Marijuana business regulations discussed by Palmer Planning and Zoning Commission

PALMER — Voters that reside within Palmer city limits passed a referendum in October that repealed the city’s ban on marijuana businesses.

In November, the Palmer Planning and Zoning Commission began discussion during committee on the whole about Informational Memorandum 21-001, a two-pronged approach to make changes to Palmer Municipal Code in order to begin licensing of marijuana cultivation, manufacturing, testing and retail facilities. At the November meeting, one person spoke in favor of the work being done by the Planning and Zoning Commission, but no meeting was held in December.

Jan. 21, PNZ again held discussion around regulation of marijuana business licensing after a staff report from Community Development Director Brad Hanson. There were two members of the public who spoke, and both were opposed to marijuana smells within city limits.

“Although I am not a resident of the city of Palmer, I am a property owner my family owns several pieces of property within the city limits of Palmer and although we don’t have a vote within the city of Palmer, I certainly have a voice,” said Janet Kincaid.

Kincaid has been doing business in the city of Palmer since 1976. Kincaid said that in the 1980’s, she helped create a tourist-friendly atmosphere in Palmer through her businesses.

“We have our own slogan, it’s Alaska as you imagined it to be. You get a lot of tourists in our business and when they are imagining Palmer it does not include pot shops, it certainly does not include marijuana growing, it does not include the smell. I urge you to give this some consideration,” said Kincaid. “I ask you to think about those things when you’re doing this ordinance. This is very important to the future image of our community.”

The citizens referendum that passed Palmer voters called for the legalization of all four types of marijuana business licensing within the city. Hanson presented members of PNZ with detailed analysis and research from what other Alaskan communities had done in response to marijuana business licensing. Hanson noted that the 108 page regulations from the state were exhaustive and incredibly strict on issues of safety and surveillance, odors and proximity to schools.

“Our approach when we took a look at this ordinance was to designate certain areas in the community in the city of Palmer on our zoning map that we could meet the intent of the referendum to legalize it in certain zones, and what we had come up with was the fact that we should permit the use after much discussion with neighboring communities, permit the use in Commercial General for retail, and for manufacturing, for cultivation and for testing, to permit that in the industrial zones and the agricultural zones. We don’t have many ag zones in the city. It was a zoning district that was created with the anticipation that there might be some annexation in the future about 10 yrs ago,” said Hanson. “Our idea here is that we’re going to amend title 17 the land use part with the permitted use element of the marijuana and then also amend schools in title 17 and implement in title 5, which is licensing, some of the standards for marijuana businesses. So that’s kind of the two-pronged approach we’ve taken.”

Hanson noted that the third prong of the approach for legislating marijuana business licensing was to determine an amount for taxation. Marijuana is taxed at five percent in the Mat-Su Borough and would only face the three percent retail tax in Palmer without further changes. Hanson noted that due to exhaustive regulation from the Alaska Marijuana Control Office, the most difficult decision would likely be on how to properly define schools. Marijuana businesses as regulated by the state must have a 500 foot buffer zone between churches, jails, schools and other youth recreation centers, to which Hanson suggested that child care centers were also added. Planning and Zoning Commissioner Linda Combs expressed her concern about the use of marijuana in public spaces in Palmer. Hanson also noted the section in Palmer Municipal Code that permits a $100 fine for individuals ingesting marijuana products on public spaces.

“Marijuana is addressed really in three places in our code. Chapter five addresses it from licensing, chapter eight addresses it from a nuisance and a health and safety standpoint. Consuming marijuana in the city of Palmer is an illegal activity, it’s under 8.11.030 and then the last place that it would be and needs to be implemented is in title 17 allowing its use in some form of a district and so I do want you to alert yourself to ch 8.11 on consumption of marijuana in a pub place is illegal,” said Hanson.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Sabrina Shelton noted the imminent changes to zoning in downtown Palmer that could take effect shortly. Hanson presented at the January 5 meeting of the Palmer City Council a plan to amend zoning in downtown to create a Central Business District, which would alter the areas where marijuana businesses could potentially operate. The changes to Title 17 that would create a Central Business District will appear before the council on Feb. 9 for introduction and Feb. 23 for public hearing.

“In the consideration of these zoning districts as far as the implementation of where these uses should be allowed, our main criteria was to identify the intent of each individual district and considering marijuana is asked by the citizens as a legal activity in some form whether it’s permitted or conditional, it’s a legal activity. It needs to fit in the appropriate zoning district,” said Hanson. “That’s why the commercial general site was determined to be a fit. That was probably most appropriate for the city.”

Members of PNZ became concerned with the possibility of large, fluorescent signage. The limit for signs attached to buildings is 4,800 square inches and must be at least 1,000 feet from a child centered facility.

“I think the city has enough signage regulation already and I mean we kind of can always potentially attach more to that,” said Commissioner Shelton. “As far as the usage in the two zones that have been recommended, those are the best zones that we have within the city to see those two businesses because I feel like If we limited it to strictly industrial there would be some kickback form the public because that is not what the public wanted.”

Hanson fielded numerous questions about the possibility for on-site consumption, which he received guidance from AMCO on. Hanson said that permits for on-site consumption would be applied to as an additional endorsement on a retail license. Hanson said that AMCO takes into consideration the local governing body’s wishes on licensing new businesses or renewing licenses for existing businesses.

“Our referendum passed with all four being allowed in the city, so we don’t have the option to restrict any of those four but we do have the ability with our lawyers confirmation, the ability to limit on site and so that would be one part that if you elected to prohibit on site, that would be something that you would need to research and get confirmation from the attorney that the endorsement is something that we can prohibit,” said Hanson. “On-site consumption endorsements are not an approved use in the city and so that was my proposal, that we not allow those. The letter from AMCO today that I was talking about indicated that cities do have that ability.”

IM 21-001 was postponed until the next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on Feb 18 at City Hall.

“It seems like a lot of the complaints are involving people using marijuana in public,” said Commissioner Josh Tudor. “I’m having a hard time seeing this is really going to impact that. Marijuana is sold so closely to where we are.”