Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012314 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The Port Townsend Planning Commission met in regular session on January 23, 2014, in the Council Chambers at 540 Water Street. Chair Monica Mick-Hager called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners present at roll call were Kirit Bhansali, Douglas Frick, Gee Heckscher, Monica Mick-Hager, Dwight Nicholson, and Jack Range. Nan Evans was excused. Staff members present were Community Services Director Rick Sepler, Planning Manager Judy Surber, Senior Planner John McDonagh, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. Chair Mick-Hager introduced new Commissioner Douglas Frick and noted that newly appointed Commissioner Nan Evans was unable to be present. Mr. Frick said a few words and the sitting Commissioners provided brief introductions. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Sepler noted that under VII.B, Parks Plan Update, he would be making the presentation rather than Ms. Surber. There were no other changes proposed and the agenda was accepted by consensus. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 12, 2013 Motion: Kirit Bhansali moved to approve minutes of December 12, 2013. Jack Range seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6-0 by voice vote. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Mark Ortmeier expressed concerns about the deer population in Port Townsend that were raised in his letter to the Commission. It was noted that the Commission may place the issue on a future agenda. NEW BUSINESS A. Public Hearing - Amendments to Chapter 20.04 PTMC Chair Mick-Hager reviewed the rules of procedure for public hearings. No Commissioner had any financial or property interest to disclose in connection with the hearing topic. Judy Surber made the staff presentation. She noted that Chapter 20.04 of the Municipal Code must be amended to reflect recent changes to the Revised Code of Washington in regard to the Growth Management Act periodic update cycle. The Planning Commission Meeting January 23, 2014 Page 1 of 5 cycle has been changed from seven years to eight years. The GMA update takes about 2.5 years to complete and cannot overlap with the annual update cycle. She stated that in 2002, the code was amended to increase the time between processing suggested amendments and plan assessment cycles, while continuing to allow formal site-specific amendments to be proposed annually. This change recognized that staff and Planning Commission time could sometimes be better spent focusing on implementation of the Plan rather than continually processing amendments. Circumstances have now changed with the revision to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) which changes the GMA (Growth Management Act) periodic update cycle. Staff proposes a strategy which allows the City Council, during their budget discussions, to work with the Development Services Director to determine how many suggested amendments are in the pipeline. Taking into account the resources available, the Council would determine whether to designate the next year as a suggested amendment cycle. If there are several amendments pending and the workplan will accommodate the process, the Planning Commission would be assigned the amendment assessment and preliminary docketing as part of their annual workplan. Formal amendments (paid for by the applicant) and changes to the municipal code to make it consistent with state law would still be considered in an annual update process. These amendments do not require preliminary docketing. Ms. Surber said that the proposed changes to 20.04 also clarify that a Comp Plan amendment is not necessary when making changes to a functional plan if the plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Further explanations and clarification were made in answer to questions from the Commissioners. Discussion ensued about simplifying the "purpose" of section 20.04.010(B). Staff will rewrite to make the language more simple and direct. Mr. Sepler suggested language similar to the following: "The purpose of this section is to establish a process where the Comprehensive Plan and maps can be be modified and a schedule for this to occur" with greater depth in the following language. Chair Mick-Hager opened the floor to public comments. There was no public comment. Motion: Kirit Bhansali moved to amend paragraph 20.04.010 Part B as suggested by Mr. Sepler. Jack Range seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6-0 by voice vote. Staff also stated that Commissioners should provide any typographical errors to staff at the end of the evening so they can be incorporated into the draft that goes forward to Council. Chair Mick-Hager closed public testimony. Motion: Dwight Nicholson moved to approve the findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding Amendments to Chapter 20.04 Port Townsend Municipal Code as amended and forward to the City Council. Kirit Bhansali seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6-0 by voice vote. OLD BUSINESS - NONE OTHER BUSINESS Planning Commission Meeting January 23, 2014 Page 2 of 5 A. Briefing on 1-502 and Medical Marijuana Senior Planner John McDonagh presented the staff report, reviewing the information in the packet. This included zoning concepts related to recreational marijuana (growing, processing, and retailing) and medical marijuana (individual cultivation, non- commercial collective gardens and commercial collective gardens). He stated that there are separate rules and laws for medical and recreational marijuana. He added that the State Attorney General has just issued an opinion that local jurisdictions may opt out of allowing marijuana operations. He presented the draft "Marijuana Land Use Matrix" and "Zoning Concepts" for recreational and medical marijuana operations provided in the materials. Non- commercial medical marijuana collective gardens may be located in residential zones with appropriate regulations which would control the impact to the neighborhood. A particular issue is the "revolving" door membership. In this instance, although the number of members is limited, membership can be granted at the door and then rescinded as the member leaves. The theoretical limit on the number of members is meaningless in this situation and thus there is potential for greater impact on neighbors. In response to Commission discussion, Mr. Sepler noted that staff approaches the issue of siting marijuana operations based on impact rather than on restrictions based on any adverse characteristic. It is felt that the City can accommodate retail, processing, production and medical use but it is important to find the right fit in terms of location. At this time, individual growing appears appropriate in all residential zones and possibly upper floors in commercial zones. Collective growing is suggested in residential zones 1, II and III but only on properties that contain a detached single family residence and/or an accessory building. Commercial medical gardens may be appropriate in commercial zones but prohibited in any domicile. Recreational marijuana is a newer form of land use and the rules from the State Liquor Control Board continue to be established. At this point a retail operation must be separate from production or processing and also from any other type of retail sales except paraphernalia. Again, staff is looking at zoning from an impact perspective. Suggested zoning for production facilities, taking into consideration the Liquor Board rules, is Mixed Light Manufacturing and Commercial. This zone is intended for manufacturing businesses which do not predominate within either the light manufacturing or commercial land use categories. The City may consider prohibiting outdoor production and requiring it to occur only within a rigid structure to minimize light, smell and other production-related impacts. Regarding processing facilities, the Mixed Use Light Manufacturing and Commercial zone may be the only zone suited for this activity. There is no fixed number of businesses that can be granted a license to produce or process marijuana and it is likely many producers will also seek to become processors. It was noted that correspondence had been received concerning the potential dangers of processing operations; it is likely that these concerns would be relevant if a more highly refined substance were being produced. Mr. Sepler noted that the proposed regulations will go through the environmental impact review (SEPA) prior to adoption. It was emphasized that the City cannot get relief from any of the state standards and we are still working with the understanding that more rules may come forward. Planning Commission Meeting January 23, 2014 Page 3 of 5 Until we get further guidance from the state, we need to do our best to establish regulations under current law. At this point, focusing on the zoning is the best step. Mr. Sepler said that the City Council is concerned about the amount of time it will take to resolve the entire issue. He asked the Commissioners if they believe they could work through the issue and agree on a recommendation in a single meeting. If it appears that more than one session will be needed, Council may seek to separate the issue and resolve the rules for retail sales first. After comments from Commissioners, it appears that if the discussion is restricted to zoning aspects, and there is not excessive comment, it may be fairly straightforward. A public hearing will be scheduled before the Planning Commission for the first meeting in March. B. Briefing on Parks Plan Update Mr. Sepler brought the Commissioners up to date on the Parks Functional Plan revision process which started in 2011. He noted the Plan came before the Commission last year and received extensive public comment. There was constructive comment about including some park history in the Plan, and more contentious issues were addressed, particularly regarding Kah Tai Park. With the property exchange between the Port and the City, the Kah Tai issue has been resolved. With the help of volunteers, including a sub-committee with members from the Parks, Recreation and Tree Committee and the Planning Commission, Ms. Surber has prepared a revised draft of the plan. The Parks, Recreation and Tree Committee will meet next week and host an open house for the public prior to making their final recommendation. The draft plan is now on the website. At this time, a public hearing and Comprehensive Plan consistency review is scheduled before the Planning Commission on February 13 so that the City Council can review the recommendation, with potential adoption by the Council scheduled early in March. Mr. Sepler noted that there is some urgency to moving the process along as the City currently does not have a compliant Parks Plan and without one we are ineligible to apply for Recreation and Conservation Office funding. C. Briefing on GMA Comprehensive Plan Update Mr. Sepler reviewed the draft GMA Comprehensive Plan update process which will begin with analysis in 2014, move to strategies in 2015, with scheduled adoption in mid-2016. He stated that at this time, five joint meetings with the County Planning Commission will be scheduled before June. The joint meetings will raise capacity for both commissions to hear general information about major topics addressed in the Plan, such as transportation and housing. He added that an outside consultant will be assisting with the process. The City receives $9,000 from the Department of Commerce although the project has the potential of costing hundreds of thousands of dollars so it is nearly an unfunded mandate. UPCOMING MEETINGS FEBRUARY 13: PUBLIC HEARING - PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE FUNCTIONAL PLAN UPDATE (TENTATIVE) Planning Commission Meeting January 23, 2014 Page 4 of 5 Mr. Sepler spoke regarding the deer population issue brought up during public comment. He stated that if the Commission believes this is an important issue, they would need to go to the City Council and ask that it be included in a future work plan. Other choices are to table it or not make any recommendation. This will likely be added to the agenda for February 13. COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:56 (Motion by Hecksher, second by Mick-Hager). Attest: u r - Planning Commission . ha City Clerk's Office Planning Commission Meeting January 23, 2014 Page 5 of 5