A map shows areas included in the proposed Menifee Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 (Courtesy of City of Menifee).
The Menifee Planning Commission recommended approval Wednesday of changes that would allow higher-density housing on undeveloped land north of Domenigoni Parkway while preserving about 39 acres of hillside as open space.
The commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of Menifee Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 7, with Commissioner Chris Thomas voting against the recommendation. The amendment will next go to the city council for consideration.
The Menifee Village Specific Plan covers nearly 2,000 acres and was originally approved by Riverside County more than 40 years ago. The plan has been amended several times as development has occurred in the area.
The latest amendment would make changes to several remaining undeveloped areas within the plan. It does not approve construction of a specific development but changes what could eventually be built on the properties.
The amendment would relocate 199 housing units that were already approved elsewhere within the Menifee Village Specific Plan but were never built. The overall number of homes allowed throughout the specific plan would remain capped at 5,344.
The affected properties would allow eight to 14 homes per acre, and the amendment would add condominiums as an allowed housing type.
Other changes involve property near Menifee Road, Newport Road and Domenigoni Parkway. Some property currently designated for community facilities would instead be designated for commercial use, while development standards for the commercial areas would be updated to the city’s current standards.
The proposal drew both support and opposition during the public hearing Wednesday.
Several residents opposed the higher density, raising concerns about traffic, infrastructure and the effects future development could have on surrounding neighborhoods.
Resident Brian Joy pointed to conditions on nearby roads, including Lindenberger Road, as he questioned the proposed density increase.
“We cannot afford more high-density traffic in these areas,” Joy said. “Who’s going to pay for these roadways?”
Others raised concerns about potential blasting and damage to nearby homes if the property is eventually developed.
Kassen Klein was the only speaker to voice support for the amendment during the public hearing.
“I support this because I find the open space and the hillside are more valuable than what is being swapped out,” Klein said.
Commissioners spent much of the discussion questioning staff about traffic, road improvements and how the changes could affect the surrounding area.
Thomas questioned what the community would gain from allowing the higher density.
“I’m sold as to why this will help the developer, which I think is great,” Thomas said. “We want developers to succeed, but I’m not sold as to why we should give it to him.”
Before voting, commissioners added language to their recommendation calling for the city council to consider additional ways to address impacts associated with the increased density, including potential blasting or damage to nearby homes.
