Wednesday, October 19, 2016

• Planning Commission Meeting October 2016

Tonight's meeting was billed as a special meeting

The usual slot for the planning commission meeting is the first Wednesday of the month. Any other Wednesday and it seems to get the "special" designation.

Item 2.1 Nova Homes Residential Project

Click to enlarge.
This is located about 600 feet north of Clinton Keith on the west side of George going to Iodine Springs.

Just to the south of the Wildomar Springs housing development that is currently in the building phase. 

To the south of it, on Clinton Keith, is an already approved shopping center known as Clinton Keith Village. (link to blog about it)

This was to be another general plan amendment request with the request being to remove an existing mixed use overlay (better known as MUPA).

The developer wants to build 77 homes that range from 1700sf to 3100sf on 11.25 acres.

Everything looked to be a go when commissioner John Lloyd discovered an error between the agenda packet they were holding and what the developer was working from.

It was all really nothing of consequence (which home model went where), but in California (and especially in Wildomar) if there is a cosmetic error it's best practice to stop the presses and take it from the top on another day.

Both sides cordially agreed to carry this over to the December 7th meeting where they'll be using the same set of plans that are also sent out to the public.

Possible Measure Z loophole here?

Even though this has to come back to the planning commission, as long as they had the public hearing opened, there was time for public comments. This proved to be the most eyebrow raising to me.

Kenny Mayes brought up an interesting point. This project is part traditional houses and part non traditional. The developer referred to these units as "our garden product". 

They are single family homes, but with essentially no front yards, and the owners don't own the land; they're similar to condos, but not attached.

With that, they are only on one parcel.

You may be saying, "Yeah, who cares if there are 65 residences on 1 parcel?"

Well, depending on how you read Measure Z, which charges $28 per parcel, those 65 units in the new development might only be paying $28 (total) per year instead of $1820 that would be charged if they were on individual parcels.

After the meeting I spoke with Planning Director Matt Bassi about it and he wasn't too sure how that would be interpreted. 
============
CORRECTION
============
I had mistakenly assumed that only the 65 "garden product" homes were on one lot. According to the agenda, it's the entire project of 77 homes. 

Which would  change the amount of Measure Z monies from said development from $1820 to $2156.


============
Let's please get this figured out post haste. 

If Measure Z was mistakenly written in such a way as to allow multiple units to only pay once "per parcel" instead of once per domicile, let's please put this on the list of future agenda items and fix it. The intent was for everyone to pay into it.

If Measure Z is applied to all units in the city (even if they share a single parcel), then let's have that made clear and put this issue to bed.

I can't imagine that any of the council members would be in favor of such an odd exemption that would allow homeowners to avoid paying the Measure Z tax simply because of the way the plot plan was drawn up.
====
This was answered at the November PC meeting

====
As for the Nova Homes project itself, it'll be a nice addition to the city, and nice to know that it didn't include more apartments. 

My only questions were about the ingress. It only has one entrance for 77 homes. I can picture existing peak time traffic being affected on George St if there aren't dedicated lanes and turn pockets.
•          •          •

Just when you think that at least the outlook is so black that it can grow no blacker, it worsens, And that is why I do not like the news, because there has never been an era when so many things were going so right for so many of the wrong persons. 
— Ogden Nash (1940), 1902-1971

Wildomar Rap wonders what old Ogden would have to say after watching the latest presidential debate.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Let's hear what you have to say... for other inquiries try the email listed under "view my complete profile" but if you want to discuss a blog topic, I'll only do it in this comment section, not by email.

Subscribe by Email