Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCM0718171 City of Central point Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2017 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:04 P.M. U. ROLL CALL Commissioners, Mike Oliver, Tom Van Voorhees, John Whiting, Craig Nelson, Elizabeth Powell and Kay Harrison were present. Also in attendance were: Torn Humphrey, Community Development Director, Chris Clayton, City Manager, Matt Samitore, Parks and Public Works Director, Sydnee Dreyer, City Attorney, Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner, Molly Bradley, Community Planner, and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE IIL CORRESPONDENCE League of Oregon Cities Magazine IV. NE NUTES Mike Oliver stated that the packet minutes contained a clerical error on page 2, the numbers 219 and 222 regarding parking spaces were transposed. Tim commissioners had a corrected copy of the minutes with their packets. Tom Van Voorhees pored out that on pagel 0 the name of Mr. Stamps was stated incorrectly as Mr. Sample. Karig Skelton said she would make the correction. Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to approve the minutes of the June b, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting as corrected. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. ROLL CALL. Tose Van Voorhees, yes, Elizabeth Powell, yes; Craig Nelson, abstain; John Whiting, yes; Kay Harrison, yes. Motion passed. V, PUBLIC APPEARANCES None VI. BUSINESS A. Consideration of a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for Smith Crossing at Twin Creeks, a 245 -unit multifamily development within the Medium Mix Residential (�l� -NIR) zone in the Twin Creeks TOD Master flan area. The 9.45 acre project site consists of two (lots) on North Haskell Street identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 03C Tax Lot 138 and 37S 2W 03DC Tax Lot 3400. Applicant: PCMI, Inc.; Agent: Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2017 Page 2 Planning Commission Chair Mike Oliver announced that this meeting was a continued deliberation of the public hearing held on June 6, 2017. He said that he had received a telephone call from Dennis Richardson on Saturday July 15, 2017, who asked him questions regarding the subject application related to traffic, timing of the railroad crossing and the notice area. Mr. Oliver stated that he advised Mr. Richardson of the testimony and evidence in the record on those issues and Mr. Richardson said that he did not have a position on the subject application. Mr. Oliver stated that his discussion with Mr. Richardson did not influence his potential decision on the matter in any way. Mr. Oliver explained that the initial public hearing was closed on June 6, 2017 but per a duly seconded motion, the record was left open for an additional 7 days to present new evidence. The meeting tonight is to have staff review any new evidence or argument presented and to move forward with deliberations on the application. He explained that at the previous meeting he read the rules governing a quasi-judicial hearing. He proceeded to explain the rules of decorum and commissioner abstention. Commissioners Craig Nelson and Elizabeth Powell were absent from the June 6, 2017 planning commission meeting. Commissioner Elizabeth Powell stated that she had reviewed the record and would not be deliberating on the matter. She removed herself to the audience. Commissioner Craig Nelson stated that he had reviewed the record and would deliberate on the matter. He stated he had no conflicts of interest, bias or ex parte contacts to disclose. Stephanie Holley, Community Planner, reviewed the application background. She said that the Applicant, PCMI, Inc. is requesting Site Plan and Architectural Review approval to construct multi -family housing on two (2) lots each lot representing a separate phase of development. Phase 1 — 37S 2W 03 Tax Lot 138 will havel00-units. Phase 2 —37S 2W03DC Tax Lot 3400 will have 145 units. The Site Plan and Architectural Review application was considered at the June 6, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. At that time staff presented an evahration of the proposal relative to its compliance with the site plan and architectural review criteria for applications in the TOD per CPMC 17.66.050(13). Based on the evidence submitted, the proposal was found to comply with the applicable review criteria as conditioned. The Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicant, proponents, and opponents of the application. One participant requested that the record be left open for seven (7) days following closure of the public hearing to allow additional time to review the evidence in the record and submit additional written evidence. The public hearing was closed and, per a duly seconded motion, the request to leave the record open was granted with written comments to be submitted by these deadlines: Open record period — Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 4:30 p.m. New evidence rebuttal period — Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 4:30 p.m. Applicant rebuttal period —Tuesday June 27, 2017 at 4:30 p.m