Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Code Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends City Council adopt Title 16 code amendments on downtown design review, parking modifications and psilocybin prohibition
Summary
The Estacada Planning Commission voted 5-0 Jan. 15 to recommend City Council adopt development-code amendments that change downtown design-review rules for repainting and Type 1 notices, establish a parking-modification process, and add a psilocybin prohibition to the controlled-substances chapter.
The Estacada Planning Commission on Jan. 15 voted unanimously to recommend that City Council adopt Ordinance 2025-01, a set of proposed amendments to Title 16 of the Estacada Municipal Code.
Staff said the ordinance package, initiated by city council, contains three main changes: (1) downtown design-review clarifications that remove required public noticing for Type 1 design reviews and clarify that repainting with an approved palette does not trigger review; (2) a new process allowing property owners to apply for an off-street parking modification, with planning-commission review and a mechanism to revoke approvals if they cause safety or other problems; and (3) additions to the city’s marijuana-related chapter to incorporate a psilocybin production/processing/retail/service-centers prohibition, renaming the chapter to 'Controlled Substances' to include both marijuana and psilocybin.
Staff explained required findings for legislative amendments (statewide planning goals, Estacada comprehensive plan policies and EMC 16.128) and stated the package aligns with procedural goals and certain economic-development and downtown design objectives. The parking modification language specifies that requests are initiated by property owners or authorized agents through a land-use application and that the planning commission would render decisions; staff also described conditions and a revocation process if an approved modification causes problems.
Commission discussion focused on digesting three disparate topics and whether the commission should recommend the package as presented or ask council to consider the psilocybin prohibition separately. Commissioners supported the paint/design clarifications and the parking-modification mechanism but some voiced concern that packaging the psilocybin prohibition with noncontroversial code changes could complicate deliberations; staff replied the package merely implements existing voter direction on psilocybin and that consolidating Title 16 code changes is a more efficient administrative approach.
No members of the public provided testimony. A commissioner moved to recommend adoption of the ordinances with staff findings; the motion was seconded and passed 5-0. The record will go to city council for final legislative action. If council adopts the amendments, the city will update EMC Chapter 16 as described; the psilocybin prohibition reflects the ballot measure outcome and could be altered only by future council action or another ballot measure.
Next steps: Planning Commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to City Council for a public hearing and final action under the municipal-code amendment process.
