Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 10 21 WS City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION HELD TUESDAY, October 21, 2014 The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, October 21, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., with Commissioner James presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Chair James and Vice Chair Nelson, Commissioners Kirschenmann, Salladay, and Vohs. Also present were Current Development Supervisory James Donovan, Senior Planner Gary Karp, Senior Planner Mark Metzger, City Attorney Lauren King and Management Support Specialist Brenda Jones. ABSENT Commissioner Pishioneri- Excused 1. Springfield Development Code Amendments (SDC) to Adding Medical Marijuana Dispensaries To Certain Zoning Districts – File TYP414-0003. Oregon House Bill 3460 (2013) authorized the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) to establish and regulate a medical marijuana facility (dispensary) registration system. Under that law, registered medical marijuana dispensaries were authorized to sell medical marijuana beginning March 1, 2014. To better clarify a local government’s ability to regulate the facilities, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 1531 (2014). SB 1531 provided that cities may impose “reasonable regulations” on the hours of operation; limitations on where the facility may locate in the authorized zones; and reasonable conditions on the manner in which a facility may dispense medical marijuana. On July 21, 2014 the City Council adopted Ordinance 6324 by emergency action amending the Springfield Municipal Code (SMC) establishing standards pertaining to medical marijuana dispensary business licensing and operational requirements. Currently, the SDC does not contain medical marijuana dispensaries as a listed use in any zoning district. The proposed SDC amendments discuss land use regulations: which zoning districts these facilities can be located in; limitations on where the facility may be located in the authorized zoning districts; the planning review process for these facilities; and provides definitions of “Marijuana” and “Dispensary”. Senior Supervisor Jim Donovan discussed the reasons for some of the language he is holding back on, waiting for the election to be over to see if the State of Oregon will become a recreational marijuana state. With that said, the document before the Planning Commission tonight list the section of the Springfield Development Code and the sections that will be amended by adding language to regulate Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and possibly Marijuana as a Recreational Substance. Commissioner Salladay commented that 1,000 feet is not that far apart and would like to see this number larger. The Cole Law- is a memo that outlines the items that the Federal Governments concerned about. Commissioner James asked how staff dealt with the Linear Parks/Paths. Staff responded that it could be an issue but when looking at the Parks the Pathways will not be included in the park discussion. Commissioner James recommended that the buffer zone that is 50’ be looked at, especially when looking at the security of these sights. Some of the Dispensaries have more cash on hand than a small bank and would like to recommend that this be 100’ to 250’. Gary Karp added that if you move this buffer to 250’ that would virtually eliminate all of Main Street, at 100’ there are some lots that have small parcels that has small buildings in the back of the lot. City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes February 4, 2014 Page 2 Jim and Gary asked the Commission and Audience to come in closer to the table to take a look at the maps that they have that show what it would look like if you had 100’ or 250’ setbacks. Staff , Commissioners and four UofO Grad Students had a round table discussion around the maps, which can be heard by listening to the recording of the meeting. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (“METRO PLAN”) ALLOWING FOR THE ADOPTION OF CITY-SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND POLICIES With the establishment of separate UGBs, it is necessary that the Metro Plan be amended to allow the adoption of city-specific comprehensive plans and policies that apply within those separate boundaries. The proposed amendments will allow each city to independently replace provisions of the Metro Plan with city- specific plans and policies over the next several years. The amendments allow the cities to retain those provisions of the Metro Plan which the cities agree are regional in nature, particularly those elements which do not regulate land use within a UGB. Staff for each city and Lane County has jointly prepared the proposed amendments to accomplish that purpose. This has been done with the assistance of Special Counsel Emily N. Jerome. These amendments will allow each city to proceed to adopt elements of local comprehensive plans on their own schedules and to have those elements take precedence over the similar Metro Plan provisions as they are adopted by each city (and co- adopted by Lane County as appropriate). The Staff Report (Attachment 1) provides the context and an overview of the proposed Metro Plan. The remaining documents are attachments to the Staff Report. Attachment 2 includes the proposed Metro Plan Enabling Amendments in legislative format. Attachment 3 is a table which summarizes the proposed changes chapter by chapter. Minor amendments are proposed for the Metro Plan Diagram and the Metro Plan Boundary Map to show the “Metropolitan UGB” (Attachments 4 and 5). Attachment 6 contains findings which address the criteria for approving Metro Plan amendments. Senior Planner Mark Metzger started the meeting by going back to when and why the Metro Plan (1990 Plan) was developed. By developing this plan it allowed the jurisdictions to develop what is called Refinement Plans. HB3337 was passed in 2007 and is not known as ORS197.340. The law was the impetus for Eugene and Springfield seeking gradually adopt separate comprehensive plans. The law required the establishments of separate UGB’s for the purpose of determining the adequacy of Eugene and Springfield’s residential land supply. In 2013, key changes were approved for Metro Plan Chapter IV, allowing the cities more autonomy to make decisions. Enabling Amendments- the proposed amendments to the metro Plan will “enable” Eugene and Springfield to create and adopt community specific comprehensive plans – envision Eugen and the Springfield Comprehensive Plan. The enabling amendments are policy neutral. The amendments were prepared by staff in consultation with Emily Jerome, a respected land use attorney who has worked with the Metro Plan for almost two decades. Attachment 1 of your packet is a Staff Report which provides background and an overview of the content of the amendments. It was prepared by Eugene staff who use a different format for their packets. We have adapted the by numbering of the attachments to adjust. Attachment 2 contains the Metro Plan Enabling Amendments changes in a legislative format. Attachment 3 is a Summary Table which provides a chapter by chapter outline of the proposed amendments. Attachment 4 and 5 show the current and proposed Metro Plan Diagram and Plan Boundary Maps. These show the Springfield UGB and the “Metropolitan Area Boundary” which essentially applies City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes February 4, 2014 Page 3 on the Eugene side of I-5. Attachment 6 are staff findings that address the approval criteria from making Metro Plan changes. It should be noted that the approval procedures were changed in 2013 when amendments to Metro Plan Chapter IV were adopted. The second part of the hearing on Thursday will involve making changes to the Development Code to implement the Chapter IV amendments. The Proposed Amendments- 1. Ensure that each city can, independently of the other, establish city-specific plans and establish that such plans supplant specific portions of the Metro Plan for that city; 2. Update and add explanations of the past, current and future status of the Metro Plan, including an explanation of the stages of changes anticipated as the cities conduct independent planning for their separate populations’ needs. 3. Change or remove text that can no longer be applied due to a change int eh law and that could not (even arguably) raise a policy concern. This includes the deletion of text relating to the now defunct Lane County Boundary Commission. In addition to the text amendments, minor map amendments are proposed for the metro Plan Diagram and Metro Plan Boundary Map. The changes to not move any boundaries, or change any land use designations. The proposed maps show the Springfield UGB and a new designation for the old UGB – Metropolitan UGB (applies to Eugene only). There is a single package of amendments for the Metro Plan Enabling Amendments. The jurisdictions will jointly deliberate and separately vote to recommend, recommend with revisions or recommend to deny with amendments. The City Councils and the Lane County Board of Commissioners will hold consider the matter on November 10. Development Code Amendments SDC 5.14-100, implementing the changes to Metro Plan Chapter IV adopted last year. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.175(2) states that …… “each city and county in this state shall; (a) Prepare, adopt, amend and revise comprehensive plans in compliance with goals approved by the commissions; (b) Enact land use regulations to implement their comprehensive plans;. Metro Plan Chapter IV was amended in 2013 to change the process and the participants in approving changes to the Plan. The proposed Code amendments are intended to implement the adopted changes to Chapter IV. There will be one hearing and join deliberations. Springfield will make a recommendation for proposed changes to the Springfield Development Code. Eugene will recommend changes to the Eugene Code. Lane County will recommend changes to the Lane Code. Lane County must also make recommendations for the Springfield and Eugene amendments for those changes to be effective outside of the city limits and inside the UGB’s. The proposed Springfield changes are formatted to the pattern found in the remainder of the Springfield Development Code. The Springfield Code is formatted differently than the Eugene and lane County Codes. As such, they are organized differently different than the Eugene and Lane County Codes. Staff and the attorneys for the respective cities worked to ensure that the Chapter IV changes are substantively consistent between the jurisdictions. City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes February 4, 2014 Page 4 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IMPLEMENTING ADOPTED CHANGES TO METRO PLAN CHAPTER IV Chapter IV of the Metro Plan details the process for amending the Plan and the role the various jurisdictions play in approving those amendments. SDC Section 5.14-100 contains the standards which implement the policies and procedures found in Chapter IV. Eugene and Lane County have comparable sections in their land use regulations and will be acting on similar amendments. As mentioned above, the proposed changes to Section 5.14-100 are intended to implement the policy and procedural changes that were adopted last year. No new policies are being introduced apart from those already approved. Under state planning law, comprehensive plan policies are intended to be implemented through each jurisdiction’s local land use regulations (Development Code). Attachment 1 contains the proposed amendments to SDC 5.14-100. The attachment includes commentary explaining various elements of the amendments. Highlighted text shows how some elements of the approved Chapter IV amendments were adapted for application within Springfield’s planning jurisdiction. The Staff Report (Attachment 2) contains findings which address the criteria for approving amendments to the Development Code. The attachment illustrates how the new Chapter IV policies and procedures are proposed for implementation through the proposed changes to Section 5.14-100. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Brenda Jones ______________________ Greg James Planning Commission Chair Attest: ____________________ Brenda Jones Management Support Specialist