The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About042414 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF APRIL 24, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The Port Townsend Planning Commission met in regular session on Thursday, April 24, 2014 in Council Chambers at 540 Water Street. Chair Monica Mick- Hager called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners present at roll call were Nan Evans, Gee Heckscher, Monica Mick-Hager, and Jack Range with Kirit Bhansali, Douglas Frick, and Dwight Nicholson excused. Staff members present were Community Services Director Rick Sepler, Senior Planner John McDonagh, City Attorney John Watts, and Deputy City Clerk Joanna Sanders. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion: Gee Heckscher moved to approve the agenda as written. Jack Range seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 4-0 by voice vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 27, 2014 AND APRIL 10, 2014 Motion: Gee Heckscher moved to approve minutes of March 27, 2014 and April 10, 2014 as written (with a minor change noted to April 10 minutes. On Page 6, the sentence before Old Business should read "Mr. Sepler noted that staff will present a proposed use table at a future meeting.') Nan Evans seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 4-0 by voice vote. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (FOR ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA - LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES PER PERSON. PLEASE BEGIN BY STATING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. COMMENTS MADE DURING THIS TIME WILL NOT BE PART OF THE HEARING RECORD) There was none. NEW BUSINESS - NONE OLD BUSINESS Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 2014 Page 1 of 4 Continued Public Hearing - Amendments to Title 17 PTMC (Proposed Code Amendments Regarding Medical and Recreational 1-502 Marijuana) Chair Mick-Hager dispensed with reading of the public hearing script as no members of the public were in attendance. Senior Planner John McDonagh reviewed his cover memorandum summarizing previous discussions by the Commission on the proposed Port Townsend Municipal Code amendments regarding medical and recreational (1-502) marijuana. He reviewed a recent Washington Court of Appeals case against the City of Kent on their collective garden ordinance. The Court ruled that the City is within its right to ban collective gardens. He noted the City of Port Townsend code would not prevent collective gardens. In response to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) notice, no public comments were received. He then reviewed his staff memorandum. The list of questions from the last hearing, including public testimony, and staffs documented response to each of these specific questions is listed in this memorandum. There was no public comment. In response to Commission questions, staff provided a more thorough explanation of a "trip" -- setting this standard the same as that of an exempt home occupation (five per week). Also, the 300-foot buffer requirements proposed for a non-commercial collective garden are consistent with those included by the State Department of Commerce model ordinance for medical marijuana. There was further explanation of the guidelines in the Department of Justice enforcement priorities, resulting in the buffer recommendation. Although the ordinance is liberal compared with other jurisdictions, the only jurisdiction adopting a residential buffer was the City of Ruston, which adopted 300 feet. No jurisdiction has adopted an ordinance without a buffer. Staff urged being conservative and not being the first jurisdiction to adopt an ordinance without a buffer which could attract the attention of the federal government concerned about large operations/drug trafficking disguised as a medical dispensaries. There was also mention that the parks listed in the ordinance are the same parks that would qualify as parks under 1-502. There was clarification that medical marijuana would be allowed in duplexes, multi-tenant buildings and apartments, although collective gardens would not be allowed. There was discussion of whether the term "dispensary" which is more descriptive than "garden" could be used in the ordinance, which staff discouraged. City Attorney John Watts explained the desire for the City's ordinance to remain consistent with the tate law regarding requirements for collective garden operators to maintain their registry on site. The City would not be gathering or disseminating registry information. If the City were to get this information through some law enforcement action +ho ren�r,4- A , u w i awvi ua would Ue handled similar to the way it is handled federally. Again, this portion of the City ordinance follows other jurisdictions and the State model ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 2014 Page 2 of 4 Given some Commission concern about the potential release of names in a collective garden, there was some discussion about whether to require a collective garden to register with the City similar to a home occupation. Staff noted that the City of Ruston does not require registration, nor does the model ordinance. Mr. Sepler noted that in residential areas you are regulating based on impact. Unlike commercial areas, where there are unlimited numbers of trips, the reason for registration is the potential for enforcement action. Mr. Watts corrected that the medical marijuana law adopted in 1998 did not include collective gardens; they have only been allowed since 2011. Mr. Sepler proposed the ordinance could say registration is required if you have more than 20 members in your collective garden (versus 10 as currently drafted). Staff noted that the current list of ten members is all that is required to be posted. There was support for adding explicit language prohibiting medical marijuana as a home occupation. However, a husband and wife, both as medical marijuana patients, if treated as individuals are able to grow under the statute. There was a desire to develop language to include exceptions for a "family" unit (as defined by the code) to address households that might contain more than one medical marijuana user (rather than registering as a collective garden). It was noted that no collective gardening buffering is required in commercial areas. However, the concern is for residential areas and maintaining the residential character. There was additional consideration of increasing the collective garden registration requirement in residential areas. There was discussion of eliminating the registration requirement altogether or increasing from 10 individuals (close to state definition) to 20. Council could then explore this particular concept as an unresolved issue. There was additional discussion of what constitutes 300-foot buffer property line to property line. Medical marijuana is put together for different reasons than recreational purposes. There was further discussion of moving the proposed amendments forward to Council with changes noted in staff report, adding explicitly the prohibition on home occupations in noncommercial collective gardens. There was also interest in revising the draft ordinance so that a family unit that contains multiple patients would not be considered a collective garden. Motion: Nan Evans moved to approve adopting staffs recommendation for Exhibit A, paragraph two, for a 300-foot buffer for the restricted entities in the 1-502 legislation (collective gardens noncommercial). Jack Range seconded. Vote: motion carried, 3-1 by voice vote, Monica Mick-Hager opposed. At the Commission's request, Mr. Sepler offered exemption language for discussion as follows: "if less than 20 unique members are included within 12 successive calendar months, registration would not be required." Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Motion: Jack Range moved to approve modifying proposed amendments for medical collective garden registration that if there are less than 20 unique members included within 12 successive calendar months, registration would not be required. Gee Heckscher seconded. There was additional discussion about the challenges of enforcement and alternatives available to registering. Staff noted multiple alternatives are available if individuals do not want to register (collective outlet, growing on your own or through a retail operation). Vote: motion carried, 3-1 by voice vote, Nan Evans opposed. Motion: Jack Range moved to approve proposed code amendments to Title 17 PTMC (Proposed Code Amendments Regarding Medical and Recreational 1-502 Marijuana) subject to the revisions as previously approved. Nan Evans seconded. Vote:motion carried unanimously, 4-0 by voice vote. OTHER BUSINESS - NONE UPCOMING MEETINGS (SEE CALENDAR ON BACK OF AGENDA) Mr. Sepler noted that the next Joint Planning Commission meeting is May 7, May 8 is a workshop, and May 22 meeting may be cancelled. There was concern about achieving a quorum on May 8 and Staff agreed to poll members and staff about special meeting or workshop on May 15. COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Attest: Planning Commission Cha $ ,.. ,. ; J of City Clerk's Office ` . Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 2014 Page 4 of 4