Planning and Zoning

Planning & Zoning Commission August 2021 Minutes City Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Chairman Kent Wilson. Chairman Wilson stated that the meeting was being live streamed for the public through the City of Gallup's Facebook page. Upon roll call, the following were present: Chairman K. Wilson Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez Commissioner F. Pawlowski Commissioner M.Long Commissioner J. Cresto Commissioner K. Spolar Upon roll call, the following were absent: Commissioner L. Miller Chairman Wilson asked if any Commissioner had a conflict of interest for any agenda item and if so to recuse him/herself prior to discussing the particular item. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Chairman K. Wilson(No) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(No) Commissioner F. Pawlowski(No) Commissioner M. Long(No) Commissioner J. Cresto(No) Commissioner K. Spolar(No) Presented to the Chairman and Commissioners for their approval were the minutes of the July 14'*', 2021 regular meeting. Commissioner Cresto motioned for approval of the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Long. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner J. Cresto(Yes) Commissioner M.Long(Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski(Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar(Yes) Chairman Wilson administered the oath required by State Lawfor publicforum. Chairman Wilson stated that anyone wishing to speak limit their comments to three minutes and not to duplicate a previous point; they will have one opportunity to testify. Chairman Wilson also Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 11*^, 2021 Page 1 of20 reminded the Commission that the meeting was being live streamed so everyone needed to speak loud and clear for the public to hear. ITEM ONE: CASE # 21-00300002: Request by Gallup Housing Authority, property owner, for Final Plat approval of a Minor Subdivision; Arnold Development Subdivision an Unplatted Tract of Land situated in the West Vi of the NW '/4 of Section 21, T15N, R18W, N.M.P.M. Also dedicating Arnold Street, Arnold Circle, and Arnold Court to reflect the existing forty foot (40') street right-of- way(R.O.W.). Rename Arnold Place to Amold Court. The property is generally located immediately south of Aztec Avenue & east of Amold Street; subdivision contains 10.7391 acres M/L which includes the dedicated R.O.W.'s of 2.0331 acres. CB Strain reminded the Commission how over the past few months they have done several subdivisions for the Gallup Housing Authority. Whenever Gallup Housing Authority developed, the properties were never formally subdivided and right-of-ways were never formally dedicated to the city. So in an effort to clean all their properties up, Gallup Housing Authority has taken a proactive approach to get all this done. CB stated that this was the last subdivision that Gallup Housing Authority needed to clean up. CB used the overhead projector to display the GIS Map showing the property's location on Amold Street. CB explained how they were dedicating a tract of land into formal lots to create legal lots of record. He emphasized how they were not reconfiguring anything; just dedicating what's already there with the existing development. Amold Street is a fifty foot(50') right-of-way that is being dedicated. One of the streets, Amold Place is currently named incorrectly, per the City's Street Naming Resolution it will be renamed to Amold Court with this plat. The other streets will keep their same street names. CB stated that the property was already serviced with water, wastewater and electric so there was no need to run any service lines to the properties. CB reiterated how the plat presented this evening was to simply dedicate what was already there and create legal lots of record. The Gallup Task Force did review the request and had no issues. CB informed the Commission that the property did comply with the dimensional requirements for the Multi-Family Residential High(MFRH)Zone District. Chairman Wilson asked CB to clarify the number of times this particular property had been subdivided. CB informed the Chairman that this was the first time for this property on Amold Street. However, over the past few months Gallup Housing had been cleaning up (platting) properties on Marce Lane and Second Street, Romero Circle and Clark Street, Vega Avenue (Sky City), and Morgan Avenue and Ford Drive. The plat being presented this evening for Amold was the last property Gallup Housing Authority had to clean up. Commissioner Pawlowski stated that he understood the reasoning for renaming Amold Place to Amold Court, but wondered if the numbering of the houses would be changed as well. CB stated that the numbering would remain the same;just the street name was changing. Commissioner Long stated that since the streets were being dedicated to the city, he wanted to know if the master metering would be affected. Commissioner Long spoke about how Gallup Housing Authority owned their own meters and wanted to know if a new building went up and if they had to Planning and 2k)ning Commission Meeting August 11*^, 2021 Page 2of 20 run a new service line, how would it affect the right-of-way. CB stated that anything new would have to comply with the current regulation for running electricity whereas the same would apply to water and wastewater. CB mentioned how normally property owners would just dedicate a public utility easement and that's where the utilities would run. Commissioner Long was just concemed because now that the right-of-way was being dedicated, the city is responsible for maintaining the road and utilities. CB stated that the city has already been maintaining all of that; now they're just finally dedicating it; making it official. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any additional questions for staff. There were none. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor ofthis case. Richard Kontz, Gallup Housing Authority Executive Director introduced himself. Mr. Kontz stated how they were subdividing all their properties to be legally correct, which should have been done back when they were first developed. He explained how the replats were triggered because Gallup Housing Authority obtained a grant to install new security fencing for all their developments. As a result, they had to reconfirm their boundaries and when DePauli's Engineering was doing a title search they realized they did not have the streets and easements dedicated. Although for several years the city had been maintaining the road and utilities for Gallup Housing Authority, they were finally making it official. Mr. Kontz believes the roads were never officially dedicated because the Gallup Housing Authority used to be a department within the city. Eventually they became a separate housing authority in order to access more HUD grants. That's why they're trying to get all this straightened out and made it official. Mr. Kontz thanked the Commission for their help in getting all this done. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for Mr. Kontz. There were none. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against this case. There were none. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any other interested parties wishing to speak to this case. There were none. Chairman Wilson stated that the hearing was closed. Motion to approve or deny the request for Case Number 2021-00300002. Commissioner Mackenzie- Chavez motioned for approval ofItem One. Seconded by Commissioner Pawlowski. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski(Yes) Commissioner M. Long(Yes) Commissioner J. Cresto(Yes) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 2021 Page 3of20  Commissioner K. Spolar(Yes) ITEM TWO: CASE # 21-00600002: Request by Isidro and Eloise K. Chavez, property owners, for the Rezoning of 0.34 acres M/L FROM Mixed-Use Center (MXC) Zone District TO Heavy Commercial(HC) Zone District. The property is located at 612 & 614 South Second Street; more particularly described as Block 29 Frac. Lots 33 thru 36, A&P Addition Frac. Lots 24 thru 36, A&P. CB began by explaining how the property owners were requesting to rezone their property from the Mixed-Use Center (MXC) Zone District to Heavy Commercial (HC) Zone District. He used the overhead projector to display the GIS Map pointing to the Mixed-Use Center property, which was a triangular lot. The property immediately adjacent to the south was currently zoned Heavy Commercial whereas the rezone request would be consistent with the surrounding zone district; spot zoning would not be an issue. CB spoke about how Mr. Chavez wanted to relocate his fencing business to this location whereas the current zone of Mixed-Use Center did not allow for that type of use. However, if they were to rezone to the Heavy Commercial Zone District it would allow for his fencing business with outdoor storage. CB mentioned how the property to the south had a similar commercial use where Mr. Chavez's business would be consistent with what was in the area today. CB stated that they would not be spot zoning because they would be simply moving the line. The code does say to make a rezone request; they needed at least 51% of the property involved whereas Mr. Chavez qualifies because he owned 100%. The property does comply with the dimensional requirements of the Heavy Commercial Zone District. CB stated that it was a pretty simple rezone; not violating any spot zoning rules. The request meets the following grounds for a rezone, which is the social, economic or environmental interests of the public good would be better served by the proposed district than the existing one. CB informed the Commission that the property has been a problem for the city for quite some time. It has vacant structures there with a lot of transient activity. Code Enforcement has been out there several times and continued to secure the property. CB stated that Mr. Chavez recently purchased the property and wanted to revitalize the property by putting it to good use. CB was hoping this would get rid ofthe attractive nuisance that was there now. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez asked if Mr. Chavez also owned the property to the south. CB stated no; that was owned by a body shop. CB clarified that the rezone was only for the triangular lot. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of this case. Isidro Chavez introduced himself and agreed with CB on how terrible the property had become. Mr. Chavez spoke about how he wanted to secure the property and maybe next summer put a steel building there by obtaining the necessary permits. He wants to get rid of the trash and transients there. Mr. Chavez spoke about how he addressed the encroachment issue with the City Attorney, Curtis Hayes. He thanked the Commission for their consideration in his request. Mr. Chavez stated that he though he could improve the property and as far as the outdoor storage he would only be storing pipe and chaining outside. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 2021 Page 4 of 20 Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Chavez if he would be primarily using the property for storage. Mr. Chavez stated that he would be making it a full business there with gates so he can park his trucks. He informed the Commission that he does not do retail; just a contracting business where they go do work for people off site. Mr. Chavez again thanked the Commission and CB for their assistance. He mentioned how he has been in business for fifty(50) years. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for Mr. Chavez. There were none. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against this case. There were none. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any other interested parties wishing to speak to this case. There were none. Chairman Wilson stated that the hearing was closed. Motion to approve or deny the request for Case Number 2021-00600002. Commissioner Long motioned for approval of Item Two. Seconded by Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner M. Long(Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski(Yes) Commissioner J. Cresto(Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar(Yes) ITEM THREE: CASE # 21-00600003: Request by the City of Gallup, on behalf of the property owners, for the Rezoning of a portion of land FROM Heavy Commercial(HC) Zone District TO Rural Residential(RR)Zone District containing approximately 3.1377 acres. Said property is located within the west portion of Lot 2A, of Replat No. 1 Balok Addn. Within Sec. 8 T15N R18W Cont. 6.01 Acs M/L. Chairman Wilson stated that Item Three has been removed from the agenda and will be presented at a later date. ITEM FOUR: CASE # 21-00900001: City initiated request to amend Title 10 "Land Development Standards" of the Municipal Code of the City of Gallup to add carmabis regulations to adhere to the newly adopted HB 2 Cannabis Regulation Act. The consultant team, Bohannan Huston, Inc. and Dekker/Perich/Sabatini Design creating the new regulations have been working closely with City Staff. The consultant team will give the presentation and be available for questions and discussion. This item will go before City Council for final approval on August 24,2021. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 2021 Page 5 of20 Chairman Wilson began by thanking the Commissioners for their attendance and participation in the workshop they completed with the City Council and the consultants a few weeks ago. Chairman Wilson explained that as a result of their discussion and recommendations from the workshop that's what was being presented this evening. Since the Commission already went through an overview in the workshop, this evening they will review the sections that have recommended changes where staff and the consultant will explain and answer any questions. When the Commission is done discussing a section, they will take a vote on the changes. Chairman Wilson tumed the floor over to CB. CB also spoke about the joint work session with the Commission and the City Council where Jessica Lawlis, Dekker/Perich/Sabatini Design presented the revisions. The Commission's role this evening was to review the revised sections of the Land Development Standards and make their recommendations to the City Council. They can accept, reject, or make revisions to the document as presented. CB explained how the revisions were a result of the State of New Mexico legalizing cannabis use as a recreational use. It was already allowed as a medical use whereas they already have medical cannabis distributors in Gallup. So the revisions presented this evening are strictly for recreational cannabis use. CB tumed the floor over to Mrs. Lawlis who is with the consulting firm the city contracted to draft the cannabis regulations. Jessica Lawlis, Urban Planner with Dekker/Perich/Sabatini Design introduced herself and explained how she has been working with CB and the planning team on the cannabis related use recommendations presented this evening. Mrs. Lawlis used the overhead projector to display the PowerPoint presentation (a copy is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit A and made a part of these official minutes), which summarized the cannabis edits to the City of Gallup Land Development Standards: • Page 4-5 (Use Table 10-3-1). Mrs. Lawlis began with the Use Table and mentioned how the text in red was the recommended new cannabis uses they were introducing to the code, which were Cannabis Cultivation, Cannabis Sales, Manufacturing, Cannabis-Related, Cannabis Consumption Areas, and Cannabis Home Cultivation. The Use Table indicates whether a use is or is not allowed in each zoning district. She defined "P" as permissive meaning that it was permitted outright,"C" as conditional whereas it had to be approved by the Commission with a conditional use permit, and "A" as accessory where it was only allowed as a secondary use. Mrs. Lawlis referenced the column to the far right where it listed Supplemental Use Standards where it did not matter which zone district a use fell under; the use had to follow these standards across the board. She went through the five (5) new cannabis uses indicating which zone districts they were being proposed to be allowed in. It was pointed out how Cannabis Consumption and Cannabis Home Cultivation were only allowed as accessory uses whereas they were not allowed as a primary standalone use. The way that the state is doing the cannabis consumption licenses is they are doing a license for a cannabis consumption area, which is an area where you can consume cannabis edibles or via smoking/vaping. Mrs. Lawlis reminded the Commission how they're changing this part according to what was discussed at the workshop. She had initially proposed that Cannabis Consumption be allowed as a primary and accessory use, however it has been changed to only allow as an accessory Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 2021 Page 6 of 20 use. So Cannabis Consumption Areas are only allowed conditionally within the General Commercial, Heavy Commercial, and Industrial Zone Districts. They can only be allowed as secondary to another use such as. Manufacturing, Cannabis-Related or Cannabis Sales. The other accessory use is Cannabis Home Cultivation. The way the State Cannabis Act is written is that they cannot prohibit home cultivation, however they feel it is important for public safety and welfare that they have some basic standards. So Cannabis Home Cultivation is allowed as an accessory use in all zone districts that would have residential uses. There will be use standards for this type of accessory use with general requirements on how they can do that. Chairman Wilson informed Mrs. Lawlis that she said Cannabis Home Cultivation was allowed as an accessory use; however the Use Table on Page 4-5 shows it as permissive. Mrs. Lawlis stated that was an error she will correct (later determined that this was correct; no changes needed). She stated that they also needed to change Cannabis Consumption Area from "C" to "AC". Commissioner Long stated that he knew they were working with the zoning code along with the ordinance, but he wondered how the two coincided. CB explained that the ordinance was what they were adopting to integrate into the code. The ordinance is the official document that adopts the language and that gets transferred into the actual code document; so it's the same thing just separate documents for approval purposes. Commissioner Cresto asked CB for clarification on how the Commission was involved with the ordinance approval and if they were allowed to regulate things such as, hours of operation. CB stated that it was pretty typical for zoning codes to regulate hours of operation for services. CB also explained how the Land Development Standards was an ordinance whereas it was law. The Commission will give a recommendation to council for final approval. Commissioner Cresto added that the state was responsible for communicating intoxication rules. CB stated that he was unsure how the state was handling, but it would fall under policing; not the Land Development Standards. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez asked CB where the Heavy Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts were located. CB used the overhead projector to display the GIS Map showing Gallup's zoning designations. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez stated that she was concerned how the Cannabis Consumption Areas were allowed as an accessory in the Industrial Zone District whereas it could be an accessory to Cannabis Sales. She was unsure if consumption was appropriate in the industrial zones because there were mostly manufacturing in the industrial zones. CB added how he did not think that the Industrial Zone Districts would appeal to Cannabis Sales because of their lack of visibility. Mrs. Lawlis stated that Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez made a good point because as an accessory use if you were not doing manufacturing (or any related industrial use) you would not be able to do just retail sales. The Industrial Zone District is the most high intensity district whereas they could change Cannabis Sales to be permissive in the Industrial Zone District, which would be appropriate in that district because they're already buffered for example, from Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 11^, 2021 Page 7of20 residential uses. Mrs. Lawlis stated that they could change Cannabis Sales in the Industrial Zone District from "A" to "C" whereas they would be required to go before the Commission for approval that way they had some level of control. CB mentioned how there was a lot of heavy traffic and warehousing in the Industrial Zone Districts whereas the Commission would be taking a risk of mixing industrial uses with non-industrial uses. Mrs. Lawlis reminded the Commission how Cannabis Sales were permissive in the Heavy Commercial Zone District and conditional in the General Commercial Zone District. Commissioner Cresto asked if the cannabis uses were similar to where alcohol uses were permitted. CB stated that alcohol uses were not allowed in the Industrial Zone District, however were permissive in the General and Heavy Commercial Zone Districts. Commissioner Spolar asked for clarification on the accessory uses within the Use Table. Curtis Hayes, City Attorney reminded the Commission how Page 4-5 listed the accessory uses of Cannabis Consumption Areas and Cannabis Home Cultivation. Cannabis Home Cultivation said "P" meaning it was allowed as an accessory use in a residential district. However, Cannabis Consumption Areas needed to be changed from "C" to "AC". Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez asked what Cannabis Consumption Areas would entail; a lounge area where people could smoke. Mrs. Lawlis responded that it could be setup that way. Mrs. Lawlis added how the state's language was not very clear on whether consumption areas would be allowed as independent establishments or if they would be required to obtain a license for co-locating. She spoke about how the city had initially listed Cannabis Consumption Areas as a primary use, however after the discussion at the workshop it was changed from a primary use to only allow as an accessory use. So the way the language is presented this evening, a standalone Cannabis Consumption Area would not be allowed; only as an accessory use. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez spoke about how she would be concerned if Manufacturing, Cannabis-Related uses would have Cannabis Consumption Areas as an accessory use. CB stated that he really did not see that happening because he would assume that consumption areas would be more for retail sales, for example, after they purchased cannabis they would want to consume onsite. The Commission and staff agreed that this would be something to revisit later once the state establishes more regulations at the beginning of2022. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any interested parties wishing to speak to this section. There were none. Chairman Wilson reminded the Commission how he wanted to structure the approvals this evening whereas after a section was reviewed they would agree on the recommended changes and vote. There was a discussion between the Commission and staff where the following amendments were agreed upon for Page 4-5: o Change Cannabis Consumption Area from "C" to "AC" in the General Commercial, Heavy Commercial, and Industrial Zone Districts, o Change Cannabis Sales from "A"to "C" in the Industrial Zone District. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 2021 Page 8 of20 Motion to approve or deny the above mentioned amendments. Commissioner Cresto motioned for approval of the amendments for Page 4-5. Seconded by Commissioner Pawlowski. Motion Carried. Upon roil call, the following votes were: Commissioner J. Cresto(Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski(Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(Yes) Commissioner M. Long(Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar(Yes) Chairman K. Wilson(Yes) Page 4-6 Prohibitions in Downtown Overlay Zone. Mrs. Lawlis explained how this page was for the Downtown Overlay Zone, which controlled the uses that were permissive and prohibited in the downtown overlay boundary. Page 4-6 shows the list of uses that are prohibited in the downtown. After the workshop it was discussed how they wanted to prohibit Cannabis Consumption Areas, Cannabis Cultivation, and Cannabis-related Manufacturing. However, they did agree to allow Cannabis Sales within the Downtown Overlay Zone District. Commissioner Cresto voiced his concerns about how prohibiting Cannabis Consumption Areas in the downtown area would push them to use on the streets. If they are being allowed to buy cannabis in the downtown overlay, but not consume in the downtown it may end up more in the alleys where they do not want that to be. CB added how for that reason they tried to prohibit sales and consumption in the downtown, however at the workshop they wanted to allow the sales so that's what was incorporated into the language. The reasoning for prohibiting the sales and consumption in the downtown area was because they wanted it to be a more family-oriented setting for example, with the Arts Crawl and Farmer's Market events. Commissioner Long wondered if patrons would be allowed to bring their own cannabis to a consumption area or will they only be allowed to consume the retail establishment's products onsite. Mrs. Lawlis explained how the text amendments were saying that a consumption site cannot be a standalone business; however a patron could buy and consume cannabis onsite whereas co-locating was allowed except in the Downtown Overlay Zone. Only in the downtown area you will be unable to have a consumption site; everywhere else in Gallup (if allowed) will be able to co-locate. Cannabis Sales are however allowed in the Downtown Overlay Zone, but consumption is not. Commissioner Cresto again stated his concerns about how not allowing consumption, but allowing retail sales would push the cannabis use onto the streets. And if the city wants to be family fnendly downtown that really wouldn't work because cannabis users could still consume on the streets if they wanted to. CB added how he thought the reasoning for prohibiting consumption in the downtown was if consumption areas were placed outdoors for example, on a patio. It would force smoke and odor onto the potential families passing by. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 11*^, 2021 Page 9 of20 Mr. Hayes reminded the Commission how smoking was not the only way to consume cannabis whereas some also use edibles and tinctures. There was a discussion between the Commission regarding how most people consume at home and comparing cannabis consumption to alcohol consumption. Chairman Wilson asked the consultant how other municipalities were handling the co- locating of retail sales and consumption areas. Mrs. Lawlis responded that she did research other municipalities in Colorado and California whereas it varied and depended on how much each municipality wanted to control it. Although other state's regulations were different from what New Mexico was implementing, she did notice how some prohibited cannabis uses in areas where they wanted to remain consistent with the area's character and some did not; it really varied. She added how there was not a lot of guidance from the state on consumption areas. The more prohibitions they had in the code, the more that it would open it up to litigation. CB spoke about a cannabis training he recently attended whereas several other municipalities in New Mexico were being more restrictive than Gallup. Mrs. Lawlis briefly gave examples of what Roswell and Albuquerque were doing as far as controlling cannabis uses. CB pointed out how they will not know how their code will affect their communities until its put into play. Mrs. Lawlis stated that for the Commission to remain on a solid, regulatory ground it would be best to treat cannabis uses similar to alcohol uses. Right now Gallup allows alcohol sales and consumption in the downtown so not doing the same with cannabis could open it up to be challenged. CB reminded the Commission how any new bar that came into Gallup would only be allowed as an accessory use to a hotel, motel or restaurant. The city does not allow standalone bars (unless it was an existing bar that had the appropriate alcohol license). He mentioned how micro brewing was added as a new use in the 2018 code update. CB explained that after the cannabis regulations are adopted the Commission will see how it plays out and if needed they can amend the code by going through the text amendment process. However, the City Council still has final approval authority to all text amendments. Mr. Hayes added how it was generally easier to add restrictions and then remove later, rather than to just add later. Mrs. Lawlis informed the Commission that the Cannabis Regulation Act specifically said that you can put regulations into place and the state will begin issuing licenses on September 1, 2021. The municipalities cannot proactively take it back whereas if you choose to allow them now, then businesses go in, and then decide you don't want to allow; you can't take it back. Those establishments that are already in place will stay. There was a discussion between the Commission and staff where the following amendments were agreed upon for Page 4-6: o Remove Cannabis Consumption Areas from the prohibited list in the Downtown Overlay District, which would thereby allow consumption in the downtown, o Add language to require a conditional use permit for Cannabis Consumption Area as an accessory use. Motion to approve or deny the above mentioned amendments. Commissioner Cresto Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 11*^, 2021 Page lO of20 motioned for approval of the amendments for Page 4-6. Seconded by Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner J. Cresto(Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski(Yes) Commissioner M. Long(Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar(Yes) Chairman K. Wilson(No) Page 4-7 & 4-8(Use Specific Standards for Cultivation). Mrs. Lawlis explained how this was the use specific standards for Cannabis Cultivation across the board; no matter what zone district it was located in. All the use specific standards for cultivation shown in black were already in place during the workshop, however changes were made according to the Commission and Council's recommendations, which are shown today in red. o 2. She explained how they added residential uses to the three hundred foot (300') distance requirement. That means that no Cannabis Cultivation facility shall be licensed within three hundred feet(300') of any residential zone district or residential use. Religious institutions, schools, daycare centers, and parks were already there, o 3. Added non-conforming language if there was ever a cannabis cultivation area already in place and a residential use (or another prohibited use) that came in after. It states how that cultivation would be grandfathered in whereas that language is similar to alcohol uses or other adult uses that have similar provisions, o 5. Added language on how you measure that distance whereas it was similar to how adult uses were measured between facilities, o 7. One of the standards the consultant recommended for cultivation was that it could only occur within a secure and enclosed building or structure. So they added a definition for a secured building, o 10. Added how incidental onsite Cannabis Consumption Areas were only permissive with a conditional use permit. They would also have to comply with the use specific standards designed for consumption areas, which will be further discussed shortly. Commissioner Spolar asked for clarification of the distance measuring under #5. Mrs. Lawlis stated that they would take the property line of that for example, residential (protected) use and measure from the closest point to the building. So it's not the property line of where the cultivation business is located on; it's ofthe actual building. There was a discussion between the Commission and staff where there were no amendments for Page 4-7 & 4-8; approve as presented. Motion to approve or deny the above mentioned amendments. Commissioner Spolar motioned for approval of Page 4-7 & 4-8. Seconded by Commissioner Pawlowski. Motion Carried. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 2021 Page 11 of 20 Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner K. Spolar(Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski(Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(Yes) Commissioner M. Long(Yes) Commissioner J. Cresto(Yes) Chairman K. Wilson(Yes) Page 4-9 & 4-10 (Use Specific Standards for Manufacturing). Mrs. Lawlis explained how this was the use specific standards for Manufacturing, Cannabis-Related. All the use specific standards for manufacturing shown in black were already in place during the workshop, however changes were made according to the Commission and Council's recommendations, which are shown today in red. o 2., 3.(should be in red), 5.,9 are very similar to those just discussed with cultivation. There was a discussion between the Commission and staff where there were no amendments for Page 4-9 & 4-10; approve as presented. Motion to approve or deny the above mentioned amendments. Commissioner Pawlowski motioned for approval of Page 4-9 ,& 4-10. Seconded by Commissioner Spolar. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner F. Pawlowski(Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar(Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(Yes) Commissioner M.Long(Yes) Commissioner J. Cresto(Yes) Chairman K. Wilson(Yes) Page 4-11 (Use Specific Standards for Cannabis Sales). Mrs. Lawlis explained how this was the use specific standards for Cannabis Sales whereas they were trying to be consistent across the board. All the use specific standards for Cannabis Sales shown in black were already in place during the workshop, however changes were made according to the Commission and Council's recommendations, which are shown today in red. o 2., 3., 5., 7. Are very similar to those just discussed with cultivation and manufacturing. o 6. Under Cannabis Sales they were asked to revise the language in terms of operating hours to be consistent with how the county was handling. Cannabis Sales establishments can only sell for off-site consumption between the hours of 10 a.m. and 12 a.m. Monday through Saturday and 12 p.m. to 12 a.m. on Sundays. Commissioner Spolar asked if Cannabis Sales was allowed at manufacturing or consumption Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 11^, 2021 Page 12 of20 areas; would they be required to follow these standards as well. Mrs. Lawlis responded yes; anytime sales occur as a primary use or an accessory use they must comply with these standards. Mr. Hayes noticed how they were speaking a lot about allowing Cannabis Sales and Cannabis Consumption Areas in the downtown area. He used the overhead projector to display the GIS Map showing the zoning designations for the downtown area. Mr. Hayes pointed out how the overlay district added additional restrictions to what the imderlying base zone district already had. The main base district that's underlying the Downtown Overlay is the Mixed-Use Center(MXC)Zone District. If you look back at Page 4-5 on the Use Table you'll notice how Cannabis Cultivation, Cannabis Sales, Manufacturing, Cannabis-Related and Cannabis Consumption Areas are prohibited in MXC. Mr. Hayes was unsure if the Commission realized this during their voting on the overlay district section. Mr. Hayes stated that there was a medical dispensary downtown in the MXC Zone District whereas they would be grandfathered in. There was a discussion between the Commission and staff regarding how the allowable zone districts would limit the cannabis uses downtown whereas the distance requirement would also play a major role. Mrs. Lawlis added how Code Enforcement/Planning Department would need to ground verify surrounding residential uses before measuring the distances. There was a discussion between the Commission and staff where there were no amendments for Page 4-11; approve as presented. However, the Commission and staff discussed and agreed on the following amendments for a previous section(Page 4-5): o For Cannabis Retail change from" to "C"in the Mixed-Use Center Zone District. o Cannabis Consumption Areas change from " to "AC" in the Mixed-Use Center Zone District. Motion to approve or deny the above mentioned amendments. Commissioner Mackenzie- Chavez motioned for approval of the amendments for Page 4-11 and Page 4-5. Seconded by Commissioner Pawlowski. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski(Yes) Commissioner M. Long(Yes) Commissioner J. Cresto(Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar(Yes) Chairman K. Wilson(Yes) Page 4-12(Use Specific Standards for Accessory Uses - Cannabis Consumption Areas). Mrs. Lawlis explained how this was the use specific standards since they changed Cannabis Consumption Areas only allowable as an accessory use rather than a primary use. All the use specific standards for Cannabis Consumption Areas shown in red are new according to the Commission and Council's recommendations at the workshop. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 11^,2021 Page 13 of20  o 1. Must comply with all the local and state rules. o 2. Allow consumption as an accessory use to cannabis related establishments through a conditional use permit. Consumption areas not allowed as a primary use. o 3. Wants to make the hours of operation consistent with the hours utilized by the county, which are similar to alcohol consumption. Can only operate a consumption area from 10 a.m. to 2 a.m. Monday through Saturday and 12 p.m. to 12 a.m. on Sundays. There was a discussion between the Commission and staff where the following amendments were agreed upon for Page 4-12: o Under #1 add "licensing" so it will read, "This use must comply with all applicable local and state regulations and licensing." Motion to approve or deny the above mentioned amendments. Commissioner Cresto motioned for approval of the amendments for Page 4-12. Seconded by Commissioner Spolar. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner J. Cresto(Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar(Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski(Yes) Commissioner M.Long(Yes) Chairman K. Wilson (Yes) Page 4-13 & 4-14 (Use Specific Standards for Accessory Uses - Home Cultivation). Mrs. Lawlis explained how this was the use specific standards for an accessory Home Cultivation use. All the use specific standards for Home Cultivation shown in black were already in place during the workshop, however changes were made according to the Commission and Council's recommendations, which are shown today in red. o 5. If doing home cultivation at your home residence and that property is leased, you must get written permission from the owner, which has to be filed with the Planning Department. This process would be similar to the Home Occupation Business License. There was a discussion between the Commission and staff where there were no amendments for Page 4-13 and Page 4-14; approve as presented. Motion to approve or deny the above mentioned amendments. Commissioner Pawlowski motioned for approval of Page 4-13 and Page 4-14. Seconded by Commissioner Cresto. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner F. Pawlowski(Yes) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 11*^, 2021 Page 14 of 2o  Commissioner J. Cresto(Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(Yes) Commissioner M.Long(Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar(Yes) Chairman K. Wilson(Yes) Page 4-15 (Conditional Use Criteria). Mrs. Lawlis explained how this conditional use permit criteria was previously presented at the workshop whereas everything remained the same. On this particular slide, all the language shown in black is what the city currently has on the books today and the red is what the consultants are proposing. The reason the consultants are recommending changes to this section is because they thought it was a good time to update since they're requiring conditional use permits for certain cannabis uses, o Revise the first sentence of this section. o 3. Add language that helps control nuisance uses across the board, o Remove 4. And 5. Since it was now being covered under #3. o 9. Add "local" and "licenses." Commissioner Long asked why certain sentences were changed or added to this section. Mrs. Lawlis stated that she thought the revisions gave a stronger justification if conditional uses were ever challenged. She thought it was important to point out how they were making their decision based on the health, safety and welfare of the city. For example, if there's a conditional use that is detrimental to the public, the code will now have language that gives the Commission flexibility in approving or denying applications. Mr. Hayes added how it gives the Commission the ability to enforce the rules and defends the Commission if they are ever challenged. Chairman Wilson mentioned how the crime rate increased in Colorado after the cannabis regulations were put into place. He understands that the state passed the cannabis act in order to generate funds for New Mexico; however he's unsure if it will be effective. There was a discussion between the Commission and staff where there were no amendments for Page 4-15; approve as presented. Motion to approve or deny the above mentioned amendments. Commissioner Mackenzie- Chavez motioned for approval of Page 4-15. Seconded by Commissioner Cresto. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(Yes) Commissioner J. Cresto(Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski(Yes) Commissioner M.Long(Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar(Yes) Chairman K. Wilson(Yes) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 11*^, 2021 Page 15 of20 Page 4-16 (Conditional Use Conditions). Mrs. Lawlis explained how these conditional use permit conditions were previously presented at the workshop whereas everything remained the same. On this particular slide, all the language shown in black is new; it should be red because it was what the consultants are proposing. Commissioner Long wanted to inform the Commission that this revision would affect all conditional use permits; not just cannabis uses. CB and Mrs. Lawlis explained how this new language was meant to serve as guidance to staff when a conditional use permit came in. Not all the conditions will apply or sometimes possibly no conditions will apply, but it informs the public of what they could expect. Commissioner Long stated that he was concemed about developers seeing this long list and turning them away from developing in Gallup. Mrs. Lawlis stated that the language was to serve as a framework of conditions whereas they are all optional; simply guidance. CB added how it will help staff tremendously and how the conditions are site specific where it will vary for each site. He thinks it would be better to have it and not need it rather to need it and not have it. CB reminded the Commission how a conditional use usually was a nuisance use that in some form affected the neighboring properties, which was why conditions needed to be placed on them. Chairman Wilson pointed out how the language said,"may impose" whereas it just depended on the situation. Chairman Wilson reminded Commissioner Long how staff would recommend the conditions whereas the Commission would have the final approving authority to enforce or not enforce. Mr. Hayes stated that it did not impose conditions on a conditional use permit nor did it restrict anything. The current code already has language stating that conditions could be imposed; however the new language just lays out more details. Commissioner Long does not think they need this page in the code to add more words. CB reminded Commissioner Long that he cannot just impose conditions without a justification. CB emphasized how the reason they impose conditions on a conditional use permit is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Mrs. Lawlis also explained how when they were relooking at the code when incorporating the cannabis uses they noticed that this needed to be added. The current code did not have enough guidance in terms of impacts that could be caused by carmabis related uses. She spoke about how the state already recognized waste disposal being an issue. But they do not want to regulate cannabis uses separately, which was why they came up with a catch all list ofconditions to apply across the board. Mrs. Lawlis added that if the Commission was uncomfortable with adding this section now, she could remove from this round of edits and add later. Chairman Wilson granted a recess at 8:03 p.m. The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was reconvened. Chairman Wilson called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. Commissioner Spolar wanted to verify that these conditions would only apply to a conditional use permit. CB responded yes. There was a discussion between the Commission and staff regarding an example of when these conditions would apply and the approval Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 11*^, 2021 Page i6 of20 process. Mrs. Lawlis emphasized how the language presented this evening was meant to serve as additional guidance for staff ifwhen they were imposing conditions. The Commission asked questions about the three hundred foot (300') distance requirement whereas Mrs. Lawlis explained how they do not have the authority to change that distance; it's a requirement set by the state. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez stated that she felt they needed to have this list in the code. She felt that if developers were coming into Gallup looking at this list seeing what they could get away with, then they don't belong here because that's not the mentality Gallup needs. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez stated that this would help everyone understand the expectations while being transparent. There was additional discussion between the Commission and staff as to whether or not they needed this section revised for Page 4-16. Motion to approve or deny the above mentioned amendments. Commissioner Long motioned to deny the amendments on-Page 4-16. Seconded by Commissioner Cresto. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner M. Long(Yes) Commissioner J. Cresto(Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(No) Commissioner F. Pawlowski(No) Commissioner K. Spolar(No) Chairman K. Wilson(No) Motion did not carry due to the lack of votes. Motion to approve or deny the above mentioned amendments. Commissioner Pawlowski motioned for approval ofthe amendments for Page 4-16 (as presented). Seconded by Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner F. Pawlowski(Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(Yes) Commissioner M.Long(No) Commissioner J. Cresto(No) Commissioner K. Spolar(Yes) Chairman K. Wilson (Yes) Page 4-21 (Recommended Water Standards for Cannabis Cultivation Facilities). Mrs. Lawlis explained how this was an area she was asked to further research at the workshop regarding water standards for cannabis uses. She gave information on how other municipalities were handling. Mrs. Lawlis stated that there were two ways the Commission could handle this: o Remain silent on water issues concerning Cannabis Cultivation and refuse for Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 2021 Page 17 of 20  manufacturing type facilities. The reason for this recommendation is because the state may impose a four tier system in their licensing. If a business falls under a certain tier, they will be required to provide water right information to the state before their license is issued. The tiers are going to be based on water rights whereas each tier will have a range on the maximum number of plants allowed to produce based on their water rights. Another reason for this recommendation is that they don't want to regulate cannabis in ways that are specific to that use where they don't regulate other uses that same way. For example, the water rights for com growing are not addressed in the Land Development Standards nor the Municipal Code, o Put in some general language on water usage. For example, facilities must have a lawful source and adequate water supply to serve the site. And facilities shall not permit, allow or cause to be discharged any contaminating substance material into or upon any watercourse or city reclamation conduit, facility, or plant. Mrs. Lawlis stated that it was up to the Commission on which recommendation they wanted to go with. She did however want to point out how these regulations were very vague. And she's unsure who would be able to determine adequate water supply. So they may not need to address this in the Land Development Standards since the state is in the process of addressing on their licensing side. Mrs. Lawlis mentioned how Chapter 5 of the City Municipal Code already had a section regarding industrial water and a section about prohibited discharges. Another altemative would be to not address in the Land Development Standards, but make revisions to the existing Municipal Code. There was additional discussion between the Commission regarding the selection of the first recommendation, which was to not address in the code and wait for the state to handle the water issues. Motion to approve or deny the above mentioned recommendations. Commissioner Long motioned for approval of the first recommendation for Page 4-21 whereas they will not add water usage language. Seconded by Commissioner Pawlowski. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner M.Long(Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski(Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(Yes) Commissioner J. Cresto(Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar(Yes) Chairman K. Wilson(Yes) Chairman Wilson informed the Commission that they completed their review of the text amendments to the Land Development Standards. He thanked Mrs. Lawlis and CB for their presentation. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any interested parties wishing to speak to this item. There were none. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 2021 Page i8 of20 Motion to approve or deny the above mentioned amendments to incorporate the cannabis regulations into the City of Gallup Land Development Standards. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez motioned for approval (positive recommendation) of Item Four. Seconded by Commissioner Pawlowski. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski(Yes) Commissioner M.Long(Yes) Commissioner J. Cresto(Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar(Yes) Chairman K. Wilson(Yes) CB informed the Commission that he would amend the resolution of recommendation to reflect the proposed revisions discussed which will be presented to the City Council on August 24, 2021. Council has final approving authority to accept, reject, or modify the Commission's recommendations as they deem fit. INFORMATION ITEMS ITEM FIVE: City Council Actions Taken ITEM SIX: July 2021 Building Permit Activity Report OPEN FLOOR: Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone in attendance that would like to comment on a non- agenda item. CB wanted to let the Commission know that the Coal Avenue Commons Phase 1 project was completed. Commissioner Long and his crew at Murphy Builders did an excellentjob. Motion was made by Commissioner Cresto to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Long. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner J. Cresto(Yes) Commissioner M. Long(Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez(Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski(Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar(Yes) Chairman K. Wilson(Yes) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 11*'', 2021 Page 19 of20 Commission Adjourned at 8:29 p.m. ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING & ZC KENT^LSON,CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CLYDE(C.B.)STRAIN SECRETARY TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 2021 Page 20 of20 EXHIBIT A 4-1 Cannabis Regulation Updates AUGUST 2021  4-2 Agenda 1. Proposed Cannabis Revisions a. Use categories / definitions b. Use allowances c. Use prohibitions d. Use specific standards 2. Discussion 3. Next Steps AUGUST 2021  4-3 Proposed Revisions Use Categories ➔ Cannabis Cultivation Facility: A facility licensed by the State in which cannabis is grown, harvested, dried, cured, graded or trimmed. ➔ Cannabis Sales: A retail sales establishment licensed by the State to sell cannabis or cannabis products. ➔ Cannabis-Related Manufacturing: A facility licensed by the State in which cannabis is processed into products intended for use or consumption other than by smoking, including but not limited to, edible products, ointments, and tinctures. AUGUST 2021  4-4 Proposed Revisions Cannabis Definition ➔ Cannabis Consumption Establishment: A establishment licensed by the State in which patrons consume cannabis on-site by smoking, vaporizing, and ingestion of cannabis or cannabis products. ➔ Cannabis Home Cultivation: The use of a residential property for the cultivation and growing cannabis by the primary resident for personal use. ➔ Cannabis Products: Cannabis concentrate and products that are composed of marijuana and other ingredients and that are intended for use or consumption, including edible products, ointments, and tinctures, as regulated by the New Mexico Cannabis Regulation Act. AUGUST 2021  4-5 Use Allowances Change JULY 2021  4-6 Use Allowances Downtown Overlay Updates ➔ Prohibitions in Downtown Overlay Zone Change Allow Cannabis sales and prohibit other cannabis- related uses AUGUST 2021  4-7 Use Specific Standards Cultivation 1. This use must comply with all applicable local and state regulations and licensing. 2. No Cannabis Cultivation facility shall be licensed if located within three hundred (300) feet of any Residential Zone District or Residential use, Religious Institutions, Schools, Daycare Center and Parks. 3. If any residential zone district or residential use, religious institutions, schools, or daycare center locates within three hundred (300) feet of an existing cannabis cultivation use that was originally in compliance, the cannabis cultivation use shall still be considered a conforming use. The cannabis cultivation use will be rendered nonconforming if it ceases to operate for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days or more and may not recommence operation in its location. 4. This use shall require a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to section 10-5-B-d-iii if within 300 feet of another Cannabis-related establishment. 5. The distance between any such a facility shall be measured in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the closest property line in which the cannabis cultivation facility is located. AUGUST JULY 2021  4-8 Use Specific Standards Cultivation 6. All cultivation activities associated with this use shall be conducted within fully enclosed, secured building, greenhouse, or other enclosed structure. Outdoor cultivation is prohibited. 7. For purposes of this subsection, a " secured building" means a building that is accessible only to the owner or employees of the facility growing or processing the cannabis plants for commercial use. Secured buildings shall be locked to prevent access by children, visitors, or anyone not authorized to possess cannabis. 8. This use shall be screened from view from each property line not facing a public street using a Type C buffer as described in Section 10-4-C-d-vii Required Landscape Buffers and Screens. Street facing property lines that do not contain a building frontage, shall be screening by a solid eight (8) foot privacy wall setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the property line with landscaping in front of the wall. 9. The incidental Retail Sales of goods produced on the property is allowed, provided it complies with section 10-3-C-j-iii and the New Mexico Cannabis Regulation Act. 10. Incidental on-site cannabis consumption areas are permissive through a conditional use permit pursuant to section 10-5-B-d-iii, provided they comply with the provisions of section 10-3-C-u. 11. Incidental outdoor storage is permitted, provided it complies with section 10-3-C-aa. AUGUST JULY 2021  4-9 Use Specific Standards Manufacturing 1. This use must comply with all applicable local and state regulations and licensing. 2. No Cannabis-related Manufacturing facility shall be licensed if located within 300 feet of any Residential Zone District or Residential use, Religious Institutions, Schools, Daycare Center and parks. 3. If any residential zone district or residential use, religious institutions, schools, or daycare center locates within three hundred (300) feet of an existing cannabis-related manufacturing use that was originally in compliance, the cannabis-related manufacturing use shall still be considered a conforming use. The cannabis cultivation use will be rendered nonconforming if it ceases to operate for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days or more and may not recommence operation in its location. 4. This use shall obtain a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 10-5-B-d-iii Conditional Uses if located within three hundred (300) feet of another Cannabis- related establishment 5. The distance between any such a facility shall be measured in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the closest property line in which the cannabis-related manufacturing facility is located. 6. All manufacturing activities associated with this use must be conducted within fully enclosed portions of a building. 7. This use shall be screened from view from each property line not facing a public street using a Type C buffer as described in Section 10-4-C-d-vii Required Landscape Buffers and Screens. Street facing property lines that do not contain a building frontage, shall be screening by a solid eight (8) foot privacy wall setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the property line with landscaping in front of the wall. AUGUST JULY 2021  4-10 Use Specific Standards Manufacturing 8. The incidental Cannabis Sales of goods produced on the property is allowed, provided it complies with Section 10-3-C-j-iii Cannabis Sales and the New Mexico Cannabis Regulation Act. 9. Incidental on-site cannabis consumption areas are permissive through a conditional use permit pursuant to section 10-5-B-d-iii, provided they comply with the provisions of section 10-3-C-u. 10. Incidental outdoor storage is permitted, provided it complies with Section 10-3-C-aa. AUGUST JULY 2021  4-11 Use Specific Standards Cannabis Sales 1. This use must comply with all applicable local and state regulations and licensing. 2. No Cannabis Sales shall be licensed if located within three hundred (300) feet of any Residential Zone District or residential use, Religious Institutions, Schools, Daycare Center and parks. 3. If any Residential Zone District or residential use, Religious Institutions, Schools, or Daycare Center locates within three hundred (300) feet of an existing cannabis sales use that was originally in compliance, the cannabis sales use shall still be considered a conforming use. The cannabis sales use will be rendered nonconforming if it ceases to operate for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days or more and may not recommence operation in its location. 4. This use shall require a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 10-5-B-d-iii Conditional Uses if located within 300 feet of another cannabis -related establishment. 5. The distance between any such a facility shall be measured in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the closest property line in which the cannabis sales establishment is located. 6. Cannabis Sales establishments may only sell cannabis products for off-site consumption between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and midnight Monday through Saturday and noon to midnight on Sundays. 7. Incidental on-site cannabis consumption areas are permissive through a conditional use permit pursuant to section 10-5-B-d-iii, provided they comply with the provisions of section 10-3-C-u. AUGUST JULY 2021  4-12 Use Specific Standards Accessory Uses – Cannabis Consumption Areas 1. This use must comply with all applicable local and state regulations. 2. On-site cannabis consumption areas are permissive accessory use to other cannabis- related establishments through a conditional use permit pursuant to section 10-5-B-d- iii. This use may not be an independent primary use. 3. Cannabis consumption areas may only operate between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday and noon to midnight on Sundays. AUGUST 2021  4-13 Use Specific Standards Accessory Uses – Home Cultivation 1. This use must comply with all applicable local and state regulations. 2. All personal cultivation and processing of cannabis shall be conducted in a fully enclosed, secured area within the dwelling or a fully enclosed accessory structure, provided it complies with the standards of section 10-3-C-r. 3. For purposes of this subsection, a " secure area" means an area within the dwelling or accessory structure that is accessible only to the person possessing, growing or processing the cannabis plants for personal use. Secure areas shall be locked or partitioned off to prevent access by children, visitors, or anyone not authorized to possess cannabis. 4. Personal cannabis cultivation and processing shall not occur in the common areas of a multi-family dwellings or attached residential development. 5. If the residential dwelling used for home cultivation of cannabis is leased, the resident must have written authorization from the property allowing the property to be used to cultivate cannabis. Written authorization must be filed with the Planning Director. 6. The use of compressed gases including, but not limited to butane, propane, and hexane, in the cultivation, production, growing and possessing of cannabis shall be prohibited. AUGUST 2021  4-14 Use Specific Standards Accessory Uses – Home Cultivation 7. Possession, growing and processing of cannabis plants must not be perceptible from the exterior of the primary residence or accessory structure, including, but not limited to: a) Common visual observation, including any form of signage; b) Unusual odors, smell, fragrances, or other olfactory stimulus; or c) Light pollution, glare, or brightness that disturbs the repose of another 8. Outdoor grow operations and home cultivation in a greenhouse are prohibited. 9. The incidental sale or distribution of any portions of the plant, product, or by-product associated with home cultivation is prohibited. AUGUST 2021  4-15 Conditional Use Criteria Conditional Use Criteria: Acceptable grounds for requesting and granting a conditional use permit are determined by the following criteria: The Board of Adjustment shall determine whether or not the proposed Conditional Use will be detrimental to the health, safety, ad general welfare of the City based on the following criteria: 1. The use will not have a significant adverse effect on the character and value of adjacent properties or the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The use will not create a hazard, a public nuisance, or be injurious to individuals or to the public. 3. The use will not generate unfavorable affects or impacts on other existing or permitted uses on abutting sites, including but not limited to, traffic congestion, noise, light, glare, erosion, odor or waste to the extent such impacts exceed those which reasonably may result from use of the site by a permitted use. 4. The use will not generate undue traffic congestion. 5. The use will not cause noise which is excessive for the area. 6. The use will not have a significant adverse effect on the natural environment and attractiveness of an area. 7. The use will not be contrary to the public interest. 8. The applicant will be able to meet any requirements specified for such a use in these Land Development Standards and any additional conditions that the board may impose. 9. The applicant will be able to meet all requirements imposed by applicable local, state and federal laws, regulations and licenses. 10. The use is consistent with the policies and recommendations of the adopted City Master Plan. AUGUST JULY 2021  4-16 Conditional Use Conditions Conditional Use Conditions of Approval: The Board of Adjustment may impose conditions that are found necessary to ensure that the use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity, and that the negative impact of the proposed use on the surrounding uses and public facilities is minimized. These conditions include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Limiting the hours, days, place and/or manner of operation; 2. Requiring site or architectural design features or systems which minimize environmental impacts such as noise, vibration, exhaust/emissions, light, glare, erosion, odor and/or dust; 3. Requiring waste disposal plans to ensure products are properly disposed and do not contribute to the deterioration of the environment from materializing in landfills. 4. Requiring larger setback areas, lot area, and/or lot depth or width; 5. Limiting the building height, size or lot coverage, and/or location on the site; 6. Designating the size, number, location and/or design of vehicle access points or parking areas; 7. Requiring street right-of-way to be dedicated and street(s), sidewalks, curbs, planting strips, pathways, or trails to be improved; 8. Requiring landscaping, screening, drainage, water quality facilities, and/or improvement of parking and loading areas; 9. Limiting the number, size, location, height and/or lighting of signs; 10. Limiting or setting standards for the location, design, and/or intensity of site lighting; 11. Requiring berms, screening or landscaping and the establishment of standards for their installation and maintenance; 12. Requiring and designating the size, height, location and/or materials for fences; 13. Requiring the dedication of sufficient land to the public, and/or construction of pedestrian/bicycle pathways in accordance with the adopted Transportation Safety Plan. 14. Such other conditions as will make possible orderly and efficient development in conformance to the City Master Plan and this LDS. AUGUST JULY 2021  4-17 Regulations Facing Potential Legal Challenges 1. Downtown prohibitions on any cannabis uses 2. 300’ distance requirements to uses other than schools and daycares, i.e. residential districts or uses, churches, and parks AUGUST JULY 2021  4-18 Recap of Changes 1. Changing cannabis consumption areas to an accessory use within the use table 2. Allowing home cultivation within MXC 3. Allowing retail sales of cannabis within the Downtown overlay, i.e. removing it from the prohibited list 4. Changing the permitted times for Retails sales and on-site consumption to match those of the County ordinance. 5. Adding residential uses to distance separation requirements 6. Adding language for instances when prohibited use, ie. residential or daycare etc., that moves within 300’ of cannabis use after it is in place 7. Requiring written permission when property is leased for home cultivation 8. Add a definition for secured building across manufacturing and cultivation AUGUST JULY 2021  4-19 Precedent Water Use Standards for Cannabis Related Facilities Ouray, CO Marijuana cultivation facilities are encouraged to use best practices to conserve energy and water and may use domestic water for irrigation when no other options are available. Applicants must demonstrate adequate water supply is available for irrigation. Hauled water will not be considered adequate water supply. Jackson County, OR The applicant shall provide a water right permit or certificate number; a statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used for production is from a source that does not require a water right. Okanogan County, WA Facility must have a lawful source of water: • from an irrigation district • if on a water right the use must be within the approved limits of the water right certificate • If on an exempt well, that the total for any project (whether one user on one or more properties or more than one user on a single parcel) not exceed exempt well limits (maximum appropriation of 5,000 gpd) and must be consistent with instream flow rules adopted in Chapter 173-548 WAC. AUGUST JULY 2021  4-20 Precedent Water Disposal Standards for Cannabis Facilities Roswell, NM Water reclamation plan required for businesses that handle water contaminated by cannabis and cannabis products to ensure water is not contaminated. Effluent disposal area plan required for businesses that dispose of water used on cannabis flowers and cannabis products. Plan shows the locations of existing or proposed wastewater management systems and effluent disposal areas; locations of any contamination and the location and dimensions of all effluent lines, effluent disposal methods, water pipes and drainage lines. Golden, CO Businesses shall not permit, allow, or cause to be discharged any substance or material prohibited by the city’s wastewater pretreatment requirements into or upon any watercourse or city reclamation conduit, facility, or plant. AUGUST JULY 2021  4-21 Recommended Water Standards for Cannabis Cultivation Facilities Recommendation- wait to determine how the State will handle water issues • The State is anticipated to cap the number of plants that can be grown based on water supply • Other agricultural uses don’t have similar provisions Alternative recommendation- add general language about water usage and reclamation. 1. Facilities must have a lawful source of water and adequate water supply to serve the site. 2. Facilities shall not permit, allow, or cause to be discharged any contaminating substance or material into or upon any watercourse or city reclamation conduit, facility, or plant. If standard 1 is added, how would adequate supply be determined by the City? Chapter 5: Industrial Water covers prohibited discharges, concerns could be addresses there AUGUST JULY 2021  4-22 Discussion & Questions? AUGUST JULY 2021  4-23 Thank you Denise Aten Jessica Lawlis daten@bhinc.com jessical@dpsdesign.org 303-799-5103 505-338-5709 AUGUST JULY 2021  4-24 AUGUST JULY 2021