtained by the Applicant/Developer to be delivered to the County Clerk with the appropriate check within five working days from the approval of the project. An affidavit of receipt shall also be signed, at this time, by the Applicant/Developer to acknowledge their receipt of the Notice of Determination, and their responsibility for filing the Notice of Determination within five working days from the approval of the project with the Riverside County Clerk's office. (OR) G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0079 Hamptons at Roripaugh PA 48. EOnPlanning\Draft COA.doc GENERAL REQUIREMENTS G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0079 Hamptons at Roripaugh PA 48 - EOnPlanning\Oraft COA.doc Planning Department 2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department staff. and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. 3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify. protect. hold harmless. and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims. actions. awards. judgments. or proceedings against the City to attack. set aside. annul. or seek monetary damages resulting. directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City. or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency. appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City. concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition. to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers. employees. consultants, contractors. legal counsel. and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim. action. or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall furthercooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 4. This project is subject to the conditions of approval for Planning Application No. PA03- 0634. 5. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this development plan. 6. This approval shall be used within one year of the approval date; otherwise. it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the one-year period. which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion. or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 7. The Director of Planning may. upon an application being filed within 30 days prior to expiration. and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to 3 one-year extensions of time. one year at a time. 8. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department. 9. The conditions of approval specified in this resolution. to the extent specific items. materials. equipment, techniques. finishes or similar matters are specified. shall be deemed satisfied by staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material. equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute. in which case the real party in interest may appeal. after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. 10. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0079 Hamptons at Roripaugh PA 48. EOT\Planning\Dratt CQA.doc 11. Corner lot side yards shall have at least two street trees per the Specific Plan. 12. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision; however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Director of Planning approval. Fire Prevention 13. Any and all previous existing conditions for this project will remain in full force and effect unless superseded by more stringent requirements here. 14. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy. use. the California Building Code (CBC). California Fire Code (CFC). and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 15. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix III.A. Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type. or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2. Appendix III.A). 16. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III.B. Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC 903.2. 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B). 17. If construction is phased. each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2). 18. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80.000 Ibs GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2). 19. Prior to building final. all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet (CFC see 902 and Ord 99-14). G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0079 Hamptons at Roripaugh PA 48. EOT\Planning\Draft COA.doc PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0079 Hamptons at Roripaugh PA 48 - EOT\Planning\Draft COA.doc Fire Prevention 20. The developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type. location. spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company. the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot (CFC 8704.3.901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 241-4.1). 21. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3). 22. All/any manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel (CFC 902.4). 23. Prior to issuance of building permits. fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland-vegetation interface (CFC Appendix II-A). 24. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to. enclosing eaves. noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls). and fuel modification zones (CFC Appendix II-A). By placing my signature below. I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Applicant's Printed Name G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0079 Hamptons at Aoripaugh PA 48 - EOnPlanning\Draft COA.doc ATTACHMENT NO.4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED APRIL 21, 2004 AND MAY 19, 2004 G:IPlanning\2006IPA06-0079 Hamptons at Roripaugh PA 48 - EOl\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc 8 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, April 21, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman T elesio thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Chiniaeff led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Chairman Telesio. Absent: None_ PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aaenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 21 , 2004. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of March 3, 2004. 3 ,Director's Hearina Case UodatEt RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for March 2004. R:\MlnutesPC\042104 1 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar and requested to move Item No. 7 after No.5. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aDDroval. COMMISSION BUSINESS 4 Reauest to aoorove an interim oolicv addressina develooment orooosals in the Chal)arral SQecial Rtudy Area while the 0enp'ral Plan is beina uodated. The interim ooli9'{ further refines how the Cha~rral criteria will be imolemented and is eXl)ected to be consistent with the General Plan after it is uodated RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Recommend City Council Approval of the Chaparral Interim Policy Principal Planner Hogan presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That in developing the proposed policy, staff had discussions with an ad hoc City Council Subcommittee as well as the General Plan Community Advisory Committee (CAC); . That both groups were of the opinion that development proposals that protect sensitive open space areas and provide local trail connections are desirable and have the highest potential for community wide benefits; . That the proposed interim policy is as follows: o Limit the gross density in the Chaparral area to one dwelling unit per acre, except for the tier of lots adjacent to Ynez Road where a density of two dwelling units per acre would be more appropriate; o That a one unit per acre density allow half-acre sized lots to help preserve sensitive open space and habitat areas; o That all future developments provide trail dedications for the Citywide trail network when possible; . That the City Council reviewed the policy direction received from the Subcommittee and the Commission Advisory Commission (CAC) and refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a fonnal recommendation. For the Commission, Mr. Hogan relayed that the land uses that are currently in the General Plan uses are currently in the General Plan interim policy; and that what is being proposed . is to allow \02 acre lots in what is currently a one.acre zoning district; that there are two different situations being proposed, one would be for the \02 acre lots and the other project area is for the one-acre density with the ability to go down to an \02 lots if the remaining is set is some form of open space. A:\MinutesPClO42104 2 \ Mr. Hogan also relayed that for City-owned trails, proper maintenance would include: regular inspections, repairs and resurfacing as needed, weed control, safety signage, and stripping (if hard surfaced); that when the City trail facilities are constructed in easement areas, City liability for the trail is still covered through the .General Plan Liability Po/icy; however, non-trail related liability will still remain the responsibility of the underlying property owners. Mr. Hogan further clarified that the proposed project is designed for large parcels; that it is a voluntary policy; that it would not apply to a person who would desire to build a home on their own lot; and that it would only apply if one were to have subdivisions of land. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Larry Markham, 41045 Enterprise Circle relayed that he is in favor of the project and noted that the proposed project would cut the density in half for the vast majority of the area with the exception of the parcels that are immediately adjacent to Ynez; and that it would allow flexibility on how to site the parcels with regard to clustering. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve slaff's recommendation. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aDDroval. It was the consensus of the Commission to combine Item No.5 and 7. 5 Public Necessitv and Convenience Findinos 29676 Rancho Califomia Road. Taroet Retail Buildino RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Approve Rndings of Public Convenience Per the request of Commissioner Guerriero, Item No. 7 will be reviewed after Item No.5 7 Planninq ApoliC!!tion No. PA03-Q726 a Minor Cqnditional Use Permit to allow the sales of beer and wineITvoe 20 License\ in an existino Taroet Buildino. located at 29676 Rancho California Road Associate Planner Long presented a staff repon (as per agenda material), noting the following: . That the proposed project is for a minor CUP that includes the Public Necessity and Findings for Target to sell beer and wine on site; · That the separation of criteria in the Development Code requires 500 feet separation from any schools, parks, hospitals, or religious institution; . That staff was able to make the findings and recommends the approval for a minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as well as the findings for convenience; R:lMinutesPC\042104 3 . That at this time. Target does not sell any alcohol or liquor; and that this is its first proposal. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Ms. Beth Aboulafia, 260 Calitornia Street, representing Target, relayed the following: . That Target started selling wine at its stores in California two years ago; . That currently there are 40 stores in Northern Califomia that are licenses and have been selling wine; . That due to its success, Target started expanding the program to its stores in Southern California; . That Target has not had any problems or violations with selling to minors at any of the stores that have already been licensed in California; . That the application is for a Type 20 off site beer and wine license; . That there will be no consumption on the premises; . That although its a beer and wine license, Target will only be selling wine; . That all Target Stores have only been selling wine; . That the sales of wine will only represent 3% of sales; but that it would be a complement to the food and beverage products that Target currently has in its market section and will be a convenience to Targefs customers; . That Target employees will be provided a training program relating to alcohol and beverage sales that Is specific to the laws and regulations to California; . That there have been no Objections from the few neighboring residents; . That there have been no objections from the Police Department; . That wine bottles will be located in the market section of Target; At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Guerriero is of the opinion that there is no need or convenience to approve a Type 20 beer and wine license. For Commissioner Olhasso, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that currently there are no plans for redevelopment in the Target Center. Commissioner Mathewson expressed concern with approving another license for beer and wine sales in the area. R:\MinutesPC\042104 4 For Commissioner Mathewson, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that when the state turned the jurisdiction over to the Cities, they did not give any criteria; and that the City Attorney developed the criteria for staff that is fairly consistent with other jurisdictions across the state. Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concem with denying the proposed item stating that the census tract boundary is arbitrary and that if the City is going to allow establishments to sell alcohol in commercial zones (which is established in the zoning ordinance), that the City should be consistent and; therefore, either allow more establishments to sell alcohol, or that if the Commission is of the opinion that there is over-concentration of Type 20 licenses, then the zoning ordinance should be changed; and that it would be inequitable to allow some stores to sell and others to not sell. Chairman Telesio is of the opinion that staff should be reviewing the zoning ordinance; that he finds it difficult to approve these findings of convenience for large box type stores and deny sales to smaller outlets. For the Commission, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that changing the zoning ordinance to not permit alcohol sales in commercial zones would be a huge detriment to economic development. Assistant City Attorney Curly relayed that the Commission has the ability on each discretionary land use decision to look at the specific criteria. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the findings of Public Convenience. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion voice vote reflected denial with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who voted Yes. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to deny PC Resolution No. 2002-019 due to the fact that the nature of the proposed use is detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community because the census tract is over-saturated with liquor licenses at this time. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected denial of Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who voted No. Commissioner Chiniaeff requested that staff have the City Council evaluate their commercial uses as related to alcohol permits. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-019 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA NO. 03-0726, A REQUEST FOR MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TYPE 20 (OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE) ALCOHOL UCENSE FOR TARGET LOCATED AT 29676 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921.320.053. R:\MlnutesPC\042104 5 Continued from April 7, 2004 6 Plannino Aoolication No. PA02-D717 a Conditional Use Permit and Develooment Plan to constrllct anci OnAl'>ltfl II wirelfl~ telecommunications facilitv to include a 56-foot hio.!1 artificialoalm tree with three ISY antennas h~llsed within the bulb oorti/?n of the tree and four outdoor ~uiqment cabinets within II 310 &Ouare foot block scr~~n wall enclosure. located at 315754 Enfield Lane Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report relaying that at the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant prepared additional propagation maps via overhead displaying the following: . Coverage without the proposed antenna facility; . . Coverage with an antenna at 39 feet at the proposed site; . Coverage with an antenna at 50 feet at the proposed site; . Coverage with an antenna at 50 feet if the facility were located at Riverton Park; . Coverage with an antenna at 50 feet if the facility were located at San Diego Aqueduct vents; . Coverage with antenna at 50 feet if the facility were located on residential property east of Butterfield Stage Aoad; . That the applicant prepared new photo simulations which include two additional live palm trees planted near the proposed monopalm; and that this would be a tolal of four (4) new live palm trees. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. GiI Gonzales, 150 Paularino Avenue, representing Cingular Wireless, noted the following: . That with an antenna at 39 feet at the proposed site would include a 45 foot monopalm and that this would include holes in coverage and would not allow connection to the site to the north/west and does not extend as much coverage to the west as desired. At this time, Mr. GiI distributed additional pictures of alternative sites that were considered by Cingular Wireless, which also included a list of the properties that were investigated. Mr. Mashesh Kolush, 150 Paularino Avenue, Radio Frequency Engineer for Cingular Wireless, further clarified line of site technology and RF emissions. For the record, Chairman Telesio noted that the Commission understands the concerns of the residenfs; but tTiat Federal Law precludes the Commission from making decisions in regard to radiation emissions. The following individuals spoke against the Im'l'u.>ed project for the following reasons: Mr. Leonard Cole 40360 Windsor Road R:lMinutesPC\042104 6 Mr. Kenneth Peterson 40396 Windsor Road Ms. Kathleen Gerber 40433 Windsor Road Mr. Brian Gerber 40433 Windsor Road Ms. Valesta Ayer 40325 Windsor Road Ms. Roma Stromberg 40384 Windsor Road . That the proposed project is a commercial venture at the expense of the neighborhood; . That the proposed property has been excavated; that the property is not stable; and that there have been mud slides with heavy rains; . That the released emissions from the cell tower could be noisy and dangerous; . That it does not appear to be a strategically planned effort; . That property values could potentially diminish due to the proposed project; . That the proposed project will be unsightly to look at every day; . That there are a significant amounts of cell towers and that there is no real need for anymore; . That there has not peen a visual impact study. view shed analysis, or line of site analysis performed; . . That the proposed project is inconsistent with the City's "Procedures for Cell Tower Impact Analysis.. Mr. Gonzales relayed the following in response to residents' concerns: . That Cingular Wireless investigated the entire area and it was determined that the proposed area is in the center of the search ring; that the height has also been determined with RF propagation maps and what Cingular Wireless is trying to cover; and that Cingular Wireless Is trying to provide coverage for the 300 tract homes to the south; . That a generator would only be used if the power were to completely fail; . That the noise that would be heard would be similar to a computer fan; . That Cingular Wireless hired a real estate consultant firm to evaluate the property values of homes that are within 1>2 mile radius of Cingular Wireless Cell Sites; and that it was determined that property values did not decrease; . That the proposed project would emit the same amount of EMF radiation as a baby monitor; and that one would be exposed to more EMF radiation by standing too close to the television; R:IMinulesPCI042104 7 . That Cingular Wireless will be complying with the California Public Utilities Commission; . That there will be SCE permanent service to the site; and that a generator would only be used if all the power were to go down by some type of disaster or unknown reason; and that there would not be a generator running fulltime; . That the proposed monopalm will have a security lock and a sensor that will alert Cingular Wireless 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Fisk noted that this Item No. was noticed through the newspaper and that individual agencies were sent notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it would be his opinion that the issues of concern that were raised by residents in regard to aesthetics, noise, and property values is not significant, but that in regard to screening efforts, would request that the proposed project be lowered to 39 feet; and that this would allow the proposed monopalm to blend in better with the surrounding palms. Commissioner Guerriero concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's comments including the height from 50 feet to 39 feel. Commissioner Olhasso echoed the previous comments. Commissioner Chiniaeff agreed that the height could be lowered to 39 feet and suggested that staff work with the landscape architect to add a variety of palms. Chairman T elesio agreed with all of the above comments. Mr. Fisk noted that the distribution date for the Negative Declaration was December 11, 2003. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff's recommendation with the condition that the palm be lowered from 50 feet to 39 feet; that there be a variety of palm trees planted, and that the number of trees that are being added around the wall be increased from two to four and be of the same type or variety that the pole is proposed to be. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aDDmval. i PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO PA02-o717, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMITIDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WITH THREE (3) ANTENNAS HOUSED WITHIN THE BULB PORTION OF A PROPOSED FIFTY-SIX FOOT HIGH ARTIFICIAL PALM TREE AND FOUR R:\MlnutesPC\Il42104 8 OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN A 310 SQUARE FOOT BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE AT 31575 ENFIELD LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENRELD LAND, APPROXIMATELY 3,200 FEET EAST OF RIVERTON LANE (APN 957-170-012). At this time, the Commission took a ten minute break. New Items This item was addressed on pages 3. 4, and 5. 7 Planninq AI;lOlication No. PAO~726 a Minor C"..onditional US!! Permit to allow the sales of beer and wine JTvoe 20 License\ in an existina Taraet Buildina. located at 29676 Rancho California Road 8 Plannina Aqolication No. PA03-0443. a Develooment Plan to construct a 29.516 SQuare foot office buildina on 5.69 acres. located on the south side of Coun~ Center Drive.. aooroximatelv 1.500 feet east of Ynez Road Plannino Aoplication No. PA03-0725 a Develooment Plan and Product Review for the desiqn of 99 sinale-familv residences. includina three floor olans and three architectural stvles. located on the south side of Murrieta Hot Sorinas and west of the future extension of Butterfield Staae Road within the Rorioauoh Ranch Soecific Plan. Plannina Area 2 ) Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: . That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan designation of business park and zoning designation of the Light Industrial; . That the building meets the minimum setback requirements 01 the Development Code and the proposed lot coverage af 28.5 percent (based on the overall lot acreage of 5.69 acres) is well below the maximum allowed lot coverage 0140 percent; . That staff determined that 98 parking spaces are required to serve the proposed building while 99 spaces will be provided; . That access to the site will be provided Irom two existing drive aisles off county center drive; · That a new drive aisle behind the proposed building will provide a connection between the two existing drive aisles lor a loop drive around the proposed building; · That the Public Works Department determined that the impacts are consistent with the traffic volumes projected for the site by the General Plan EIR; · That the Fire Department determined that there is proper access and circulation to provide emergency services to the site; R:\MlnutesPC\042104 9 . That the proposed office building design is consistent with the Development Code and Design Guidelines, and is compatible with the industrial and office buildings in the surrounding area; . That the landscape plan conforms to the landscape requirements of the Development Code and Design Guidelines; . That an initial study was prepared and indicated that the project could have potentially significant environmental impacts related to archeological and palentological resources unless mitigation measures are included as Conditions of Approval; . That staff is recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Fisk relayed that if anything is found during the excavation of the project the City would be notified. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Ed Mc Ardle, "architect representing The Garrett Group, relayed that the concrete will be tilted-up and the paint will be a topey-tan color. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation, Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aDDroval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-020 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPUCATlON NO. PA03-Q443, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 29,526 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON 5.69 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET EAST OF YNEZ ROAD (APN 910-110-0(5). 9 Plan nino _AtlQlication No. PA03-0634 a Develooment Plan and Product Review for the desion of 113 sinple-familv residences. includinq four floor olans and three architectural sMes. located on the south side of Murrieta Hot Sorinos and west of the future extension of Butterfield Staoe Road within the Rorioauoh Ranch Soecific Plan. Plan nino Area 48 Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (of record). relaying the following: . That the applicant has provided various features encouraged in the Design Guidelines such as a variation in garage locations and Porte Cocheres; . That Plan One (1) includes a trellis on the East Coast Traditional as well as a recessed garage; . That Plan Two (2) includes a mid-deep recessed garage and a Porte Cocheres; R:\Mlnut8SPCI042104 10 . That Plan Three (3) does not include a deep recessed garage; however, that between the three plans, staff is of the opinion that there is sufficient variety; . That in regard to single-story product, staff listened to the previous minutes of the City Council which adopted the Design Guidelines and Specific Plan (SP), and it was determi"ed that there is no specific language requiring single story products; however, it did state that it be determined by staff and/or the market; . That the proposed project is not proposing a single-story product; however, staff is of the opinion that there are various single-story elements within Plan One (1) and Plan Two (2), that meet the intent of the Design Guidelines; . That the Design Guidelines require corner lots to create "two front elevations"; that staff is of the opinion that the side elevations do not appear as a second front elevation on any of the corner lots; . That staff is of the opinion that the Monterey and Spanish Revival offer too many similarities; that staff recommended that the applicant use alternative materials to offer more variation; however, the applicant has not proposed any additional materials; . That Plan one (1) and Plan two (2) do not include a significant amounts of variation; . That staff is of the opinion that none of the projects include a strong focal point; and that all the garage doors proposed do not include a significant amount of variety. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Stephen Albert, 3635 Hayden Avenue, representing the applicant, noted the following: . Clarified how the Spanish Revival and the Monterey are different and do provide enough variation between the two; . That the in regard to roofing, the applicant is of the opinion that there is enough variation and that the applicant is satisfied with the proposed project; . That the material of the front doors will be of wood material; . That although the garage doors to not appear to be astoundingly different, there is some variation; and that the garage, doors are segmented rollup windows. Commissioner Olhasso suggested that staff and the applicant explore options to enhance the garage doors, preferably a barn type style door. Commissioner Mathewson expressed concern in regard to massing in Plan Two (2). Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the Spanish Revival and the Monterey had too many similarities and also relayed that the elevations 01 the residences that front the street need to be addressed, especially Plan three (3). R:\Mfnutosl'C\/J42104 11 I At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Todd Brazen of Cast Group Architects, made the following comments: . That the Spanish Revival gives a rustic appearance; . That the Monterey style will have soft curves on the eaves, stucco detailing; that there will be curves on the second-story overhand on Plan Two (2); and that it will also have a different shutter and window design; . That the rool tile on the Monterey could be altered; and that there is a "S" tile on the Spanish Revival; . That in regard to massing, from the street one will be able to see a variety of shades and shadows. Ms. Paula Lombardi, vice-president of development with Davidson Communities, relayed the following: . That she was disappointed that the color boards were not available to the Commission for review; . That the applicant is of the opinion that the requirements have been met in regard to the garage doors, elevations and differentials in the residences. Commissioner Olhasso offered the lollowing comments: . That mixing up the proposed product on Brush Creek would help to diminish the canyon- like affect; . That changing the roof coloring on the Spanish Revival and/or the Monterey would help to diminish similarity on the two homes. Commissioner Guerriero offered the following Comments: . That he is in concurrence with staff in regard to Conditions of Approval No. 12, 15, 17, 19,20. Commissioner Mathewson offered the following comments: . Reducing the massing on Plan Two (2) by eliminating the second-story over the Iront portion of the residence; . That the applicant address window spacing and windows with single shutters as well as the width of the entry doors; . That the Monterey Plan Three (3) first-story windows need more architectural treatments. Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested the follOwing: R:lMinut"PC\042104 12 . That Plan One (1) and Plan Two (2) corner lots needs enhancement; . That the applicant provide additional shingle siding on the sides of the East Coast Traditior;al elevation; . That variation in roof material and color on the Spanish and Monterey elevations be changed; . That variation in garage door design be provided. Ms. Lombardi relayed that she would be implementing the following: . Reduce the number of Plan Three (3) on Brush Creek; . Change the roof materials and color on the Spanish Revival and Monterey elevations . and "SO tiles to flat tiles; . That the applicant will be providing a variation in garage door design; . That the applicant will consider implementing Conditions Nos. 12.15, 17. 19, and 20; that these conditions require arched focal points on the Spanish and Monterey elevations. varied foot planes for each floor plan, decorative garage doors, and additional materials on the Spanish or Monterey elevations to better distinguish between the styles and wrap siding around to the sides; . That reducing the massing on Plan Two (2) by eliminating the second-story at this time, would be a major rework of the whole second-story; . That the applicant will explore the option of minimizing the number of Plan Two (2) and Three (3) adjacent to one another; . That the applicant will explore the option of revising corner lots to have them appear as a second front elevation. such as materials, arched focal points. courtyards. and patios. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. The Commission requested that Mr. Long provide the landscape plans, streetscape plans and colors board for the next meeting. MOll0N: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to Mav 19. 2004 for redesign. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous 8DDroval. R:\MinutesPC\042104 13 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO PA03-0725 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR 99 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF THE RORIPAUGH ~ RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS, KNOW AS TRACT MAP 29661-2. 10 Plannina Ap'Qlication No. PA03-0634 a DevelaDment Plan and Product Review for the desian of 113 sinqle-familv residences. includino four floor olans and three architectural sMes. located on the south side of Murrieta Hot Sorinas and west of the future extension of Butterfield Staae Road within the RoriDauah Ranch Soecific Plan. Plannina Area 4B Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: . That the applicant is proposing a product review for 113 detached single-family residences with the Roripaugh Specific Plan (SP); . That staff worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed; and that the project does not meet the intent of the design guidelines; . That the applicant has not provided consistent plans showing that the products meet all of the development standards. primarily setbacks; . That staff would request that the Commission provide direction in regard to the rear yard setbacks along Planning Area seven (7); that Planning Area seven (7) is the open space lot on the southern portion of the panhandle; and that the SP require 25 foot setback for lots abutting Planning Area seven (7); . That the following is a list of staffs concerns that have not been addressed: o Four sided architecture; o Detail and/or variation between each style; o Two front elevations on corner lots; o Minimum setbacks standards (inconsistent dimensions); o Variation in the placement of garages has not bee provided; o Stucco finish is not consistent with the Design Guidelines; o Fencing at exposed comers is not consistent with the development standards, and silhouettes/roof do not provide significant variation; . That staff has concluded that the proposed project cannot be found consistent with the Design Guidelines and or development standards with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP) and recommends continuance for redesign. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. R:lMlnulesPC\042104 14 Mr. M. J. Knitter, 20151 Birch Street, architect for Knitter and Associates, commenting on the following: . That the applicant has made an effort to revise and/or enhance the proposed project; . That the applicant chose three styles on the exterior that the applicant found to be the most popular and most sought after in Temecula; . That the applicant has provided enhanced sides and rears on 67 residences; . That the applicant is willing to make changes, comments, or revisions that staff may have; . That the applicant is of the opinion that the intent of the Design Guidelines have been met; . That the applicant has a wide section of roof tiles; and that the applicant could add colors if it is the will of the Commission. Mr. Stephen M. Albert, 3635 Hayden Avenue, relayed the following: . That the Plan One (1), Praire has an arch focal point which is made of brick and veneer on a brown coat of stucco. Mr. Kevin Everett, 3553 Hayberry Drive representing ASHBY. USA, noted that there are only a selective number of lots that provide a setback of 25 feet. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Olhasso expressed concern with Plan Two (2), stating that it appears to be outdated. Commissioner Guerriero suggested that the applicant enhance the sides and rears of all plans. Commissioner Mathewson suggested providing additional windows on side elevations. MOnON.: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue this Item to Mav 19,2004 for redesign. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aooroval. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero thanked Ms. Ubnoske for the phone cards but that they are a few wrong numbers on them. Commissioner Olhasso requested a Planning Commission application for the next term. Chairman Telesio suggested that the Commissioners use the request to speak buttons. R:\MinutosPC\042104 15 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report at this time. ADJOURNMENT At 10:30 p.m., Chainnan Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to the next r~ula' meeting to be held on Wednesdav. Mav 5. 2004 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Joh~~ \L 0.RJhr-<:' tf~~ Debbie Ubnoske - Director of Planning Chairman / R:\MinutesPC\042104 16 , MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:02 P.M., on Wednesday, May 19, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, TemecuJa, California. Chairman Telesio thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music. 'ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Mathewson led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Chairman Telesio. Absent: None. Chairman Telesio announced that per the Fire Department Code, there is a legal capacity for only one seat per person and that if necessary there is overflow seating in the Main Conference Room. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Carol Marsden, 30955 de Portola Road, expressed concern with an esthetically unpleasing Happy Mover van at the residence of 31580 Pio Pico; and stated that it is offensive to the neighborhood and would request that Code Enforcement explore the removal of the Happy Mover van. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aoenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of May 19, 2004. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: R:\MinutesPC\051904 1 2.1 Approve the Minutes of April 7, 20.04. Chairman Telesio requested to move Item NO.6 before Item No.5 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar and to move Item No. 6 before Item NO.5. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous 8ooroval. COMMISSION BUSINESS Continued from April 21, 2004 3 Planninp Aoolication No. PA03-0725. submitted by Davidson Communities. is a Qroduct review for 99 detached sinale-familv residences within Plannina Area 2 in the Roriqauah .Ranch Soecific Plan. located south of Murrieta Hot Sorinos .Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Staae Road lTract 29661-2\ Associate Planner Long presented a brief staff report (of record), noting the following: . That staff has reviewed the revised plans and determined that while some of the concerns of the Planning Commission have been addressed, the following issues identified by staff and the Commission have not been addressed: o Conditions Nos. 12, 15, 19, and 20 have not been implemented; that these conditions deal with arched focal points, variation in the roof plans, and the use of additional materials such as brick for the Spanish or Monterey styles; o Massing on Plan Two (2) has not been addressed; o Window spacing and windows with single shutters have not been addressed; o Entry doors have not been expanded in width (optional doors are proposed, however, they do not vary in shape or width and glass was not proposed); o That the applicant has re-plotted the plans along Brush Creek Drive, however there is no net loss or gain of any single plan; . That the elimination of the second-story portion of Plan Two (2) be added to the Conditions of Approval. . That staff has prepared conditions of approval to include the remaining Planning Commission's recommendation and that staff is recommending approval as conditioned. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Bill Davidson, 1302 Camino Del Monte, of Davidson Communities relayed that the applicant does not concur with staff in regard to pulling the fence and pilaster back and would request to leave as conditioned, and is of the opinion that the proposed project is in conformance and is requesting approval of the plans as submitted. R;\Minule.PCl051904 2 Ms. Linda Beaudon, 22380 Alameda Del Monte, expressed concern with the lack of single-story homes along the ridgeline and stated that she was of the opinion that there would be more single-story residences in the proposed project. \ For clarification purposes, Mr. Long noted that the direction from the Planning Commission to the City Council was to require single-story products throughout the single family residential areas; that the City Council modified the language to state "as determined by the marker' and that staff would be of the opinion that the proposed project has sufficient single-story elements and meets the intent of the design guidelines in the Specific Plan (SP). Mr. Long also noted that a single-story element would be a portion of the residence that is not two-stories high. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that it would be his opinion that the applicant has complied with many of the requests but does not agree with Condition of Approval No. 21, (fencing on corner lots shall be pulled back towards the rear on exterior corner lots to open up the exposed elevation to the street as determined acceptable by the Planning Director). Commissioner Guerriero echoed Commissioner Chinlaeff's comments and is in agreeance with staff's Conditions of Approval except for Condition of Approval No. 21. Commissioner Olhasso also echoed the previous two comments and expressed appreciation with the work that Davidson's Communities has done with the proposed project; and requested that staff notify the Planning Commissioners when the City Council makes substantial changes to their recommendations. Commissioner Mathewson concurs with the above mentioned comments but noted his concern with the two-story massing on Plan 2 and is of the opinion that the number of Plan twos (2) and threes (3) adjacent to one another has not been addressed and would request that staff explore the issue. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson move staff's recommendation as presented as well as the deletion of Condition of Approval No. 21 as presented above. Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern with the removal of the second-story element on Plan Two (2). At this time, the Public Hearing was reopened. Mr. Davidson relayed that it would be his opinion the proposed project is in conformance of the Specific Plan. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chlnlaeff and Commissioner Olhasso who voted r!2. A:\MinUlasPC\051904 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-022 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0725 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR 99 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS TRACT MAP 29661-2 4 Planninq Aoolication No. PAD3-0634. submitted bv Meeker Comoanies. is a product review for 113 detached sinqle-famil'{ residences within Planninq Area 4B in the Rorioauoh Rancl1 SpJlCific Plan. located south of Murrieta Hot Sorinos Road and west of the future extension of Butterlield Staoe Road.lTract 29661-5l Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That staff reviewed the revised plans and it was determined that while the revised plans have addressed some of the concerns of the Planning Commission, a number of outstanding issues have not been addressed; , . That staff has added some additional recommendations which have been included in the Conditions of Approval; . That the recommended enhancements are a result 01 comments from the Planning Commission hearing; . That a Resolution of Approval has been attached for your consideration; . That in reviewing the revised elevations staff has noted the following enhancements: o That the front elevation 01 each architectural style of Plan Two (2) has been revised to break up the wall plane above the garage; o That the left elevation of Plan Two has been revised to include one additional window on the second floor and the right elevation has been revised to include two (2) windows on the second floor; o That the left elevation of Plan Three (3) has been revised to include one additional window on the first floor and one additional window on the second floor; and that three additional windows have been proposed on the second floor of the right elevation; o That the left elevation of Plan Four (4) has been revised to include one additional window on the second floor and one additional window on the second floor of the rear elevation; . That the intent of adding additional windows would be to break up the large expanses of wall; . That staff is recommending as a Condition of Approval, that the applicant provide only the- enhanced elevations; that the standard elevation should not be used due to the language in the Specific Plan (SP), which states "articulation shall be provided on all R:lMinutosPC\051904 4 sides of the homes ('10ur-sided architecture")"; that staff is of the opinion that the standard elevations do not meet the articulation or the four-sided architecture standards; . That the following issues identified by staff and the Planning Commission of items of concern, have not been addressed: o Additional variation of the garage placement and garage door style for each plan has not been proposed; o The appearance of two front elevations has not been proposed and; o The roof design/silhouette does not offer a significant level of variation within each plan. . That staff has added the Conditions of Approval to ensure these changes are made, which would bring each product into conformance with the intent of the Design Guidelines and that staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the project with the attached Conditions of Approval. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. M. J. Knitter, representing the applicant relayed the following: . That since the last Planning Commission meeting of April 21, 2004, the applicant has taken the comments of the Planning Commission and have enhanced a number of the areas on the sides and rears, revised the second-elevation on the second floor, moved the egress window (which was on the front of the window) and moved it to the side; and that smaller design element windows were added to the,front; . That on all corner conditions, there will be a one-story plan: and that a gable could be added for enhancement purposes if it is the will of the Commission; . That six (6) garage door variations will be provided for the home buyer; . That the landscaping and fencing will be taken care of by the landscape architect; . That windows to sides were added to Plan Two (2), Plan Three (3), and Plan Four (4); . That in regard to the four-sided architecture. the applicant is of the opinion that the front elevations of all plans comply with the intent of the Architectural Guidelines; . That there will be enhanced elevations on the rear 01 every residence along the ridgeline, every residence that abuts the street, and on all corners; . That on Plan One (1) the applicant would request to stay with the ridge running front to back;' . That on Plan Two (2) there will be a hip roof condition which will be on all three of the elevations; R:lMlnutesPC\051004 5 . That on Plan Three (3) there will be a hip roof on the front; that on the side of the elevation the rear is a gable roof and that if it were the will of the Commission a hip could be added to the back 3b which would match the front of the b; . That on Plan 4, there will be a hip roof on all three elevations; . That on the Spanish Revival, the applicant would propose to use a lace finish on stucco versus a 20130 sand finish noting that a 20/30 sand finish is difficult to use, extremely expensive and that the applicant would like to avoid the call back that the 20/30 sand finish will entail; . That the applicant would request to use an "S" tile concrete tile roof on the Spanish Revival versus a barrel tile clay roof; . That if it were the will of the Commission, the applicant could add a hip on the profile of the roofs on 3b. Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that the Design Guidelines for Spanish Revival call out for a Barrel Tile clay roof. Mr. George Zeeber, representing Meeker Companies noted that he needed clarification for the following Conditions of Approval: . Item No. 30 relating to paseos: For Mr. Zeeber, Mr. Hazen relayed that Item No. 30 is based on the terms of the development agreement and the Conditions of Approval of the Specific Plan. Mr. Long further clarified that the master developer has some responsibility to implement the paseos and landscaping in various areas prior to the individual merchant builders being able to pull building permits. . Item No. 32, 45, and 47. Ms. Ubnoske clarified that Item No. 32, 45, and 47 would not be for private lots. Mr. M. J. Knitter relayed that he will work with staff to enhance the sides on corner lots to give the appearance of a second front elevation. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Olhasso expressed disappointment with the proposed project and suggested that the applicant work with staff to improve the outdated appearance of the residences. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue this item to an indefinite period of time. This motion died for a lack of a second. R:\MinutesPC\051904 6 Commissioner Guerriero also expressed disappointment with the proposed project stating that a lot of time and effort has gone into the implementation of the Design Guidelines and the Specific Plan (SP) and queried why the Design Guidelines and Specific Plan are not being followed. Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that staff is satisfied with the project as conditioned; that if the Planning Commission were to approve the proposed project with the conditions that staff has placed on it, it would then be consistent with the Specific Plan (SP); and that the other option would be to continue this item off calendar to have the applicant continue to work with staff. Commissioner Olhasso apologized to staff, the Commission, and to the developer, but noted that she would not be able to approve the project as proposed. MOllON: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion subject to the proposed conditions stated by staff, that the land developer construct the paseos as it is required in the existing Specific Plan, and that the applicant upgrade for an architectural elevation tor all side lots on corners where they occur on all plans. CommiSSioner Mathewson amended his motion to include Commissioner Chiniaeff's requests voice vote reflected 8DDroval with the exceDtion ot Commissioner Olhasso and Commissioner Guerriero who voted No. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-023 A RESOLUllON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0634 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR 113 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 4B OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUGHT OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS TRACT MAP 29661-5 New Items 5 Plannino Application PA03-0027. submitted bv Cornwall Associates Architects. is a Conditional Use Permit to construct establish and ooerate a 24" 287 SlIuare foot church tacility '098ted on the north side ot Pauba Road and 140 feet west of Corte Villosa IAPN:. 955-050-017\ This item will be addressed after Item No.6 per the request of the Commission. 6 Plannino Aoplication PA03-0534 submitted bv McArdle and Associates Architects is a Develooment Plan to construct an 18.981 souare-toot three-stol.Y office buildino. an 1.01 acres. Located in the north side of Ridoe Park Drive" south of Rancho California Road. (APN: 940-310-027\ . Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: · That the proposed project is tor a three-story office buil~ing; and that it is located on the site interior loop portion of Ridge Park Drive that wraps around the site; R:\MinUle$PC\051904 7 . That there are two existing transformers located on each side of the driveway entrance; that due to slop restraints it would not be feasible to relocate the driveway; and that the applicant has proposed plantings around the transformers to soften their appearance; . That the first floor of the building includes underground parking which provides direct access into the building via elevator and stairs; . That there will be vehicular access to the first floor parking structure on the east and west sides of the building which creates two-way circulation throughout the project site; . That the project requires 57 parking spaces which are being proposed by the applicant; . That the applicant is proposing to exceed the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard which is .40; and that the applicant is proposing .45 FAR; . That staff is of the opinion that the proposed project includes exceptional materials, design, and landscaping that would qualify the project for an increase in FAR; . That the elevations that are included in the Commission packet are for a blue reflective glass and that the applicant has revised it to a green color (at this time a sample was distributed to the Commission); . That the proposed project is exempt from Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and. that staff would be recommending approval. For the Commission, Fire Marshal McBride relayed that the proposed project meets the fire code requirements under section 903 of the fire code as well as meeting the practicality of the requirements; that the Rre Department will have access to both sides of the building as well as the front of the building for aerial apparatus; and that the Fire Department is of the opinion that they could adequately protect both the occupants and building. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aooroval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-026 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-Q534M A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 29,622 SQUARE FOOT THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING ON 1.01 ACRES, LOCATED ON RIDGE PARK DRIVE, SOUTH OF FlANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 940-310-027 New Item 5 Plannina Application PA03-0027. submitted bv Cornwall Associates Architects. is a <;Onditional Use Permit to construct" establish and oDe rate a 24. 287 ~uare foot church facili1v located on the north side of Pauba Road and 140 feet west of Corte Villosa fAPN: 955-050-017\ R:\MinutesPC\051904 8 Assistant City Attorney Curly relayed that the applicant posted photo simulations of what is perceived to be the after affect. At this time the Commission took a 15 minute break. Assistant City Attorney clarified what a Public Hearing is stating that the Planning Commission will be making decisions based on the City's laws, State Planning and Zoning Laws, and Federal Laws; and also explained Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). For the Commission, Ms. Ubnoske clarified what correspondence the Commission should have. Associate Planner Harris presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: . That the applicant is proposing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Development Plan to construct, establish, and operate a 24,287 square foot church facility including a sanctuary, multi-purpose room, classrooms, meeting rooms; and that the subject property is located on the north side of Pauba Road and 140 feet west of Corte Villosa; . That the proposed project is 4.72 acres in size and that currently the site is vacant; . That there are existing single-family residences to the east that back up to the. proposed property line; . That the north and west side of the proposed project is vacant and to the south there are existing single-family residential residences, part of the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan (SP); . That the facility has been sited in the center of the property so as to reduce impacts on adjacent properties; that approximately 170-foot wide setback has been achieved between the building and the eastern property lines; that setbacks of 108 feet and 170 feet have been achieved from the north and west property lines; and that these setbacks far exceed the minimum 10-foot wide setback that is required by the Development Code and that staff is of the opinion that the setbacks serve as ample buffers between adjacent residences and the proposed facility; . That there will be a 20 foot landscape buffer proposed along the' eastern property line; · That there will be a 10' to 20' wide landscape buffer on both the north and the west sides of the property; · That in addition, the applicant is proposing 18' tall parking lot poles with cut-off fixtures that would force the light downward into the parking lot area and to the landscaped area to the east; R:\MinutasPC\051904 9 . That landscaping being proposed will be adjacent to each side of the two driveways that would serve to screen the parking lot from Pauba Road; . That a colonial architectural style is being proposed for the church facility; that a cupola is being proposed out towards the front of the structure that will serve to breakup the roofline; and with the cupola incorporated into the structure it would be 50 feet tall, which complies with the building height requirements in the very low zoning district; . That the height and scale of the proposed church facility will be different from the surrQunding residences; however, with the large building setbacks and landscaped buffers being proposed, staff is of the opinion that the facility will be compatible with the surrounding single-family residences; . That the building will be covered in brick to give the appearance of a COlonial architectural element; that it will be a cross cable building style with the gable ends treated with decorative columns and siding, and decorative window treatment to bring out the architectural style; . That the proposed church facility will be constructed as a stake center; that the a Stake center accommodates three church wards; and that a ward consists of approximately 100 families or SOO to 600 people; . That a sanctuary area, offices, a multipurpose area with a stage, a basketball court area, a variety of Sunday school classrooms, and meeting rooms are being proposed; . That based on calculations provided by the architect, there will be 287 fixed seats proposed within the sanctuary area; and that the Development Code requires 96 on site parking spaces (overflow parking has been factored in); that in terms of parking, the applicant complies with the Development Code; . That non-fixed seating will be provided for overflow potential in the multipurpose room when necessary; . That staff determined that the project complies with all other applicable Development standards such as building height, lot coverage, and landscaping; . That there was an initial study performed for the project site resulting in three (3) impacts identified that had potential to be significant, Air qualit\(, Cultural Resources, and Transoortation/Traffic; however, mitigation measures have been applied to them which have subsequently reduced them from being significant; · However, there have been mi'igation measures specified in the traffic study, the first of which is a half-width improvement of Pauba Road along the entire width of the project site; the second mitigation measure would be a locked gate across the eastem property line to prohibit vehicles from entering during the evening hours, and that the last item would be the payment of both TUMPF and signal mitigation fees; R:\MinutesPC\051904 10 . That the applicant provided a new operational statement (see staff report) which further clarifies how many people will be associated with the various activities on the property; and that based on the new operational statement provided, staff has drafted an additional Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Conditions of Approval (see staff report). For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Harris relayed that it is his opinion that the surrounding residences have received an operations matrix. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that as a result of the new statement of operations and the changes to the Conditions of Approval, a temporary use permits is not required for any of the uses, and that staff reviewed the detailed revised statement of operations and concurred that the activities and events could be accommodated in the proposed building. For Commissioner Chiniaeff. Ms. Ubnoske relayed that the applicant would not require the use of a temporary use permit for the bi-annual Stake Conference. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Principal Engineer Moghadam relayed that at ultimate build-out. Pauba Road would be able to -carry 31,000 vehicles a day; that if there are any delays of traffic due to the proposed project, it will be at the driveways of the proposed project, noting that there will be full movement from both driveways. . Mr. Moghadam also relayed that a Level of Service (LOS) D would condition a project for signalization; and that the CIP has a design underway for Rancho Vista and Meadows Parkway which will be going to bid in the near future. Deputy Director Parks clarified that the widening of Pauba Road in front of Linfield School is a condition on its project; and that the Temecula Valley High School expansion project will be conditioned to widen Pauba for their whole frontage. For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Moghadam relayed that the Level of Service (LOS) on Pauba Road with the improvements of Temecula Valley High School factored in, would be A or ~. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Kent Cornwall, of Cornwall Associates Architects, provided the following history and thoroughness of the process up until the Public Hearing: . That the church acquired the property in 1997 with the intent of building this type 01 facility on the property; . That Cornwall Architects was contacted by the applicant in early 2002 when it was ready to move forward with the project; and a pre-application was started to inquire what the City's procedures would be as far as building plans, appearance, and statement 01 operations; · That the applicant received comments from staff requesting not typically required items such as an acoustical study, a lighting study, and a traffic analysis; and at that time, the concems of staff were ingress and egress of the property, and the comparison of the R:\MinutosPOD51904 11 zone use (which is very low density residential) and the proposed use being for a church; and that staff requested other standard requests; . That at that time, Cornwall Architects recommended that the applicant meet with the surrounding neighbors (particularly the neighbors adjacent to the east) early on to discuss the proposed project; . That Cornwall Architect has been working with these type of facilities (churches) for over 30 years and understand the process, ooncerns, and sensitivities of the neighborhoods they enter into; . That on August 4, a meeting was scheduled with the residences of Corte Villosa who would be most affected by the proposed project; that representatives of the church and oonstruction people were present to discuss the proposed project; that renderings, floor plans, and a video showing examples of the quality of construction and maintenance that will be involved was shown; and that at that time, the church representatives took four (4) pages of notes of ooncems expressed by residences; and that as a plans developed, the church attempted to incorporate mitigating measures to the neighbors concerns into the project; . That after a result of much discussion with the neighbors, the landscape buffer that was on the east property line was increased; that the landscape fingers that are on the last row of parking was doubled; and that the applicant worked with staff to install the west driveway; . . That the applicant went through the process with the design review oommittee and the City, in the fall of 2002; and that during that time period, the applicant developed those standard requirements, preliminary grading plans, landscape plans, material boards, detailed floor plans, elevations, building sections, soil reports, and the requested acoustic and photometric studies, and traffic analysis; . That a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held in February of 2003; and that at that time, staff reoommended a neighborhood meeting (one that would be noticed) so that the applicant oould receive public input early on in the process; . That the first public meeting announced by the City was held in March of 2003; that the major impacts of ooncern that came out of that meeting was security, evening and morning noise, lighting, future development of the property to the north of the proposed property (which belongs to the church), screening, height of the steeple, inadequate landscape buffer, home depreciation, traffic ooncems, and the concern that the church would use other uses outside the statement of operation; . That as a result of the March 2003 meeting, further adjustments were made to the design such as parking lot light poles that were on the east property line were moved at the end of the landscape finger so that it would be 40 feet away from the property line of the adjacent homes; that the steeple was lowered by two-stories (20 feet); that a traffic study was initiated; that the church oommitted to sell the excess property so that there would be no ooncern that there would be some expansion of the proposed facility, but that until the church has a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), would the church be able to R:\MinutesPC\051904 12 commit to sell the remaining property; that a gate was added to the east driveway; and that a primary building entrance was proposed for the west entry; . That the revised documents were accomplished and resubmitted to the City in June; . That per the request of staff, a second community meeting was held with the neighbors on September 11, 2003 to show the neighbors how their concerns were addressed; that the applicant listened to similar concerns of neighboring homeowners; that traffic was the most common expressed concern; that the applicant's traffic engineer was available to answer questions; and that new concerns arouse such as depreciating homes and the use of'the property north of the proposed property; . That the applicant provided staff with a Phase 1 Cultural Resource Assessment Initial Study (which concerns archeological issues); . That a palentological study was provided; . That in January 2004, all documents had been provided and staff was satisfied; and that the process was set to go through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff, City Attorney, and the CUP hearing; . That the following are concerns that have been adjusted and what is currently in the project to mitigate and address existing concerns: o Site suitability; o Traffic; o Privacy; o Noise; o Parking lot lights; and o Property values. At this time, Mr. Cornwall addressed a letter that was referred to as May 12, 2004, from the homeowners of Temecula, Corte Villosa, noting the following: 1. Retainina wal!: that the applicant will be engineering and installing a retaining wall, and if desired by the homeowners, that the applicant would also be willing to install a six-foot wrought iron fence on top of the wall so that when the condition of the properties being back filled against it, it would not have an 8 foot or 6 foot drop-off, down from the applicant's wall; and thai the Church has offered to install the retaining wall at its expense. 2. Back-fillinp back vards: that the applicant would be willing to make back-fill material available from its site development at the time of the development; thai they would allow access and encourage their graders to be used by the homeowners to install the back- fill. 3. Landscaoe and irrioation for reclaimed land: that the applicant would be willing to offer the homeowners landscaping and irrigation at a reduced rate. 4. Greenbelt: that the residences concurred that 20 feet between properties would be adequate; that most of the trees requested by the adjacent homeowners are huge and dense; and that the applicant would be willing to work with staff to come up with proper and acceptable landscaping for the proposed property. ,. A:IMinutesPC\051904 13 5. Roafina material: that the applicant is willing to change the color of the roof. 6. Liahtinq: that the applicant is willing to work with staff in regards to parking lot lighting. Mr. Cornwall relayed that the applicant has appreciated the communication between the applicant, staff and neighbors. ' For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Harris noted that the results of the analysis that was performed by the landscape architect would be in staff's report. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Cornwall relayed that the gate on the east boundary would be closed at all times. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Cornwall stated that the Church would be willing to be responsible for the wall, the lence and the landscaping; and that the drainage swale, existing wrought iron fence and the slope is not the church's property and would be the responsibility of the homeowners. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Cornwall relayed the following: noted that the proposed retaining wall would extend to the 7th property line; and that if the homeowners were interested in the back fill, they could have it at no cost to them; and the applicant is willing to change the color of the roof, but that they would not be changing the materials; and that the applicant is open to any combination of light fixtures in the parking lot to address the concerns of lighting. For Chairman Telesio, Mr. Cornwall noted that the traffic survey was performed before the neighboring schools let out; and that if there is a concern in regard to entering the proposed area through the westerly gate during the evening times, the applicant would be willing to close the westerly gate in the evening. Mr. Rocky Snider, project manager for the LDS Church, relayed the following: . That staff delete Condition of Approval No. 13; . That on the evenings when activities conclude at 11:00 p.m., that the lights around the building remain on until the last person leaves 11 :15 or 11 :30; and that the eastern parking lot lights shall be turned off at 10:00 p.m. seven days a week; . That because a dance is considered a primary activity, the applicant would request that the Condition of Approval in regard to dances be modified to allow for more than one day per month and would also request that it open to other nights of the week other than Saturday night; . That in regard to Stake Conferences, the applicant would request that Condition of Approval No. 20 be deleted that it is covered under Condition of Approval No. 19. . That as soon as the applicant receives its Conditional Use Permit (CUP), the real estate department of the church would start the process of selling the property. Mr. Kevin Osborne, 32750 Pine Circle, Stake President, relayed the following: · That a commitment has been made to sell the excess property; that as soon as the applicant receives its Conditional Use Permit (CUP), the real estate department of the church would start the process of selling the property; . That five (5) percent of the residents of Temecula are members of the LDS church; A;lMlnutesPC\051904 14 . That thare is usually a 50 to 60 percent attendance of services every Sunday; . That the proposed building is designed for the members of the church 'but that the community is welcome to participate in the use of the building; and that there are many different events that are community oriented; . That the applicant are proponents of the Boy Scouts of America; and that there are I seven (7) different troops located within the Temecula Stake and non-members are' welcome to the scouting program; . That the proposed facility would also be used for a Blood Drive, where the whole community is welcome to participate; . That the proposed facility would also be useable for the community. The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed project: Mr. Benjamin Graff Mr. Heber J. Hurd Mr. Brad Start Mr. Stewart Morris Ms. Larry Slussor Ms. Melanie Moore Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula T emecula Temecula The above mentioned individuals spoke in favor of the proposed project for the following reason: . That the Church would be advocating honesty, integrity, and will teach citizens how to be responsible members of society; . That the Church would strengthen families and increase the quality of life for families in the neighborhoods; . That the proposed Church would help to build a better community; . That the dances at the Church would have 16 to 20 adult chaperone per day supervised in the dance and the parking lots; that there would be 100 to 150 youth per dance ages 14 through 18; that most of the individuals do not drive; that the dances will take place inside three sets of doors which will diminish the sound to the exterior; and that the youth attending dances would not be able to exit the building without parental consent; · That LDS Churches are built in residential areas and that it does not engage in money generating endeavors that may classify it as a business; . That the youth program teaches young people to become honest well adjusted adults; . That the Church of LDS will be a beautiful Church; and that they are always well maintained inside and outside and would be an asset to any community; The following individual spoke in oooosition of the proposed project: Ms. Jenny Elliott Mr. Oon Mclaughlin Mr. Jim Johnson Ms. Beth Ceja Ms. Bobbi Corn R:\MinutesPCI051904 Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula T emecula " 15 Mr. Stephen Longo Ms. Rebecca Longo Mr. Tony Hardy Mr. Kenneth Ray Mr. David Kimbass Mr. John Wilshire Ms. Marjorie Gregory Mr. William Agnew Ms. Kristen Boano Mr. Chris Sorensen T emecula T emecula T emecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula T emecula The above meniioned individuals spoke in ODDosition of the proposed project for the following reasons: . That the proposed LDS Church does not blend in with the surrounding neighborhood; . That since the proposal of the LDS Church, five (5) residents have relocated; . That the residents would prefer to have single-family units rather than a 24, 287 square foot church; . That their currently are 12 public institutions within a mile of the proposed area; . That the properties adjacent to the proposed building would be faced with hundreds of people coming and going and looking into the yards; . That there will be excess noise created by the cars and people coming from the proposed building; . The quality of life will be compromised by the proposed building; . That a 24, 287 square foot, 31 foot tall building will create a massing affect; . That the residents did not receive the operations matrix or the new draft of the Conditions of Approval (CUP); . That the drainage issue is a concern for adjacent residents; . That the proposed facility will block the view of many of the surrounding residents; . That the residents are concerned that the traffic analysis has not been adequately addressed; . That residents were of the opinion that the proposed property was zoned for custom ranch style homes; Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that per the Development Code, there are a number of uses that are conditionally permitted in very low density zones such as mobile home parks, daycare centers, museums etc. . That the proposed facility deviates from the Intent and the character of rural ranch development; . That no other areas of Temecula have the density of schools and churches concentrated as much as the proposed area has; . That air pollution is a concern; . That if the proposed facility is approved that it be dramatically scaled down; For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Cornwall relayed that the applicant would be willing to work with staff in adding more landscaping in front of the church; and that the applicant will be r~sponsible for maintaining the retaining wall. R:\MinutosPC\051904 16 . At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. , At this time, Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to extend the meeting to 11 :30 p.m. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected aooroval. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern of staff's ability to meet the second criteria of the Conditional Use Permit (compatibility with the surrounding area); and stated that he would be of the opinion that the proposed facility and/or any other type of public facility would not be compatible with the surrounding single-family residences. Commissioner Mathewson stated for the audience that he has been taking notes and takes every comment seriously. ' Commissioner Mathewson expressed some concern with the traffic that the proposed facility would be bringing but that overall was pleased with the proposed architecture; and noted his appreciation for the applicant's willingness to address many of the concerns of the community. Commissioner Guerriero echoed Commissioner Mathewson's comments advising that he would be in favor of the proposed project. Commissioner Olhasso commended the speaker's willingness to meet and invest their time; stating that she also appreciates the work that the applicant and staff have put into the proposed project. Chairman Telesio echoed the above mentioned comments. For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director Parks relayed that currently the capacity of the road is 8200 and that at built out it would be 31,000 trips a day. Commissioner Chlniaeff stated that he also appreciates the applicant's willingness to accommodate the surrounding community; but that he has concerns with the overall massing affect that the proposed project would bring to the surrounding area and also expressed concern with the fact that it would only be used twice a year for large assembly. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve staff's recommendation, modifying the Conditions of Approval with respect to the operating hours by deletion of Condition of Approval No. 13, modifying Condition of Approval No. 18 to reflect that the proposed facility may operate 12 primary activities per year until 11 :00 p.m., deletion of Condition of Approval No. 20, and that the modification of the roof color be worked out between staff and the applicant. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected aooroval with the exceotion of Commissioner Chiniaeff who voted t!Q. . R:IMinutosPC'D519Q4 17 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-024 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0027, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A LATTER DAY SAINTS CHURCH FACILITY CONSISTING OF SANCTUARY, MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM, SUNDAY SCHOOL CLASROOMS AND MEETING ROOMS TOTALING 24,287 SQUARE FEET ON 4.72 ACRES. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PAUBA ROAD AND 140 FEET WEST OF CORTE VILLOSA ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 955-310-050 & 017. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-025 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-OO27, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, A CHURCH FACILITY CONSISTING OF SANCTUARY, MULTI- PURPOSE ROOM, CLASSROOMS AND MEETING ROOMS TOTALING 24,287 SQUARE FEET ON 4.72 ACRES. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PAUBA ROAD AND 140 FEET WEST OF CORTE VILLOSA, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 955-050-017. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS No reports at this time, PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report at this time, ADJOURNMENT At 11 :30 p.m., Chairman T elesio formally adjourned this meeting to the next reaular meetin~ to be held on Wednesdav. June 2. 2004 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Jmm\2, )L Chairman ~MkL:-~X De~ie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutosPC\051904 18 ATTACHMENT NO.5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 21, 2004 AND MEMORANDUM DATED MAY 19, 2004 G:IPJanning1200SIPAOS.0079 Hamptons at Roripaugh PA 46. EOT\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc 9 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION ORIGINAL Date of Meeting: April 21, 2004 Prepared by: Dan Long Title: Associate Planner File Number PA03-0634 Application Type: Product Review Project Description: Planning Application No. PA03-0634, submitted by Meeker Companies, is a product review for 113 detached single-family residences within Planning Area 48 in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Stage Road (Tract 29661-5). Plan 1, one-story 2,346 square feet (19 units) Spanish Revival (8 units) Prairie (5 units) East Coast Traditional (6 units) Plan 2, two-story 2.589 square feet (22 units) Spanish Revival (7 units) Prairie (6 units) East Coast Traditional (9 units) Plan 3, two-story 2.715 square feet (31 units) Spanish Revival (10 units) Prairie (9 units) East Coast Traditional (12 units) Plan 4, two-story 2,915 square feet (41 units) Spanish Revival (13 units) Prairie (15 units) East Coast Traditional (13 units) Recommendation: o Approve with Conditions D Deny o Continue for Redesign o Continue to: o Recommend Approval with Conditions o Recommend Denial R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\MeekerCo. fr 29661-5, PA03-0634\STAf'F REPORT-I.doc I CEQA: ~ Categorically Exempt (Class) 15161 D Negative Declaration D Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring DEIR PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Applicant: Geor(le Zeber, Meeker Companies Completion Date: March 15. 2004 Mandatory Action Deadline Date: June 15, 2004 General Designation: Low Medium Residential (LM) Zoning Designation: Low Medium Residential (LM) Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: Vacant North: South: East: West: Sinqle-Family Residential (Riverside County) Very Low Density Residential (VL) Vacant Vacant Lot Area: 5,000 square foot minimum (ran(le: 5,250 sq. ft. - 15,678 sq. ft.) Total Floor Area/Ratio N/A Landscape Area/Coverage N/A Parking Required/Provided 2 covered enclosed spaces (20' x 20') BACKGROUND SUMMARY r8J 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed; however. the following issues have not been resolved to the satisfaction to staff. The project does not meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. however the applicant's representative insisted that the project be brought before the Planning Commission for a public hearing. The following is a list of features that have not been provided as required in the Design Guidelines and/or development standards of the Specific Plan: . Four sided architecture; . Detail and/or variation between each style; . Two front elevations on corner lots; R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PAOJ-0634\ST AFF REPORT .l.doc 2 . Minimum setback standards (inconsistent dimensions); . Variation in the placement of garages has not been provided; . Stucco finish is not consistent with the Design Guidelines; . Fencing at exposed corners is not consistent with the development standards. and . Silhouettes/roof do not provide significant variation. Staff feels that the plans are overall too monotonous and some walls appear as blank surfaces with little articulation. ANALYSIS The applicant has proposed four (4) floor plans and three (3) architectural styles. The applicant has chosen the option of Design Group E (pg. 4-97) from the Specific Plan. which allows the use of one style from the design groups A-D (Attachment 4). Staff has reviewed the proposed project and has design related issues that shall be addressed as well as development standards that do not meet the minimum standards in the Specific Plan. The applicant has not provided consistent plans showing that the products meet all of the development standards, primarily setbacks. As indicated in staffs letter dated January 19, 2004, staff requested the applicant revised the plot plan to show all setbacks from the same property line. The applicant uses two different lines to show setbacks. Staff cannot adequately review plans that do not show the correct setback. However. staff took the initiative to identify the following lots that do not meet the minimum setbacks: The required interior side yard setbacks are 5 feet. Lots 108, 47, 73. 22, 26. 91 and 87 do not meet this minimum standard. Lot 23 does not meet the minimum front living space setback of 10 feet or the garage setback of 18 feet (9'-8" and 17'-7" proposed). In addition. lots 27,28,29, 30, 31 and 32 do not meet the minimum 25-foot setback along Planning Area 7. Staff would like to receive direction from the Planning Commission regarding the rear yard setbacks along Planning Area 7. The Specific Plan requires a 25-foot setback for lots abutting Planning Area 7 along the southern property line. The above lots abut Planning Area 7; however they do not abut the existing residences to the south. Staff feels the intent of this setback standard was to provide additional buffering to the existing residences to the south. Also. the Specific Plan allows for a reduction of 3 feet in the front setback for lots abutting Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Lot 23 qualifies for this exception. however staff feels the garage setback shall be no less than 18 feet in order to allow a vehicle to park in the driveway without encroaching into the right-of-way. Staff feels the plans do not meet the four sided architecture standard in the Design Guidelines. Staff has determined that in order to satisfy this requirement, the architectural style shall be identifiable by looking at any side of the residence. Staff feels there are many blank walls with little articulation to define the architectural style. With little articulation on the rears and sides, staff cannot determine that there are two front elevations on corner lots. For example, the sides and rears of Plan 1 are nearly identical with the exception of Spanish Revival. which includes a decorative detail at the top of the gable of the rear elevation. Staff understands that it is difficult to meet this requirement for a single story unit; however. the other plans have the same deficiencies. The applicant has proposed a standard elevation and an enhanced elevation. however it is not clear which lots are enhanced and which are not. While the enhanced elevations are a step in the right direction in meeting the four sided requirement, staff still feels the plans are not to the level that meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. As an example, the enhanced elevations for Plan 2 include large blank walls with few windows and/or treatment. R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661.5, PA03.0634\STAFF REPORT-I.doc ] Staff feels the applicant has relied on window trim to distinguish the styles as opposed to materials and forms. The applicant has proposed a variation in the window styles, however they are not consistent Spanish Revival is proposing multi-paned windows; however on the enhanced elevations for Plan 4, many of the second story windows are not multi-paned. While staff has identified some of the architectural inconsistencies. all of the plans maintain short comings that do not meet the Design Guidelines. Staff recommended that the applicant provide rear decks that appear as structural components of the residence as opposed to plant-on wood decks. While staff agrees that the East Coast Traditional warrants a wood type deck. staff feels that if wood decks are proposed, they shall be thick over-sized beams with articulation to portray a quality design. As proposed, the rear decks for Prairie and East Coast Traditional appear as flimsy attachments as opposed to structural components of the house. The Design Guidelines require a variation in garage placement to be incorporated into the overall design of the homes. As proposed, the applicant has not provided a significant variation in the placement of the garage. Staff encouraged the applicant to provide a variation of garage placements. including a separate plan with a side entry garage. A total of 13 of the 113 lots are corner lots and staff felt there were enough corner lots that warrant a side entry garage. While each plan proposes some living space in front of the garage. there is little variation between each plan. The deepest recessed garage is Plan 3. which includes an 8-foot setback from the living space. By providing a deep recessed garage. there is a greater opportunity to propose Porte Cocheres and/or trellis type features. The Design Guidelines also encourage Porte Cocheres. trellises, and single width driveways. none of which has been proposed. The Specific Plan requires fencing to be slumpstone for all areas visible from the street The applicant has proposed wood returns from the pilasters to the residence. Retaining walls shall be slumpstone block to match the perimeter walls; the applicant has neglected to identify retaining wall materials. The Design Guidelines state that Spanish Revival and Prairie shall maintain smooth plaster walls. The Design Guidelines are not as specific for East Coast Traditional; however staff feels a light finish is adequate. Typical East Coast styles primarily utilize a siding material. The applicant has not proposed smooth stucco finish or siding for the proposed s. Staff recommends each plan be revised as necessary. The applicant has proposed a similar roof plan and silhouette for each. The primary roof design as well as the roof pitches are the same for each plan The applicant has indicated in their response letter dated February 5, 2004 that variation in the featured elements meets the infent of the Design Guidelines and that changing the main roof structure is not an option. Plan 2 does include one style which utilizes a varied roof plan; however staff feels each plan shall be revised to provide the necessary articulation and variation in order avoid a monotonous street scene and silhouette. While staff has identified various inconsistencies between the proposed project and the Design Guidelines. there are many other aspects of the project that need to be revised in order to be found consistent with the Design Guidelines. The applicant has submitted a response letter to staff's initial letter, both of which has been attached. R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661~S. PA03-0634\STAFF REPORT-I.doc 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION [8J 1. The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the previously approved (Negative Declaration) (EIR) and is exempt from further Environmental Review (CEQA Section 15162 subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations). CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Staff has concluded that the proposed project cannot be found consistent with the Design Guidelines or development standards within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide direction to the applicant and continue the proposed project for a redesign. ATTACHMENTS 1. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 6 2. Excerpts from the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Design Guidelines - Blue Page 7 3 Staff letter to applicant dated December 11. 2003 - Blue Page 8 4 Applicant response letter dated February 5. 2004 - Blue Page 9 R:\ProduCl Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr29661-5, PA03-0634\STAFF REPORT-I.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO.1 PLAN REDUCTIONS R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, P AOJ.0634\ST AFF REPORT ~ l.doc 6 _i .1 "- t ~ ~ " ~ '!J -,: ., .. '" ~\ tlJIt; '?''''' ='" tlJI- g~ .-" :$ = in ~ )- "" '" \) \ ,...., ~ ~ ~ 7- 0 e ~ ... In "- 0 u ~ '" ,.., ~ \.l ~0 .1 '!l ~ ~ S'1l Z ~ ~~~ <- ,.1. " O%~ .. '!J 7- p,.lt t:. ~~O '" -\) ~~ri< ~G~ O"'\<l . ~~ c!.'"' ... \, ..r- ~ . , , , . ',l~. ~@'@ } , . " } . ~ . , 1 , , ~ jJ ~ !.~:n.trad#tlf''\\ f'='#:~"": '_~D- $. "..;-." .,-JlIOUi(._y_' 1._1"_ I.".__'_:m- .1..~y_ u. :-....It".LGW/J "U"___ u_~ urr_~ U..~_~. u_ J(~.J"qIt. .Jl__F_SIl# I" 4Ylf<qPf',~cmp 4o!4{/ JA~'spANiS,liREVlVAL: . (j)~ .1C-EAsTcOAS1'TRADmO~@ PLAN 'l. RORIPAUGH RANCH I TEMSCULA. c..\LJll'ORNL\. l\IIEE;KERCOMMt" ....u"-s ITTTJr~ ;ti~u- " .._t:04II'll'CNcnI<~'lIIo ~~----""""'" .~~_lii<< . Md.-NW4.t1/161f9d8MlJ', ;~I'__~lIioo ~ ~Ilo<'-"""""" ~.Blfto04''''''-~- .-.-."""",,- . -..---- ,._--,,-" ._~-- Q_c.;,.,n...- .,nor,n>!'riI~tllo""'. '''''''P'o:~A_c..w.''' .,............~lnooMof. .__v_ ....,. r__ ~ ~~~ ~&.~ ;..0......,.................. ..sa 101..,...._.....'" -- ~~" "", jt--- , . , I -~ \ I . I ~ , . ~~ a - , ) " l . J' { - L~';"~~ 1 ~'.f":rr.6-t .- t. ..... Oonop ow ",_r_ Il. ....".-.,_ 1._"_ I __,..rrloo t' "*"-~., , JI-";""lI'.L1HI' 'lJ.~_1ti4 Jlsp.'.-~ llll'............ 'l(~,"",,,,,,, 11_._ J(~~.." J7,'-;'_T~~, U. ~__T..OrrId 14of4U m I:~ 2A;',- SP4-NJSH.REv;lV~ Design F....tur..... r.--~.._...._-_..-..--..--Hlp roof ..hap..s ",' ,.,..______________Flat hie or shingle roofs /" //. . __...._Horlz;onlal proportlon$ /,.,.,.' ,r---- Prairie rnunUn windOW' bre..kups " /' /' ,/' --. ;",Trlrn band ..ccent J /' ;;:" ,-srnooth e~erlor plaster walls /~ ~Lower roon!"e accents ~ ~~ .J . , <D } q , ~ . PlLA:N 2 RORIPAUGH RANCH I TEMECULA.. CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMMUNITIES ~ ~~. .........- -"'-~- Utfi~~1Oi - -.-. --,--.- ~---~ "- 'J.~AtlZV<~ J..~\S"m.b<if . .... 4:~"",zr.Hr 1 "...,_ . I.XO>l4_"_. '..~r_ .I.ru-....r_fifoo J.~l".. 1(l~.....t_ .Il. ~_Mdw 11.$t'!d"fCol-. u. ,,-....., l4:"....._~. 11__ I'~""", 17,.-..._r....Jii..v 1~ s.-...,.F_c.rllll 240140 J 0"''''''30 F..atures' j" .1 j ~ ~ , . ~3A - SPANIsH ~VJ;v~ J' j . ~. , } . (9 3D -=l"RAIR....:.. . .1 ) ~ ~ , .........It...~~-r.r ~ _. .(I~- .r.........'3'~~1lk l_~~~~ ;-.....-...--.. , l.----~SIt<lf 'I~-""'-~ ....~c-,........rJIf ! IfInUho/_u-.-&.. --- __w~__.n;., I"*"'-~. ~~~ QUtc-~ ;TI<r-.Jo..-.um.,;., .:~~BI;AI_b'" .r.nlpolS/uriJM~",.... ._,laky.... . 1J(~~1'_. "' """ ~r....i~~ <3l~~C,EAST COAST TRADmONAL@@ PLAN 3 RORIPAUGH RANCH I ~ ~bJet orchlWohn,lplarri'lll _.._~- . .,..u<-..~1'!-'" """':"'".....ov,<M, .._,....,.........ILA.. c.ALIFORNlA MEJ:!.iA..nK co~.......~~s , 'I ~ ~ ~ ,. . , .. ~ i.=~:~ J .- ' '_a....,..r1Jwlt J. ".-,_ t --...:_y_ ~ _r_ '__'_:1)0, J.~"MI ll-__II".LGrm 1l.~J/po<<>>_. 11.sp....~ n. "'HZ.... . 14""""P1bfoo~. ,,~ Jl.._YGOt .h.St.-_,_SIu1f l1~_'D"'c..tfd 3.01411 . m . i o Aa.;',SPANISHREVIV~ 4B - PRAIRIE Design Features: .._Hlpl gable combination roof shapes ...... ..._Multl~p"'na wlndo,""" .......'"':...... ......Stuoco trim detailing m .....--:~.....,.."'.......Exterior plaster 'Nalls ...y.... ..r:;.. ,,- j" ,...Covered front porch entry . ... .idJ..........- .... rBoxad ovarha....gs ..... ~/~..Flat arch openings ... ',,"" :1 q 9: .. , ~ . ,1;~ 0~ .. .'---."'; , " -." ..4C.:..E.AST_COASr,TBADmONAL W 'PLAN 4 RORIPAUGHRANCH I TIOIIECULA, CALIFORNIA MEEKER COMMUNIT:IES ,rrrur- .,..,. --- f.r.....CIIofo'S'c..........._ ,~---'-~ . -';""""'"PI__ . --~"Slyd"" .~1r_...._1Ww .- .,...~...,rz" . ~.....w_... .~-- .._............._ZIio< . MotNolo___ ._~-- I . .' pJ!d"-_ ;.1L!l;r_c....-,l1Io~ .SII9I<~......._boft ;.,."""""~J(___ .~4...Y_ . .~v_.y_ . ~ ~~ .........,- ---'1".....,.,..- -.....-.....,.. -.- -- ATTACHMENT NO.2 EXCERPTS FROM THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\MeekerCo. Tr 29661-5, PAOJ-Q634\STAFF REPORT-I.doc 7 ASHBY USA, LLC FIGURE 4-53 EAST COAST TRADITIONAL Inspiration Photo: The Keith companieslTI<..C NOT TO SCALE I Design features: - Covered front porch entry - Multi-pane windows - Stucco trim detailing - Flat arch openings - Hip/gable combination roof shapes - Exterior plaster walls - Boxed overhangs ~ '\. 1 1 f; \" f c;- '" 1 ' /" I'! , ~. ( I I i j ;,- f \ ~ i ... , , "t -, ";'j i. .! J ) I 1,\' 11":! -j i l \ U l. :' .' . -, ro~ C~ x O~ .-~ .......... ~ ~i ro~ '-- t:i I-~ o ....... ~ (fH CO~ 0: Oi .......... ~ cn-r. CU~ W~ ~ ASHBY USA. LlC FIGURE 4-59 PRAIRIE STYLE l~~L- ->< ~ ~ ./ - ~ r ~ ~ ,...---. , .l(1r: Inspiration Photo: The Keith compan1eslTI<..C NOT T 0 S C .... L E I , ~ {. Design features: - Hip roof shapes - Lower roofline accents - Prairie mullion window breakups - Flat tile or shingle roofs - Horizontal proportions - Smooth exterior plaster walls - Trim band accent ~ J 1 \, (" I ~ I . j ! } ~..: j ! I ( ~ i ; : i :. ! "-' . .. Q)E ~ +-' g U)i Q.)~ ::1 ro~ L..; Q...g a ~ w a ~ < :. , m > . . N o ~ ~ ~ il ~ . 11 11){ '1.' I J. ~ ({ ~... j ASHBY USA. U,C FIGURE 4-60 SPANISH REVIVAL = ~ In . sp.ration Ph oto: __'0':;:0:--. Tl1e K~.tl1 C I 0' o~P:o'''ITKC s C '" l E Desig f n eatures: ~ ~rched focal point xposed bea _ Recessed . m headers _ W window rought iron _ Alcoved ent accent details - Barrel tile cJ ry _ Exterior s ay roofing mooth I _ Ceramic tile p aster walls accents p . , \ / \ ' .. r .<.\ ,i' i'I.'" ! .~ (, "t _ f ! ,. j '/ 1 ~ __ ___} _~ 1 n..:Q ,u ~ >~ --8 >~ ,,, . \,Va o:::~ ..cl ,,, "' V~~ __;i C" CO~ o.! (f)e' ~ m l . o ~ ,; i ~ i . 7) 1\ 'II ' .. ! "" f ~ 1 Z ! 1 DESIGN GUIDELINES Provide two color sets of the above at the scales indicated including a duplicate set of the color and materials board. In addition, provide six (6) sets of the above in reduced. 11" x 17" black and white format. 4.10.3.3 Architecture Forward and Garage Standards The following standards shall apply to all residential Planning Areas, except as specified: . . Architectural Forward" concept shall be incorporated into 100% of the homes in Planning Areas1O, 19, 20, 21, and 33A. "Architectural Forward" concept shall be incorporated into at least 50% of the homes in each of Planning Areas 1A, 2, 3, 4A, 48,12.14,15,16,17,18,22, 23, 24, and 31. This concept includes advancing the architecture of the living space forward on the lot while concurrently, the garage is held in place or further recessed. Residential dwelling units shall be designed to allow the living portion of the dwelling un~ to be 'positioned" forward on the lot so that the architecture of the garage will not dominate the street scene. . A variety of garage placement solutions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the homes. Minimum driveway length from the property line to the garage door shall be eighteen feet (18') for front-entry garages in all Planning Areas and ten feet (10') from the property line to the garage edge for side entry garages in the Land LM Districts. Garage solutions that should be ir~v'I'v,aled into the overall design are as follows: Shallow Recessed Garaoes (See Figure 4-62) Setting the garage back a minimum of eight feet (8') in relationship to the front of the house. ,-~ Mid to Deeo Recessed Garaoes (See Figure 4-63) Setting the garage back to the middle or rear of the lot. Third Car Side Loaded (See Rgure 4-64) Setting for garage with side-loaded entry. This plan can only occur on larger lots. Side Entrv Garaoes (See Rgure 4-65) The use of side entry garages on lots at least 52 feet wide in order to break the continuous view of garage doors along the street scene. Third Car Tandem (See Figure 4-66) Setting for third car tandem garage. Si,!ole Width Drivewavs (see Figure 4-67) This selting provides a maximum driveway width of twelve (12) feet for adjacent two-car garage. Porte Cochere (See Figure 4-68) Setting provides for the ;, .w. I'V' alion of a porte cochere. '.~ Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan N:\31367.000'<1od\SPSect44CCAdopted.doc 4.98 March, 2003 DESIGN GUIDELINES Articulation of Side and Rear Elevations There is a tendency to have "build out" planes maximized on side and rear yards without articulated treatment of those planes. This results in a two-story stucco etfect with no vertical or horizontal relief. Utilize the following techniques or other acceptable techniques to avoid this elfed: . Create a single-story plane at the rear by recessing the second story. . Utilize other similar architectural treatments and designs such as balconies or pop out staircases to encourage relief on potential large architectural planes. . Side and rear elevations shall have articulation with modulated facades, window treatment, second story projections and balconies. . Articulation shall be provided on all sides of the homes ("Four-sided Architecture"). Front Elevations . Architectural projections shall be utilized to emphasize entrances, balconies, and porches. Fronts of houses shall utilize several architectural features. Ground floor windows shall have significant trim or relief, second floor overhangs or buih in planters. Second story windows shall have similar treatment to emphasize them. . All residences shall incorporate entry courtyards, covered entries or covered porches at the entry into the design. (See Figure 4-71 and 4-72). . Details shall be concentrated around entrances. Materials used for the front entry shall be distinctive. . Building elements that reflect the architectural style should be incv.l'v, <>~ed into building entries, windows, front porches, and living areas directly adjacent to the street. . Ornamental features including wrought iron and exterior light features shall be combined with other features to create interest in the front of the house with architecturally compatible elements. Roriqal}9h Ranch S~ific Plan N;131367.000ldodlSPSect44CCAdopled.doc 4M12S March, 2003 DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.10.3.6 Architectural Elements A successful project design achieves a proper visual balance and sense of cohesiveness. The differences between the plans and elevation must be readily discernable and create variety, yet at the same lime elements, styles and materials should not contrast to such an extent as to result in visual chaos. Architectural elements will play a significant role in the establishment of the architectural style. These elements include architectural detailing, colors and materials, and other site structures. The required Architectural and design elements techniques are as follows: Unit Entries (See Figures 4-71 and 4-72) The enlry serves several important architectural and psychological functions: it identifies and frames the front doorway; it acts as an interface between the public and private spaces; and it acts as an introduction to the structure while creating an initial impression. . The entry shall be designed and located so as to readily emphasize its prime functions. Accent materials are encouraged to be used to further emphasize the entries. . If the front door location is not obvious Of visible because of building configuration, the entry shall direct and draw the observer in the desired path. The design of the entry area in merchant-buill housing shall be strong enough to mitigate the impact of the garage on the facade. . Entry doors and doorways shall be proportional to the architectural style of the structure. . Covered entries, courtyards and porches shall be provided as entry elements. Doors Emphasis shall be placed on the design and type of entry door used. II functions as the major introduction to the interior of the house and concern should be given on the image it creates. . Either single or double doors are appropriate. . The door shall be covered by an overhead element or recessed a minimum of 3 ft into the wall plane. . The entire door assembly shall be treated as a single design element including surrounding frame, molding and glass sidelights. . Recessed doors may be used to convey the appearance of thick exterior doors. . Wood may be used for the entry door. Wood grain texture and raised or recessed panels contribute to the appeal of the door. Greater use is being made of metal entry doors but in order to be acceptable, they shall possess the same residential "feel" provided by the wood grain and panels. . Doorways shall be typically rectangular or round-headed and fully recessed. Spiral columns, arches, pilaster, stonework, decorative tiles, or other sculptural details shall be integrated into the doorway design to enhance the visual importance of the entry door. RO~Q<!uQ~ Ranch Sqecific PI"," N:\31367.000ldodlSPScc144CCAdopted.dOc 4.127 March, 2003 DESIGN GUIDELINES . The use of glass in the door and overall assembly is encouraged. It expresses a sense of welcome and human scale. It can be incorporated into the door panels or expressed as single sidelights, double sidelights. transom glass or fan windows. . Flexibility is allowed concerning the color of the door. It may match or contrast the accent trim, but should be differentiated from the wall color. Windows . Typically, the location of windows is determined by the practical consideration of room layout, possible furniture placement, view opportunities and concern for privacy. Greater design emphasis should be directed to ensure that window placement and organization will positively contribute to the exterior architectural character. Windows greatly enhance the elevation through their vertical or horizontal grouping and coordination with other design elements. This relationship to one another and the walVroof plane creates a composition and sense of order. . All windows in a specific plan elevation shall be infegrated into the architecture of the building. This should not be interpreted that they are all the same shape, size or type but rather that a hierarchy of windows exists that visually relates and complements one window to another. , . Windows shall be recessed to convey the appearance of thick exterior walls. Non-recessed windows shall be surrounded with articulated architectural elements such as wood trim, stucco surrounds, shutters or recessed openings, shutters, pot shelves, ledges, sills plantons, and rails that compliment the architecture. . Merchant-built housing occasionally fails to adequately address proper window design and placement on rear and side elevations. This is usually due to prioritization, maintenance and cost factors. Since side elevations and second story rear windows are frequently visible, greater design effort and budget prioritization need to be given. Garaoe Doors (See Figure 4-73) . Utilizing garage types that compliment the architecture, door designs, and plotting techniques will do much to lessen the repetitious garage doors marching down both sides of a residential street. Variations include: o Employment of second-story feature windows above the garage. o Strong architectural entry elements. o Designs with a mix of 2 and 3 car garages, incorporating three single doors in some three car garage plans not facing the street. o Allowance for a 10-foot setback between adjacent garages. o The use of tandem garages may also be incorporated into the building design. o Garage plans with a double door and a single door plan shall not be placed next to each other. . If applicable, where 101 width permits plans should include swing-in or side entry garages with reduced front yard setbacks of ten (10) feet. Rorioauoh Ranch Soecifi~ PJan N:\31367.000'<1od1SPSect44CCAdopted.doc 4.129 March, 2003 DESIGN GUIDELINES . The design of the garage door shall relate to the overall architectural design of the residence. Colors shall be from the same paint palette. . Ornamentation of garage doors shall be provided to add visual interest from the street scene. . The use of the sectional, wood or metal, rolling garage door is required since it maximizes the availability of useable driveway length. . Several different panel designs shall be utilized for any project proposed by each merchant builder. Metal doors shall only be used when they include either texture or raised panels of a "residentiar nature. The use of window elements is encouraged. . The design of the door face shall result in a treatment which breaks up the expanse of the door plane while being complimentary to the architectural elevation of the residence. Architectural detail consisting of cornices, applied molding or trim or applied headers shall be used. There shall be an 8" recess. (See Exhibit 4-73). Roriqa,-!ctl Ranch Soecific Plan N:\31367 .OOOIdod\SPSect44CCAdopted.doc . 4-129 Manoh, 2003 DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.10.3.7 Residential Roof Form Allowable Roof Pitch (See Figure 4-74) . Allowable roof pitches of 3:12 10 4:12 shall be used. Allowable roof pitches over balconies and/or porches may be 2:12. . A single roof pitch should be used on opposite sides of a ridge. Shallow pitches lend to lessen the apparent building mass. RoofTvoes The use of different roof types will add variety and interest to the street scene. Changing the roof form on a given plan is the best method of creating alternative elevations. However, the roof characteristics should be consistent with the historical style that is chosen. . Hip, gable and shake-like material shall be used separately or together on the same roof. Avoid a canyon effect in side yards when both buildings have front-to-rear gables, by providing dormer or hip elements. . Repetitious gable ends along rear elevations shall be avoided. Roof forms with pitch changes at a porch or projection are preferable. . Roof forms having dual pitches such as Gambrel or Mansard shall not be used. . Maximize variations in rooflines by offsetting roof planes and combining single-story elements with two-story elements. Long uninterrupted rooflines should be avoided. Mechanical equipment is not permitted on roofs. Desion of Rakes and Eaves . The designer may choose from a variety of rake and eave types based on climatic and stylistic considerations. . Moderate or extended overhangs are acceptable if properly designed. Tight fascia with appropriate style are acceptable. . Single or double fascia boards, exposed rafters, or fascias with planscias when adequately scaled, are acceptable. . Care shall be taken to ensure that material sizes avoid a weak or flimsy appearance. Oveth~nn Proiections and Covered Porches . Substantial overhangs are required as a response to solar and climatic conditions. . The inclusion of covered porches and entries are required as part of the product mix. They expand shellered living space, create entry statements and provide elevation/relief. . Rear covered porches may differ from the roof in both pitch and material, but front porches should retain at least one of these two characteristics. Roriqaygh Ranch S~fic Plan N;\31367.000ldodlSPSect44CCAdopled.doc 4-133 March, 2003 ASHBY USA. ue FIGURE 4-70 tii~.~ tfTiOrJ{,i:__lt;~A-y{Nb cr I ~ Z-- o/fT.1q \totA~. .r MixwP?4: ~1-l7~ /'N'() ~7fl~"ff?tNIt:e: . ~ VJlfZ/W ~vl~ [1: . \. " . ~ ---L-:.r' . . . '. ~ . .<.-!tfZTie-vW5l:" ~ '2- t \-' 4\ ~ ~ ',4 i ctI S. <7Wj <7NZ-Y 71W''/ ~r:'. ~ apNtr~ 11T7 P ,-," -::' (q _~~ ':'.. ...... "'-\':. ":.... ":.-:/1 ....."0 _.' _.' _./ :11 t<WT z.. . I I j VA[2-jGP ~~~~. Mi,x Vf t;NBif1WO ~I~~. -----{ (/), Q)g , .~: -~ Oi t)f O~ ~i ~~ ~! '-' " . c; coi Q)~ Cii 01 "t- O >< -- E "--" (/) Q) Cl.. CO .c (f) "t- O o a: "'0 Q) 'C CO > "the Keith companieslTI<.C NOT TO ~c~\.'E I ~(r.~ Roripaugh ~Ranch ATTACHMENT NO.3 STAFF LETTER TO APPLICANT DATED DECEMBER 11, 2003 R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03.0634\STAFF REPORT~l.doc 8 City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive - PO Box 9033 - Temecula - California 92589- 9033 - (909) 694-6400 - FAX (909) 694-6477 December 11 , 2003 Mr. George Zeeber Meeker Companies, Inc. 14 Hughes, Suite B-104 Irvine, CA 92618 SUBJECT: Planning Application PA03-0634 for the product review of the new single-family homes proposed for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan in Planning Area 4B. Dear George: Staff has reviewed Planning Application P A03-Q634 and has determined that the project cannot be approved as proposed. Below is a list of ,.,vv,,,mended and/or required changes to the above referenced project. 1. Staff strongly recommends that you schedule an appointment with the architect for Ashby USA, LLC in order to streamline the product review process. It has been staff's experience that the architect who prepared the design guidelines is able to provide additional direction and interpret the guidelines as they were intended and understood by the Planning Commission. Please verify with staff that you have met with the architect for Ashby USA, LLC and that his comments were incorporated into the project. 2. At this time staff cannot approved the product review as proposed. Staff has determined that the elevations are not consistent with the design guidelines of the Specific Plan. Please incorporate any modifications as recommended by the architect for Ashby USA. LLC and the revisions required in this letter. 3. The Specific Plan allows stucco as an allowable material, however section 4.1 0.3.9 requires smooth or light finish texture and up to a medium finish. Heavy texture is not permitted. The Spanish revival style should utilize a smooth stucco finish (20/30 aggregate minimum). Prairie should utilize a light sand finish or light lace finish stucco. Please resubmit a stucco board with these types of finish. In addition, define and label the type of stucco finish proposed for each architectural style. 4. Please show the slope of all roof pitches. Each architectural style warrants a different roof pitch to illustrate the difference between the architectural styles. For example, low roofline accents with a shallow roof pitch are typical characteristics of the prairie style. R:\Product Review\Roripaugb Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5. P A03-0634\comment letter -I.doc 1 It is critical that the roofline and silhouette for each plan and style offer significant variety in order to avoid the monotony appearance. The architect for Ashby USA, LLC can be very helpful in offering suggestions to accomplish this task. 5. Each style must utilize typical features for that particular style. This will strongly distinguish the styles from each other. The Specific Plan requires all four sides of the residence to include architectural enhancements (section 4.10.3.5). Staff has defined this language to mean that the style can be determined by looking at any side of the residence. Therefore, the typical features for each style must be carried over to each side of the structure. Staff has found it helpful if the applicant provides a separate sheet indicating the type of door, garage door, trim, window sills, window type, chimney, lighting, etc. to be used for each style. Make sure each style maintains it's unique characteristics, as this will maintain the architectural integrity. This is not a comprehensive list, however, each plan and style need to maintain unique features typical of the style proposed. 6. Please specify the materials proposed on the elevations. For example: shutters do not indicate the material type. Staff encourages organic materials where possible to portray an authentic appearance. Also, plant-on materials such as shutters, borders and windowsill should be of substance and reflect a realistic feature as opposed to a flimsy appearance. Please show dimensions, including thickness, depth and width for such features. 7. Please provide color samples of each decorative driveway proposed. Also, the plans must provide a description of the material proposed for the driveways. Please include a sample of any stone, brick or other material proposed for the hardscape. Please consider the use of additional materials for hardscape. As proposed, the same materials for hardscape will be used in different color variations. Staff recommends adding a variety of stone or alternative colors to add interest. 8. The Specific Plan requires a minimum of four, color variations for each style in each planning area. Please provide a fourth color variation sample for each plan. 9. The Specific Plan requires a variety of garage placements (pg. 4-98, section 4.10.3.3) Please provide a variety of garage placement such as shallow, mid-deep recess, side entry (comer lots), porte cochere etc. Staff believes thatthis planning area has enough comer lots to justify a plan with a side entry garage. Please consider this issue. 10. The front elevations indicate the depth of windows and breaks in the wall plane. Since four sides of architecture is a requirement, the side and rear elevations should also include recessed and projected elements. Please provide recessed and projected elements on the side and rear and indicate the amount of projection/recess on the plans. 11. Please ensure all garages include a clear interior dimension of 20' x 20'. It appears that some of the garage depths are less than 20 feet (Plan 1,2, and 4). Please revise the plans to show a clear interior dimension of 20 in depth by 20 feet in width. 12. PleaSe review the plot plan to ensure each residence meets the minimum setbacks. There are various lots that do not meet the front, side and rear setbacks. Also, the plot plan shows the front setback taken from two different lines. It appears one line is a utility easement, while the other line is the actual property line. Please ensure all setbacks are taken form the property line. Section 5.3.3 indicates the setbacks for various areas of the planning areas. Please note that lots abutting the nature trail require a 25-foot setback. R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5. P A03..{)634\comment letter-1.doc 2 Lots abutting Murrieta Hot Springs may be adjusted by 3 feet in the front and/or rear. Staff strongly recommends pulling two story units back to provide a varied street scene along Sweetwater Drive. Where possible, varied setbacks should be provided in order to avoid the canyon effect as stated in section 4.10.3.5. 13. The plot plan should show any/all decks on the plot plan to ensure the rear setbacks will be met. Please review the rear yard setback standards to ensure decks will meet the minimum rear yard setback. It appears that some lots will not allow for decks in the rear yard, please clarify this issue. 14. Decks should not be constructed of standard wood. Decks should appear as either a structural portion of the building made of stucco or as a decorative enhancement as shown on the rear elevation of plan 2A. Standard wood decks as shown on the rear elevation of plan 2B are not acceptable. 15. As proposed, it is difficult to distinguish between the architectural style from the side and rear elevations. The Planning Commission has made it clear that the architectural style must be clearly evident from all four sides. Elements from the front elevation of each plan must be carried over to the sides and rear so the architectural style is clearly evident from all sides. This can be accomplished with varied roof pitches, additional exposed beams, variations in the window type such as arched windows, vertical or horizontal windows, chimney caps, etc. The side and rear elevations need additional enhancement in order to identity the architectural style from the respective view. 16. Any supplemental materials, such as stone or siding should wrap around the side elevations to the side yard fence or to a point it is no longer visible from the street. This is critical on bottom story projections and second stories where the second story is stepped back. Some of the stone and brick on the prairie and east coast traditional do not wrap around the sides. 17. The Specific Plan requires corner lots to maintain two (2) front elevations. Please incorporate additional features to create a second front yard for comer lots (pg. 4-124. section 4.10.3.5). Also, as stated above, strong consideration should be given to provide a variety of garage placement, such as side entry garages for corner lots. Another method of creating a second front elevation is to include exposed porches and decorative walls (courtyards) on side elevations of comer lots. When this method utilized, the sidewall should include doors and openings to create an active exterior living area. 18. Corner lots should be either single story or maintain a significant one-story mass located toward the exterior side yard (pg. 4-124, section 4.10.3.5). 19. The Specific Plan requires careful design and plotting of plans to avoid a "canyon-like effecr between buildings (pg. 4-124, section 4.10.3.5). This can be accomplished by introducing single story elements into two story plans such as stepping second story mass away from the property line or by including dormer or hip elements when front to rear gables are proposed. 20. Please provide a summary matrix of each plan on each lot showing lot coverage, hardscape coverage and type. landscaping, floor plan and architecture, and height. 21. Some of the plans have side elevations that appear blank or include large areas of blank walls. Please make sure there are no blank walls, long interrupted walls or roof areas (pg. 4- 124, section 4.10.3.5). Articulation on the side and rear elevations provides a good R:\Product Review\Roripaugb Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\comment letter-I.doc 3 opportunity to introduce the architectural style on the sides and rears, which will satisfy the four-sided architecture requirement. Additional windows, projections, bands, tiles, and other decorative features should be introduced to enhance these blank walls. 22. Varied roof height, rooflines and silhouettes shall be incorporated into the each plan. Some of the plans utilize the same roofline, which produces a monotonous effect. Please provide a varied silhouette, roofline and roof height for each style to distinguish between each plan (pg. 4-133, section 4.10.3.7). 23. It appears only two garage doors will be used for the entire tract. Garage doors should reflect and compliment the style of the architecture (pg. 4-128, section 4.1 0.3.6). This could be accomplished with arches in the garage, type of door, addition of glass in the door etc. A variety of garage doors shall be provided. Staff recommends providing arches over the Spanish Revival style and using alternative materials and shapes where appropriate. Section and wood garage doors are also encouraged. If metal doors are proposed, they should include a texture or raised panels of a residential nature. The design of garage doors should result in a treatment, which breaks up the expanse of the door plane. Architectural detail consisting of cornices, border of stone or brick, applied molding/trim or applied headers should be utilized (pg. 4-129, section 4.10.3.6). 24. Entrances are required to provide a strong statement as a focal point to show importance. The Specific Plan encourages single or double doors, glass sidelights, surrounding frames, and molding around the door. The Specific Plan states" Emphasis should be placed on the design and type of entry door used. It functions as the major introduction to the interior of the house and concern should be given on the image it creates'. Some of the entrances could be enhanced with traditional methods and/or features to show improvement. This can be achieved with a variation in materials, shapes, massing, varying roof height, etc. Entry doors are required to be decorative. Staff encourages the use of glass within the doors, double doors and/or other materials to further enhance the entrance. (pg. 4-127, section 4.10.3.6). 25. Windows should be recessed where possible to convey a thick wall appearance (pg. 4-128. section 4.10.3.6). This feature is typical on Spanish style architecture. 26. The Specific Plan encourages rear-covered porches to be incorporated into the project as well as front porches and covered entries. These features should be considered and should resemble each other by similar roof pitch or material. Also, it should be noted that rear setbacks may present a problem for many of the lots. Please be sure to consider this when designing rear covered porches and/or decks. It may be beneficial to determine which lots can accommodate decks and pre-plot the decks as necessary. 27. The plotting plan does not reference the location of air conditioning units. The Specific Plan requires these units to be screened from public view, while minimizing the impact on side yard use and layout. Figure 4-77 shows air conditioning units should be located in the rear yard. 28. The elevations do not show roof venting. Venting should blend in with the structure to the greatest extent. Please indicate how venting will be accomplished. If roof venting is proposed, vents shall be of the same color as the roof surface and be located on the rear elevation of the roof. R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03.{)(i34\comment letter-I.doc 4 29. Please provide specification sheets for the proposed street light fixtures, street name signs and traffic signs. These will be used throughout the project; therefore, it needs to be requested by Ashby USA. 30. Please plot the location and show a detail of the type of mailboxes proposed. This will also be used project wide and must be requested by Ashby USA and the U.S. Postmaster. 31. The City recommends that all accent relief elements installed below eight feet of ground level be constructed of dense, durable material (not soft foam) to assure long term durability. Please indicate materials to be used on the elevations. 32. There appear to be options for decorative driveways, however the Specific Plan requires all lots to include hardscape (driveways and walks) within the front yard and shall be colored concrete with varying score lines, textures, paving stones of various colors with colored concrete borders, flag stone of various sizes and colors with concrete borders or a combination of various textures, shapes, material and colors (page 4-122). See figures 4-85 through 89 in the Specific Plan for visual concepts. Staff wants to ensure that the decorative hardscape is provided on all lots. The hardscape material and layout should be plotted on the site plan for staff's review. Staff encourages decorative hardscape paths to extend from the main entry to the sidewalk. Please consider this feature. 33. The Specific Plan requires ornamental features including decorative light features combined with other features to create visual interest in the front of the house with architectural compatible elements. Typical lighting for each architectural style should be provided. Lighting should be provided in the front entryway and/or at the garage entry. Lighting should reflect the architecture of each unit. Please note that changes in lighting may be approved administratively by staff, if requested. 34. Pop-outs on side and rear elevations should extend to the ground as opposed to the floating pop-out appearance. A separate sheet addressing setback reductions for architectural projections has been attached. 35. The elevations must show the location of addressing and how it will be constructed. For example, will the addresses be backlit or be solid metal painted black. Please specify the type of addressing proposed for each typical residence. 36. Please ensure the side elevations with enhancements are exposed for all corner lots. Please indicate on the site plan that the enhanced side elevation fronts the street. 37. Chimney caps should be decorative and vary from each style. The same chimney caps should not be used for two different architecture styles. 38. Elevations should provide a note indicting the room option and dotted lines indicating optional windows and/or doors. 39. Front, rear and visible side windows in key locations should include enhanced borders/sills for windows (as opposed to typical borders) to show importance. Please include this feature into the elevations. 40. Please label all roof pitches for each pitch on each plan. R\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meek:ecCo. Tr 29661.5, PA03-0634\conunenllettec-l.doc 5 41. Please provide a scale on the floor and roof plans. 42. Corner lots should maintain significant single story elements on the exterior side elevation. Staff has found it beneficial to plot select plans on corner lots and provide a "special" side elevation that creates a second front elevation, while maintaining the one-story element. 43. Staff does not encourage closed shutters or windows with only one shutter on the side. Please revise these features and provide authentic and/or traditional features. 44. Make sure that all venting matches on each side of each elevation. Staff recommends decorative venting that blends with the architecture rather than standard venting from the roof. 45. Staff believes that the plotting could be improved. It appears many of the single story plans are grouped together. Staff recommends dispersing the single story plan throughout the tract to provide variety throughout the tract. Some single story plans could be located along the nature trail to break-up the roolline. 46. Please submit a written letter describing how each architectural style meets the design guidelines and utilizes authentic and/or traditional materials and features for each respective style. 47. Please provide a summary matrix showing the lot number, lot size, plan type, footprint, lot coverage, hardscape coverage and hardscape option. 48. Please revise the fence plan to reflect figure 2-15 and 2-16 where appropriate. Only one pilaster is requires between residences as shown on figure 2-15. The pilaster should be located at the front connection. 49. Please show the location of gates on the fence plan. 50. Please remove all references to stucco on fencing. All block walls should be slumpstone with pre-cast concrete cap. Ashby USA, LLC has constructed sample walls located at the office site. Staff recommends visiting the site to review the walls required to be constructed. 51. Please ensure that a 2-foot break is provided between pilaster and the rear wall plane between residences as shown on figure 2-15 of the Specific Plan. 52. Staff is unclear how the fence connecting residences will be constructed when a retaining wall is shown perpendicular to the wall. Please provide a typical cross section to show how this will be accomplished. 53. Please show the location of pilasters where the view fence is located as shown on figure 2- 16 of the Specific Plan. 54. Staff is concerned with how some of the block walls encroach into the side and front yards at the corners. Block walls should terminate where the wall returns to the residence (figure 2- 16). This issue will be affected by the requirement of 2 front elevations as required in the design guidelines. Fencing at corner lots should be pulled back as far as possible to show the elevation and/or to provide for an outdoor courtyard open to the street. Please contact staff to discuss this item further. R:\Product Review\RQripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, P A03-0634\commeot letter -I.doc 6 55. Block walls should be provided in all locations where visible from the public streets. This includes exterior side yards and returns (figure 2-16). 56. Pilasters should be shown at exterior comers where two rear yards merge as shown on figure 2-16. 57. Please provide a detail of view fencing on sheet 6 and show the type of tubing, color, height, spacing between each pole, spacing to the ground, etc. Prairie comments 58. The Prairie style chimneys should include a broad flat cap. Chimneys for prairie style homes are typically wider than typical and include a band at the top. 59. Prairie style should consider the use of dormers, including gable and hipped dormers, through-comice and palladian. This will add interest to the roofline while further distinguishing this style from the others. 60. A typical Prairie style front door shall be used for each plan (This same comment applies to all styles). 61. The eaves should be wider than standard, boxed and without brackets. 62. Prairie style often maintains lower porches and/or porte-cocheres. Staff feels there is an opportunity to provide porte-cochere, with a deep recessed garage that would fulfill the prairie style. 63. Please review typical prairie style doors windows and ensure they are typical prairie style. There are various door and window styles that may project a stronger prairie appearance. SDanish Revival 64. Spanish styles do not typically utilize a standard gable roof. Please consider utilizing side gables, cross gables, combined hipped and gabled roofs, and hipped roofs. 65. Roof tiles shall represent the style presented. Spanish tile roofing shall utilize barrel tile roof as opposed to standard "S' tile roof. 66. Arched garage doors should be utilized for the Spanish styles. 67. Additional wrought iron detail could be provided on the Spanish styles. Consider wrought iron details around windows 68. Deep recessed windows should be used liberally in prominent locations where possible to portray a thick wall appearance. 69. Please consider using decorative Spanish tiles around windows and in other prominent locations. 70. Consider arcaded wing walls. exterior staircases and balconies open or roofed with wood or iron railings. R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, P A03-0634\comment letter - Ldoc 7 East Coast Traditional 71. All East Coast Traditional plans utilize too much stucco. While stucco may be used for trim, the exterior walls should be predominately wood siding (other composite siding may be acceptable, subject to staff approval). 72. Please consider providing dormers on various elevations as appropriate. 73. Consider using steeper pitch roofing such as 6:12 to 12:12. A steep roof with horizontal siding will establish a strong sense of east coast housing. landscaoe Comments 74. Tristania, Agonis and Bougainvillea are subject to freeze in the Temecula area. Please provide substitutes. 75. Please indicate sizes for trees and shrubs at time of planting. Insure that sizes meet Specific Plan and code requirements. 76. Please specify ground covers and indicate size and spacing. 77. Side yards outside of the fence have the potential to be forgotten and neglected. Please provide drought tolerant, maintenance free plantings that will survive if irrigation is tumed off and plantings are neglected. 78. Code requires slope banks 5' or greater in vertical height with slopes greater than or equal to 3:1 to be landscaped at a minimum with an appropriate ground cover, one 15 gallon or larger size tree per 600 square feet of slope area, and one 1 gallon or larger shrub for each 100 square feet of slope area. Slope banks in excess of 8' in vertical height with slopes greater or equal to 2:1 shall also be provided with one 5 gallon or larger tree per 1,000 square feet of slope area in addition to the above requirements. Please insure that slope plantings meet these requirements. Insure that all slopes of this size are landscaped by the developer following grading operation completion. 79. Please provide a copy of the grading plans for planning area 4B with the next review for cross checking. 80. Front yard landscaping shall be provided in all residential zoning districts and shall include, at a minimum, one fifteen-gallon size tree per lot, one five-gallon size tree per lot, and seeded ground cover. These requirements are in addition to the required street trees. Please add trees as required. Upon resubmitting revised plans, it is critical that you submit a written response to each comment. This will expedite staff's review of the revised plans. Also include any additional changes that were made as a result of meeting with the architect for Ashby USA, LLC or any other changes made. Please submit 2 copies of each plan when resubmitting plans to staff, including two copies of 11" x 17" elevations. Elevations do not have to be color with the next submittal, however colored elevations will be required prior to scheduling this item for a public hearing. R~\Product Review\Roripaugb Rancb SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03.0634\comment letter-1.doc 8 Please ensure that the Specific Plan you are using is the most current version, approved in March 2003. If you have questions concerning this issue. please contact me at your convenience. Staff understands there are many comments to be addressed; however, staff feels that the groundwork has been established for a viable project. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please feel free to contact me at any time via email at dan.lona@citvoftemecula.ora. or by phone at (909) 964-6400 extension 198. I look forward to working with you as this project progresses forward. Sincerely, ~ ~- =:, Dan Lon~ Associate Planner R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meelcer Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\comment letter-l.doc 9 ATTACHMENT NO.4 APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 5,2004 R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\MeekerCo. Tr 29661~5, PA03..Q634\STAFF REPORT-l.doc 9 . FEB-06-2004 12: 16 KNITTER & ASSOCIATES 949 752 0151 P.02/05 February 5, 2004 CITY OF TEMECULA PLAN CHECK CORRECTION REPLY Roripaugh Ranch- planning area 4B MEEKER COMMUNmES,INC. 14 Hughes, suite B-104 Irvine Ca. 92618 From a list by Dan Long -dated January 19th,2004 Planning application PA03-0634- Planning area 4-b Respondent: Chip Melton Knitter and associates Dear Dan, Please find my item by item reply to your request list/information letter. I hope it will assist you as we work together to proceed with this project. . If any questions arise while you are oonsidering my reply, please fell free to contact me at my office. (949)752-1177. 1. We have had a team meeting to discuss the Planning dept's intent on an item by item basis. 2. After our team meeting with The author of the guidelines and following the intent of the recommendations the original reports and this latest list from you. 3. We have provided a new exhibit with the requirements specified. 4. At our compliance meeting it was decided that the intent of the designs had been met by changing roof pitches on the featured elements of each plan. However buyer afford ability is a consideration and it is not an option to change the main roof structure for each elevation type. 5. We have provided elevation elements with the theme of the front elevation on each exposed, enhanced, elevation type, 6. We have provided a more inclusive materials list on the elevations themselves. 7. 16 separate color sample have already been provided. 8. a fourth color variation wUl be provided. 9. With a relatively shallow set back and narrow lots, a side entry garage would create a cramped uncomfortable driveway approach and virtually eliminate front yard landscaping. We would prefer to not provide this type of driveway. 10. we have provided matching elements at the front ant back of each enhanced plan.- See enhancement plan for locations of enhanced elevations 11. all plans have a min. 20' x 20' dear space 12. We have reviewed the site plan and it appears to be in compliance with all set back requirements. 13. We have reviewed the site plan and it appears to be in compliance with all set back requirements 14. The architecture lends itself to using wood decks. Further adding stucco and Tube steel on the rear of the house would add a Stucco "add-on" look that is to be avoided. The wood decks give an opportunity for color and material contrast that we are trying to achieve. 15. We have provided matdling elements at the front and back of each Enhanced plan.- See enhancement plan for locations of enhanced elevations. 16. we have updated our plans to show retum materials to the fence line. C:/my documentelchig/t:l1ip FEB-06- 2004 12: 17 KNITTER & ASSOCIATES g4g 752 0151 P.03/OS 17. We have all one story plans on comer lots. Element such as stone and brick are all shown to return to the fence line. There would be no further enhancements beyond the 6' property fence. 18. All corner lots are either one story homes or have single story elements. 19. Plan 1 is a single story. We do have single story elements along the sides of plans 2 and 3.Plan 4 is a little more traditional. 20. Matrix should be provided by the landscape architect. 21. We have provided matching elements at the front ant back of each Enhanced . plan.- See enhancement plan for locations of enhanced elevations. 22. At our compliance meeting it was decided that the intent of the designs had been met by changing roof pitches on the featured elements of each plan. However buyer affordability is a CQnsideration and it is not an option to change the main roof structure for each elevation type. 23. Varied garage doors will be provided. 24. At our compliance meeting it was decided that the intent of the designs had been met by changing roof pitches on the featured elements of each plan. However buyer affordabilily is a consideration and it is not an option to change the main Building structure for each elevation type. We have shown a variety of front door . types. Some with glass side lights some without. Some of the styling of the home would not be amenable to glass details and some buyers may also be of a like mind so as not to be amenable to glass in their front doors. 25. Discussed and implemented where possible. 26. Decks and patio covers have been shown where required and optioned to buyers where they are not required. 27. ale units shall be in the rear yard. 28. We never show doaked ventJng on a presentation drawing, however we are intending to use O'Hagin Cloaked venting on all plans where visible to the street or right of way. 29. By the landscape architect i developer. 30. By the tandscape architect / developer. 31. We specify high density foam trim . 32. By the landscape architect / developer. 33. This is a specification item. Specifications are provided by the developer. 34. Bringing design elements to the ground would cause setback issues and would not be visible due to property fences. However, where possible we have shown this treatment however. 35. the street addressing will be a simple illuminated address sign in a conspicuous spot on each elevation. 36. All comer have one story plans or plans with single story elements plotted on them. Elements such as stone and brick are all shown to return to the fence line. There would be no further enhancements beyond the 6' property fence. 37. Chimney caps are all different per each style of elevation. 38. We have shown any room options that may exist on the floor plans. There are no options to dash in on the elevations 39. We have provided matching elements at the front and back of each Enhanced plan.- See enhancement plan for locations of enhanced elevations. 40. The roof pitch will be shown on the construction documents. 41. Scale is y." / It. and will be shown on the construdion documentS. 42. All corner have one story plans or plans with single story elements plotted on them. Elements such as stone and brick are all shown to return to the fence line. There would be no further enhancements beyond the 6' property fence 43. This is an acceptable alternative to a blank wall. C:/my d=monl$lctllplctllp ~EB-06-2004 12:18 KNITTER & ASSOCIATES 949 752 0151 P.04/05 44. venting shall match. 45. They are not grouped. See enhancement plan. 46. Respectfully submitted. 47. Landscape Architect to provide 48. Civil and Landscape. 49. Civil and landscape to provide. 50. others. 51 ,others, 52. others 53. others 54. others 55. others 56. others 57. others 58. It would be cost prohibitive to provide special construction for a single elevation feature at the side or rear off a plan, just to be "truer" to an architectural style. We do show all of the other elements that you have described. 59. We have used the guidelines that were provided by the City of Temecula. They were proposed as guidelines with brief descriptions of architectural themes to follow. Many of the elements that you have described are speculative and therefore open to interpretation. It is our intent to capture the spirit of each architectural style. I think we have done just that. Why even in the example that you show of a 'prairie style home" in your guidelines is actually a church designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and is built in the Chicago area. 60. We have used similar doors on similar1y styled homes. 61.The eaves ARE wider. 2' vs. l' on the other homes. 62. The detail that you have described, A porte-cochere. Although admittedly a very nice feature, would price buyers away from the home that the builder is trying to market. The builder is trying to provide an appealing home in a nice neighborhood that is in line with the market in the area. 63. The door that is intended for this model would be a flat plank type that is readily available and marketed as a prairie style door. 64. We have considered changing the roof, but it is not a worthwhile consideration when net appeal to value is considered. 65. True clay! Spanish tile cannot be warranted due to their brittle nature and huge shipping loss factor. In a custom building situation, special handling can be given to the situation. But this is far too great a liability in market housing. 66.Again a very nice detail. But the market cannot bear this type of embellishment. 67.Although nice, most tube steel details around windows that are authentic cause impossible egress conditions. 68. we have recessed windows where practicable. 69. The detail that you describe causes stucco cracking and defect warranty issues that cannot be overcome by anything but a painstaking custom application. C~/my documonts/chlp/ctJi(j FEB-fl6-2004 12: 19 KNITTER & ASSOCIATES 949 752 0151 P.05/05 70. We considered these applications early in the design process. But the idea was eliminated due to market studies. 71.Although manufactured sidings are a vast improvement over dimensional lumber. the weather extremes that exist in Temecula cause most paints to peel. causing the homeowner higher maintenance costs and therefore a liability to the builder. 72. The elevations should stand as they are, 73. the spirit of the guidelines has been fulfilled. 74.Bythe landscape architecU civil. 75. By the landscape architectl civil. 76.Bythe landscape architec.tl civil. 77. By the landscape architect! civil. 78. By the landscape architect! civil. 79.Bythe landscape architectl civil. 80. By the landscape architect! civil. . Melton- Partner itter and associates C:/my documcntalchiplchlp ATTACHMENT NO.4 LETTER FROM APPLICANT APRIL 30, 2004 R\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\PC SR memo 5-19-04.doc 7 April 30, 2004 CITY OF TEMECULA Points of action Roripaugh Ranch- planning area 4B MEEKER COMMUNITIES,INC. 14 Hughes, suite B-104 Irvine Ca. 92618 archtectl..re&~oo.~, ~ From notes compiled at the planning commission meeting on 4-24-04 Planning application PA03-0634- Planning area 4-b Respondent: Chip Melton Knitter and associates Dear Staff, Please find my list of changes applied to the plans in response to the commissioners requests. I hope it will assist you as we work together to proceed with this project. If any questions arise while you are considering my reply, please fell free to contact me at my office. (949) 752-1177. 1. We have modified the front of the Prairie elevation on our street scene rendering to show more articulation at the front windows above the garage doors in response to commissioner Olhasso. 2. No changes were made to plan 1 except to show the location of the fence line on the elevations. 3. Plan 2- Per the request of Commissioners Mathewson and Guirerro, windows were added to the side of the plans on the second floor to give an opportunity for added enhancement details at the upper floor. This change affected all of the side elevations, for both the enhanced an non- enhanced elevations. 4. All three front elevations have been further enhanced per the concerns of commissioner Olhasso. 5. Plan 3- Per the request of Commissioners Mathewson and Guirerro, windows were added to the side of the plans on the second floor to give an opportunity for added enhancement details at the upper floor. This change affected all of the side elevations, for both the enhanced an non-enhanced elevations. 6. . Plan 4- Per the request of Commissioners Mathewson and Guirerro, windows were added to the side of the plans on the second floor to give an opportunity for added enhancement details at the upper floor. This change affected all of the side elevations, for both the enhanced an non- enhanced elevations. Respectfully submitted, p elton- Partner ter and associates C:/my documents/chip/chip PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-023 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-Q634 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR 113 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 48 OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS TRACT MAP 29661-5. WHEREAS, Meeker Companies, filed Planning Application No.PA03-0634, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0634 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA03-0634 on April 21, 2004 and May 19, 2004 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA03-0634; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA03-0634 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of the residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall design of the single-family homes, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\Final Resolution w CofA-5-19-04.doG 1 protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3. Environmental Comoliance.. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA03-0634 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified and there are not substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA03-0634 for a Product Review for detached single family residences within Planning Area 4B of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future ex1ension of Butterfield Stage Road, Tract Map 29661-5. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19'" day of May 2004. John Telesio, Chairperson ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske. Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission. do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2004-023 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of May 2004, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 3 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio 2 Guerriero, Olhasso o o None None Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\Final Resolution w CofA-5-19-04.doc 2 EXHIBIT A FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\Product RevieW\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03.0634\Final Resolution w CofA-5-19-04.doc 3 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA03-0634 Project Description: A Product Review for 113 detached single family residences within Planning Area 4B of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Stage Road, Tract Map 29661-5. Tentative Tract No.: 29661-5 DIF Category: Per Development Agreement Approval Date: Expiration Date: May 19, 2004 May 19, 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 1. The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee. to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements 2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents. to attack. set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim. action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. R:IProduct ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co. Tr 29661,5, PA03.0634IFinal Resolution w CofA.5-19-04.doc 4 The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. 3. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 4. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits, including elevations, floor plans, landscaping plans, hardscape plans, and plotting plan, contained on file with the Planning Department or as amended by these Conditions of Approval. 5. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the approved colors and materials contained on file with the Planning Department. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. 6. This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the city or other regulatory or service agencies from applying additional requirements and/or conditions consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building and other necessary permits and approvals for the project. 7. The Development Code requires double garages to maintain a minimum clear interior dimension of 20' x 20'. This shall be clearly indicated on the plans prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. Interior dimensions are measured from the inside of garage wall to the opposite wall, steps, landing, equipment pedestals, bollards or any similar type feature. When the top of the stem wall is more than 8" above the garage floor, the required dimension is measured from the inside edge of the stem wall. 8. Applicant shall obtain the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for any work done in the City right-of-way, and Building Permit from the Building and Safety Department. 9. Fire Hydrants shall be installed prior to the start of any construction at the site. 10. Driveway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards. In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be limited to 24' maximum. 11. All lots shall be built in accordance with the plans labeled as enhanced elevations. 12. The applicant shall submit typical lighting fixtures for each architectural style. Lighting fixtures shall resemble the architectural style. R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-Q634\Final Resolution w CofA~5-19-04.doc 5 13. All Spanish Revival products shall utilize a smooth to light texture stucco finish (20/30 aggregate or smoother) as determined acceptable by the Planning Director. East Coast Traditional and Praire styles shall utilize a light-medium (16/20 aggregate) finish. 14. All Spanish Revival styles shall include a Barrel tile clay roof. 15. One style of each plan shall provide a roof plan/silhouette that is clearly different than the other styles in order to provide variation along the front and rear street scene as approved by the Planning Director. 16. All materials such as stone, brick and siding shall wrap around the side yard to the fence return or as determined acceptable by the Planning Director. 17. Fencing on corner lots shall be pulled back towards the rear on exterior corner lots to open up the exposed elevation to the street as determined acceptable by the Planning Director. 18. Fencing between units (on interior side yards and rear yards, but excluding view fencing) where not visible from the street shall be wood fence as shown in figure 2-15 (privacy fencing) or as approved by the Planning Director. 19. Returns for fencing shall be constructed of slumpstone block. 20. Stucco walls are not permitted. Slumpstone walls shall be provided where solid block walls are proposed. 21. For front yard landscaping, shrub sizes shall be 50% 1 gallon and 50% 5 gallon per the specific plan. Minimum sizes for front yard trees and street trees shall be 24" box (second front yards tree may be smaller as approved by the Planning Director). 22. Side yards outside of the fence shall be planted with drought tolerant, maintenance free plantings, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Azalea is not considered a drought tolerant and shall not be used. 23. All corner lots shall be enhanced to include an exterior elevation that appears as a second front elevation, as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 24. The applicant shall submit a Grading Plan, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department. 25. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. 26. The applicant shall submit, to the Planning Department for permanent filing, two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the Color and Materials Boards and of the colored version of the approved colored architectural elevations to the Planning Department for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. R:\Product ReviowlRoripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03'0634\Final Resolution w CofA'5-19-04.doc 6 27. A street tree master plan indicating what tree species will be planted on each street shall be submitted. The plan should graphically show the locations of all trees. One tree species per street shall be provided. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 28. The applicant shall comply with standards conditions and requirements set forth in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Program, conditions of approval for Tract Map 29353 (PA01-0230, A-Map), Tract Map 29661 (PA01-0253, B-Map), and Ordinance No. 02-14, the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, including, but not limited to attachment "5", which requires various on and off-site improvements. 29. The applicant shall submit street lighting and signage plans to the Planning Director for final approval. Street lighting shall comply with the Specific Plan, Riverside County Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and the mitigation-monitoring program. Said lighting shall comply with the standards as set forth in the Mitigated Monitoring Program and install hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights must be downward facing). 30. The applicant shall submit mailbox elevations and a plot plan clearly indicating the location of each mailbox area. Mailbox type and location shall be subject to the approval of the Postmaster and Planning Director. 31. Prior to issuance of any residential building permit within Planning Area 4B, the Master Developer is responsible for the construction of landscaping and architectural plans for Paseos (including hardscaping. landscaping, fencing, lights and gates), Paseo gates Staff Gated Primary Entry, Card Key Entry, fuel modification zones shall be submitted and approved. 32. Prior to construction of the Model Home complex, the applicant shall apply for a Model Home complex permit. 33. The Master Developer is responsible for posting performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning. to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for one year from the completion of the landscaping. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. 34. Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans, plotting plan. structural setback measurements shall be submitted and approved. 35. The developer shall demonstrate to the Planning Director that all homes will have double paned windows with at least a 25 STC rating installed to reduce noise from occasional aircraft over flights. 36. The developer shall provide proof that construction debris. including but not limited to lumber, asphalt. concrete, sand, paper and metal is recycled through the City's solid waste hauler, subject to the approval of the Community Services Department. R:IProduct ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-o634\Final Resolution w CoIA-5-19-04.doc 7 37. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 38. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 39. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. 40. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. 41. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. 42. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original signed by an appropriate registered professional. 43. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. 44. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94- 21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday: 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday: 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 45. All required front yard landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds. disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 46. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the applicant shall release the bond upon request. 47. If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the Master Developer shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. 48. Front yard and slope landscaping, hardscaping and fencing within individual lots shall be completed for inspection prior to issuance of each occupancy permit (excluding model home complex structures). R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03.0634\Final Resolution w CofA-5-19-G4.doc 8 49. The developer shall submit proof that all local refuse generators have been provided with written information about opportunities for recycling and waste reduction (i.e. buyback centers, curbside availability), subject to the approval of the Public Works and Community Services Departments. 50. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. Applicant's Signature Date Applicant's Name Printed R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co. T r 29661.5, P A03-0634\Final Resolution w CofA-5-19-04.doc 9 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commissioners ORIGINAL Dan Long, Associate Planner May 19. 2004 SUBJECT: Meeker Companies (PA03-0634). Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Planning Area 4B RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the attached conditions of approval. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on April 21, 2004 and approved a motion to continue the project to the May 19. 2004 Planning Commission hearing. Staff has reviewed the revised plans and has determined that while the revised plans have addressed some of the concerns of the Planning Commission, there remain a number of outstanding issues that have not been addressed. Staff has reviewed the revised plans and has determined that the revised plans have addressed some of the concerns of the Planning Commission. However, staff does have some additional recommendations as summarized below, which have been included in the conditions of approval. The recommended enhancements are a result of comments from the Planning Commission hearing of April 21. 2004. A Resolution of Approval has been attached for your consideration. The staff report packet from the previous meeting (April 21, 2004) are also attached for your reference. At their meeting on April 21. 2004 the Commission recommended the following revisions: . Revise Plan 2 to avoid an outdated appearance . Enhance the sides and rears of all plans . Provide additional variation of the garage placement and garage door style for each plan . Provide additional windows . Variation in the roof material and design Staff had also provided a list of outstanding development standards, which required revisions. such as setbacks and fencing. The applicant has revised the plot plan to address the setbacks R\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP'Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5. PA03-0634\PC SR memo 5-19-04.doc 1 as requested by staff and the Planning Commission. Staff has found various inconsistencies in the fence plan, however conditions of approval have been included in order to bring the project into conformance with the Specific Plan. In reviewing the revised elevations. staff has noted the following enhancements proposed by the applicant: . The front elevation of each architectural style of plan two has been revised to break up the wall plane above the garage; . The left elevation of plan two has been revised to include one additional window on the second floor and the right elevation has been revised to include 2 windows on the second floor; . The left elevation of plan three has been revised to include one additional window on the first floor and one additional window on the second floor. Three additional windows have been proposed on the second floor of the right elevation; . The left elevation of plan four has been revised to include one additional window on the second floor and one additional window on the second floor of the rear elevation; The applicant has proposed minor revisions to plan two. three and four as well as revisions to the plot plan. Staff has determined that the revisions to the plot meet the development standards as set forth in the Specific Plan. However, staff feels the proposed architectural revisions are not adequate nor are they inclusive of all the recommendations by the Planning Commission. The Specific Plan states "Articulation shall be provided on all sides of the homes ("Four-sided Architecture")." While windows have been proposed to break up large expanses of wall, staff feels the plans do not provide sufficient articulation in order to meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. In addition. the Design Guidelines state "Two story homes shall be modified to be compatible with placement on corner lots. The modification shall create two front elevations." Staff does not feel the side elevations appear as second front elevations. The following issues identified by staff and Commission as items of concern have not been addressed: . Additional variation of the garage placement and garage door style for each plan has not been proposed . The appearance of two front elevations has not been proposed and . The roof design/silhouettes do not offer a significant level of variation within each plan Summary: As mentioned previously. staff has added conditions of approval to ensure these changes are made. which would bring each product into conformance with the intent of the Design Guidelines of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the project with the attached conditions of approval. R\Product ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPlMeeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\PC SR memo 5-19-04.doc 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 4 2. PC Resolution No. 2004-_ - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval 3. April 21. 2004 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 6 4. Letter from Applicant. dated April 30. 2004 - Blue Page 7 R\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\PC SR memo 5-19-04.doc 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0634 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR 113 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 4B OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS TRACT MAP 29661-5. WHEREAS, Meeker Companies, filed Planning Application No.PA03-0634, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0634 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA03-0634 on April 21, 2004 and May 19, 2004 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA03-0634; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA03-0634 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of the residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall design of the single-family homes, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co. Tr 29661,5, PA03-0634\Draft Resolution w CofA.5-19.04.doc 1 protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3. Environmental Comoliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA03-0634 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified and there are not substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA03-0634 for a Product Review for detached single family residences within Planning Area 4B of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Stage Road, Tract Map 29661-5. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of May 2004. John Telesio, Chairperson A nEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary (SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2004,_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of May 2004. by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS; PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03.0634\Draft Resolution w CofA-S-19-04.doc 2 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA03-0634 Project Description: A Product Review for 113 detached single family residences within Planning Area 4B of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Stage Road, Tract Map 29661-5. Tentative Tract No.: 29661-5 D1F Category: Per Development Agreement Approval Date: May 19, 2004 Expiration Date: May 19, 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 1. The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements 2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees. and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptiy notify the permittee/applicant of any claim. action. or proceeding brought forth within this time period. R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co. Tr 29661.5, PA03-D634IDraft Aesolution w CotA.5.19-04.doc 4 The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify. defend. protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. 3. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 4. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits, including elevations, floor plans, landscaping plans, hardscape plans, and plotting plan. contained on file with the Planning Department or as amended by these Conditions of Approval. 5. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the approved colors and materials contained on file with the Planning Department. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. 6. This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the city or other regulatory or service agencies from applying additional requirements and/or conditions consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading. building and other necessary permits and approvals for the project. 7. The Development Code requires double garages to maintain a minimum clear interior dimension of 20' x 20'. This shall be clearly indicated on the plans prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. Interior dimensions are measured from the inside of garage wall to the opposite wall. steps, landing, equipment pedestals, bollards or any similar type feature. When the top of the stem wall is more than 8" above the garage floor, the required dimension is measured from the inside edge of the stem wall. 8. Applicant shall obtain the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for any work done in the City right-of-way, and Building Permit from the Building and Safety Department. 9. Fire Hydrants shall be installed prior to the start of any construction at the site. 10. Driveway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards. In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be limited to 24' maximum. 11. All lots shall be built in accordance with the plans labeled as enhanced elevations. 12. The applicant shall submit typical lighting fix1ures for each architectural style. Lighting fixtures shall resemble the architectural style. R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661.5, PA03-G634\Dratt Resolution w CotA-5-19.04.doc 5 13. All Spanish Revival products shall utilize a smooth to light texture stucco finish (20/30 aggregate or smoother) as determined acceptable by the Planning Director. East Coast Traditional and Praire styles shall utilize a light-medium (16/20 aggregate) finish. 14. All Spanish Revival styles shall include a Barrel tile clay roof. 15. One style of each plan shall provide a roof plan/silhouette that is clearly different than the other styles in order to provide variation along the front and rear street scene as approved by the Planning Director. 16. All materials such as stone, brick and siding shall wrap around the side yard to the fence return or as determined acceptable by the Planning Director. 17. Fencing on corner lots shall be pulled back towards the rear on exterior corner lots to open up the exposed elevation to the street as determined acceptable by the Planning Director. 18. Fencing between units (on interior side yards and rear yards, but excluding view fencing) where not visible from the street shall be wood fence as shown in figure 2-15 (privacy fencing) or as approved by the Planning Director. 19. Returns for fencing shall be constructed of slumpstone block. 20. Stucco walls are not permitted. Slumpstone walls shall be provided where solid block walls are proposed. 21. For front yard landscaping, shrub sizes shall be 50% 1 gallon and 50% 5 gallon per the specific plan. Minimum sizes for front yard trees and street trees shall be 24" box (second front yards tree may be smaller as approved by the Planning Director). 22. Side yards outside of the fence shall be planted with drought tolerant, maintenance free plantings, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Azalea is not considered a drought tolerant and shall not be used. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 23. The applicant shall submit a Grading Plan, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department. 24. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. 25. The applicant shall submit, to the Planning Department for penmanent filing, two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the Color and Materials Boards and of the colored version of the approved colored architectural elevations to the Planning Department for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 26. A street tree master plan indicating what tree species will be planted on each street shall be submitted. The plan should graphically show the locations of all trees. One tree species per street shall be provided. R:\Product RevieW\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\Draft Resolution w CofA-S-19-Q4.doc 6 Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 27. The applicant shall comply with standards conditions and requirements set forth in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Program, conditions of approval for Tract Map 29353 (PA01-0230, A-Map), Tract Map 29661(PA01-0253, B-Map), and Ordinance No. 02-14, the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, including, but not limited to attachment "5", which requires various on and off-site improvements. 28. The applicant shall submit street lighting and signage plans to the Planning Director for final approval. Street lighting shall comply with the Specific Plan, Riverside County Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and the mitigation-monitoring program. Said lighting shall comply with the standards as set forth in the Mitigated Monitoring Program and install hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights must be downward facing). 29. The applicant shall submit mailbox elevations and a plot plan clearly indicating the location of each mailbox area. Mailbox type and location shall be subject to the approval of the Postmaster and Planning Director. 30. Prior to issuance of any residential building permit within Planning Area 4A, the construction landscape and architectural plans for Paseos (including hardscaping. landscaping, fencing, lights and gates), Paseo gates Staff Gated Primary Entry, Card Key Entry, fuel modification zones shall be submitted and approved 31. Prior to construction of the Model Home complex, the applicant shall apply for a Model Home complex permit. 32. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for one year from the completion of the landscaping. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. 33. Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans, plotting plan. structural setback measurements shall be submitted and approved. 34. The developer shall demonstrate to the Planning Director that all homes will have double paned windows with at least a 25 STC rating installed to reduce noise from occasional aircraft over flights. 35. The developer shall provide proof that construction debris, including but not limited to lumber, asphalt, concrete, sand, paper and metal is recycled through the City's solid waste hauler, subject to the approval of the Community Services Department. 36. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\Draft Resolution w CofA-S-19-04.doc 7 37. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 38. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. 39. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. 40. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. 41. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original signed by an appropriate registered professional. 42. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. 43. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94- 21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday: 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday: 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 44. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 45. Performance securities. in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning. to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the applicant shall release the bond upon request. 46. If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. 47. Front yard and slope landscaping, hardscaping and fencing within individual lots shall be completed for inspection prior to issuance of each occupancy permit (excluding model home complex structures). 48. The developer shall submit proof that all local refuse generators have been provided with written information about opportunities for recycling and waste reduction (i.e. buyback centers, curbside availability), subject to the approval of the Public Works and Community Services Departments. R:\Producl ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPlMeeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\Draft Resolution w CofA.5-19-04.doc 8 49. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. Applicant's Signature Date Applicant's Name Printed R:\Prooucl ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker co. Tr 29661-5. PA03-0634\Draft Resolution w CofA-5-19-04.doc 9