Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 11-12-15 APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, November 12,2015 Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Heath took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Heather Graham Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Tim Kelley Jenny Nickerson, Sr. Plans Examiner Mike Phillips Christina Janssen, Planner Susan Scott Karen Kendall, Planner Joe Stoy, absent-excused Sam Wood Elisha Heath, Secretary of the Commission Hearing no objections, Commissioner Stoy was excused from the November 12, 2015 meeting. Commissioner Graham moved to approve the amended November 12, 2015 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, the motion passes. Commissioner Wood moved to accept the October 22, 2015 minutes as presented. Commissioner Scott corrected the minutes on page five, line three to add the words and "school districts". Commissioner Graham moved to accept the corrected minutes from October 22, 2015. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, motion passes. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had nothing to report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported that the City Council determined that they would be appointing the new Planning Commissioners at the first regular City Council meeting in January rather than the December meeting. As a result there will not be a Planning Commission meeting January 14, 2016, and the January 28, 2016 meeting will be a training meeting in order to bring the new Planning Commission members up to speed. Ms. Barlow stated that the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle was opened and one amendment request was received. The Docket has been presented to the City Council for approval. The Planning Commission will likely begin its review cycle in February. She also gave an update on the population allocation PTAC process for the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Steering Committee of Elected Officials met on November 4th and forwarded the Spokane County Planning Technical Advisory Committee's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The recommendation was to use Office of Financial Management's medium range population forecast for the 20-year planning period. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Study Session: STV-2015-0001,street vacation of 3rd Avenue Planner Karen Kendall presented the street vacation request of 3rd Avenue located between Appleway Trail and 4th Avenue just west of Skipworth Road adjacent to six parcels. The request is for an area approximately 340 feet in length and ranging in width from 40 to 50 feet. The northerly three parcels are proposed to be consolidated into one. South of 3rd Avenue the two westerly parcels will be consolidated into one and access will be by an existing easement from 4th Avenue. The final remaining parcel will be unchanged. Ms. Kendall presented five reasons identified by the applicant for the request: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and not maintained 2. Location of road limits maximum use of abutting properties 3. All six parcels abutting 3rd Avenue(north/south)are owned by the same property owner 4. The structures along the west property line hinder future right of way connection 5. No parcels use 3rd Avenue for access. 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9 The Public Hearing date is set for December 10,2015. Commissioner Anderson asked if the process for changing the lot lines was already underway, and if they were not then, why the two processes, changing the lot lines and the street vacation, were not conducted simultaneously. Ms. Kendall explained that not knowing how the parcels are going to end up and that this application has six parcels, there is potential for a parcel to become land locked and we do not want that to happen. The property owner has presented how he would orient the parcels so that all of them would have direct access to a public street. Currently, the parcels are not proposed to be consolidated or adjusted. That will be proposed going forward at the time of the street vacation is being finalized. Typically,the lot line adjustment is handled by the record of survey that finalizes the street vacation. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City can produce a viable road on a 12 foot easement. Ms. Kendall replied that it is an existing easement that does provide legal access to an existing home. That easement will not change. Commissioner Phillips stated that it did not make sense to get rid of a street and have one parcel be limited to a 12 foot easement. He asked what the property owner proposed to do with the property. Ms. Kendall stated that the property owner has not disclosed through the application the intended use of the property. In addition she clarified that the easement was established in the past and currently serves as access for a residence. The two parcels will be combined creating a larger parcel still utilizing the 12 foot easement for access. Commissioner Scott asked if the City charges when it vacates right of way. Ms. Kendall stated that the City Council would determine what they would like to do for compensation of the vacation of the street. Commissioner Anderson asked if ROW is not used by the City if it reverts back to the property owner. Mr. Lamb stated,there is a provision for plats,platted before 1905 if the right-of-way did not open then it does revert back to the owner. For all other rights—of-way, the right-of-way remains with the City regardless if it is open or not. Commissioner Graham asked about the access for the three parcels to the north. Ms. Kendall stated that the property owner has spoken with the Development Engineering, and the turnaround would need to be provided for vehicles traveling down Skipworth Road. It is a proposed cul-de-sac with right-of-way dedication for vehicles to turn around, and it would be public. Commissioner Graham asked how emergency vehicles would access the northern parcels if something was developed toward the back half. Ms. Kendall stated that the fire department does weigh in on the process through comment. Commissioner Graham asked for clarification on the letter received from the fire department stating some sort of land action is required to maintain access for emergency response. Ms. Kendall clarified the fire department was concerned about creating land locked parcels without access for emergency vehicles. The comment letters fulfill a requirement for application and they will be asked for comments as the process continues. CTA-2015-0006 Marijuana Regulations Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb began the evening explaining to the Commissioners the current status of marijuana in the City and the state changes in the law. • A moratorium on medical marijuana uses (unlicensed marijuana uses) was established by the City Council on Dec. 9, 2014. • A moratorium on new marijuana uses licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board(WSLCB)was established by the City Council on Oct. 6,2015. • Both moratoriums require the City to develop appropriate local regulations giving effect to the 2015 State Legislative amendments. Commissioner Graham asked a clarifying question on the moratorium on new marijuana uses licenses that is to put a hold on those currently licenses recreational marijuana shops and currently licensed medical marijuana shops from applying for a medical marijuana endorsement. Mr. Lamb stated the 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 moratorium will prohibit any new licenses from someone who currently does not have a license. For the current three retail stores,the moratorium will not affect their seeking a medical marijuana endorsement. The WSLCB will not be issuing those endorsements until July of 2016. Mr. Lamb presented the questions posed at the October 22,2015 meeting: Could we require individual qualified patients to license or register with the City? The full legal review has not been completed, however there appears there are several problems presented with this: HIPPA requirements, which requires the City to keep that information confidential and private which goes against our mandate, under the public records act, to be a transparent government. Secondly, there could be some preemption issues given how the state has set out the law for patients to be qualified patients and receive their authorizations. Finally, there are concerns from a Fifth Amendment standpoint, in terms of requiring a patient to register for what is still illegal under federal law. Requiring patients to notify landlords. Again it raises similar issues with the Fifth Amendment. It also would be difficult from an enforcement standpoint. It really is a private issue and the landlord would be able to pursue that though their contract with the tenant. Commissioner Graham asked for clarification on if a cooperative had to have a signed declaration from the landlord Mr. Lamb clarified that when using the term patients he is referring to individuals. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was an issue with landlords putting stipulations within their contracts to be notified if a tenant will be growing or modifying the residence for growing. Mr.Lamb stated that he is not aware of any, but the landlords are not his clients and he is not able to give them legal advice. Clarification regarding terms used for medical marijuana. Medical collective, medical dispensary, and medical shop all refer to an unlicensed medical facility, under prior RCW 69.51A. A dispensary was originally slated to be a legal use back in 2011, however the state through the Governor's veto eliminated the "dispensary." Medical collectives, are a group of 10 patients coming together and growing the marijuana amongst those 10 patients for the same 10 patients. From a practical standpoint, since there is no enforcement of those collectives, many shops may operate as de facto dispensaries. The City has not regulated them or looked at them and treats them as collectives. Those are the unlicensed medical shops that we had register prior to our moratorium, we do not know how many are in operation now,those are the ones who will be seeking the license from WSLCB to become a retail shop. A cooperative is a group of people taking the place of the collective. They are required to be in a domicile. A cooperative is up to four qualified patients coming together to grow marijuana themselves. Cooperatives are required to be registered with the WSLCB but they do not obtain a license and they are not a retail shop. Only allow medical marijuana? Preemption will prevent the City from breaking this up into medical and retail. The license that is obtained is a retail license, it is solely up to the owner if they wish to seek the medical endorsement. The question was raised can the City require a location only sell recreational or medical marijuana. Mr. Lamb stated that the challenge would be there is no requirement at the state level that a shop be just a medical shop or just a recreational shop. Commissioner Scott asked if the City can be stricter than the State. Mr. Lamb stated that the City can enact laws that are not in conflict with the state laws. From a land use standpoint the City can determine where land uses are appropriate, zoning and buffering requirements for marijuana. From a licensing standpoint and the products a shop is selling is a highly regulated State activity. Mr. Lamb presented that there are other types of uses that the City might want to regulate for example a marijuana club. Currently, there is one considered at 420 friendly lounge where you are able to consume marijuana but not purchase marijuana. Discussion returned to the collective and medial dispensary. Mr. Lamb explained that some operate under the definition of collective since they are taking a donation from a member. Others have expanded and operate as a business. Between 2013 and 2014 fifteen business licenses had listed services for medical marijuana. However, that does not include those who applied under alternative medicine. If they do not get their license by July 2016 it does become an illegal activity. WSLCB 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 stated in a webinar that they will not be in the enforcement business against those unlicensed collectives or dispensaries. It will be up to the local level for notification or policing. Commissioner Graham asked about the consultant required by the WSLCB to be present in a medical endorsed retail shops, that the regulations for them would not be available till July 1, 2016. Mr. Lamb stated that he would have to research that further and that the State is working with the Department of Health on those regulations. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City had banned recreational marijuana where would we be today on the subject of medical marijuana? Mr. Lamb stated that we would be in a similar place in terms of defining terminology, no one would be able to obtain a marijuana license, so there would be no marijuana. Discussion from the Commission turned to the City choosing to move ahead with issuing no new licensing, what issues the City would face with medical marijuana. The existing stores would be the only entities that would be able to apply for the medical endorsement. Under this option medical dispensaries would not be able to obtain a license within the City and would have to relocate to another city or county. Commissioner Graham clarified that the cooperatives would not have to leave, since they are for private patients in a domicile. Mr. Lamb stated that is a distinction that could be made, the cooperatives are called out in the State law in terms of a city zoning and up to prohibiting. Mr. Lamb presented information from the WSLCB on the process they are undertaking to determine the number of retail locations. One of the primary things the WSLCB indicated is they are working with a consultant to determine the appropriate number of retail stores. They felt it was important to get the licensing process going, which is why they opened up the October 12, 2015 deadline. However, similar to how they did before using population numbers they will come up with a hard number for retail stores for the statewide broken down by county and city in the final rules. Hopefully will be determined by December. Based on that number, we've had 19 new applications submitted,however,whatever number the WSLCB set that is the number they will license. Mr. Lamb continued with the presentation on the background on City regulations: • City zoning and buffer restrictions on recreational marijuana o Adopted in July 2014 o Applied to licensed retailers, producers,and processors o Have used for siting of 19 producers,21 processors, and 3 retailers o Note that previously State limited City to 3 retailers—now unknown number of retailers • Marijuana Production: Permitted in heavy and light industrial zones outright (indoor and outdoor); permitted in limited manner(indoor growing only) in RC and C zones. • Marijuana Processing: Permitted in heavy and light industrial zones outright (packaging and extraction); permitted in limited manner (packaging and labeling of useable marijuana only) in RC and C zones. • Local buffers for both marijuana production and processing: cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace,vacant City property(other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property, and vacant school property. • Retail sales: permitted in the Mixed Use Center, Corridor Mixed Use, Regional Commercial, and Community Commercial zones. • Local buffers for retail sales: cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace, vacant City property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property, vacant school property,the Appleway Trail, and the Centennial Trail. Christina Janssen, Planner presented the options for moving forward with the regulations Option 1)Maintain existing regulations • Add definitions regarding retail stores with medical endorsement 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 • Allow cooperatives • Clarify permitting requirements for any modifications for home grows • Would allow 727 parcels for retail, though not all available due to market and existing other commercial uses Option 2)Additional regulations • Additional buffer, the possibilities could be 1,000 feet from retail store to any other licensed use,this results in 61 allowable parcels • Additional buffer could be 1,000 feet from a residential zone • Limit allowable zones • Overlay, limit areas where allowed, e.g.just along west Sprague area • Limit or prohibit cooperatives • Clarify permitting requirements for any modifications for home grows Option 3)Prohibition • All license types or just particular ones e.g. ban retail but allow production or processing • Cooperatives • Clarify permitting requirements for any modifications for home grows • Potential issues with challenges, ongoing appellate cases, with no decisions yet, so result is uncertain Option 4) Provided at the October 22,2015 meeting. • Allow minimum number required by law. • Medical sold at retail outlets—existing stores obtain medical endorsement • Maintain current buffers, possibly restrict under age • Allow cooperatives but only in same zones as producers • Allow qualified patients to home grow, assuming approval from the property owner if a rented or leased property • No solvent extraction within any residence/domicile • Require all infused product or concentrate to be purchased from a retail store Discussion on the tax benefits of having a retail store, processing facility and production facility in the City. Mr. Lamb stated that the City does not see much in tax revenue from the processing or production facilities since they are wholesale. The retail store the City receive the standard sales tax, the additional benefit is a portion of the thirty-seven percent tax imposed by the State. Public Comment: Marilyn Miller,2124 S.Harold Road: Ms. Miller stated she was new to Planning Commission meetings, and unless you want to work on this till the end of your lives which you would if you adopt option 1,2, or 3. I think prohibition is the best way to go. I do not believe you are going to be denying any patients the right or ability to get their medical marijuana. There is access in very close localities. I don't think Spokane Valley needs to indulge in this. Tara Harrison,513 N. Locust Road: Ms. Harrison stated that she is the interim admin for the Collation for Cannabis Standards and Ethics(CCSE). Her involvement with the CCSE began last year when she was working for an unregulated medical marijuana dispensary. She realized there was a lack of communication on this side of the State. Many business owners were unaware of the legislation that was going on. In efforts to close the communication and information gap she sought out the CCSE. One project that they are working on is the Washington Cannabis Commission through the Department of Agriculture. Ms. Harrison stated that while prohibition may sound great,but no amount of prohibition is going to keep drugs out of school. Ms. Harrison stated that she is a mother of a child in a Valley School District. Her child does witness drugs dealing at school each day. The programs that are being utilized in school are ineffective. She has taken the time as a parent to educate her child as to what is medicine and what is not and why. Her child is not interested in partaking, she sees it as a medicine. That is a parent's 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 responsibility and no one else's. Ms. Harrison stated you have to teach your children. When it comes to something like this,the reason Ms. Harrison is involved and why it is so important is the patients. The patients that she has meet in the last two years have touched her life in a way she could never have imagined. She stated that she did not seek out this career. If her father could have had this option she may not have lost him at nine.Tons of her family have died from cancer, she has witnessed people with that, their cancer is gone. There are medical studies that prove this,we know there is a very valid opportunity here. In order to best take care of public health,what is important to the City and how you want to reflect. You want to embrace the health of people.Not everyone has access to transportation, public transit is what they rely on. So having an option for medical here in the Valley is very important. That may be their only option. Luckily with the way legislation happens people do have options.They can choose not to register at all and pay extra taxes,they have the ability to get the products that the Department of Health will not be overlooking. Ms. Harrison stated that you can have a producer that grows medical and recreational in the future,the grower can state that he is only growing one strain, ones deemed medical and ones deemed recreational.The one that is deemed medical under goes more testing and regulations. Being able to have that is very,very important. People are seeking this out in droves,the people that come to us as patients eighty percent are fifty-five plus. That means a lot,this is growing. We need to embrace the fact that this is happening,this is a movement. In my opinion it will be rescheduled in ten years. If we don't look at what's happening in the future and where this is going we are going to be left with moratoriums trying to scramble to put in regulations to keep the dangers away. That's all we want to keep the dangers at bay. It's something that is new and fresh and people are scared. There is also very beautiful things being born out of this and to turn a blind eye on it that you don't want to have anything to do with it is really foolish. We need to take care of our city and our health and our wellbeing. We make guidelines,make sure that everything is pesticide tested. Did you know that right now our laws do not require medicine on the recreational shelves to be tested for pesticides?That is appalling to me.As a City you may be able to require that everything on the shelves within City limits is required to have those kinds of tests. Then you can boast about how healthy and viable your city is because you are taking care of and making sure that your City and the people are getting those medicines, and that it is guaranteed to be healthy medicine. The tax benefits,public education, only three schools, I believe, in Spokane County are receiving any kind of benefits for drug education and prevention.Three in the whole county-that's horrible. One of the tax benefits is to be able to give education and prevention to our youth. It is very important that we do that. On the moratorium, I understand why because of the unregulated businesses, there are a few businesses that have given the Valley a black eye. Ms. Harrison stated that she understood why the moratorium exists. It is important that everyone followed the rules and goes by the book. When an eighty year old woman walks in to get her medicine, she does not walk into something that she may get shot over. She doesn't need to walk in, not for her meds, she does not need to see someone hitting a bong or trimming their product on the table in front of everyone in the lobby. Certain things like that, I would never want my mother in a place like that. We need to have standards. You have recreational stores in the Valley that already have their medical endorsement. So in July they can open their doors and be ready. So we do have options for medical here in the Valley. She stated that having more producers and processors is not going to hurt anything. People work behind the scenes,they bring in income and spending money within the Valley. They are buying their products here they have employees here paying taxes all of that is very viable for our City and our economy. There is a medical research license,allow someone to grow specifically for research purposes,All of their product goes through the same traceability system but its turned over to a school or university that is going to do specific medical tests. We should allow that. It does not hurt anyone or anything. This isn't something that interacts with the public what-so-ever. Blake Alverts, 1801 S. St.Charles: Mr.Alverts stated his problem is the amount of medical shops popping up. We seem to have more of those than we have espresso stands. He state that he did not believe they contribute to the taxes that we collect in Valley,the revenue that could come in. He was embarrassed when he read in the Spokesman Review that Millwood is measuring their revenue from recreational marijuana in the hundreds of thousands,where we are at tens of thousands. With our proximity to Idaho and Liberty Lake,we should be kicking Millwood's butt. Bring in much more revenue than this. Mr. Alvert suggested that decrease the number of purely medical,they should all be retail combined. He asked for a reasonable number of recreational shops,that three is not enough. 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 John Miller,2124 S.Herald: Mr. Miller stated that he is a child of the sixties, he grew up and went to school at Berkley. He knows a little bit about marijuana, not because he uses it but because he's seen it abused. The question came up about the amount of money that is coming into the City of Spokane Valley over and above the sales tax,he believed he read it was above $18,000 and he also read that,that money is used to enforce the laws concerning marijuana. So if we are bringing in money just to enforce the laws, not sure if that is a win-win for anyone. He stated that he did not vote for marijuana in this state, and feels it is a mistake. He asked that the Commission consider Option 3, adopt a policy of prohibition. Medical marijuana is a little different, he asked why if medical marijuana is considered to be a medicine why isn't a prescription written by a doctor,perhaps it is. But why is that prescription not taken to an established drug store?The marijuana delivered to those folks could be tested, certified, safe for the intended use and that would take care of that problem. He stated that recreational marijuana makes no sense to him what so ever. He would like the Commission to consider Option 3 at the least, maintain the moratorium and make it permanent. Commissioner Anderson asked the audience if anyone ran a medical marijuana dispensary. One member of the audience used to work at one.Another audience member stated that they run a recreational shop and would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Kelley asked if the retail owner saw challenges taking the medical endorsement and separating the recreational marijuana that is taxed from the medical marijuana which is untaxed. Doug Peterson, 16404 E.Rocky Top Lane: Mr. Peterson stated that he did not see a problem separating the taxed from the untaxed.He has met with the Department of Health which will be bringing on systems in the spring which his business will help beta test. His business is embracing it. One survey asked if the business would train its people in more of a consulting role for the medical, if they would pay for it. He would like everyone in his store to be trained medically through the state. Revenue questions,he stated that his business has only been open for three months, it's not going to show like some of the bigger stores open on Trent in Millwood. Part of the challenge is that the Valley has a tougher zoning laws. He worked with the City and with Christina Janssen. Originally there were three licenses for the Valley. The Appleway Trail and other trails made it tough to find a location. When the State revamped with 5052, it is challenging as a business owner who just opened, since he just got opened under the old laws. Mr. Peterson stated one of his concerns as a business owner,the restrictions were difficult and the new licenses may have less restrictions. He's heard that the zones are going to drop down to 500 feet from 1000 and that the licenses are not zone specific.You have"x"amount of licenses for the Valley but they can be from anywhere. The original licensing process was you were licensed in the Valley if you had a valid location. As a business owner he embraced the changes and will continue to meet the standards of the state. He invited the Commission to visit his shop, it is professional environment they take very seriously. It is a nice place,he stated that it is not like what you might think it is like. Mr. Peterson stated that he does not go to the medical shops,he understands that the regulation process need to take place. He addressed the earlier comment on pesticides, growers have a state issued list of pesticides that are approved;the marijuana that is going through recreational stores is tested pretty extensively just not specifically pesticide tested. There are labs that will test it. He is in talks with labs to pay growers more if their products that have been tested more. Commissioner Kelley compared business who sell to customers as well as whole sale, nontaxed as a comparison to medical marijuana and retail marijuana will there be any problems? Mr. Peterson stated that it's about building the process in the store and making it logistically make sense. Need to be very clear with patients and regular recreational uses.There would need to be logistics in place, he will work with the WSLCB to see what kind of process would need to be in place. Mr. Peterson stated as a store owner that process is important,the experience of the customer is important, regulation is important. As you know retail marijuana is one of the most regulated processes in the world. There is so much that a store has to do to be open,we gladly accept that challenge. Commissioner Graham asked for clarification on the consultant part required by the medical endorsement. The reference to patients would imply that they are seeking out medical marijuana as a medication, the pharmacy is typically where you think of for where a medication is obtained. What rules, 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 if you know is the Department of Health looking at that would limit the person acting as a consultant from offering medical advice? Mr. Peterson stated it is going to be very strict. He was in a meeting last week that was defining what a consultant means. A person is not going to be able to take a two week course on marijuana medical and become a physician. He believes there will be training on how and what you can tell a patient. It will not be a position of giving medical advice rather explaining the product and what potential the effects are of the product. Commissioners had questions about the concentration levels of medical verses recreation marijuana. Mr. Peterson confirmed that there is not a difference in concentration levels. Discussion continued on packaging and labeling differences for medical and recreation marijuana. It is the same product but regulated and taxed differently. Commissioner Anderson declared a 10 minute break. Commissioners continued with discussion. Commissioner Anderson suggested narrowing down the discussion to four subjects: who should get a retail license with a medical endorsement; should we make regulations beyond the state in regards to home grow; extraction and where it should be allowed; finally should we allow co-ops. Concerns about commercial rentals renting to marijuana retail affecting the surrounding businesses. Mr. Peterson addressed that it is very difficult to find a location as well as higher rates are being charge for this type of business. Additionally marijuana businesses are having issues with banks being willing to accept funds. Mr. Peterson also brought up the fact that since it is federally illegal that the businesses are not allowed to take any tax write-offs for operating their business. Discussion moved to the Options 2 of increasing buffers and the locations of co-ops. Interested in the 1000 foot buffer between stores and the residential zones and to look at how to allow cooperatives. Commissioners asked what happens to a business that becomes legal,nonconforming. Mr. Lamb stated that if a legal, nonconforming use abandons their use for a year they are done. If there is damage up to eighty percent they can continue that use. Ms.Janssen stated that the legal,nonconforming had to resume operations within twelve months. The question was raised as to whether a business may move locations and still be maintain that legal,nonconforming status. Mr. Lamb stated that the nonconforming use allows them to continue operating in that location with that use. If they moved they would be subject to the new rules. Commissioners asked about maintaining the status quo of current retail, producer, and processor would that be considered prohibition. Further they asked if it would be possible to allow the current retail shops the option of moving locations and maintaining license. Mr. Lamb stated he would need to think about this further. The issue was raised that maintaining the three retail locations and that only one of these shops is located on a bus line.This may cause transportation and accessibility for medical marijuana patients. The issue of capacity was raised.Mr. Lamb explained that there will be a three tier structure related to square footage and this will remain the same size, but allow more stores,he will confirm. Discussion turned to the possibility of regulating the concentration of marijuana as well as the packaging. Ms. Harrison returned to further discuss the different compounds within marijuana. Commissioners asked about controlling signage and promotion of the marijuana. Mr. Lamb stated that the State regulates the signage as it relates to the location. The City does not allow off site signage. Jenny Nickerson, Sr. Plans Examiner, presented an update on a proposal before the State Building Code Council to limit the number of plants to 15 in a buildings other than a Moderate Hazard Industrial Occupancy building. If any entity wanted to grow more than 15 plants it would have to be in a Moderate Hazard Industrial Occupancy building, a residential use would typically not be allowed in this zone without a fire sprinkler system. For the most part a large number of our existing buildings that house residential uses would not be appropriate for the growth of any more than 15 plants. The Commission asked why growing marijuana plants is considered to be a fire hazard. Ms.Nickerson stated that it is not necessarily a fire hazard. However a limitation needed to be set to determine if it would be a factory occupancy or a standard garden. A co-op which is able to grow up to 60 plants would need to be an Fl occupancy. She further explained that the types of operation in a building and size of the building would determine when fire sprinkler systems would be required. If an extraction system is in place that include chemicals they can trigger a fire sprinkler system requirement at a much lower threshold. Mr. Lamb 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 followed up with clarification that a co-op would be limited to 15 plants if located in a domicile,unless they were located in an industrial zone. Ms. Barlow reminded the commission that at the next meeting they will be hearing from the police and fire department. Commissioner Anderson asked what a marijuana specialty clinic is.Ms. Harrison explained that a specialty clinic is a rotating clinic that have doctors who do authorizations for medical marijuana. Physicians are allowed to write thirty authorizations a month after that they have to report the number to the State. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m. 2 ` /O &/S Kevin Andti son,V' e Chairperson Date signed / ! j �, Elisha Heath, Secretary 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9