Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 06-12-14 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers--City Hall, June 12,2014 Vice Chair Carlsen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms.Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Lori Barlow, Sr. Planner Christina Carlsen Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Robert McCaslin Christina Janssen,Planner Mike Phillips Micki Harnois,Planner Steven Neill, Absent,Excused Deanna Horton, Secretary Joe Stoy,Absent-Excused Hearing no objections, Commissioners Neill and Stoy were excused from the meeting. Commissioner McCaslin moved to approve the June 12, 2014 agenda. It was decided to switch Item B, Study Session for the marijuana regulations and Item C Shoreline Master Program. Motion passed four to zero. Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the May 22, 2014 as presented. Motion passed four to zero. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr. Planner Barlow offered an update on the Comprehensive Plan amendments. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. Findings of Fact for Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Amendment CTA-2014-0001. Planner Micki Harnois gave an overview of the proposed privately initiated amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) 19.70.010(B)(3)(b)and Table 19.60-1 to change the required side and rear yard setbacks in the Industrial zones from the current 35 feet to 20 feet when the property is adjacent to a residential use or zone. Ms.Harnois explained the findings reflect the Planning Commission's request to have the setbacks changed in the Light and Heavy Industrial zone when adjacent to a residential use, to 20 feet, and for the side setbacks to 20 feet,and rear setback to 35 feet when adjacent to a residential zone. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the findings of fact and forward them to the City Council. Motion passed four to zero. B. Study Session -- Proposed amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to adopt Marijuana regulations. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb started explaining how 1-502, the state marijuana law is being regulated by the state. He said the state law [-502 decriminalized the use and possession for recreational use, established a regulatory system for licensing producers,processors and retailers and named the Washington State Liquor Control Board(WSLCB)as the governing authority for these regulations. Mr. Lamb explained a producer license is for the growing of marijuana. There are no limits on the number of producing facilities, but the state is limiting the amount of square footage statewide to between five and ten million square feet. Producers have a tiered system with the largest allowable size facility being 21,000 square feet, A Processor license is for anyone putting marijuana into a useable form from packaging it to baggies, to putting it in baked goods. There are no limits on the number of processing facilities statewide. A retailer license is for anyone who wants to sell the usable marijuana. The WSLCB will be issuing 334 retailer licenses statewide, 3 for Spokane Valley, 18 total in Spokane County. He also noted that all uses are required to abide by local zoning codes and permitting requirements. 06-12-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 Mr. Lamb stated the Attorney General issued an opinion in January of 2014 that determined that 1-502 contains no clear indication it was intended to preempt local authority to regulate recreational marijuana. Some cities have chosen not to allow it. Commissioner Anderson asked if a city could allow growers and processors but not the retail sales element. Mr. Lamb said he was aware that cities had banned it, for instance the City of Kent has banned medical marijuana, but he did not know what the basis was for the ban. The City made an administrative determination based on the current City zoning code to permit licensed marijuana facilities. Production licenses will be allowed in Light and Heavy Industrial(I-1 and I-2) zones and for indoor growing only they will be allowed in Regional Commercial (RC) and Community Commercial (CC) zones. Processing will be allowed in I-1 and 1-2 zones. Retail sales will be allowed in Mixed Use Center (MUC), Corridor Mixed Use (CMU), Regional and Community Commercial zones. Commissioner Carlsen asked if the only license needed for processing was the business license for the City. Mr. Lamb responded that if they are doing consumables it could require other permits, for instance from the Health Department. On February 11,2014 the City adopted interim regulations governing recreational marijuana. Interim regulations are only good for six months and then permanent regulations need to be adopted. The interim regulations follow the state regulations however the City determined it would appropriate to buffer the Centennial Trail and the proposed Appleway Trail along with any vacant and undeveloped public school land and library property. The interim regulations will expire in August 2014,so the final regulations need to be adopted prior to the interim regulations expiring. Staff identified some issues with the interim regulations. The buffer for the Centennial Trail extended to industrial properties on the north side of the river,which could be used for processing and growing. Also staff considered that processing included a variety of activities from just bagging the raw marijuana to complex chemical extractions. After reviewing the processing options,it may be appropriate to allow for the bagging only in zones other than industrial. On April 22,2014 Council adopted amendments to the interim regulations. The current interim regulations are now: • Allow Recreational Marijuana Production in CC,RC, and both Industrial zones;but in CC and RC zones,only indoor grow operations are allowed • Allow Recreational Marijuana Processing in CC,RC and both Industrial zones;but in CC and RC zones,only packaging and labeling of useable marijuana is allowed • Allow Recreational Marijuana Retail Sales in MUC,CMU,CC,and RC zones;provide buffers from Centennial Trail and Appleway Trail • Buffer all Recreational Marijuana from undeveloped public school and public library property. The proposed amendments would: • Mirror Existing Interim Regulations • Amend Appendix A-Definitions:Add definitions for Marijuana processing,production,and sales. • Adopt SVMC 19.85:Development regulations for the processing,production and sales of Marijuana. • Amend SVMC 19.120.050-Permitted use matrix to include Marijuana uses. Ms. Christina Janssen then explained that the amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) would be under Chapter 19.85. She explained the definitions would be in Appendix A,where all the definitions for the SVMC are located. In the Permitted Use matrix,marijuana production would be listed under Agriculture and Animals,Processing would be listed under light industrial,and retail sales would be listed under the retail sales section. All of these listings have a reference to the code section for more information. Commissioner Anderson asked if growing and processing could be allowed in the same place. Mr. Lamb stated it was possible and that applications for both in the same place have been submitted to the City. Conmrissioner Carlsen inquired if it would make sense to have two definitions for processing based on the zone where the property was located. Staff explained the development standards would lay out where each type of processing would be allowed. Staff explained the public hearing is scheduled for June 26'''. 06-12-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 C. Deliberations Draft Shoreline Master Program(SMP), Draft Regulations. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation regarding some of the issues which were brought up at the public hearing which she felt needed the Commission's direction. She stated she would be creating a matrix to address each of the comments which had been received and the City's response to them. Buffers came up often in the comments. Ms. Barlow said in most cities the buffer is a standard width. The City had taken an approach to mirror the vegetation with buffers in most areas. She also reminded the Commissioners that a majority of the land along the river is owned by public entities. Very little is privately owned. Commissioner Phillips asked if the city is going to control the length of the buffers, how the property owner would know how far into their land the buffer would fall. He stated he was concerned about not knowing exactly where the property lines were in order to enforce the buffers without having each parcel surveyed. Ms. Barlow explained the city has a very good aerial pictures and the GIS system, while not perfect, would give a very good indication of where the property lines would be, but would only be used for planning purposes. Ms. Barlow explained that in the area of the river which is considered Orchard Avenue, a standard buffer of 50 feet had been suggested since most of the private development in this area was already built out. In the Coyote Rocks area a standard buffer is applied on the properties west of the bridge but the natural vegetation would serve as the buffer on the east side of the bridge. Commissioner Carlsen asked how people would know the buffer if the buffers extended beyond the state land and affected their property. Ms. Barlow responded that in most cases they would not know until they came in to get a permit for a project on their property. However based on the Inventory Report, very few properties would be impacted, but Ms. Barlow stated she could bring back information as to how many private parcels would be impacted. Ms. Barlow then reviewed the proposed variance process and asked for direction from the Commissioners. She displayed two options for the Commissioners; Option 1 would allow a reduction of the buffers by up to 25%on an administrative determination if a specific criterion is met;Option 2 would remove up to 25%on an administrative determination and require applicants go through the formal variance process which would require DOE (Department of Ecology) to make the determination. It seemed the Commissioners present would rather have the 25%to be done administratively. Any request for more than 25%would still require the formal process and approval by DOE. Ms. Barlow moved on to a comment from DOE,that they feel standards are lacking in regard to trail/paths which will be allowed in the shoreline area. She displayed where the proposed requirements address trails and paths, but said there are no specific standards identified. She shared the trail/path standards which are contained in the Spokane County SMP,which DOE feels should be adopted. The next subject was where docks will be allowed on the river. There has been considerable discussion about where docks should be allowed on the river,by both user groups. Ms. Barlow pointed out where the standards are for allowing docks and said they are not allowed in free flowing portions of the river. DOE and Futurewise both commented that the regulations should state specifically where docks will be allowed. Ms. Barlow said staff felt the Shoreline Modification Activity table was specific enough stating in which environments they would be allowed. Commissioners discussed where on the river docks would be allowed, in the Orchard Avenue portion of the river, and Coyote Rocks development. Commissioner Anderson asked if a bond was required to install a dock in the case that the dock should come free of its moorings and float off and cause damage to someone else's property. No bond is required at this time to install a dock on the river. Commissioner Carlsen said it would be the homeowner's risk to install a dock in a more flowing section of the river. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners the City would not be the only reviewing agency in regard to docks on the river and more stringent regulations from some of the other agencies. At this time,the Commissioners agreed to leave the dock regulations alone. The last subject discussed was Avista's request for less stringent regulations from the City to perform maintenance duties around their power lines. Ms. Barlow informed the Commissioners when she returns at the next meeting with the matrix, staff will not be proposing any changes to the language regarding these requests. Ms. Barlow said she felt the current allowances in the proposed regulations would take care of a majority of the maintenance work. Anything greater would require a permit and the City would like the ability to review any major work. 06-12.14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 GOOD OF THE ORDER: There were no comments concerning the Good of the Order. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Aida 6(2,67/Ef 16741 Christi . arisen,C pee Date signed (g4),(1141k) Deanna Horton, Secretary 06-12-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4