Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMLA19-00019 JCPC UDC MJ Regs 2-27-19SON �, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT o Ei 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 tr�7 �r1 Tel: 360.379.4450 1 Fax: 360.379.4451 Web: w,,vw.co.jefferson.wa.uslcamtnunitydeielapment E-mail: dcd{[+ co.jrFferson.~va. �y �ZI N���Cs, SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSALS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ��Applicant Name: Jefferson County Planning Commission MLA # 19-00019 For Comprehensive Plan amendments, applications must be completed and submitted to the Department of Community Development by March 1 of the current calendar year in order to be considered during this year's amendment process. Completed applications that are received after March 1 will be placed on the preliminary docket for the following calendar year. Generally, applications for text amendments are proposals that broadly apply to the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. Applications for suggested UDC amendments may be considered on a rolling basis. Applications that are incomplete (i.e., that do not include all of the information required under the Jefferson County Code) will be returned to the applicant. Submittal Requirements 1. A completed Permit Application and all required Exhibits. 2. A completed and signed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist. 3. Any additional information deemed necessary by the Administrator to evaluate the proposed amendment. 4. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit A," a description of the proposed text Comprehensive Plan/UDC amendment. Applications for such amendments that do not specify proposed uses and potential impacts are assumed to have maximum impact to the environment and public facilities and services. 5 Please prepare and label as "Exhibit B," proposed amendatory language (i.e., to affected text of both the Comprehensive Plan and UDC) shown in "bill" format, with text to be added indicated with underlining (e.g., underlining), and text to be deleted indicated with strikeouts (e.g., St ikeeuts). 6. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit C," a thorough explanation of how the proposed amendment, meets, conflicts with, or relates to the following inquiries (NOTE: Simple "yes" or "no" responses are unacceptable.) a. Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize? b. Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased; C. Is sufficient urban land designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need? d. Are any of the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no longer valid, or is new information available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? e. Does the proposed amendment reflect the current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? See JCC Chapter 18.45 COMP PLAN AMEND APP DOC REV 0112019 Do changes in county -wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement? g. Do changes in circumstances dictated a need for amendment? Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the County -wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County? Demonstrate that the following conditions are met (if applicable): i The proposed text amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services); j The proposed text amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; k. The proposed text amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities; I. In the case of a text amendment to the Land Use Map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, the following: (A) Access; (B) Provision of utilities; and (C) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses; M. The proposed text amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole; The proposed text amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan; If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed text amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall U GA; The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the County -Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other applicable inter -jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws. See JCC Chapter 18.45 COMP PLAN AMEND APP DOG REV 01/2019 7 Please provide an explanation of why the amendment is being proposed. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) See Attachment to Question #7. Due to community concerns regarding intensities of land use experienced with recreational cannabis production, review Chapter 18.20.295 to meet community desires, using Exhibit B as an example. The applicant hereby certifies that the statements contained in this application are true and provide an accurate representation of the proposed amendment; and the applicant(s) hereby acknowledges that any approval issued,on this application ray be revoked if any such statement is found to be false. r� Signature: (Mt ,Print Name: - + ,ct , t Date: a 017 See JCC Chapter 18.45 COMP PLAN AMEND APP DOC REV 01/2019 QUESTION #7 Response —Reason for Proposal 2/27/2019 - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MARIJUANA CODE REVISION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION, TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSALS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE 7. Please provide an explanation of why the amendment is being proposed. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) Background In early 2015, when the Jefferson County Planning Commission (JCPC) reviewed proposed code for cannabis production, processing, and retail in Jefferson County, Jefferson County was under a moratorium for all cannabis businesses until our county took the time to thoughtfully develop regulations for locating these facilities. Medical cannabis (medical marijuana) had been legal in our state for over fifteen years, but the legalization of recreational marijuana in November of 2012 brought the licensing and enforcement of cannabis production and processing into the purview of the Washington State Liquor Control Board (now the Liquor and Cannabis Board) for the first time. As the State scrambled to decide how to regulate these businesses, so did local jurisdictions. While some jurisdictions in the state chose to prohibit all cannabis businesses, many chose varied regulations to locate and limit cannabis production, processing, and retail businesses. Since Washington State and the State of Colorado were the first to legalize recreational marijuana/cannabis, little was known about what these businesses looked like and what impacts these businesses would have on the communities that allowed them. The JCPC spent six months reviewing draft regulations, studying what other cities and counties around us were doing to regulate cannabis businesses as well as looking within the hearts and minds of our local residents to find the right balance for our unique Jefferson County. For six months regular Planning Commission meetings and special hearings were crowded with both proponents and opponents. Some community members were excited about the potential for opportunities for local business, employment, and retail sales taxes as well as the promise of taxes from production (growing) and processing (packaging and manufacturing). Other community members were concerned about the effects of cannabis on our health, safety, environment, and communities. Much was unknown. The JCPC struggled to find a code solution that balanced opportunity with protection, while acknowledging that because Washington State had no predecessors in the United States, we were doing our best to guess at and mitigate real impacts. One of the areas that Planning Commissioners discussed at great length was around cannabis production and processing in rural residential zones. Discussions around whether production (growing) of cannabis should be likened to agriculture, similar to the growing of tomatoes, or more closely likened to industrial activity, were long and difficult. State law dictated special rules and security around any cannabis production or processing, whether indoor or Page 1 of 3 QUESTION #7 Response —Reason for Proposal outdoor, and this in and of itself set these businesses apart from other agricultural production and processing, but what would the impacts be? Would it be as bad as some predicted, no big deal, or somewhere in between? Concern for potential opportunity weighed against concern for potential negative impacts as Planning Commissioners deliberated. Sizing of buildings was discussed at great length — should we follow the Jefferson County Cottage Industry standard, relying entirely on that code and process to regulate these facilities? Or should a different standard apply? In a rural agricultural county that voted overwhelmingly for cannabis legalization in Washington State, but that harbored fears of a drug long (and still) regulated in the United States as a Schedule 1 drug, and without any real experience of legalized recreational cannabis to draw on, the Planning Commission took these deliberations and these concerns very seriously. It is important to note that the Planning Commission is a volunteer board of nine members from the three Commissioner Districts around Jefferson County. Any recommendations from the Planning Commission must pass a majority vote of the Commissioners, and that any majority (or minority) recommendations from the Planning Commission are merely recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County, who can pass the Planning Commission's draft recommendations in whole or part, or they can ignore these recommendations altogether. In July of 2015, after six months of study and deliberations, the Planning Commission passed by majority vote draft regulations to send to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, while clearly noting that these regulations would require review once Jefferson County and the State of Washington had more experience with the actual impacts of these businesses. We, the Jefferson County Planning Commission, believe that time is now. What we know now What we now know through experience is that these businesses have impacts beyond what community members and Planning Commissioners imagined; impacts that were not anticipated. We as a county now know what these facilities look like, sound like, and smell like. For example, in 2015 the JCPC spent little time discussing the intense and pervasive smell of a commercial cannabis production facility because these smells, while now widely known and reported on, were not yet known to us. Far from being the small and inconspicuous mom and pop businesses that looked more like tomato farms, large production and processing facilities that have been built in a variety of locations around Jefferson County, and even more have been proposed, pitting proponents with plans for large industrial facilities against quiet rural residential neighborhood communities. While the Conditional Use Process (CUP) is in concept one that gives applicants an opportunity to make a case that an unnamed or unimagined use which might still befit a site, and while the CUP process is in its design if not always in its implementation one that relies heavily on the applicant to make a case for their proposed use, Marijuana/Cannabis businesses as a new and very specific use has proved itself, at Page 2 of 3 QUESTION #7 Response —Reason for Proposal least in its current legal context, to be industrial and high -impact in nature and does not fit in rural residential neighborhoods. The time is now to take the experience we've garnered in the last three and a half years and use it to protect existing neighborhoods and future applicants from the cost of a lengthy and stressful process for an industrial use that ultimately cannot find fit in rural residential neighborhoods. It is our belief that there are plenty of available locations around our county that befit this kind of industrial production and processing without including rural residential parcels. Because such activity cannot "be conducted in rural residential neighborhoods without substantial adverse impact on the residential environment and rural character in the vicinity", these zones must be removed from consideration for use as cannabis production and processing and make them a "no" use in rural residential zones in our Jefferson County Code. Page 3 of 3 2/27/2019 - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MARIJUANA CODE REVISION APPLICATION EXHIBIT "A" SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION, TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSALS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE 4. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit A," a description of the proposed text Comprehensive Plan/UDC amendment. This text amendment will change text in Jefferson County Code sections (list) to disallow marijuana production and processing in all Rural Residential zones and to reduce the building size allowed for such businesses in other zones to be consistent with longstanding current JCC Cottage Industry regulations. It will also reduce the maximum allowable size of growing structures (separate from and in addition to the allowed 5,000 square foot processing structures, from 21,780 square feet to 10,890 square feet. EXHIBIT "B" 2/27/2019 - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MARIJUANA CODE REVISION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION, TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSALS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE 5. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit 8," proposed amendatory language (i.e., to affected text of both the Comprehensive Plan and UDC) shown in "bill"format, with text to be added indicated with underlining (e.g., underlining), and text to be deleted indicated with strikeouts (e.g., strikeouts). Proposed Amendments to JCC 18.20.295 Recreational Marijuana/Cannabis JCC 18.20.295 (3)(a),(b),(c) and (4)(a),(c)#),(h) (3) Use Zones. Three categories of recreational marijuana activities are recognized by rules of the state of Washington as follows: "production," "processing" and "retailing"; and each category of such use shall be allowed in the following comprehensive plan zones and as further shown in JCC 18.16.040, Table 3-1, and JCC 18.18.040, Table 3A-1: (a) Production. Allowed as a yes use in agricultural zoning district, rural industrial and urban industrial zoning districts. Allowed as a conditional discretionary (C(d)) use in Fural residential zoning dr StF006 aad forest resource zoning districts. Prohibited in rural residential, rural commercial, urban commercial, urban public, urban residential, county waste management essential public facility (CWMEPF) and mineral resource lands (MRL), parks, preserves and recreation (PPR) and Port Ludlow master plan resort zoning districts. (b) Processing. Allowed as yes use in rural industrial and urban industrial zoning districts. Allowed as a conditional discretionary (C(d)) use on agricultural resource lands. Allowed as conditional discretionary (C(d)) with a cottage industry permit in forest resource lands -and feral residential zoning districts. Prohibited in rural residential, rural commercial zoning districts, urban commercial, urban public, urban residential, county waste management essential public facility (CWMEPF) and mineral resource lands (MRL), parks, preserves and recreation (PPR) and Port Ludlow master plan resort zoning districts. (c) Retailing. Allowed as a yes use in neighborhood/visitor (NC), general crossroads (GC), rural village center (RVC), urban commercial (UC) and urban industrial (ULI) zoning districts. Allowed as a conditional discretionary (C(d)) use on agricultural resource lands. Allowed as conditional discretionary (C(d)) with a cottage industry permit in forest resource zoning districts. Prohibited in rural residential, convenience crossroads (CC), visitor -oriented commercial (VOC), urban public, urban residential, county waste management essential public facility (CWMEPF) and mineral resource lands (MRL), parks, preserves and recreation (PPR) and Port Ludlow master plan resort zoning districts. (4) The following standards shall apply for all recreational marijuana activities - Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "B" (a) Producing in the forest resource lands and4ural--resideAtial zones is allowed as a conditional discretionary (C(d)) use subject to the recreational marijuana standards and structure size limitation: (i) Permanent and temporary growing structures on lands -RR-1 5. RR 110 nd RR-1-2-0 and forest resource lands shall meet the following standards in addition to all other applicable sections of the Jefferson County Code. �..d Forest resource lands CF-80, RF-40, IF — Temporary or Permanent Growing Structure Size. The allowed structure size is a total combination of square footage of gross floor area for all growing structures. (1) Five percent of gross parcel size in square feet, up to a maximum of 21,780 10,890 square feet gross floor area. (c) Processing in the forest I zoning districts is allowed subject to a conditional discretionary (C(d)) use permit per JCC 18.20.170, cottage industry standards, and as consistent with this section, recreational marijuana. In addition to the maximum structure size of 5,000 square feet for a processing structure authorized as a cottage industry per JCC 18-20.170(4)(o) for cottage industry, an additional growing structure(s) such as greenhouses may be allowed up to the size limits per parcel size and structure size for producing only per subsection (4)(a)(i) of this section. (f) Outdoor Producing. All outdoor producing activities in rwraf residential-RRd forest zones shall have an unlimited outdoor canopy without size limitations. All outdoor producing activities for a cottage industry shall have an unlimited outdoor canopy without size limitations. (h) Setbacks. All recreational marijuana structures and activities in agriculture, commercial forest, rural forest, or rural commercial ©r-�r-a res epgial -mo e that abut residential zoned land shall be a minimum 25 feet setback from all property lines including front road setbacks. Setback requirements for other zone combinations are as stated in JCC 18-30.050, development standards, Table 6-1, Density, Dimension and Open Space Standards. In the event of conflict, the more restrictive measures shall apply. Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT "C" 2/27/2019 - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MARIJUANA CODE REVISION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION, TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSALS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE 6. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit C," a thorough explanation of how the proposed amendment, meets, conflicts with, or relates to the following inquiries (NOTE: Simple "yes" or "no" responses are unacceptable.) a. Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize? Growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring at an anticipated pace. b. Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased; There is no change in the capacity of the county to provide adequate services. c. Is sufficient urban land designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need? Yes, sufficient urban land designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need d. Are any of the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no longer valid, or is new information available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? The assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid. e. Does the proposed amendment reflect the current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? Yes, the proposed amendment reflects the current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County. f. Do changes in county -wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement? No, changes in county -wide attitudes do not necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement. However, changes in county- wide attitudes and understanding dictate a change to our code. g. Do changes in circumstances dictated a need for amendment? Yes, changes in circumstances dictated a need for amendment. h. Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the County -wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County? No, inconsistencies do not exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the County -wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County? Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "C" Demonstrate that the following conditions are met (if applicable): i. The proposed text amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services); Not applicable for this proposed text amendment. j. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; Yes, the proposed text amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. k. The proposed text amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities; No, the proposed text amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities; I. In the case of a text amendment to the Land Use Map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, the following: (A) Access; (B) Provision of utilities; and (C) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses; Not applicable for this proposed text amendment. m. The proposed text amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole; Not applicable for this proposed text amendment. n. The proposed text amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan; No, the proposed text amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan. o. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed text amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA; Not applicable for this proposed text amendment. p. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the County -Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other applicable inter -jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws. Yes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the County - Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other applicable inter -jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local or state laws, or federal law as currently applied. (how do we deal with this?) Page 2 of 2