Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/2012 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Special Meeting - Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) November 13, 2012 5:30 P.M. th 345–6Street Meeting Chamber –First Floor I.CALL TO ORDER II.ROLL CALL (quorum present) III.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA IVAPPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 9, 2012Regular meeting. o V.PUBLIC MEETING A. Call to the Public: Public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda B.Public Workshop & Hearing 1 .Ordinance for the language regarding Medical Marijuana Collective Gardens VI.BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: Chairman Jose B. Director Report: AndreaSpencer C.Old Business: D.New Business VII.ADJOURNMENT:The December 2012 meeting is proposed for cancellation. The next regular meeting of the Commission will be on January 15, 2013 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT Subject to November 13, 2012Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SPECIALMEETING October 9, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Josecalled thespecialmeeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners PresentStaff Present Chair JoseAndrea Spencer,Director,Department of Community Development Commissioner AlbrightHeather Kauer, Assistant Director, Department of Community Development Commissioner HoellDoug McIntyre, Long Range Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner LambertAllison Daniels, Current Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner Tift Commissioners Absent Vice Chair Cockburn(excused) Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER HOELLSECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER TIFTMOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHTSECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Jose asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed the publicportion of the meeting. Public Hearing:2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Mr. McIntyre announced that tonight’s public hearing is regarding the 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. He reviewed that two public workshopshave been conducted regarding the docket, which consists of two applications that were initiated by property owners: Aland use change for three parcels located at Burwell Street and Warren Avenue and revisions th to the Bay Vista Subarea Plan. The City Council will conduct a study session on November 28and a public hearing on thth . Staff anticipates the City Council will take action on the docket on December 5. December 5 Mr. McIntyre reviewed that the City’s Comprehensive Plan, updated in 2004, guides the City’s overall strategy for growth and development over a 20-year period. Comprehensive Plan amendments are processed on an annual basis, and the st application deadline is April 1each year. Hereminded the Commission that amendmentsto the Comprehensive Plan requirea recommendation from the Planning Commission to be considered for City Council approval. a.Land use designation change of three parcels located at Burwell Street and Warren Avenue Mr. McIntyre said this proposed amendment is a request to change the land use designation for three parcels (1008, 1016 and 1018) at the corner of Burwell Street and Warren Avenue. The property owner is Diamond Parking, and the applicant is Rice Fergus Miller, Inc. Mr. McIntyre provided aerial photographs to provide some context of the area where the subject parcels are located. He noted that the parking lot to the west is not subject to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but it is currently owned by Diamond Parking. Thesubject parcels are currently developed with vacant multi-family residential units that are dilapidated. Further to the west on Burwell Street there are two single-family residential units, four multi-family residential units, one parking lot and two undeveloped lots. He provided pictures to illustrate the street view of properties located on Burwell Street west of Warren Avenue. He provided acontextual aerial image to illustrate the sparse uses along Burwell Street between Warren Avenue and Chester Avenue, and particularly noted the predominance of parking lots. He observed that most of the single-family residential uses are located further to the north and west. Mr. McIntyre explained that the applicant’s proposal is to add the three subject parcels to the Downtown Regional Center boundaries, making them eligible for the Warren Avenue Corridor (WC) zoning designation. He provided a map of the Downtown Regional Center, particularly noting the location of the subject parcels. Commissioner Hoell referred to the subarea extension that is shown on the north side of the Downtown Regional Center. Mr. McIntyre clarified that this property was included in the Downtown Regional Center in 2005 and is not part of the current application. Mr. McIntyre reminded the Commission that the proposal must meet the five decision criteria specified in Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 20.10.080. He recalled that staff reviewed each of the five criteria at the Commission’s last study session. He concluded that staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment based on its consistency with the five decision criteria. Chair Jose opened the public hearing on the proposed land use designation change of three parcels located at Burwell Street and Warren Avenue. No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment, and the public hearing was closed. b.Revisions to the Bay Vista Subarea Plan Ms. Daniels referred to the goals and objectives of the Bay Vista Subarea Plan, which staff carefully considered during their review of the proposal to revise the Bay Vista Subarea Plan. She reviewed the proposed changes as follows: .Ms. Daniels Revise codeto remove complexity in permitted and prohibited usesexplained that there are currently seven zones within the existing Bay Vista Subarea Plan. Theproposal wouldcondense the seven zones into three.The applicant is also proposing toutilize the approach found in the SKIA Subarea Plan to allowfor greater flexibility. As proposed, thelanguage outlines the intent of each of the zones in the subarea, and all uses that comply with the stated intent would be allowed. She explained that the current subarea plan is limiting. As currently written,any use not clearly stated as a permitted use in the subarea plan, would be prohibited. The proposal would adopt existing code language from the BMC, which would provide guidance to staff related to prohibited uses. Condense land uses per zoning map.Ms. Daniels provided a chart to illustrate how the zones would be condensed and combined. Itreplaces the chart on Page 26 of the Staff Report and was revised to more accurately reflect the DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 25 October 9, 2012 ~ Page of proposal. She noted that the chart on Page 19 of the Staff Report was also revisedtoillustrate the applicant’s proposal to change the Village Commercial land use zone from 8 acres to 14 acres. Ms. Daniels provided maps to compare the seven existing zones with the proposed three condensed zones. She explained that the Village Commercial and Commercial zones were very similar and the proposal would condense them into a single Commercial zone. She noted that the applicant is proposing to eliminate the fire station property from the subarea plan because the Bremerton Housing Authority will not have an opportunity to purchase the property due to federal land deed restrictions.In addition, the Commercial zone was expanded to the freeway. Although Housing and Urban Development (HUD) would require a noise barrier for any mixed-use development (commercial on the bottom and residential on the top) in the area, the BHA does not believe the property would be marketable forhigh-density residential development. Ms. Daniels explained the uses allowed in the Mixed-Use 2 zone are slightly more intensive than the uses allowed in the Mixed-Use 1 zone, but the two zones are quite similar. The applicant is proposing to condensethe two Mixed Use zones and the High-Density Residential zone into a single Mixed-Use zone, in which multi-family uses would be allowed. She provided a map to illustrate the location of the proposed Mixed-Use zone. Ms. Daniels advised that the applicant is proposing to condense the Low-Density and Medium-Density Residential zones into a single Residential zone that would allow for single-family residential, detached or attached, uses. She provided a map to illustrate the proposed location of the Residential zone. .Ms. Daniels Clarify landscaping, signage and parkingadvised that the Bay Vista Preserve would beincreased in size. Treeremoval has been completed, and more trees were removed than originally intended. However, somewere identified as diseased by an arborist and the City of Bremerton Forester. Additional changes are proposed to the landscape section to remove redundant language and clarify the requirements. In addition, the size of Periwinkle Park, which has significant land fill, was increased. Ms. Daniels said the proposal would increase the maximum width for parking space from 8 feet to 10 feet. She explained that many people who want commercial space do not believe 8 feet is an appropriate width. The maximum number of parking spaces for officeuses would increase from 4:1000 to 5:1000 gross square feet. The minimum number would stay the same at 3:1000 gross square feet. Ms. Daniels said the previous code was very complex and had numerous discrepancies. For example, it talked about Type A, B and C permits, but there was no language in either the BMC or the Bay Vista Subarea Plan that identified what a Type A, B and C permit is. Changes have been proposed at the request of staff. In addition, references were provided to the BMC to provide consistency. .Ms. Daniels Eliminate design standards chapterrecalled that design charettes were performed as part of the subarea plan approval, and design standards were incorporated into the subarea plan. The developmentthus far has been very thought-conscious on the design standards. However, the design standards requirestaff to review 15 additional components when reviewing the development permits. Staff currently relies on the BHA’s Architectural Review Committee to review these issues. There is good coordination between BHA and staff, and they typically receive a letter or email advising of projects that have been reviewed and approved. Many of the design standards are covered in the development section. Therefore, staff has requestedthat the design standards section be eliminated from the subarea plan. Ms. Daniels reviewed the net gain/loss of low-income housingwithin the City and within the Bay Vista Subareaas a result of theplan. She advised that the West Park Development had 582 units, which were removed to accommodate redevelopment. It was not the BHA’s intent to replace all of the low-income housing units that existed previously. Instead, thegoal was todisperse the housing throughout surrounding areas and Kitsap County. Relocation vouchers were provided for low-income residents to find housing elsewhere. The requirement for the Bay Vista Subarea Plan was to provide 190 units of public housing. At this point the Bay Vista West and South developments provide 137 public housing units. The Summit provides an additional 83 units. The total number of units offered for public housing at this time is 220. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 35 October 9, 2012 ~ Page of Ms. Daniels reminded the Commission that the proposed amendment must be consistent with the decision criteria specified in BMC 20.10.080. She recalled that the criteria was reviewed at the previous work session. She said staff finds that the proposal meets the criteria in the BMC. As such, staff isin support of the proposed amendment. Commissioner Hoell Ms. Daniels requested more information about the expanded commercial area. said the applicant is proposing to expand the commercial area from 8 acres to 14 acres. She pointed out that the Mixed Use Zoning also allowed Commissioner Hoell Ms. Daniels for commercial uses. asked what was given up in order to expand the commercial area. said there is likely less Low-Density Residential zoning. Chair Jose opened the public hearing on the proposed revisions to the Bay Vista Subarea Plan. No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tift commended staff for providing street and aerial photographs to clarifythe proposed land use designation change forthe three parcels located at Burwell Street and Warren Avenuemaking the land use change issue much easier to understand. COMMISSIONER TIFT MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENTS I, II, AND IIIAND AMENDED PAGES 19 AND 26 PRESENTED TONIGHT BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONLUSIONS IN ATTACHMENT V. COMMISSIONER LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. Ms. Spencer noted that the Commission has had two public meetings regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, and the public has been invited to share their thoughts at each meeting. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1, WITH COMMISSIONER HOELL VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Commissioner Hoell agreed to provide her thoughts, in writing, about why she voted in opposition. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Jose reported that he and Commissioner Lambert attended the last City Council meeting where the draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was a topic of discussion. Both he and Commissioner Lambert testified before the City Council, and he also submitted written comments regarding his opposition to the push forthe City designate structures as conforming (Senate Bill 5451)when in fact theyare not. The City Council approved the draft SMP unanimously, and itwill be forwarded to the Department of Ecology (DOE) for review. Director Report Ms. Spencer thanked Chair Jose and Commissioner Lambert for attending the public hearing. Their participation gave validity to the process and helped carry forward the message that the SMPhas been a long public process.She explained that the next step in the process is to submit the draft SMP to the DOE for review, and the submittal must include a careful documentation of the public process. She anticipates it will take Ms. Floyd quite some time to prepare the submittal. Once the DOE has completed their review, a public hearing will be held in Bremertonat which the DOE will take testimony and tell the City what needs to change for them to adopt the SMP as a state code. She anticipates this process will take about six months to complete. th Ms. Spencer announced that the City will kick off their Gorst Subarea planning process at a public meeting on October 29 from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. atSquare Dance Hall, 6800 West Belfair Valley Road. She reminded the Commission that three years ago the City Council agreed to merge the subarea planning process with the annexation process. Because the makeupof the City Council has changed since that decision was made, she will be checking back with them to confirm this approach. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 45 October 9, 2012 ~ Page of Ms. Spencer advised that a public hearing before the Planning Commission regarding the issue of medicalmarijuana is th . To prepare the Commission for the hearing, staff is handing out a packet of materials. She scheduled for November 13 th , and one of the announced that the American Planning Association will sponsor a Peninsula Planners Forum on October 18 topics on the agenda is a briefing about medical marijuana issues in Washington State. This topic is scheduled to start at 1:30 p.m. and is open to the public. Commissioners are invited to attend. She said the packet also contains a memorandum from the City Attorney about medical marijuana, as well as some planner’s publications and correspondence that has taken place between thefederal government Governor Gregoireand Clark County. Staff hopes to have another packet of materials for thth the November 13hearingavailable to the Commission two weeks in advance of the November 13hearing so theywill have ample opportunity to review the materials and contact staff with questions. Commissioner Tift noted there is currently a ballot measure related to this issue, and the outcome should be clear by the th Ms. Spencer hearing. explained that the ballot issue is different than the land use issue that will be the November 13 subject of the public hearing. She referred to the City Attorney’s memorandum, which clarifies this issue. Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. New Business Commissioner TiftMs. Spencer asked if staff has received any applications for the vacant Commission position. announced that she received an application today. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ____________________________________________________________ Andrea L.SpencerGreg Jose AICP, Executive SecretaryChair, Planning Commission DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 55 October 9, 2012 ~ Page of Commission Meeting Date:November 13, 2012Agenda Item: V.B.1 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing on Medical MarijuanaCollective Gardens DEPARTMENT: Department of Community Development PRESENTED BY: Allison Daniels, City Planner; (360) 473-5289 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In April 2011, the state legislature passed E2SSB 5073related to medical marijuana. The Governor vetoed portions of the bill, but signed into law the portion related to “medical marijuanacollective gardens”. The bill allows local jurisdictions to zone, license and regulate medical marijuana collective gardens. In July 2011 the City of Bremerton City Council adopted a moratorium on all applications, and land use decisions on medical marijuana collective gardens. The moratorium has been extended twice (February 1, 2012 and August 15, 2012). The federal Controlled Substance Act (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)) prohibits possession and distribution of marijuana without an exception for medical marijuana. As such, provisions of Washington State medical cannabis laws which authorize possession and distribution of marijuana conflict with federal law. This conflict creates uncertainty regarding regulation of medical cannabis collective gardens. That uncertainty has been magnified by recent federal law enforcement actionsagainst medical cannabis operations in the state and by a decision from the California Courtsof Appeal that a city cannot permit an activity that violates the federal Controlled th Substance Act (Pack v. City of Long Beach, 199 Cal. App 41070 (2011); petition for state supreme court review granted, 268P.3d 1063). Note that the California case does not govern in Washington, but similar arguments could be made if such case was bought in Washington. Furthermore, the United States Attorney’s office has written letters to state and local officials (provided to the Planning Commission on October 9, 2012)indicating that government workers who implement laws related to collective gardens may be criminally liable under federal law. To this date, the City’s code does not address this use. To protect the City from person(s) who may seek to take advantage of any ambiguity or uncertainty in the City’s code, regulations are recommended that clearly prohibit these usesfor Planning Commission consideration. RECOMMENDED MOTION Move to recommend that the City Council adopt prohibition on medical marijuana collective gardens in all zoning districts as shown in Attachment I based on the Findings and Conclusions in Attachment II. ATTACHMENTS Attachment I:Proposed text amendments in legislative format Attachment II: Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions for medical marijuana collective gardens OPTIONS 1.Move to recommend that City Council adopt theamendments to BMC 20.40.160, “Prohibited Uses” and BMC 20.42, “Definitions” as detailed in Attachment I, based on the Findings and Conclusionspresented in Attachment II. 2.Recommend that the City Counciladopt BMC 20.40.160, “Prohibited Uses” and BMC 20.42, “Definitions” as modified by the Commission 3.Recommend denial of the text amendments to BMC 20.40.160, “Prohibited Uses” and BMC 20.42, “Definitions” Attachment I Proposedchanges to the current Zoning Code areshown as underlined: 20.40.160 PROHIBITED USES. (a) No use that is illegal under local, state, or federal law shall be allowed in any zone within the city. (b)Any use not listed as a permitted, conditional or accessory use by the zone; or any use not determined to be a similar use pursuant to BMC 20.40.150; or any use not found to be an allowable accessory use to the principle use shall be prohibited within that zone unless allowed otherwise by law. (c)A collective garden, as defined in BMC 20.42.040, isprohibited in all zoning districts. (1)Any violationof this section is declared to be a public nuisance per se, and shall be abated by the city attorney under applicable provisions of this code or state law, including to, the provisions of BMC 1.04; (2)Nothing in this section is intended to authorize, legalize, or permit the establishment operation, or maintenance of any city, state, or federal law or statute. 20.42.020 LIST OF DEFINED TERMS. Collective garden 20.42.040 DEFINITIONS. Collective garden “” means the growing, production, transportation, and delivery of cannabis, by qualifying patients, for medical use, as set forth in Chapter 69.51A RCW, and subject to the following conditions: (1)No more than ten (10) qualifying patients may participate in a single collective garden at any time; (2)A collective garden may contain no more than fifteen (15) plants per patient up to a total of forty-five (45) plants; (3)A collective garden may contain no more than twenty-four (24) ounces of useable cannabis per patient up to a total of seventy-two (72) ounces of useable cannabis; (4)A copy of each qualifying patient’s valid documentation , including a copy of the patient’s proof of identity, must be availableat all times on the premise of the collective garden; (5)No useable cannabis from the collective garden is delivered to anyone other than one (1) of the qualifying patients participating in the collective garden; and (6)A collective garden may contain separate areas for growing, processing, and delivering to its qualified patients; provided, that these separate areas must be physically part of the same premises, and located on the same parcel or lot. A location utilized solely for the purpose of distributing cannabis shall not be considered a collective garden. Attachment II FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary: Proposed amendments relate medical marijuana collective gardens to the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC). Additionalamendments are to provide a definition to BMC 20.42.040for “collective garden”. I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Project Description: Proposed amendments to the Zoning Code include the following: Add language toprohibitmedical marijuana collective gardens, ibased on conflict with federal law, and Add BMC 20.42.040 definition for “collective garden”. 2. Procedural History 2.1August 17, 2011 –City Council imposeda 6-monthmoratorium on the acceptance on any permit or approval for medical marijuana collective gardens 2.2 February 1, 2012 –A 6-month extension on the moratorium forcollective gardens was adopted by City Council 2.3 August 15, 2012 –A second 6-month moratorium on collective gardens was adopted by City Council 2.4November 3, 2012–Notice of Public Hearing 2.5November 5, 2012–SEPA DNS 2.6November 13, 2012–Planning Commission Public Hearing 3. Public Comment Individualsproviding verbal testimony at Planning Commissionpublic hearing: a.___________________________________________________ b.___________________________________________________ c.___________________________________________________ 4. SEPA Determination ADetermination of Non-Significance was issued on November 5, 2012,with acomment deadline of November 19, 2012,and an appeal deadline of December 3, 2012.No comments or appeals have been filed to date. 5. Consistency Zoning Code text amendments shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.18.020 (d). The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with modifications, an amendment to the Zoning Codetextif the criteria outlined below are met. BMC20.18.020(d)(1)allows text amendments if theyareconsistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Collective GardensPlanning Commission Hearing Attachment II Analysis:The amendments are minor and continue to uphold the objectives and goals oftheComprehensive Plan. These amendments do not change the intent or purpose of the Zoning Code. BMC 20.18.202(d)(2) allows text amendments if they are consistent with other City, State, and Federal codes, regulations and ordinances. Analysis:The proposed amendments to the Zoning Code do not conflict with any other regulations. II. CONCLUSIONS& RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings above, Planning Commission concludes that theZoning Code amendments meet the requirements in BMC 20.18.020, text amendments to the Zoning Code,and therefore recommendsthe adoption of the amendmentsto the Zoning Code. Respectfully submitted by: __________________________ Andrea L. Spencer, Executive Secretary Approved by: __________________________ Greg Jose, Chair Collective GardensPlanning Commission Hearing