HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024 05 07 Springfield Planning Commission Minutes PH
1
Springfield Planning Commission
Meeting held in Council Chambers (City Hall) and via Zoom
Planning Commissioners Present: Chair Rhoads-Dey, Vice Chair Buck, Stout, Salazar, Thompson,
and Schmunk
Excused absence – Webber
Staff: Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager; Sarah Weaver, Planning Commission
Assistant; Kristina Kraaz, Assistant City Attorney; Andy Limbird, Senior Planner; Tom Sievers,
Senior Planner; Mark Rust, Current Planning Manager
Chair Rhoads-Dey called the Regular Session to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Commissioner Chair Rhoads-Dey.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
April 2nd, 2024 – Approved Joint Springfield and Lane County Session
April 2nd, 2024 – Approved
April 16th, 2024 - Approved
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE – None
Item(s):
• Major Variance for Proposed Marijuana Retail Outlet at 1853 2nd Street
Staff: Tom Sievers, Senior Planner
20 Minutes
Kristina Kraaz, Assistant City Attorney, read a brief statement regarding conflicts of interest.
Chair Rhoads-Dey opened the public hearing and asked Commissioners for any conflicts of
interest:
• Rhoads-Dey – has a potential conflict of interest as he is an active real-estate broker in
the community. He has no ex parte contact or independent knowledge.
• Buck – has no ex parte contact or independent knowledge. He has a potential conflict of
interest as a commercial insurance agent practicing in the area and a homeowner.
• Stout – has no conflict of interest, no ex parte contact or independent knowledge.
Approved 5/21/24
Attest by S. Weaver
Minutes for Tuesday, May 7th, 2024
Regular Session
Planning Commission Minutes – May 7th, 2024
2
Planning Commission Minutes – May 7th, 2024
•Thompson – has no conflict of interest, no ex parte contact or independent knowledge.
•Salazar – has no conflict of interest, ex parte contact, or independent knowledge.
•Schmunk – has no conflict of interest or bias.
Chair Rhoads-Dey: asked if there were any challenges as to the Commission’s impartiality or the
jurisdiction about the item before it. Hearing none, he called on Staff to present the staff
report.
Tom Sievers / Staff: gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Major Variance for a proposed
marijuana retail outlet at 1853 2nd Street. Staff detailed that the retail outlet is 940-feet from
Hamlin Middle School, which is 60-feet short of meeting the code requirement of 1000-feet of
separation from a school. The marijuana retail outlet request for a major variance in the relief
of 60-feet from the code standard is also supported by State law that allows marijuana retail
outlets within 1000-feet of a school but cannot be within 500-feet of school buildings. Staff
cited the presence of geographic and physical barriers that impede pedestrian access between
the two sites, which further supported the State law exception. Staff found that the major
variance request satisfied all approval criteria.
Rainey Byrd, Applicant: based on Planning Commission findings A through E, the Major Variance
for her proposed Dispensary should be approved.
Testimony from interested parties:
In Favor – None
Neutral – None
Against:
Nathan Keepers, 1881 2nd Street: He and his wife own the business two doors north of the
proposed Marijuana Dispensary site. The thousand-foot rule is to minimize the exposure of
children from Dispensaries like the one being discussed this evening. He is a witness to children
walking by the proposed site on their way to school. The freeway has been listed as a physical
barrier preventing children from walking past the site, when in fact it concentrates the path for
those children living north of the school forcing them to walk past the proposed site. There is
also a day care 300 feet from the proposed site. There are two preschools 900 feet away on 5th
street, Willamette Leadership Academy lets children off within 900 feet, all of which produces a
lot of foot traffic by children in the area. Voters in the community wanted to keep children from
being exposed to marijuana dispensaries, which we should all keep in mind.
Tom Sievers / Staff: confirmed that State law mandates marijuana retail outlets to be a
minimum of 500 feet from a day care and preschool facilities. As Mr. Keeper mentioned, the
preschool facilities are located further than the 500-foot minimum distance. Daycare facilities
3
Planning Commission Minutes – May 7th, 2024
are not listed in State law, meaning they can be inside the 500-foot minimum distance. The
application meets the approval criteria as stated.
Rainey Byrd / Applicant: Oregon State law states that preschools must be at least 500 feet away
from the proposed site, which is the case for this site.
Commissioner Salazar: wanted to know if outreach was made to either the Springfield School
District or directly with Hamlin Middle School or any outreach outside of the minimum
requirements?
Tom Sievers / Staff: replied that there was no additional outreach made outside of the
minimum requirements.
Rainey Byrd / Applicant: agreed with his statement.
Vice Chair Buck: wanted to know from the Applicant how we could come together as a
community and keep children safe. Currently, children can walk by liquor stores and venues
that sell cigarettes. The community should work together to educate children to make good
decisions.
Rainey Byrd / Applicant: The marijuana industry in Oregon is highly regulated to assure public
safety, especially for children. There is no advertising or product allowed outside of the
dispensary and children are not allowed inside the dispensary. The dispensary will also provide
job opportunities for community members. Medical marijuana offers an alternative to standard
medical treatment.
Commissioner Thompson: Are there historical cases that are comparable to the case before the
Commission?
Tom Sievers / Staff: replied no.
Krisitana Kraaz / Staff: stated that these regulations were adopted by the City during her tenure
as City Assistant Attorney and she has no recollection of a similar case of Major Variance during
this time.
Commissioner Schmunk: except for the proposed site being 60 feet short of the mandated
1,000 feet, is there any other conditions that are not being met? Are there any other
dispensaries near the proposed site?
Tom Sievers / Staff: confirmed that the only condition that this major variance is seeking relief
from is the 60 feet. The site is 940 feet away from the school as the crow flies. State law
requires dispensaries to be 1,000 feet away from schools. There are no other dispensaries near
the proposed site.
4
Planning Commission Minutes – May 7th, 2024
Commissioner Stout: noted that the original letter from the applicant stated that if the Oregon
Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) declared that there is a physical barrier to a dispensary
between the 500 feet and 1,000 feet, then it could receive approval. Does OLCC make this
designation or the State? Is the 1,000-foot rule measured as the crow flies?
Tom Sievers / Staff: The 1,000-foot rule is measured as the crow flies. He deferred the first part
of the questions to Kristina Kraaz.
Kristina Kraaz / Staff: There are two steps for a marijuana dispensary to receive licensing. The
City needs to make a land-use compatibility statement, which is written in Springfield’s
Municipal Code. These standards parallel the State’s standards but are not verbatim identical.
One standard that is similar is that there must be 1,000-foot separation from schools. The
State’s standards only apply to public not private schools in contrast to the City’s code that has
that mandate for both public and private schools. The Planning Commission will have to decide
if the variance is appropriate as well as OLCC, which will have to agree that the physical barriers
are in accordance with their standards.
Commissioner Salazar: wanted to know, if preschools are not included in the Municipal Code
standards for the 1,000-foot rule.
Kristina Kraaz / Staff: The recommended interpretation of the Code is that it’s public or private
elementary (K-5), secondary, or vocational school attended by minors. Preschools and daycare
are not mentioned in the code and do not fall within the classification of a school.
Rainey Byrd / Applicant: confirmed that they provided the City with the evidence in their
original application that the dispensary was in compliance with all of the applicable standards.
Chair Rhoads-Dey gave members of the audience the opportunity to speak before the
Commission with the understanding that anyone can speak, and the Applicant would be able to
rebut if they want to.
Patrick Ewing, 474 Brookdale Avenue, Springfield, OR 97477, site property owner. He ran a
business at the proposed site for 23 years and knows the neighborhood and the community
near it. If someone wanted to open a marijuana dispensary near the Safeway store, it is closer
to Hamlin Middle school and is more than 1,000 feet away. He was originally hesitant to rent to
a marijuana dispensary, but Ms. Byrd knew exactly what the State required and is following the
standards for approval, which include enhanced security measures such as specialty cameras,
locked windows and doors. Product needs to be locked up and secured. The State also
mandates that there is an obstruction between the 1,000-foot line of travel and the school,
which is present for this site.
Rainey Byrd / Applicant: stated that she had nothing to add.
5
Planning Commission Minutes – May 7th, 2024
Commissioner Salazar made a motion to close the public record and the public hearing. Vice
Chair Buck seconded the motion.
Roll call vote:
Rhoads-Dey – Aye
Buck – Aye
Thompson - Aye
Schmunk – Aye
Salazar – Aye
Stout – Aye
Motion carries unanimously.
Sandy Belson / Staff: Staff would like to know how the Commissioners are viewing the evidence
and the public comment given during the meeting. Staff would like to incorporate the
Commission’s reasonings in the findings, which can be voted on at the next Commission
meeting.
Vice Chair Buck moved that they approve the Major Variance as presented during tonight’s
meeting. Commissioner Schmunk seconded the motion.
Commissioner Stout: The site does not meet 1,000-foot requirement. He doesn’t believe that
the geographic barrier is substantial enough to deter all pedestrian traffic from going past the
dispensary. He will be voting no.
Commissioner Schmunk: The concept of children getting marijuana is of great concern, but he
doesn’t believe that the applicant is doing anything different than the State and the law
requires. Since it’s only 60 feet off from the 1,000-foot requirement, he is not concerned with
the Major Variance being approved.
Commissioner Thompson: believes the 60 feet variance is negligible based on the evidence
provided by Staff and the Applicant.
Vice Chair Buck: agrees with Mr. Keepers that children will be going to the surrounding stores
and that is a concern, but there are vape stores that are less regulated in the area. He believes
that the Applicant understands the community’s concerns and will be careful to undertake
measures to protect the community. For this reason, he is in favor of the Major Variance.
Commissioner Salazar: Staff has made a clear case that the applicant has met all the conditions
of approval and that is what we are here to decide. He believes that Mr. Keepers made a very
good point that the conditions of approval don’t factor in the pedestrian flows, but the
conditions of approval are not at the discretion of the Commission to change. Without taking an
6
Planning Commission Minutes – May 7th, 2024
illegal route to the dispensary, the route for pedestrians is considerably more than the 1,000
feet required. He will be voting in favor.
Chair Rhoads-Dey: concurs with Commissioner Salazar’s statement and he will be voting in
favor as well.
Kristina Kraaz / Staff: suggested that the Commission put this order of business on the Agenda
of the next meeting in order for Staff to revise the Staff Report to reflect the public comment
and the Commissioners input on public comment since the comments related to the criteria of
approval.
Vice Chair Buck: requested that Staff reach out to the Springfield School District and Hamlin
Middle School for their comments and have those comments included in the revised Staff
Report findings.
Kristina Kraaz / Staff: reminded the Commissioners that they will need to reopen the written
record and submit a written record open time to allow the public to comment or they could
continue the hearing until the next meeting and then close the record and the hearing and vote
on it during that time.
Chair Rhoads-Dey: stated that this item will be postponed to the next meeting and the
Commission will move on to the next item.
2) Discretionary Use for Short Term Rental at 921 S. 67th Street
Staff: Andy Limbird, Senior Planner
Kristina Kraaz, City Attorney, read a brief statement regarding conflicts of interest.
Chair Rhoads-Dey: opened the public hearing and asked Commissioners for conflicts of interest:
•Rhoads-Dey – has a potential conflict of interest since he is an active real-estate broker
in the community. He has no ex parte contact or independent knowledge.
•Buck – has no ex parte contact or independent knowledge. He has a potential conflict of
interest as a commercial insurance agent practicing in the area and a Springfield
homeowner.
•Stout – has no conflict of interest, no ex parte contact or independent knowledge.
•Thompson – has no conflict of interest, no ex parte contact or independent knowledge.
•Salazar – has no conflict of interest, ex parte contact or independent knowledge.
•Schmunk – has no conflict of interest or bias.
Chair Rhoads-Dey: asked if there were any challenges as to the Commission’s impartiality or the
jurisdiction about the item before it. Hearing none, he called on Staff to present the staff
report.
7
Planning Commission Minutes – May 7th, 2024
Andy Limbird / Staff: gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on the Discretionary Use for Short
Term Rental at 921 S. 67th Street. There are two types of short-term rentals in the Development
Code. The first type 1 short-term rental is owner occupied and second type 2 short-term rental
is non-owner occupied, which necessitates a Discretionary Use Permit. Mr. Limbird directed
the Commissioners’ attention to Springfield Oregon Speaks where there were two public
comments made on this item. The most applicable comments about the criteria of approval
concerned parking. Staff is recommending two conditions of approval:
1. The property is listed as a four-bedroom home under the Tax Assessor’s report. It should be
limited to rent four rooms equating to the number of bedrooms.
2. There are four onsite parking places: A double attached garage plus a driveway. Therefore,
no more than four vehicles associated with the rental would be allowed to park there. This
condition of approval does not preclude on-street parking but intends to minimize the impact
on the neighborhood.
Adrian Sherrod / Applicant: Informed the Commissioners about the intended use of the short-
term rental. He explained that he had spoken with all the neighbors about their intent. With
staff’s guidance, they followed the rules in the Development Code in applying for the
Discretionary Use Permit. They have found a property management firm to manage the rental.
He intends to be onsite almost daily to assure that everything is in order.
Testimony from interested parties:
In Favor – None
Neutral – None
Against – None
Vice Chair Buck: Were you able to speak to the neighbors about the parking situation.
Adrian Sherrod / Applicant: confirmed that they are following the recommendations from staff
and that the neighbors have been informed.
Commissioner Thompson: understands that there shall be no more than four rooms rented. Is
there an occupancy limit? If the rental exceeds four vehicles is the consequence that the City’s
Code Enforcement become involved?
Andy Limbird / Staff: There is no clear occupancy limit, but it would be self-limiting by the
number of rooms that can be rented. If the four-vehicle limit was exceeded than that would be
a Code Enforcement issue and the consequence could be possible rescindment of the
Discretionary Use Permit.
8
Planning Commission Minutes – May 7th, 2024
Commissioner Schmunk: Is this type of rental unique to Springfield? Does staff have the
capacity to manage complaints and possible rescindment of the permits? If there are continued
violations, it is possible for the City to take action?
Andy Limbird / Staff: This is the first Discretionary Use Permit for short-term rentals since the
Development Code added this provision in 2022. There will be undoubtedly more applications
for this type of permit coming before the Commission. The City has Code Enforcement staff that
would investigate complaints and the Springfield Police would also address certain issues. The
City can take action, if there are continued violations. All short-term rentals predating the
Development Code update are already contributing to the room tax base, if they list their
property on an Air BnB website.
Commissioner Stout: is there a limitation as to whom could request a Discretionary Use Permit
for this use?
Andy Limbird / Staff: Anyone can apply for this type of permit. Just as anyone can have a long-
term rental.
Adrian Sherrod / Applicant: had nothing to add further.
Commissioner Salazar moved to close the hearing and the public record. Commissioner
Thompson seconded the motion.
Roll call vote:
Rhoads-Dey – Aye
Buck – Aye
Thompson - Aye
Schmunk – Aye
Stout – Aye
Salazar – Aye
Motion passes unanimously.
Vice Chair Buck moved to approve the application as presented here with the addition of
attachment 3 with the changes to the Findings as presented on the screen.
“Replacing the sentence stating no public testimony with the following: Two public
comments were received on Springfield Oregon Speaks from residents adjacent to the
subject property. The comments raised concerns regarding traffic and parking impacts
that are relevant to the criteria of approval. Traffic and parking impacts from the
proposed short-term rental is adequately mitigated by the conditions of approval
explained herein. Comments unrelated to the criteria of approval include concerns
9
Planning Commission Minutes – May 7th, 2024
about crime and enforcement; criminal enforcement and code enforcement will apply
to the subject property on the same conditions as any other property in City
limits. Comments also expressed concerns about loss of transient lodging taxes
associated with short term rentals vs. hotel stays for overnight guests; however, short
term rentals are subject to payment of transient lodging taxes imposed by Springfield
Municipal Code section 7.700 et seq and are collected by the Oregon Department of
Revenue under intergovernmental agreement.”
Commissioner Salazar seconded the motion.
Roll call vote:
Rhoads-Dey – Aye
Buck – Aye
Thompson - Aye
Schmunk – Aye
Stout – Aye
Salazar – Aye
Motion passes unanimously.
REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTION
Commissioner Salazar reported on the City Council Meeting of April 2nd.
BUSINESS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None
BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Sandy Belson / Staff: confirmed that the Planning Commission will meet on May 21st for the
deliberations of the Major Variance Item.
Chair Rhoads-Dey adjourned the regular session.
ADJOURNMENT – 8:26 p.m.