HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 03 01 AIS RS PC Marijuana Land Use Regs312016AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 3/1/2016
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Greg Mott, DPW Jim Donovan, DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3774
Estimated Time: 30 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D
PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Goals: Provide Financially
Responsible and Innovative Government Services ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing and Recommendation To City Council on draft land use regulations
for marijuana business activities including production, manufacturing, wholesale
and retail sales.
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Conduct a public hearing, consider written and oral public testimony along with the
staff report prior to forwarding a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of language amending the Springfield Development Code.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to develop draft land
use regulations for the production, manufacture, wholesale and retail sales of marijuana for Council consideration and action in early 2016. Staff has
incorporated Planning Commission feedback along with prior input from industry
and medical access representatives into the latest draft code language for Planning Commission consideration.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment #1: Planning Commission Briefing Memorandum Attachment #2: Staff Report and Proposed Code Amendments Attachment #3: Code Amendment Criteria of Approval
Attachment #4: Planning Commission Recommendation
DISCUSSION:
The Springfield City Council conducted a work session on 11/9/15 to begin
consideration of new land use regulations for state licensed medical and recreational marijuana business activities. The Council generally supported the
concepts of traditional zoning and development regulations, separation of uses and compliance with other regulations adopted by the State of Oregon. Council directed staff to work with the Planning Commission to research the above concepts and
recommend a package of code revisions for Council review and adoption in early 2016.
The Planning Commission held work sessions on the subject in December 2015 and on January 2016 prior to conducting these public hearing procedures on proposed
code amendments. The attached code proposals were developed with Planning
Commission input and are ready for public review and comment prior to the Planning Commission forwarding a recommendation to City Council. In making
recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission may adopt the
code proposals and attached Order as written, direct staff to modify the proposals in response to public comment, or recommend limited revisions and forward public
comment information to the City Council for additional consideration.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 3/1/2016
To: Planning Commission COMMISSION
From: Jim Donovan
Greg Mott
BRIEFING
Subject: Recreational Marijuana Code Updates MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: The City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to develop draft land use regulations for the production, manufacture, wholesale and retail sales of marijuana for Council consideration and action in early 2016. Staff has incorporated Planning Commission feedback along
with prior input from industry and medical access representatives into the latest draft code language for Planning Commission consideration. This memorandum documents the process to date and the
complete package provides a basis for adoption pursuant to the Springfield Development Code
process for amendments.
COUNCIL GOALS: This code amendment procedure is undertaken to codify local zoning regulations for a new industry approved by the residents of the state of Oregon. The undertaking
affects all Council goals but primarily seeks to provide stable and equitable government services to all sectors of the economy served by the City of Springfield while protecting the health and welfare of our citizens by complying with all applicable state and federal regulations for activities that until
recently were illegal under state and local laws. These code amendments are aspirational in their attempt to strike this balance and will undoubtedly be subject to future revisions or additions in response to industry or regulatory changes.
BACKGROUND/TIMELINE:
This Development Code Amendment was initiated by the Director in accordance with SDC 5.6-105A on July 17, 2014 as a companion piece to Municipal Code amendments regulating medical marijuana dispensary licensing and operation.
Statewide Ballot Measure 91 approving recreational marijuana business passed in November 2014,
pursuant to the successful ballot measure House Bill 91 was adopted in 2015, rulemaking ensued at
the state level and OAR 845-025-1000 implementing HB 91 became operative on January 1, 2016.
Staff met with marijuana business industry representatives and medical access advocates prior to
the adoption of licensing regulations and initial rules for time, place and manner of medical marijuana operations under state statutes and Oregon Health Authority operating rules. Staff has
continued to correspond with existing licensed medical/recreational retailers and medical access
advocates as state statutes and rules developed and have provided development review services, gathered information during OHA Committee meetings, OLCC roll out seminars, and direct
contact. Staff has focused on the zoning and development aspects of the new industry, consistency
with state statutes and attempted to avoid zoning or time place and manner regulations that may have a detriment to medical patients’ ability to access retail outlets.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM 2/25/2016 Page 2
The Planning Commission held work sessions on December 15, 2015; December 22, 2015; and
January 20, 2016 and a public hearing on March 1, 2016 and recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the Springfield City Council. The City Council will hold a public hearing and first reading of the ordinance on March 21, 2016. On Monday, April 4, 2016, the Council will consider a
second reading and emergency adoption of the amendments.
The public hearing process before the Planning Commission and the City Council are the formal
avenues for the public, industry and medical access advocates to provide feedback and significant feedback should be anticipated. The Planning Commisssion may recommend revisions to code proposals upon receiving feedback or direct staff to summarize and forward feedback to Council for
consideration and action. The attached code amendment documents provide a basis for review and recommendation to the City
Council on previously discussed concepts: 1) Proposed zoning code changes to allow medical and recreational marijuana retail outlets,
(hereinafter “retail”) under the same heading, in the Community Commercial and Major Retail Commercial Zoning Districts. Special Use Standards are noted and include compliance with state
statutes, certain licensing requirements as specified in Chapter 7 of the Springfield Municipal Code,
(Ordinance 6324 adopted and effective on July 21, 2014) and specific standards as proposed. Retail sales are not recommended in mixed use or industrial zoning districts for reasons discussed and
explained below.
2) Proposed zoning code changes to provide appropriate zoning districts for the remaining three types
of marijuana businesses licensed under Oregon Liquor Control Commission as defined and detailed in
state statute. Proposals for Specific Development Standards are provided as applicable for compliance with state statutes, local licensing requirements and mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties.
3) Specific Development Standards for each affected zoning district to be detailed in terms of
reasonable time, place and manner standards to be consistent with state statute or address identified
impacts. The following types of items are proposed to be contained in Subsection 4.7-177 of the code:
Buffers and separation standards to protect sensitive uses or areas
Reasonable time place and manner regulations for retail uses
Mitigation standards for the impacts of industrial uses
Annexation and planning review standards
4) Propose non-conforming use protections for existing legal uses.
5) Provide definitions in code for legal uses and other terms.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This code amendment package includes recommended changes to the Springfield Development Code
consistent with City code and state statutes. Upon review of the proposal and public comment by
the Planning Commission, staff recommends the Chair forward the package to the City Council by vote and signature on the attached order.
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 2
PROPOSED SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE (SDC) AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW
MEDICAL AND RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES
IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS (3/1/16)
This proposed action amends the following Sections of the Springfield Development Code:
1) Subsection 3.2-200 Residential Zoning Districts; Subsection 3.2-210 Schedule of Use Categories; Subsection
3.2-300. Commercial Zoning Districts; Subsection 3.2-310 Schedule of Uses Categories; Subsection 3.2-400
Industrial Zoning Districts; 3.2-410 Schedule of Use Categories; Subsection 3.2-415 Schedule of Campus
Industrial Use Categories; Subsection 3.2-600 Mixed Use Zoning Districts; Subsection 3.2-610 Schedule of Use
Categories; Subsection 3.4-200 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed Use Plan District; Subsection 3.4-255 Prohibited
Uses; Subsection 4.7-177 Marijuana Uses; Subsection 6.1-110 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms. These
amendments will allow medical and recreational marijuana retail sales in the Community Commercial and Major
Retail Commercial Zoning Districts; will allow marijuana production, processing and wholesale sales in the Light
Medium, Heavy and Special Heavy Industrial Zoning Districts; will establish Subsection 4.7-177 describing
specific development standards for each licensed use in each affected zoning district; and will add definitions
consistent with state statutes.
I. The use tables of the Springfield Development Code are proposed to be amended as follows:
3.2-300 Commercial Zoning Districts
Commentary. Marijuana retail sales are proposed to be permitted in the Community Commercial (CC) and
Major Retail Commercial (MRC) Zoning Districts under Special Use standards as noted below and detailed under
Special Use Standards section.
Marijuana retail sales are proposed to be prohibited in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and General Office
Zoning Districts for the following reasons:
1) The NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District, while listed under “Commercial Districts”, is discussed
under the Metro Plan Residential Designation where “neighborhood commercial services” are allowed as
auxiliary uses. The SDC limits the NC Zoning District to not more than 3 acres in size consisting of a
neighborhood market, hair salon, etc. serving the neighborhood and it is typically surrounded by residential
zoning districts. The proposed separation and buffer restrictions proposed in Subsection 4.7-177 below either
would be difficult to, or cannot be met.
2) The GO (General Office) Zoning District, which is considered a buffer between more intense commercial uses
and residential uses does allow retail uses as a secondary use. However, retail uses are limited to no more than
10 percent of the gross floor area of the office building in which they are sited and are typically serving the
primary office uses. If retail sales are to be buffered from residential districts, any separation standards would
be virtually impossible to meet. For these reasons, staff proposes that marijuana retail outlets should not be
permitted in the GO Zoning District.
3) After PC discussion of zoning principles and the lack of crime statistics to support safety concerns, state
licensed commercial daycare businesses are not buffered in this proposal.
Proposed text is underlined and highlighted in yellow.
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 11
3.2-310 Schedule of Use Categories
Commercial Districts
Categories/Uses NC CC MRC GO
Marijuana Business (Section 4.7-177)
Marijuana Retail Outlet (Recreational or Medical) N S* S* N
Note: S* refers to a use that is permitted subject to Special Use Standards, an asterisk denotes site plan review.
*******************
Section 3.2-400 Industrial Zoning Districts
Commentary. This section addresses several issues identified with production of marijuana, processing of
marijuana products or wholesaling of marijuana. Staff research of other jurisdictions, state statutes and code
structure leads to the proposal not to permit marijuana dispensaries or retail outlets within industrial zoning
districts as a primary or secondary use. The LMI (Light Medium Industrial) and HI (Heavy Industrial Zoning)
Districts do not permit retail uses as a primary use, which includes, but is not limited to: manufacturing;
warehousing; and research, development and testing laboratories. While these zoning districts do allow
secondary uses serving or related to the primary industrial uses, they are limited to those serving the employees
of the primary industrial use. There are no secondary retail uses in these zoning districts. In addition, the SHI
(Special Heavy Industrial) Zoning District is located outside of the Springfield city limits and is therefore not
eligible for marijuana dispensaries, which are required to be located only within Springfield’s city limits due to
the operational requirements contained in the Springfield Municipal Code Chapter 7. The Springfield Municipal
Code does not apply outside of the city limits.
3.2-410 Schedule of Use Categories
Industrial Districts
Use Categories/Uses LMI HI SHI
Marijuana Business (Special Use Standards Section 4.7-177)
Production Facilities
Indoor/Outdoor, Tier I-II Canopy Regulations-
N S* S*
Processing Facilities
Laboratory Testing Facilities
S* S* N
Wholesale Facilities
S* S* N
Marijuana Retail Outlets or Sales, as a primary or secondary use. N N N
Note: S* refers to a use that is permitted subject to Special Use Standards, an asterisk denotes site plan review.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 11
3.2-415 Schedule of Campus Industrial Use Categories
Commentary. While the CI (Campus Industrial) Zoning District does allow certain retail uses, these uses are also
intended to be secondary to the permitted primary Campus Industrial uses. The purpose of these permitted
secondary retail uses is to serve the employees of the CI Zoning District. A retail use will serve customers from
all over the metropolitan area and, therefore, is not considered secondary to permitted primary uses specified in
SDC Subsection 3.2-415. All other marijuana uses will not meet operational or other standards of the district.
Staff proposes adding marijuana dispensaries to the CI prohibited use list:
Prohibited Uses
Marijuana Business N
******************
3.4-200 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District
Commentary. Springfield has two sets of mixed-use zoning district. One applies to Glenwood Phase 1 only; the
other to the rest of the City. This section addresses the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan Districts.
All the zoning in Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District is either Employment Mixed-Use, Commercial
Mixed-Use, Office Mixed-Use or Employment Mixed-Use. Any permitted primary uses in these zoning districts
were limited to prevent conflicts with retail uses in downtown Springfield or other commercial areas and
purposefully create a distinct business environment. Additionally, the purpose of permitted secondary retail
uses in Glenwood is to serve either the residents or employees of a building, not the general public. Therefore,
marijuana uses would not be allowed as a primary or secondary use in these zoning districts.
3.4-255 Prohibited Uses
The following uses are similar in nature to other prohibited retail and industrial uses and shall be added to the
list of prohibited uses within the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District:
Marijuana Business.
Section 3.2-600 Mixed Use Zoning Districts
Commentary. These mixed use zoning districts are distinct from Glenwood districts, and differ in permitted
uses, notably residential uses are allowed under all three districts. Therefore it would be very difficult to
regulate any separation between retail or any other marijuana uses and the desired residential uses. For these
reasons staff recommends no marijuana uses be permitted in any mixed use district having a residential district.
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 11
3.2-610 Schedule of Use Categories
Districts
Categories/Uses MUC MUE MUR
Marijuana Business
Production, Processing, Wholesaling, Retail N N N
*************
Section 3.2-200 Residential Zoning Districts
Commentary. Marijuana businesses are prohibited in all standard residential districts by state statute, and
verified for local compliance prior to the issuance of a license. This code section is intended to be consistent
with those statutes.
3.2-210 Schedule of Use Categories
Districts
Categories/Uses LDR SLR MDR HDR
Marijuana Business (4.7-177)
Production, Processing, Wholesaling, Retail N N N N
II. The following new Special Use Standards are proposed to be added to Code Section 4.7 as indicated
by asterisk in the permitted use tables above:
Section 4.7-177 Marijuana Uses
Commentary. SDC 4.7-100 currently contains “special use” standards for a number of permitted uses in various
zoning districts. These “special use” standards typically involve specific standards designed to control location or
mitigate impacts of a use on surrounding properties. The following proposed Subsection provides specific
standards for permitting marijuana uses consistent with statutory regulations, Springfield Municipal Code and as
recommended or requested for consideration by City Council or the Planning Commission.
A. Retail marijuana outlets shall be:
1. Licensed or registered and operated in accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes and applicable
Oregon Administrative Rules.
2. Licensed and regulated as specified in Chapter 7 of the Springfield Municipal Code;
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 11
3. Located on and take access from an arterial or collector street; and
4. Fully contained in a permanent building in the Community Commercial or Major Retail
Commercial Zoning Districts.
5. Prohibited in any district except CC and MRC.
B. Where permitted by this Code, marijuana retail outlets shall not be located:
Commentary. The following section is designed to be consistent with state statutes and recommendations or
requests for consideration by the Planning Commission or City Council.
1. At the same address as another licensed or registered marijuana business;
2. Within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a public or private elementary, secondary or
career school attended primarily by minors (“within 1,000 feet” means a straight line
measurement in a radius extending for 1,000 feet or less in every direction from any point on
the boundary line of the real property comprising an existing public or private elementary,
secondary or career school primarily attended by minors);
3. Within 1,000 feet of another retail marijuana outlet (“within 1,000 feet” means a straight line
measurement in a radius extending for 1,000 feet or less in every direction from any point on
the boundary line of the real property compromising a retail outlet);
Commentary. The following proposed standards are not listed in statute; the intent was to provide
additional protection of children. See the Cole Memorandum1. Staff reviewed adopted or proposed medical
marijuana dispensary zoning regulations from Ashland, Beaverton and Salem and found that they addressed
parks, pre-schools and certified day care facilities. See Medical Marijuana Dispensaries – Other City
Comparisons. Staff originally proposed 1,000 feet of separation between parks, pre-schools and certified day
care centers. However, based upon input from the marijuana industry representatives (250 foot from parks) and
the 100O foot buffer initially discussed, the 500 foot proposal represents a compromise of buffering. Pre-
1 In a memorandum to all United States Attorneys dated August 29, 2013, James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General distributed
information on Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement. The memorandum states in part: “…the Department (Justice Department) in
recent years has focused its efforts on certain enforcement priorities that are particularly important to the federal government….
Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors…. The Department’s guidance in this memorandum rests on tis expectation that states
and local governments that have enacted [and/or are proposing to] laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement strong
and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health,
and other law enforcement interests….” The Oregon Legislature has adopted Medical Marijuana regulations enacted by Senate Bill 1531
(2014) which grants Springfield the authority to adopt ordinances within the city limits that impose reasonable regulations on the
operation of medical marijuana facilities registered under ORS 475.314 that are consistent with the latest directive.
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 11
schools and day care facilities located in residential zoning districts will be addressed in the proposed residential
setback locational standard below.
4. Within 500 feet of parks where minors congregate (“within 500 feet” means a straight line
measurement in a radius extending for 500 feet or less in every direction from any point on the
boundary line of the real property compromising a retail marijuana outlet).
Commentary. Setbacks from residential zoning districts. These standards are not listed in statute; the intent is to
provide additional protection of children. This topic was initially discussed with City Council during review of
regulations amending the Springfield Municipal Code to regulate licensing medical marijuana dispensaries in the
City. A number of options were mentioned from 1,000 feet to 100 feet and possible distanced in between. Staff
reviewed adopted, or soon to be adopted, medical marijuana dispensary zoning regulations from Ashland,
Beaverton and Salem regarding setbacks from residential zoning districts. Staff found Ashland proposed a 200
foot setback, Salem proposed a 100 foot setback and Beaverton has no setback. Please note that when zoning
was first applied along Main Street, commercial zoning included a 200 foot-wide swath that created a number of
lots that were split zoned Community Commercial and residential. The linear pattern of Main Street also would
prohibit the establishment of any medical marijuana dispensaries in this area if a 1,000 or even 200 foot setback
was to be imposed. Staff prepared maps showing a proposed 50 foot and 100 foot setback from residential
properties along Main Street and in other areas of Springfield where Community Commercial and Major Retail
Commercial zoning occurs for review of Council and Planning Commission. Based upon input from Council, the
Commission and initial feedback from marijuana industry representatives, a 50 foot setback was proposed. The
50 foot option should cover all residential pre-schools and day care facilities in the residential zoning districts
and ensure that no retail outlet is located immediately adjacent to a residential zone. No separate setback for
commercial day care facilities is proposed.
5. Within 50 feet of any residential zoning district (“within 50 feet” means a straight line
measurement in a radius extending for 50 feet, including public right-of-way, in every direction
from any point of the property containing a retail marijuana outlet
C. Additional Marijuana Retail Outlet Regulations. A marijuana retail outlet shall:
1. Not have a drive-up window;
2. Not operate from any temporary facility in any zone.
3. Provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by-products, which shall not be placed
within the businesses exterior refuse containers.
4. Not include outdoor storage of merchandise, raw materials, or any other material associated
with retail sales.
5. Preclude any use of products on site unless expressly exempted by state statute.
6. Not be allowed as a home occupation in any zone.
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 11
Commentary: The following proposed Subsection provides specific standards for permitting production,
processing or wholesale marijuana uses consistent with statutory regulations, Springfield Municipal Code and as
recommended or requested for consideration by City Council or the Planning Commission.
D. Industrial Uses
Commentary: Discussions with the Planning Commission of characteristics related to production identified a
need for reasonable operating and location conditions designed to mitigate olfactory impacts related to outdoor
and indoor grow operations. The state defines two tiers of canopy sizes for indoor and outdoor grows under
Production licenses:
Indoor Production Outdoor Production
Tier 1- Up to 5,000 square feet Tier 1- up to 20,000 square feet
Tier II- 5001-10,000 square feet Tier II- 20,001-40,000 square feet
Considering the potential olfactory impacts related to both indoor and outdoor production and other site design
characteristics required for site plan and MDS approval the following special standards are proposed by staff for
production within the Heavy Industrial District:
Production Facilities
1. Indoor Production Facilities licensed by the State of Oregon as a Tier 1 operation shall be located
within a permanent structure on a lot no smaller than 1 acre in size, shall not be located within
500 feet of any zoning district allowing residential use, and shall provide a controlled exhaust
system with filters designed to significantly reduce or eliminate odors at the property line.
2. Indoor Production Facilities licensed by the State of Oregon as a Tier II operation shall be located
within a permanent structure on a lot no smaller than 5 acres in size, shall not be located within
1000 feet of any zoning district allowing residential use, and shall provide a controlled exhaust
system with filters designed to significantly reduce or eliminate odors at the property line.
3. Outdoor Production Facilities licensed by the State of Oregon as a Tier I operation shall be
located on a lot no smaller than 5 acres in size, shall not be located within 1000 feet of any
zoning district allowing residential use, and shall be screened or secured in accordance with
state statutes and this code for outdoor storage. Any structure on site used for production
purposes shall provide a controlled exhaust system with filters designed to significantly reduce
or eliminate odors at the property line.
4. Outdoor Production Facilities licensed by the State of Oregon as a Tier II operation shall be
located on a lot no smaller than 10 acres in size, shall not be located within 1000 feet of any
zoning district allowing residential use and shall be screened or secured in accordance with state
statutes and this code for outdoor storage. Any structure on site used for production purposes
shall provide a controlled exhaust system with filters designed to significantly reduce or
eliminate odors at the property line.
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 11
Commentary: Discussions with the Planning Commission of the known characteristics related to processing
identified a need for reasonable operating conditions designed to mitigate impacts related to the most intense
processing operations, notably extraction with butane or other chemicals.
Processing Facilities
1. Processing Facilities performing testing, including marijuana testing laboratories, processing, or
manufacture of edibles or concentrates shall be located within LMI or HI Districts and be
completely enclosed within a permanent structure provide with a controlled exhaust system
with filters designed to significantly reduce or eliminate odors at the property line.
2. Processing Facilities processing cannabinoid extracts shall be located within HI Districts, shall be
located 500 feet from any district allowing residential use and be completely enclosed within a
permanent structure provide with a controlled exhaust system with filters designed to
significantly reduce or eliminate odors at the property line and shall be subject to Type II Site
Plan Review.
3. Licensed or registered and operated in accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes and applicable
Oregon Administrative Rules.
4. Licensed and regulated as specified in Chapter 7 of the Springfield Municipal Code;
5. Located on and take access from an arterial or collector street; and
Commentary: Discussions with the Planning Commission of the known characteristics related to production
identified a need for reasonable operating conditions designed to mitigate olfactory impacts related to outdoor
and indoor grow operations.
Wholesale Facilities
1. Licensed or registered and operated in accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes and applicable
Oregon Administrative Rules.
2. Licensed and regulated as specified in Chapter 7 of the Springfield Municipal Code.
3. Located on and take access from an arterial or collector street.
4. Within 50 feet of any residential zoning district (“within 50 feet” means a straight line
measurement in a radius extending for 50 feet, including public right-of-way, in every direction
from any point of the property containing a retail marijuana outlet.
5. No retail sales shall be permitted from any wholesale marijuana distribution facility.
6. No outdoor storage of any marijuana items shall occur at a wholesale marijuana distribution
facility.
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 11
Commentary. The intent of the Subsection below is to not penalize existing marijuana dispensaries that have
been: 1) approved prior to these proposed amendments; or 2) if a school, park or another protected use locates
within a proposed locational standard area after a marijuana business has been approved under these proposed
regulations.
E. The siting of a future school, daycare or park use that affects a licensed marijuana business existing at
the time of the siting, shall not make the existing marijuana business in violation of the locational
standards specified in this Code, nor shall it be grounds to refuse to renew a license.
F. In the event that a licensed or registered marijuana business is existing on [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF
ORDINANCE HERE], that existing use is allowed to continue as approved. In the event a marijuana
business is unoccupied, discontinued or unlicensed for 6 months or more after the above date, it shall
be subject to the non-conforming use standards of Section 5.8-100 of this code.
Commentary. In addition to meeting the proposed locational standards, establishment of marijuana businesses
will require the following applicable planning review process. All marijuana businesses are required to be
located on properties annexed to the City of Springfield to allow enforcement and licensing as prescribed by the
Springfield Municipal Code, and all businesses permitted under this code are considered urban uses and are not
permitted in the UF/10 Overlay District.
G. Planning Review.
1. When the proposed marijuana business is a change of use in an existing building, Minimum
Development Standards (MDS) as specified in Section 5.15-100 will apply.
2. When the proposed marijuana business is to be located in a new building, Site Plan Review
standards as specified in Section 5.17-100 will apply.
3. MDS or Site Plan Review approval by the Director will require, in addition to any other
conditions of approval, a copy of the state license or registration and a copy of the City of
Springfield marijuana business license pursuant to Chapter 7 of the Springfield Municipal Code.
These documents shall be required prior to occupancy.
4. All marijuana businesses allowed under this code shall occur on properties inside city limits.
Commentary. The statutory definitions of medical and recreational uses consistent with Chapter 7 of the
Springfield Municipal Code will be inserted prior to public review.
Section 6.1-110 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms
Cannabinoid means any of the chemical compounds that are the active constituents of marijuana.
Cannabinoid concentrate means a substance obtained by separating cannabinoids from marijuana by:
(a) A mechanical extraction process; or
(b) A chemical extraction process using a nonhydrocarbon-based or other solvent, such as water, vegetable
glycerin, vegetable oils, animal fats, isopropyl alcohol or ethanol.
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 11
Cannabinoid edible means food or potable liquid into which a cannabinoid concentrate, cannabinoid extract
or dried marijuana leaves or flowers have been incorporated.
Cannabinoid extract means a substance obtained by separating cannabinoids from marijuana by:
(a) A chemical extraction process using a hydrocarbon-based solvent, such as butane, hexane or propane;
(b) A chemical extraction process using the hydrocarbon-based solvent carbon dioxide, if the process uses
heat or pressure; or
(c) Any other process identified by the commission, in consultation with the authority, by rule.
Cannabinoid product means a cannabinoid edible and any other product intended for human consumption or
use, including a product intended to be applied to the skin or hair that contains cannabinoids or dried
marijuana leaves or flowers.
Cultivation or cultivate means: all phases of growth of marijuana from seed to harvest.
Marijuana means the plant Cannabis family Cannabaceae, any part of the plant of the Cannabis family
Cannabaceae and the seeds of the plant Cannabis family Cannabaceae. “Marijuana” does not include industrial
hemp, as defined in ORS 571.300.
Marijuana business means any person or entity appropriately licensed by the Oregon Health Authority or the
Oregon Liquor Control Commission that sells, produces, cultivates, grows, wholesales, processes, researches,
develops or tests medical marijuana or recreational adult use marijuana within the City of Springfield.
Marijuana grow sites means a specific location registered by the Oregon Health Authority and used by the
grower to produce marijuana for medical use by a specific patient.
Marijuana items means marijuana, cannabinoid products, cannabinoid concentrates and cannabinoid extracts.
Marijuana processing means the preparing, compounding or conversion of marijuana into cannabinoid
products, cannabinoid concentrates, and cannabinoid extracts for medical or recreational purposes.
Marijuana production means the manufacture, planting, cultivation, growing, or harvesting of
marijuana as licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.
Marijuana retailer means a person or entity licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission or Oregon
Health Authority to sell marijuana items to a consumer in this state.
Marijuana retail outlet means a business location within an enclosed building, which complies with the
standards and regulations for Marijuana Retail Outlets found in Subsection 4.7-177 of this Code.
Marijuana testing laboratory means a laboratory that tests marijuana items for producer, processor,
wholesaler or retail outlets.
Marijuana wholesaler means a person or entity that purchases marijuana items in this state for resale to a
person other than a consumer.
Medical marijuana dispensary means a medical marijuana facility or entity registered with the Oregon
Health Authority under ORS 475.300.
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 11
Recreational marijuana means any marijuana intended for recreational use which meets all requirements for
recreational marijuana contained in this chapter, Oregon state law, and any other applicable law.
School means a building where individuals gather to receive educational instruction, either public or
private, except as otherwise specifically defined in this code. School does not include a child care facility
as defined in this Chapter.
NOTE: This package of specific code amendment language is supported by the accompanying Staff Report and
Findings document containing findings and conclusions in compliance with the standards of the Springfield
Development Code for proposed amendments.
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 11
TYP414-0003
Springfield Development Code
Amendment
Staff Report and Findings
Procedural Findings
Finding: This Development Code Amendment was initiated by the Director in accordance with SDC 5.6-105A.
Finding: Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearings was provided pursuant to SDC:
Notice of the proposed amendments was provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on February 12, 2016.
The City of Springfield published a notice of the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings for the proposed Development Code text amendments in the
Register Guard Newspaper on February 16, 2016.
The City of Springfield sent additional notice to known existing marijuana business owners
and affected parties that have participated or requested notice on February 19, 2016. Finding: The Planning Commission held work sessions on December 15, 2015; December
22, 2015; and January 20, 2016 and a public hearing on March 1, 2016 and recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the Springfield City Council.
Finding: The City Council will hold a public hearing and first reading of the ordinance on March 21, 2016. On Monday, April 4, 2016, the Council will consider a second reading and emergency adoption of the amendments.
Précis of the Proposal
These proposed amendments to the Springfield Development Code are intended to provide regulatory control of the production, processing, wholesaling and retailing of recreational
marijuana as these uses and activities are undertaken in compliance with the rules of the
Oregon Liquor Control Commission as promulgated in Oregon Administrative Rule 845, Division 25 and in Chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015, and medical marijuana as these uses and
activities are undertaken in compliance with the rules of the Oregon Health Authority as promulgated in Oregon Administrative Rule 333, Division 8 and in Chapter 614, Oregon Laws 2015.
This proposed action amends the following Sections of the Springfield Development Code:
1) Subsection 3.2-200 Residential Zoning Districts; Subsection 3.2-210 Schedule of Use Categories; Subsection 3.2-300. Commercial Zoning Districts; Subsection 3.2-310 Schedule of
Uses Categories; Subsection 3.2-400 Industrial Zoning Districts; 3.2-410 Schedule of Use Categories; Subsection 3.2-415 Schedule of Campus Industrial Use Categories; Subsection
3.2-600 Mixed Use Zoning Districts; Subsection 3.2-610 Schedule of Use Categories;
Subsection 3.4-200 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed Use Plan District; Subsection 3.4-255 Prohibited Uses; Subsection 4.7-177 Marijuana Uses; Subsection 6.1-110 Meaning of Specific
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 10
Words and Terms. These amendments will allow medical and recreational marijuana retail sales in the Community Commercial and Major Retail Commercial Zoning Districts; will allow
marijuana production, processing and wholesale sales in the Light Medium, Heavy, and Special
Heavy Industrial Zoning Districts; will establish Subsection 4.7-177 describing specific development standards for each licensed use in each affected zoning district; and will add
definitions consistent with state statutes.
Criteria of Approval
SDC 5.6—115 A. In reaching a decision on the adoption or amendment of refinement plans
and this Code’s text, the City Council shall adopt findings that demonstrate conformance to the
following:
1. The Metro Plan;
2. Applicable State statutes; and
3. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
1. The Metro Plan
The Metro Plan does not contain policies that go to the matter of this proposal per se; that is, in
contemplation of the myriad of land uses and collateral impacts of those uses, the Metro Plan
does not precisely envision a specific activity or set aside land or infrastructure as a safeguard
against an unknown and unpredictable future. The Metro Plan assumes an effective
relationship between traditional implementation tools, i.e. zoning, development regulations,
annexation, etc. and the promulgation of new laws and new rules, or decisions of the courts in
the normal occurrence of legal adjudication of disputes or interpretations of the law. It is often
the case that state legislation is best implemented at the local level by amendments, when
called for, to the comprehensive plan or development regulations even when those documents
provide no indication that this legislation was expected or is derived from actions of the
Department of Land Conservation and Development or the Land Conservation and
Development Commission. In the present circumstances the action to amend the Development
Code is a response to the results of a statewide vote on the question of legalizing marijuana for
recreational purposes. This is neither a deliberate action to address a land use deficiency, nor
is it the typical process that is employed to promote or enact changes in the state’s land use
program. The principle objective was/is the legalization of marijuana for personal consumption;
the methodology to enable this objective is only coincidentally a planning, land use, or
development consideration and therefore subject to this obligation of plan consistency.
In a general, fundamental construct, the Metro Plan provides guidance for all or most all matters
of an urban nature. As a subordinate element of the Metro Plan, the Development Code
provides the structure and quantitative measures by which the actual use of land is regulated. In
this case of immediate interest, that means implementing Ballot Measure 91’s interpretative
legislation contained in SB 3400. SB3400 regulates certain aspects of the production,
processing, wholesaling and retailing of recreational marijuana, primarily via licensing
authorized by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission and as found in OAR 845-25. The Metro
Plan requires new land use regulations, clearly a component of SB3400, to be consistent with
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 10
the policies of the Metro Plan, and that any new regulations that are inconsistent with the Metro
Plan either not be adopted or require amendment of the Metro Plan to achieve consistency
between the code and the plan. The Springfield Development Code is premised upon an
ongoing relationship of consistency with the Metro Plan. Chapter 1 of the SDC contains a
synopsis explaining the relationship of the Code to the Statewide Planning Goals and the Metro
Plan; Chapter 2 of the SDC contains general provisions including the following purpose
statement: “The regulations contained in this Code are intended to ensure that development is:
Sited on property zoned in accordance with the applicable Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable
Refinement Plan diagram.” The amendments included with this proposal will be based on the
appropriate zoning for each new use. This question of appropriateness is answered by
application of the purpose and intent of individual zoning districts using the most fundamental,
traditional zoning methodology of separating incompatible uses and co-mingling compatible and
similar uses. For example, these amendments propose to limit retail sales of recreational
marijuana to retail zoning districts; to limit production and processing of marijuana to industrial
districts; establish setbacks or separation from residential uses (in many cases as specified by
statute); require mechanical collection and dispersal of odors generated by marijuana
undergoing these various processes and actions; and, prohibit some or all of these activities in
most residential districts and anywhere outside the city limits. The use of the Development
Code to regulate time, place, and intensity of uses is consistent with the original and continuing
purpose and intent of zoning and development regulations, both of which are fundamental to
implementing Plan policy and providing a consistent structure within which it is possible to affix
the ongoing objective of Plan compliance, notwithstanding the specific nature of the use or its
relationship with each of the applicable statewide land use goals.
Finding: This broader understanding of planning policy and implementation techniques is
acknowledged in Chapter I General Findings, page I-8: “The development and implementation
of planning policies have social and economic impacts;”
Finding: The relationship between the Metro Plan and other plans, policies and reports is
described in Chapter I, page I-6: “The Metro Plan is the basic guiding land use policy
document, but it is not the only such document. As indicated in the Purpose section, above, the
Metro Plan is a framework plan, and it is important that it be supplemented by more detailed
refinement plans, programs, and policies;”
Finding: The Metro Plan anticipates that application of the goals, objectives and policies will not
always occur in a predictable way nor will events unfold in a preferred sequence; in these
circumstances each governing body will exercise its authority and discretion in selecting the
proper tools and applicable policies in pursuit of maintaining Metro Plan compliance as
described under “Use of the Metro Plan” in Chapter I, page I-4: “The revised goals, objectives,
and policies contained in this Metro Plan are not presented in any particular order of
importance. The respective jurisdictions recognize that there are apparent conflicts and
inconsistencies between and among some goals and policies. When making decisions based
on the Metro Plan, not all of the goals and polices can be met to the same degree in every
instance. Use of the Metro Plan requires a balancing of its various components on a case-by-
case basis, as well as a selection of those goals, objectives, and policies most pertinent to the
issue at hand.”
Finding: The text found under the Purpose section, page I-1, is thorough in its description of the
planning process; how the various policies of the Plan establish the basis for most local land
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 10
use decisions; how the public is included in these decisions; the need for coordination among
the governments and service agencies; and the advisability of using more precise planning
studies to assist with the application of general policy language at the local level: “Guides all
governments and agencies in the metropolitan area in developing and implementing their own
activities which relate to the public planning process; Establishes the policy basis for a general,
coordinated, long-range approach among affected agencies for the provision of the facilities and
services needed in the metropolitan area; Provides the public with general guidelines for
individual planning decisions. Reference to supplemental planning documents of a more
localized scope, including neighborhood refinement plans, is advisable when applying the Metro
Plan to specific parcels of land or individual tax lots; Provides continuity in the planning process
over an extended period of time; Establishes a means for consistent and coordinated planning
decisions by all public agencies and across jurisdictional lines;”
Finding: Fundamental Principle #5, page II-A-1, Chapter II states: “The zoning process shall
be monitored and adjusted to meet current urban land use demands through the planning
period for all land use categories.”
Finding: The “goals” established in the Metro plan express the desires of the residents of Springfield. The “goals” are generally carried out through “policies,” which are statements of public policy.
Finding: The goals and policies of the Metro Plan do not regulate legal business activities at the granular level. The addition of permitted uses and development
standards in the Springfield Development Code in response to state statutes is a standard function of the adopted implementing ordinance at a structural level and does
not materially affect any existing Commercial, Industrial or Economic elements of the
Metro Plan.
Conclusion: The above recitation and citations from the Metro Plan generally speak to
the relationship between plan policies and support documents such as zoning or development regulation. This relationship exists regardless of the specific subject of this
attraction or its place of origin; this includes the results of a popular vote legalizing a
leisure activity, but with specific strings attached. In this regard, the foregoing demonstrates that the proposed code amendments are in conformance with the
applicable policies of the Metro Plan. 2. Applicable State Statutes
Marijuana Statutes
Finding: Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 67, the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act, in November 1998. The Oregon legislature has amended the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act and the Act authorizes local government to adopt reasonable regulations related to the hours
of operation, location and manner in which medical marijuana dispensaries are regulated. Cities have home rule authority to adopt regulations that are not unconstitutional or preempted by
federal or state law.
Finding: Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 91 in November 2014, legalizing the personal use and possession of adult recreational marijuana on July 1, 2015, with certain limitations,
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 10
including restrictions on use in public, no growing in public view, a restriction on minors attempting to buy or entering licensed premises, prohibiting the sale or use by persons under
21, and imposing licensing and other requirements on marijuana cultivation, processing and
dispensing facilities. The measure, as amended by the Oregon State Legislature in 2015 (HB 3400 A, Section 33), authorizes reasonable conditions on the manner in which licensed
retailers, processors, producers, wholesalers may sell marijuana; reasonable limitations on the hours during which a licensed marijuana facility may sell marijuana items; reasonable requirements related to a public’s access to a licensed premises; reasonable distance between
facilities (no more than 1000 feet); and reasonable limitations on where a licensed premises may be located. Such regulations must be consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan, development code and public health and safety laws.
Finding: Senate Bill 460 allows medical marijuana retailers to sell limited amounts of adult recreational marijuana beginning October 1, 2015. This provision sunsets on December
31, 2016.
Finding: These regulations are also adopted in furtherance and protection of the health,
safety and welfare of the citizens of Springfield, including under the broad home rule authority
of the City of Springfield municipal charter.
Finding: In determining what is “reasonable,” the City has reviewed existing precedents across the state of Oregon, as well as Colorado and Washington states.
Finding: The City Council, in adopting this ordinance, is concerned with fairness, neighborhood
compatibility, respecting the will of the voters, protecting youth and minors, crime and nuisance issues, a cooperative and balanced approach and allowing new businesses to emerge and
grow.
Finding: Adverse effects of marijuana facilities to the community, addressed through reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, such as the ones adopted by this ordinance,
include:
1. Exposure of minors to the use and commercial aspects of marijuana;
2. Offensive odors from marijuana cultivation, production and storage; and
3. Incompatible development in residential areas.
Finding: State statutes continued to develop during the 2015 legislative session for adoption by
the implementing agencies, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC). Subsequently, the OLCC published several versions of draft rules, and
then comprehensive final temporary rules. OHA has also published additional draft rules on
the medical marijuana dispensary program, labeling, concentration and serving size and testing. Measure 91, HB 3400, other applicable statutes and the various rules are all available
for public review. Finding: The SDC zoning rules under consideration herein are designed to establish and
regulate state licensed and legal marijuana rules in accordance with all applicable state
statutes.
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 10
Finding: When a development application includes a proposed comprehensive plan amendment or land use district change, or both, the proposal shall be reviewed to determine
whether it significantly affects a transportation facility, in accordance with Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060.
Finding: The new text amends the SDC, an implementation ordinance and functional
component of the Metro Plan, and is an amendment to a land use regulation as noted in OAR 660-012-0060. The proposed amendments are not site specific and do not affect the
functional classification of any street. The proposed amendments will have no measurable
impacts on the amount of traffic on the existing transportation system; the proposed amendments will allow uses within specific zoning districts that will not generate more individual vehicle trips, materials
deliveries, or other freight purposes than would existing permitted uses within these zoning districts affected by these amendments; therefore the proposed text amendments do not cause a “significant effect” under ORS 660-012-0060.
State Land Use Statutes
Finding: State statutes which apply to this request include those statutes requiring compliance
to Statewide Planning Goals. The statute requiring compliance is ORS 197.250. This
application can be deemed in compliance by adoption of findings relating how the application
conforms to each of the Statewide Goals, as outlined in the following section.
Conclusion: The above recitations, citations and conclusions demonstrate that the proposed
amendments are in conformance with the applicable state statutes for new marijuana uses.
3. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
Finding: The proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable State land use law. In particular, they satisfy Goal 1: Citizen Involvement, Goal 2: Land Use Planning, and Goal 9:
Economic Development.
Goal 1, Citizen Involvement
This Goal is satisfied through following the City’s acknowledged text amendment process that includes a Planning Commission public hearing, followed by a City Council public hearing on
the proposed land use code amendments. In addition, the City has met and notified known
marijuana business owners. See also the dates and substance of notices announcing public meetings to discuss these proposed amendments under the procedural requirements on page 1 of this
document.
Goal 2, Land Use Planning
This Goal requires a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The Goal is met because the City followed the land use planning
process and policy framework established in the City’s acknowledged Comprehensive Plan (Metro Plan) and Development Code as a basis for the decisions and actions related to the
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 10
new regulations regarding the use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for these decisions and actions. The proposed amendments will be adopted by the City Council after a
public hearing. Multiple opportunities were provided for review and comment by citizens and
affected governmental units during the preparation of this ordinance.
Goal 2 specifically states that minor plan changes such as the marijuana business
regulations, should be based on special studies or other information which will serve as the factual basis to support the change. The public need and justification for the particular change
should be established. The City rules proposed reflect the input of knowledgeable members
of the industry, marijuana law, the Willamalane Parks and Recreation District, and the community at large. Staff and Planning Commission studied several maps with buffers around
various uses including schools, childcare facilities, parks and also between marijuana facilities. The proposed amendments include buffers around schools and residential districts in order to balance a strong and heartfelt desire to balance protection of children from drug use while still
allowing marijuana uses to locate in the City and to serve legitimate medical needs and also
to allow marijuana retail to develop their legal businesses for adults.
Goal 3 – Agricultural Land All land in the City’s urban transition area carries City, urban zoning. An exception to this goal
was taken in 1982 when the comprehensive plan was acknowledged. Goal 3 does not apply to land within the jurisdiction of the City of Springfield.
Goal 4 – Forest Land
All land in the City’s urban transition area carries City zoning. An exception to this goal was
taken in 1982 when the comprehensive plan was acknowledged. Goal 5 – Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
The proposed amendments do not provide an alternative approach to development review for these activities. These proposed new uses will be subject to the same rules and standards
regarding development within or adjacent to inventoried Goal 5 resources that apply to all
existing permitted uses. No change to the City’s Goal 5 inventory or Goal 5 protection measures is proposed. The City’s long standing acknowledgment of compliance with Goal 5
is unaffected by these proposed amendments. Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
The addition of these new uses in the use lists in the CC, MRC, LMI, HI and SHI zoning district
has no effect on the City’s long standing acknowledgment of compliance with Goal 6.
Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
The addition of these new uses as permitted uses within the city limits does not relieve the developer from compliance with the city’s development review standards as they are applied
within areas designated for consideration under Goal 7, nor are any of these uses more susceptible to the potential effects of these naturally occurring phenomena than are existing uses permitted within these areas, therefore the City’s long standing acknowledgment of
compliance with Goal 7 is maintained.
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 10
Goal 8 – Recreational Needs
The Willamalane Park and Recreation Plan constitutes the City’s efforts and commitments to
compliance with Goal 8. Among other elements of the park plan is a map showing all existing parks, both improved and undeveloped, in Willamalane’s inventory. Most of these parks are
located within residential plan designations, but several of them, Willamalane Park for instance, are near or are adjacent to commercial or industrial designations. This is of interest because one of the components of the proposed Code amendments recommends two
commercial zones (CC, MRC) and three industrial zones (LMI, HI, SHI) as suitable for licensed activities, while at the same time recommending a minimum separation of 500 feet between any of the licensed activities and any park. The statute has no such standard for
separation from parks, but it does require 1,000 feet of separation between all licensed activities and all K-12 public and private schools; this separation is included in the proposed
amendments. These proposed Code amendments do not influence the ability of Willamalane
to achieve its long range plan for the provision of park and recreation sites because the separation limitation is imposed on licensed sites, not on parks, therefore the Park District can
make improvements to undeveloped parks, and could acquire land for new park development
regardless of the location of any existing licensed activity therefore the City’s long standing acknowledgment of compliance with Goal 8 is maintained.
Goal 9, Economic Development
This Goal is implemented through Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) Division 9 which is intended to ensure that each jurisdiction maintain an adequate land supply for economic development and employment growth. The proposed amendments establish regulations that
are consistent with addressing these same concerns (distance from residential uses; mitigation of obnoxious odors at the property line) that existing uses must satisfy; such an approach reasonably accommodates existing and new marijuana businesses, allowing them
to emerge and grow, thereby diversifying the local economy. Additionally, the language of the statute makes it clear that the state’s interest is in maintaining an adequate supply of product
without artificially influencing demand or supply in such a way as to encourage the incursion of
the black market. Staff evaluated the effect of required separation distances, location of commercial and industrial sites, and sites meeting minimum size requirements for production
licensing; there were a sufficient number of properties satisfying these standards to preclude
the artificial or unsought effect of limiting the supply of sites; therefore the City’s long standing acknowledgement of compliance with Goal 9 is maintained.
Goal 10 – Housing
The proposed amendments prohibit any of these licensed activities in residential zoning districts; require a minimum separation of 50 feet from retail and wholesale uses; and 500 or 1,000 feet from production (grow) or processing. These proposed amendments will not
reduce residential inventories as these uses are not allowed in residential zones; will not impact residential inventories as manufacturing or processing activities must be 500 or 1,000 feet from the nearest property that allows residential use; therefore the City’s long standing
acknowledgment of compliance with Goal 10 is maintained. Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services
The proposed amendments do not result in the need to adjust or amend existing policies or
projects included in the City’s adopted Public Facilities and Services Plan through introduction
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 10
of uses that will generate more demand than existing, permitted uses in these same zoning districts proposed for these licensed activities; therefore the City’s long standing
acknowledgment of compliance with Goal 11 is maintained.
Goal 12 – Transportation
Finding: When a development application includes a proposed comprehensive plan amendment or land use district change, or both, the proposal shall be reviewed to determine
whether it significantly affects a transportation facility, in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060.
Finding: The new text amends the SDC, an implementation ordinance and functional component of the Metro Plan, and is an amendment to a land use regulation as noted in OAR
660-012-0060. The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore do not affect the
functional classification of any street. The proposed amendments will have no measurable impacts on the amount of traffic on the existing transportation system; the proposed
amendments will allow uses within specific zoning districts that will not generate more
individual vehicle trips, materials deliveries, or other freight purposes than would existing permitted uses within these zoning therefore the proposed text amendments do not cause a
“significant effect” under ORS 660-012-0060. Section 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rules requires evaluation of a
comprehensive plan or land use regulation amendment to determine if the amendment significantly affects a transportation facility. The proposed SDC amendment does not: change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; change
standards implementing a functional classification system; allow types of levels of use which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or reduce the level of service of a facility below the
minimum acceptable level identified in the Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan).
The proposed amendment will not affect a transportation facility and will not affect compliance
with policies or projects contained in TransPlan, a functional refinement to the Metro Plan, acknowledged as complying with the requirements of Goal 12; therefore the City’s long
standing acknowledgment of compliance with Goal 12 is maintained.
Goal 13 – Energy Conservation
The proposed amendments do not require the provision of any form of energy, or at higher levels, than current, existing uses demand; these proposed amendments do not enable urban uses to consume or dispense any form of energy in excess of the demands and discharge of
current, existing uses; therefore the City’s long standing acknowledgment of compliance with Goal 13 is maintained.
Goal 14 – Urbanization
This goal is concerned with the management of land within the urban growth boundary so that future growth occurs in a compact form, without leap-frogging or reflecting a pattern of sprawl,
and that high quality farm and forest land is protected for those activities. These proposed
amendments do not encourage sprawl or lower than targeted densities, or uncoordinated development. All of the new uses proposed in these amendments are equal to existing uses
in terms of land needs, utilities, infrastructure; they are no more likely to encourage scattered
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 10
development than existing permitted uses, and they are no more likely to deplete commercial and industrial inventories than any of the existing, permitted uses. The management of the
City’s land use inventories is unaffected by these proposed amendments therefore the City’s
long standing acknowledgment of compliance with Goal 14 is maintained.
Goal 15 – Willamette River Greenway The City’s obligation and requirements to protect and enhance the Willamette River Greenway
is unaffected by these proposed amendments; all residential zones within the Greenway is unchanged by this proposal inasmuch as these uses are prohibited in residential zones; the Glenwood Riverfront is zoned Mixed Use, either residential, commercial, or employment, and
in all cases none of the proposed use additions are permitted in mixed use zones; therefore the City’s long standing acknowledgment of compliance with Goal 15 is maintained.
Goals 16 through 19 – Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources within the City’s jurisdiction. These goals do not apply in Springfield.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The City of Springfield recognizes the importance of a diverse economy that supports a mix of uses. The proposed amendments address compatibility concerns raised by members of the
public; however, they are not overly regulatory and therefore allow new businesses to emerge and grow, thereby diversifying the local economy. The proposed regulations provide clear standards and specify under what circumstances these licensed activities will be allowed.
Such specificity is useful to all parties interested in these activities, including elected and appointed officials, City staff and the general public.
The preceding findings demonstrate that the proposed amendments are consistent with the criteria of Section 5 of the Springfield Development Code, the Metro Plan, applicable statewide
planning goals, and applicable administrative rules. Staff recommends the Planning
Commission forward a motion to the City Council recommending adoption of these Code amendments.
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 10
Before the Planning Commission Of the
City of Springfield
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE ] RECOMMENDATION TO
AMENDMENTS TO PERMITTED USE TABLES ] THE CITY COUNCIL AND ADDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR MARIJUANA BUISNESSES
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION City Initiated Springfield Development Code Amendments For State Licensed Marijuana
Production, Processing, Wholesale and Retail Facilities.
1. On July 16, 2014, Staff initiated a proposal to add land use regulations for
medical marijuana sales to the Springfield Development Code, subsequently considering regulations for recreational marijuana business in response to a state
wide ballot initiative and ensuing state statutes. 2. The proposal was initiated and submitted to the Planning Commission for review
and a recommendation to City Council. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Section 5.2-115 of the Springfield Development Code has been provided.
3. On March 1, 2016, a public hearing on the code amendments was held before the City of Springfield Planning Commission. The Development and Public
Works staff report, notes and recommendation together with the testimony and submittals of the persons testifying at the hearing have been entered in the public
record and have been considered during this proceeding.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record, the proposed code amendments, as submitted, are consistent with the criteria of Section 5.6-115 of the Springfield Development Code. This
general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusions in the attached Staff Report and Findings.
RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council consider the request as
recommended herein at their March 21, 2016 meeting. __________________________________
ATTEST: Planning Commission Chairperson
AYES:
NOES: ABSTAIN:
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 1