Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-20-07 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting – December 20, 2007 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Andrews, Stanley, Tkac Absent: Commissioners McGinnis, Tragish 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Andrea Lee, representing Kern Economic Development Corporation, encouraged the Planning Commission to adopt the General Plan Amendment and Concurrent Zone Change 07-1715 for Sikand Engineering. She stated that in addition to providing primary and specialty medical services for the underserved northeast, the economic impact of this project will be approximately $6 million in annual wage income and upon completion of all four phases a capital investment of $108 million. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of October 18, 2007 and November 18, 2007. Commissioner Tkac advised that he listened to Monday’s pre-meeting and stated he is prepared to vote. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the non- public hearing items. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2 Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11782(Pinnacle Civil Engineering, Inc.) 4.3a Approval of Continuance of General Plan Amendment (GPA) 06-1681 to the March 20, 2008 GPA Cycle (Porter Robertson Engineering) 4.3b Approval of Continuance of Zone Change 06-1681 to the March 20, 2008 GPA Cycle (Porter Robertson Engineering) 4.4a Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-1715 (Sikand Engineering) 4.4b Approval of Zone Change 07-1715 Sikand Engineering) ( 4.5a Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-1791 (Evergreen Devco Inc.) 4.5b Approval of Zone Change 07-1791 (Evergreen Devco Inc.) 4.5c Approval of Planned Commercial Development 07-2046 (Evergreen Devco Inc.) 4.6a Referral of General Plan Amendment 07-1835 Back to Staff (Summerland Apartments, LLC) Minutes of Planning Commission – December 20, 2007 Page 2 4.6b Referral of Zone Change 07-1835 Back to Staff (Summerland Apartments, LLC) 4.6c Referral of Planned Unit Development 07-2251 Back to Staff – Preliminary Development Plan (Summerland Apartments, LLC) 4.7a Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-1848 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) 4.7b Approval of Zone Change 07-1848 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) 4.8a Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-1874 (McIntosh & Associates) 4.8b Approval of Zone Change 07-1874 (McIntosh & Associates) 4.9a Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-2017 (AMCAL Multi-Housing) 4.9b Approval of Zone Change 07-2017 (AMCAL Multi-Housing) 4.9c Approval of Planned Unit Development 07-2162 (AMCAL Multi-Housing) No one from the audience requested removal of any item from the consent agenda. Commissioner Johnson requested removal of consent item 4.9a, 4.9b and 4.9c from the consent calendar. Commissioner Andrews commented that he will be voting on the consent calendar, except for consent item 4.2 (Agenda Item 5.1) because he is a Commissioner on the Committee Action Partnership Board. Commissioner Tkac recused himself from 4.7a, 4.7b (Agenda Items 6.5a and 6.5b) for any appearance of impropriety due to the fact that they are good clients. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to approve the consent calendar as indicated. Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, Andrews, Tkac. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Andrews (agenda item 4.2), Tkac (agenda item 4.7a and 4.7b) ABSENT: McGinnis, Tragish 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS – Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 5.1 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11782 (Pinnacle Civil Engineering, Inc) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS – GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments / Circulation Element/ Zone Changes / Preliminary Development Plan Approval 6.1a General Plan Amendment 06-1681 (Porter Robertson Engineering) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.1b Zone Change 06-1681 (Porter Robertson Engineering) Heard on Consent Calendar. Minutes of Planning Commission – December 20, 2007 Page 3 6.2a General Plan Amendment 07-1715 (Sikand Engineering) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.2b Zone Change 07-1715 (Sikand Engineering) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.3a General Plan Amendment 07-1791 (Evergreen Devco Inc) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.3b Zone Change 07-1791 (Evergreen Devco Inc) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.3c Planned Commercial Development 07-2046 (Evergreen Devco Inc) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.4a General Plan Amendment 07-1835 (Summerland Apartments, LLC) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.4b Zone Change 07-1835 (Summerland Apartments, LLC) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.4c Planned Unit Development 07-2251 – Preliminary Development Plan (Summerland Apartments, LLC) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.5a General Plan Amendment 07-1848 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.5b Zone Change 07-1848 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.6a General Plan Amendment 07-1874 (McIntosh & Associates) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.6b Zone Change 07-1874 (McIntosh & Associates) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.7a General Plan Amendment 07-2017 (AMCAL Multi-Housing) 6.7b Approval of Zone Change 07-2017 (AMCAL Multi-Housing) 6.7c Approval of Planned Unit Development 07-2162 (AMCAL Multi-Housing) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given and no one in opposition spoke. Staff introduced Rhonda Barnhard, Assistant Economic Development Director, to provide additional information regarding this project. She introduced Craig Smith with AMCAL Multi-Housing, who provided information on some projects that they have done in the valley. He stated that their Minutes of Planning Commission – December 20, 2007 Page 4 current value of developments is $372 million and low-income housing tax credits received from 2003-2007 was over $258 million and as of this year 2007, they have over 700 units under construction. He stated that affordability is based on income and the median income in Kern County for a family of four is $47,800. Mr. Smith provided slides of some of their projects. Mr. Smith discussed how affordability and parking relate to one another, stating that income level and car ownership are directly related. He pointed out that for the retail commercial component they are using 1 space for every 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area, which amounts to 16 spaces. He stated that in other cities 40% of the parking spaces are sized for compact vehicles of 8’ wide as opposed to the 9’ wide standard, which can add additional spaces. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to any parking issues in Chowchilla and Orange Cove, to which Mr. Smith responded that it is categorized as a rural project and typically there is not the transit opportunities and parking is addressed differently. Mr. Smith pointed out that all of their facilities have on-site management who monitor parking and they are always evaluating parking surveys done on several of their projects. Tom Davis, Vice-President, stated that to compare the project in Chowchilla, Orange Cove and Avenal, which are considered rural projects, they want more parking because there are no transit opportunities as there are with infill sites. Commissioner Johnson inquired with regard to those projects provided in the matrix, how does the Summerset project residents adjust to the parking. He specifically inquired if the project is always full of vehicles and if there is parking for visitors. Mr. Davis responded that what their experience has been is that even when they have the higher parking requirements they end up having many empty spaces. He stated that in every project they have built they have always had extra parking, no matter what the ratio was. Commissioner Johnson inquired if Mr. Davis had been to the Summerset site, to which he responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson stated that he is really looking for a description of the Summerset site specifically and if there is adequate parking. Mr. Davis responded that there is always available parking 24 hours a day and there is never a time when a tenant has expressed that they can’t find a parking spot. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to the City’s parking standards, which would require 141 spots and this project is proposing 54 parking spots. Staff responded that it would probably be more like 139 with the revision of the commercial area. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to the parking ratio and inquired how the applicant got to the 87 space requirement and if they feel it is right in the ratio formula used, or if it is higher than what the formula permits. Mr. Davis responded that they arrived at this number by looking at the standards and using their experience and they feel that 1.55 is very adequate for this site, especially with public transit right in front of the property. He stated that this parking ratio is very sufficient based on their experience and he does not feel there will be any issues with parking. Commissioner Johnson inquired if visitors to the site are required to obtain a parking permit, to which Mr. Davis responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tkac inquired as to the need for this type of development. Donna Kunz, Economic and Community Development Director, stated that they entertain about four multi- family projects annually and it is in great demand. She pointed out that because it is public- private partnership it requires quite a bit of subsidy and commitment from the locality as well as obtaining federal tax credits or state tax credits. Ms. Kunz also stated that they go by these types of projects a lot and there are a lot of empty parking spaces. She stated they are not aware of any parking complaints. Commissioner Tkac inquired what the City is doing more in this case than in other cases because the development agency is involved. Ms. Kunz responded that if it could be done by the private sector they wouldn’t be here. She stated that her department is involved because it does not make economic sense or it is more urban in nature and they are trying to eliminate blithe, creation of affordable housing and increasing density in the urban centers. She stated that her department is a financial participant of $2 million plus land and the redevelopment agency has a goal of 1,000 new urban residences, whether they are rentals, for sale or planned in the urban center over the next 10 years. Minutes of Planning Commission – December 20, 2007 Page 5 Commissioner Tkac inquired in what form the $2 million comes to the buyer and developer. Ms. Kunz stated that the Redevelopment Agency is a legal entity that does not add additional taxes to the citizens or businesses located in the area. She explained that when an area and an agency is formed and a project area is formed, the tax base is frozen at that point and all new growth that happens within that area is called tax increment and that increment by law has a percentage of it that gets passed through to other tax entities like schools and the County, but at the end of the day they receive about 60% of the growth in tax. She stated that by receiving that growth over the next 30 years, which is the life of a project area, they are able to take those dollars and leverage them by loans and matching up with grants and assembly land, clear blithe, provide financial incentives to developers to make these things happen. She went on to explain that in affordable housing, the cost to develop this housing far exceeds what they can collect in rents, because the tenants cannot exceed 60% of median income. Ms. Kunz summarized stating that they make land contributions by writing the land down to what makes the land economically feasible, they make cash contributions to help write down the cost of the construction, and on for-sale projects they will do both of these two things, as well as provide specialized down payment assistance in a loan format to the buyers on the back end. Commissioner Tkac expressed his concerns with the public monies being used and inquired if the $2 million is a cap on this project and over what period of time it is donated into this project. Ms. Kunz explained that this project will receive a capital contribution of the $2 million once the project is awarded its tax credits, which are estimated at $10 million and would be paid towards the construction costs. She stated that running with the land will be a very long term affordability covenant which will be placed on the property and cannot be a market rate project for 55 years. Commissioner Tkac inquired how this is different than the qualifications for Section 8. Ms. Kunz responded that Section 8 can be project based where it comes through the County’s public housing. She pointed out that this project is not public housing, but rather is private. She stated that a Section 8 individual could qualify to rent in this project and they would receive a certificate that helps them pay a portion of their rent if they meet certain guidelines. Commissioner Tkac inquired if the people that would typically qualify for this type of project already be receiving some type of government assistance. Ms. Kunz responded that probably at least 70% of the occupants are work-force housing. She stated that there might be people on disability that would qualify and some Section 8 people that are in some kind of work-force development program. Commissioner Tkac inquired if there is an Alesse Manning in the audience because she wrote a letter that he would like a response to. Craig Smith, the developer, responded that they sent out a neighborhood flyer to solicit all the surrounding neighbors and they held their community meeting last Monday at the Bakersfield Senior Center on Fourth Avenue and out of the 50 flyers that they sent out only four people attended, including Ms. Manning. He stated that Ms. Manning was actually upset about the four single-family small houses on Eighth Street to the north, just off of Union Avenue. He stated that after they went through this proposal with the four in attendance, they were pleased to see what they were proposing and the people walked away very happy. Commissioner Tkac inquired if the on-site manager receives free rent, or receives a salary. Mr. Smith responded that they receive a salary and they do pay rent for their unit. Commissioner Tkac inquired who deals with enforcement issues. Commissioner Tkac also inquired if there will be security cameras installed on the project. Mr. Davis responded that as owners they want to maintain a high quality property and therefore they hire a property management firm that has experience in the management of Section 42 housing and they meet the requirements by doing extensive background checks, criminal records, etc., the property management firm reports directly to them and they are the enforcement arm. He stated that if they see anything that they don’t like they step in and make sure it gets fixed and if the property management firm is not up to expectations they remove them and put someone else in. Commissioner Tkac inquired if animals are allowed on this type of property to which Mr. Davis responded that typically they do not allow pets in their projects. Mr. Davis also explained that they typically put cameras on site during construction and sometimes they leave the on site strategically placed. Commissioner Tkac stated that his concern with the cameras is if they look over into another area and there may be privacy issues. Mr. Davis stated that they would only Minutes of Planning Commission – December 20, 2007 Page 6 put them in areas such as the entry gates so they can see the cars coming and going and possibly on the community center. Commissioner Tkac inquired if there is a common area that will be left open. Mr. Davis responded that the common areas would be the community center, the pool area and then all the green open space. Commissioner Tkac stated that he also has concerns with ingress and egress and the lighting in this area. Commissioner Andrews commended the development company on bringing this project to Bakersfield. He inquired if they actually do a physical parking survey and keep documentation on this. Mr. Davis responded that on their completed projects that have been leased up for a period of time, the property managers on site will conduct a survey of not only the parking, but many other things, and it is available in their office. Commissioner Andrews stated that the developer has to do some long-term planning with respect to maintenance on this type of project. Mr. Davis stated that in addition to having an on- site manager, they also hire a maintenance person to be on the job full time. Commissioner Stanley inquired if the parking limit is reduced would they be able to use compact parking to expand. Staff responded in the affirmative. Staff stated that this is the type of project where you could have compact stalls because you’re probably not going to see too many F250s and Suburbans in the parking lot. Staff stated that they do not have any parking concerns with the evidence the applicant provided. Commissioner Stanley said he feels assured by the applicant’s experience that they will be able to meet the needs of the people that will be living in this project, as well as the community in general. He further stated that he feels it is an appropriate use of the land and that the parking limits are sufficient for the income restrictions on this type of project. Commissioner Blockley stated that his earlier concerns regarding consideration to pedestrian safety is not really a planning issue however he believes it would become a planning issue if you consider the bus stop in front of the unit, which is across six lanes of traffic, a median and a block away from the nearest light. He inquired as to the number of pedestrian/car fatalities in this area. Staff responded that since it is a State highway they do not have extensive information on the accident history, however what they do know is that in the past 10 years there’s been 10 pedestrian related accidents; one fatal. Staff pointed out that the State has installed crosswalks about a block north of this location, which are used extensively. Staff also pointed out that GET is very amenable to making changes to their locations related to crossing from residences of this potential location. Staff also pointed out that the accident statistics is not an unusual situation on a busy street such as this. Staff also pointed out that there are means of crossing the street in a very safe manner that are convenient to this proposed site and shouldn’t in and of itself be a concern or cause an increase in pedestrian accidents. Commissioner Blockley stated that this project appears to be attractive and should be a real boost to Union Avenue. He concluded by stating that he would not want to use compact stalls. Commissioner Johnson stated that if Staff is comfortable with there being sufficient parking then he will rely on their judgment. Commissioner Tkac inquired that since public monies are being used, what the restrictions are for sex offenders. Mr. Davis responded that they are required to do an extensive background check and if this type of criminal behavior is discovered, the application would be denied. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from GC (General Commercial) and LR (Low Density Residential) to HR (High Density Residential) on approximately 2.34 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, and recommend the same to City Council. Minutes of Planning Commission – December 20, 2007 Page 7 Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: McGinnis, Tragish Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from C2 (Regional Commercial) to R2 (Limited Multi-Family Dwelling Residential) to R3 PUD (Multi-Family Planned Unit Development) on approximately 2.34 acres, and C2 to C2 PCD (Planned Commercial Development) on approximately .25 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: McGinnis, Tragish Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, adopt a Resolution making findings approving a PUD/PCD 07-2162 Preliminary Development Plan for a new multiple family apartment development and commercial building on approximately 2.5 acres as shown on Exhibit A-3, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: McGinnis, Tragish . COMMUNICATIONS: 7 None. 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS: 9. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the pre-meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director January 22, 2008