Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

was pleasantly surprised how smooth a ride it was. Of course, it was beautiful day, too. About a week away from being an instructor. plane or helicopter. My son's gonna be a helicopter instructor. Wow. Cool. Yeah, I went for a ride with Arlin Hansen. That was a fun time.

Pretty good. He is good. I mean, we were hovering looking at weed about this far off the ground and he is It is 6 o'clock and I call the April 7, 2026 regular meeting of the Franklin County Planning Commission meeting to order. Will planning staff call role and announce whether or not we have a quorum. Mike Corales here. Mike Vincent here. Remy Daru here. Mark Dutder here. Manny Gutierrez, Stacy Knifton here, Joel Prantle here.

Uh, chairman, we have a quorum. Thank you. I will now lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda for tonight's meeting. So moved. Second. It has been moved by Commissioner Knifton and seconded by Commissioner Vincent. All in favor signify by saying I.

I. Motion P. All All opposed. Motion passes. I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes from the March 3rd, 2026 meeting. So moved. Second. Second. Has been moved by Commissioner Dutder and seconded by Commissioner Vincent. All in favor signify by saying I. I. All opposed. Motion passes. Will staff in attendance please introduce yourselves? Wes Mccard, director. Sam Elby, planner one. Jim Bellammore, planner two.

It is now time for the public hearing portion of our meeting. Good evening and welcome. Here are the ground rules for tonight's hearing. One, in-person public testimony will go first. Each person will be called upon to speak during their allotted in-person public testimony section. Please state your name for the record. Two, emailed comments received during the public hearing will be read into the record by staff after the in-person test testimony section of the hearing. Three, all comments shall be addressed to the planning commission and should be relevant to the application. Four, each speaker shall have five minutes to provide testimony and shall speak into the microphone. Five, please avoid repetitive comments. Six, please be respectful of each speaker. Avoid personal attacks or disruptive behavior. Are there any questions regarding the public hearing ground rules? Turning for a moment to our commissioner members. Let us keep in mind that we are prohibited by law from communicating with members of the public on the subject matter of these hearings except in these hearings. We also may not participate in a decision in which there is an appearance of conflict of interest to the average person. So let us take a minute to consider as to the matters which are before us for hearing today. Whether we have had any exparte communications, whether we have any ownership interests in the properties, whether we have any business dealings with proponents or opponents of the matters, or whether we have business associates or immediate family who may be either benefited or harmed by decision in these matters. Are there any commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda?

I guess I I I know Mary Reeve on the one and I know Robbie Clyde on the other one, but I don't feel like I need to recuse myself.

Okay. Is there anyone in the audience this evening who would object to any commission member hearing any of these items on the agenda? Let the record show there were no objections. The order of the hearing shall be as follows. Planning staff shall provide a staff report. Commission may ask questions of staff. The applicant or applicants representatives. Presentation. Inperson public testimony. Email public testimony read into the record by staff. Final staff comments. Closing the public testimony. And planning commission discussing the proposed action. Are there any procedural questions before we begin the public hearing? Uh, Commissioner Crow, I should mention the the one for Big Ben Electric. I'm the chairman of Big Ben Electric of the board.

So, I probably should recuse myself on that one. Forgot about that one. Will that still be a quorum? Yes. Yeah, there's four.

Okay. Item one is a public hearing for ZC 2026-2 SEIPA 2026-3 field reszone. The proposal is to reszone 19 parcels owned by the same property owner with a total size of 107.9 acres from RC5 to RC1. This proposed zone change is consistent with Franklin County comprehensive designation as rural shoreline development. I declare public hearing for ZC 2026-2 SEPA 2026-3 to be open at 605. May we have staff present the staff report please?

Good evening commissioners. I will present um ZC 2026-2 SEPA 2026-3 field family farm reszone. The current site is uh the current site does not have any address. As you can see up there, there are a total of 19 different parcels. All of the parcels are contiguous and um right next to each other. The current zoning is RC5 and it is currently in the rural shoreline development lammer type one and the total approximate size is 107.9 acres. Here is the general location of the site. The request is to reszone the 19 parcels from RC5 to RC1. Here is the vicinity map. Um this is the location of the total of 19 parcels. They're all right next to each other and owned by the same um property owner which is Field Family Farms. The applicant submitted the reszone application on behalf of the property owner which is Field Family Farms and the request is to reszone from RC5 to RC1. Parcels directly north of this area have already been reszone to RC1. The parcels north is the recently preliminarily approved Cherrywood planned unit development. The parcels to the west of the area have already been developed and are zoned RC1. Parcels to the south of this area are also zoned RC1. Here's the current site and the surrounding zoning. These blue um colors on the map are all zoned RC5. But as as you can see, this one up here is the Cherrywood development. All the green surrounding that is already zoned RC1.

So reszoning this will not cause any spot zoning. The parcel is not located in natural resource designated lands or considered altex land per the Franklin County um comprehensive plan maps. The comprehensive plan also shows that the area within the county that have that have been designated as lamard. This current par these parcels are currently located in the rural shoreline development lamard. This is the Columbia River West area where which is considered the rural shoreline development lamard and it is located up here. So it's already in a lamard. On March 11, 2026, we issued a SEPA determination of non-significance or DNS. Um the comments were due on March 26, 2026 and it was posted on the ecologies website under sea number 202600972. The Planning and Economic Development Department received no comments from surrounding property owners and residents within the county. Franklin County Public Works commented on March 25th, 2026, mentioning that any new lots that may be created as a result of this proposed zone change will require access to County Road. Um they're subject to the county road approach policy. uh requirements include required permits, approach construction, minimum decide standards, etc. A mitigation fee has been established for development accessing the Columbia River Road. So, if there are any new uh lots being created by this zone change, which this zone change will not

create any new lots since this isn't a subdivision. Um the per lot fee is $500. It is recommended that any future development of these parcels have limited a access access to the current county roads. Access from individual lot shall not be permitted. Limited access will help reduce conflict points and potential accidents on these roads. These are the recommended findings of fact. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. It is currently in the rural shoreline development lamard type one under Columbia River West Lamard. Reszoning the parcel from RC5 to RC1 is consistent with the underlying comprehensive plan designation. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not materially will not be materially detrimental. The surrounding properties are also within the Columbia River West Lamard where rural community uses exist. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. Reszoning the property to RC1 will allow these lots to be subdivided in the future into smaller launch lots which will support housing needs within the county. Conditions will not be required uh will not be required to be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. Even though public works did uh provide comments, there is currently no project action or subdivision action regarding these lots. So um the comment from public works will apply in the future should they choose to subdivide uh the properties. A conccommatant agreement is not being entered into uh between the county and the petitioner. Here is the suggested motion. I move to forward zone change 202602 SEPA 202603 to the board of county commissioners with a positive

recommendation based on the five suggested findings of fact. Thank you. Thank you. Does any commissioner have any questions of staff? I have a question. Um I'm trying to align myself with this. I know where this area is. You have Columbia River Road coming into and going down along the river, right? Yes.

And then you got Panoramic Drive up on the top, which is a new road that is on that new development on the edge of the slope right there. Is there any egress or ingress other than how's this site going to be accessed? Yeah. So, currently there actually is no ingress or egress other than um this is helm uh helm drive. So, since this is owned by the same property owner, they have been um using it as a farm. Technically, they should have individual ingress and egress for each of these lots, but they were bought by the same property owner. And I believe historically this has been segregated when the county originally had the segregation process to be 5 acres. They're already existing lots. Um we don't have any previous short plats or subdivision records of any of these. We actually don't have any records of any surveys at all for th this property area right here because it's been done way way way back then.

Yeah. So that's the esquazle that comes in on the north end of the of the development, right? Yes. So once um they do uh since the zone change currently isn't a project action and changing the zone will not cause any new development or anything involving um new lots being created or anything involving roads. um we are not recommending any conditions but once they do a project action such as a short plat or a long subdivision let's say a PUD on this area then that's the point that we will require access for all of these lots

right so this is just a preliminary meeting and then go to the next step would be to more definitive as far as yes flat short flat yes gotcha Okay, thanks. Doesn't look like there's a representative here. Uh, is there any in-person public testimony? No. Email testimony? Uh, no, Mr. Chairman. There is not. Does staff have any final comments? No final comments. Chairman,

I will I will entertain a motion to close the public comment. Close public comment. Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Daroo and seconded by Commissioner Darder. All in favor signify by saying I. I.

All oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. Public testimony portion of the public hearing ZC 2026-2 SEPA 2026-3 is closed. Is there any discussion from the planning commission members? I will entertain a motion move to forward ZC206-02 SEPA 2026-3 to the board of county commissioners with the positive recommendation based on the five suggested findings of fact.

Second. It has been moved by Commissioner Daru and seconded by Commissioner Knifton that we move to forward ZC 2026-2 SEPA 2026-3 to the board of county commissioners with positive recommendation based on the five suggested findings of fact. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, may we have a roll call vote? Mike Corales. Yes. Mike Vincent, yes. Remy Daru, yes. Mark Derder, yes. Stacy Knifton, yes. Mr. Chairman, the motion has passed. Thank you.

Uh Joel Prantle, yes. On the second page. Sorry. I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing on item one. I move to close the public hearing on item one. Second. Been moved by Commissioner Knifton, seconded by Commissioner Vincent. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. All oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. Public hearing is closed. Item number two.

Mr. Chairman, if I can just interrupt. Uh, we have a commissioner on here who said he needed to recuse himself. Uh if anyone in the room wants him to leave, I think it would be appropriate to ask that question um before you start the hearing. Is anyone want Stacy to leave? Okay, you can stay.

Item two. Item two is a public hearing for CUP 2026-1 sea 2026-1 BBEC electrical substation. This proposal is to construct and interconnect a new substation to replace the aging BBEC scutney substation. The approximate footprint of the electrical substation yard is 300 by 200. The control building we will be approximately 10 by 30. This proposal is adjacent to two existing substations BBEC Scutney substation and BPA scutney substation. BPA and WS do DOT have conditionally approved the interconnect of the proposed structures to existing power lines and roadway in the areas. The site will be grubbed, cleared, and graded. an estimated 2245 cubic yards of cut and 21410 cy cubic yards of fill is part of this proposal. Top soil stripping is estimated at 4,410 cubic yards or 12 in depth of stripping. The existing BBEC scutney substation on the adjacent parcel will also be demolished. I declare the public hearing for CU 2026-1, SEPA 2026-1 to be open at 619. May we have staff present the staff report, please?

Good evening, commissioners. I will present CU 2026-1 SIBA 2026-1 for the Big Ben Camp electric electrical substation. Currently, there is no situs address. The parcel number is 124300373. The zoning is AP20 and comp plan designation is agricultural. The site is approximately 4.84 acres. Um I won't read the site description since it was mentioned earlier. Uh the vicinity map, this is where it's located. It's in the corner of um State Route SE 17 and State Route 260. The substation design included widened face-to-face spacing to reduce incidence of animal contact with energized electrical parts. Electrical equipment connections will be covered with industry standard wildlife coverup to prevent animal shock or electrocution in the event of contact. Here is the proposed um location for the substation and the two existing substations. This is where they're proposing to put the camp electrical substation accessing from state route 260 and also access from state route 17 which is already existing. This is their current existing um scutin electrical substation and this is the one that's uh once they interconnect to this BPA scutiny substation they are going to demolish this substation since it's already old. Here is the proposed site plan. Like I mentioned, this is where they are putting the new electrical substation and this is the substation that they are planning on demolishing

under FCC 17104E. Power plants, pumping plants, substations, and sub uh and transmission lines are considered conditional uses under the AP20 zoning district, which this proposed project will be located on. Since the surrounding property already has existing substation infrastructure and one of the existing substations will be demolished as part of this proposed development. The construction of this new substation is being conducted in harmony and the existing character of the general general vicinity. On March 12, 2026, the county issued a DNS comments were due on March 26, 2026. It was posted on the ecologies website under sea number 2026000971. The department received no comments from surrounding property owners and residents within the county. The department of ecology commented on the 25th under their water quality program. They are requiring a storm water prevent pollution prevention plan for the project site and then they're requiring proper disposal disposal of construction debris under their hazardous waste program. They mentioned that the construction and demolition of uh could potentially contain dangerous waste and they are recommending the testing of the waste to help identify any potential hazardous substances and if any of those are found then they need to uh they need to dispose of them properly. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife commented on March 26, 2026. They mentioned that they did a roadside visit on March 20th, 2026. The project involves the con construction and inter connection of a

new substation. They they mentioned that this site is composed of shrubstep habitat that contains potential habitat for multiple state priority species including Washington ground squirrel and blacktailed jack rabbit. They also mentioned that the site is within Virgin's hawk core habitat area with an active nest in very close proximity to the site. They offered the following recommendations. Um they mentioned WDFW's management recommendations for priority species of fenous hawks which re strongly recommends avoidance of impacts to shrubep habitat. If avoidance of impacts to shrubstep habitat is not possible, they recommend minim min minimization of the project footprint. And they also recommended mitigation ratios in their comment. Um 3:1 if done within 10 kilometers of the project site or 5:1 if mitigation is done within more than 10 kilometers from the project site. They mentioned um to protect the active fragous hawk nest in close vicinity all work should be avoided during nesting season which is March to July. They mentioned that many other bird locals local to the area or act are as well as active nests are listed as protected wildlife and they recommend to avoid impacts to protected species. Franklin County GIS E911 commented that this utility substation will get a new address of 7520 State Route 260 West. Here are the recommended findings of fact. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, maps, and or narrative text of the comp plan. The comp plan designation of the site is

agricultural. The county zoning is AP20. The construction of proposed electrical substation is a conditional use under Franklin County 17104E. The location of the proposed big band camp station is in a parcel that is not considered altex land. The proposal will not adversely affect public infrastructure. Access to the proposed site will be from state se state route 17 and state route 260. BPA and WASHDOT have conditionally approved the interconnection of the proposed structures to existing power lines and roadways in the area. The proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. The surrounding parcels or properties have existing electrical substations which are the Big Bend Scrutiny substation and the BPA scutiny substation. Once this new substation has been constructed and interconnected, the aging Big Ben Scutney substation will be demolished. The location and height of this the proposed structures and site design will not discourage development of permitted uses on the area in the general vicinity or imperative value thereof. All structures will be at or below maximum building height of the AP20 zoning district which is 35 ft. The operation in connection with the proposal will not be more ob objectionable to near nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses in the district. Access from existing wash approved entrance. There is currently an application for a new entrance from state route 260 as shown on the site plan. The project will not

be served by public transit. The expected vehicle trips are at one to two per month for site monitoring. The site the proposal will not endanger endanger the public health or safety if located and develop or proposed or in any way will become a nuisance to users permitted in the district. The project is subject to the county's right to farm ordinance. The substation design included widened face-to-face spacing to reduce incidents of animal contact with energized electrical plants. Electrical equipment connections will be covered with industry standard wildlife cover up to prevent animal shock or electrocution in the event of contact. The site will be surrounded by chainlink fence with restricted access for humans and animals. Here are the suggested conditions of approval. comply with the requirements of Washington Department of Ecology. A storm water pollution prevention plan for the project may be required and should be developed by qualifi a qualified person. Erosion and sediment control measures in the plan must be implemented prior to any clearing grading or construction. Proper disposal of construction debris must be in such a manner that debris cannot enter the natural storm water drainage system or cause water quality degradation of surface waters. Applicant may be required to sample and test waste generated to determine whether there are dangerous waste once scoutiny substation is demolished. Comply with the requirements of Franklin County GIS E911 addressing. This utility substation will get a new address of 7520 state route 260 west. Um, as you can see, would not include Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's comments because we did um Wes the planning director did a site visit today and has identified that there was no

significant amount of shrub step that needs to be mitigated on the site. Um the third condition would be comply with requirements of Franklin County Planning and Economic Development. Best management practices are required to minimize dust during construction such as watering the site in accordance with Franklin County's clean air dust control ordinances. The app shall meet and complied with all the necessary air and water quality standards required by the Department of Ecology. Storm water shall be retained on site during and after construction. An erosion control plan shall be in place during construction. Development shall avoid disturbance of fenous hawk breeding sites where feasible should disturbance of active breeding habitats and nesting sites be unavoidable. Consultation with WDFW shall occur prior to ground disturbance. The project shall implement a an S swP in accordance with the Department of Ecologies storm water management guidelines. An inadvertent discovery plan shall be prepared and implemented for the project through all phases. Electrical equipment connections shall be covered with industry standard wildlife coverup to prevent animal shock or electrocution in the event of contact. A spill prevention control countermeasures plan is required due to mineral oil being present on site. The site shall be surrounded by chainlink fence with restricted access for humans or animals. Before construction of any structure, a Franklin County building permit application shall be submitted to the department. Any movement of soil more than 50 cubic yards outside of county road shall require a Franken County grading permit. Before demolition of any structures, a Franklin County demolition permit shall be submitted to the department. All structures shall comply with

standards of the current state and currently adopted international building codes. Any deviation from the submitted plans shall be submitted to the department for review. Outdoor lighting will be shielded and required. Any discontinuence or abandonment of the permit in for a period of one year will will make this cup approval null and void. Any uses for the proposed development other than the use shall deem this conditional use permit null and void. The site shall be maintained at all times to not become a fire hazard or accumulate debris and weeds. They shall compi shall comply with the Franklin County fire code. They shall comply with the right to farm ordinance. If there are any archaeological materials or human remains, they are they are required to immediately immediately stop and report to DAP. Any future expansion or improvements shall comply with the submitted and approved plans and any incidental changes may be administratively approved by the planning director. Any major changes will require a new conditional use permit prior to any change occurring. Nothing in the cup shall be construed as excusing them from any federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations. Any special permit may be revoked by the board of county commissioners if it is found that conditions are not met. The permit applies to the lands and to the above mentioned individuals and his or her heirs or assigns and any changes can be uh needs to be reported to the department or the permit will be cancelled by accepting the issuance of the permit. The permit holder agrees to accept full

responsibilities for any negligence or any issues that may happen on the site. Here is the suggested motion. I move to forward CU 2026-01 CPA 2026 D-01 to the board of county commissioners with a positive recommendation based on the six suggested findings of fact and 15 conditions of approval. Thank you. Does any commissioner have any questions of staff? Does the applicant or applicants representative wish to speak or give a presentation here? Not here. Is there any email public testimony?

Uh, no, Mr. Chairman, there's not. Does staff have any final comments? No final comments. I will enter.

Mr. Mr. Chairman, I I would like to have a comment, please. Um, related to the fish and wildlife. I went out there today and I looked at the site and I took pictures of the site and where the site's going to be. This is pasture. There's there's garbage out there. There's cowpies all over. It's mainly grass. There is a handful of what you would consider shrubs out there. it is located to next to uh you know a pretty good area but um part of it is I I don't see any reason at all to take fish and wildlife's comments into consideration based on the mitigation ratios they have. We've never received mitigation rates more than 2:1. they're asking for two to one and or three to one and five to one um for something that I've seen shrubstep where they recommend nothing uh that's in much better condition than what that is. Um so that's why we're not recommending any mitigation for that that piece. I just want to put that on the record.

Thank you. I will entertain a motion to close the public comment. So moved. Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Dutder and seconded by Commissioner Daroo. All in favor signify by saying I. I.

All oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. The public portion of the public hearing for CU 2026-1 SEPA 2026-1 is closed. Is there any discussion from the planning commission members? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Chairman, I move to forward CU 20226-01 SEPA 2026-01 to the board of county commissioners with a positive recommendation based on six suggested findings of fact and 15 conditions of approval.

Second. It has been moved by Commissioner Vincent, seconded by Commissioner Corales to move forward CU 2026-1, SEIPA 2026-1 to the board of county commissioners with positive recommendation based based on the six findings of fact and 15 conditions of approval. Is there any discussion?

I got just a question about what would initiate uh fish and wildlife to give such a burdensome comment on that particular piece of ground. I don't understand that commissioner. I don't understand it either. That's why I went out there and looked. Um, you know, we we we try our due diligence to to do things in the office. I mean, we looked at the maps we have on QGIS. We we look at Google Earth. Uh you know, we didn't really see anything that would put a red flag in there that this is really shrubstep habitat. Um I had a meeting in uh Connell today, so I took the opportunity to just go ahead and drive out there and look. Under our current code, it is um my responsibility as the director to determine whether or not a critical areas report would be necessary. And uh you know I I took probably what about 20 pictures. I walked the entire site today uh with my building official Mike. And you know there's some shrub step like I said there's some shrubs right there along the power lines but not really within the footprint of this. And uh I've been on other sites. Uh you've approved before. Uh the reman project that you guys had had a little bit of shrub step on it. There was no mention of any mitigation on it. We went out to the city of Pasco's site. Um Jem and I and one other staff member went out there and looked at that site and you know there was one acre of mitigation at 160 acres. Uh I will tell

you that entire 160 acres had more habitat than what I saw today on any acre of it than what I saw on this particular site. There was just no reason for it. Um, and without any scientific information to back up his comments, I see no reason to require them to do a critical areas report. Those typically cost about 20 grand to do. Um, not opposed to doing that just because of the cost, but I think it's totally unnecessary.

The department didn't actually visit the site. They just looked at the proposal. I'm not going to tell you that they didn't visit it. Okay. Okay. Any more discussion? May we have a roll call vote, please? Mike Corales, yes. Mike Vincent, yes. Remy Daroo, yes. Mark Dutder, yes. Stacy Knifton. Oh, apologies. Uh Joel Printle, yes. Chairman, the motion is passed.

Thank you. I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing on item two. So moved. Second. Okay, you guys need to knock that off one D at a time. I was going to say that we're missing the table. It's been moved by Commissioner Dutder and seconded by Commissioner Daroo. All in favor signify by saying I.

I. All oppose, same sign. Motion passes. Public hearing is closed. Item three is public hearing for ZC 2026-3 SEPA 2026-5 Clyde reszone. The proposal is a reszone is to reszone a 5.1 acre parcel from RC5 to RC1. This proposed zone change is consistent with Franklin County Comprehensive Plan designation as a rural shoreline development. I declare the public hearing for ZC 2026-3 SEPA 2026-5 to be open at 6:40. May we have staff present the staff report, please?

Good evening, commissioners. This is zone change 2026-3 SEPA 2026-5 for the Clyde reszone. It is currently located on 290 Larks Road, Pasco, Washington. Currently zoned RC5 and it is located in the rural shoreline development Lambert type one. The current property is approximately 5 acres in size. Here is the location description. Um the proposal is to reszone it from RC5 to RC1. Here is the location of the property right here. As you can see, there is already an existing home on the property. The applicant submitted a reszone application on be uh not on behalf the the the applicant submitted a reszone application for one parcel from RC5 to RC1. Parcel parcel directly north of the area has already been reszoned to RC1. parcels south of it is in the Cherrywood plane unit development and on the west of the area have already been developed and zoned as RC1. Here is the site on the west and on the east side it's already zoned RC1. This is where Cherrywood is. This is just a little bit north of the one that we did earlier. So this is the Cherrywood PUD. This is already RC1 and all the surrounding areas is already zoned RC1. It is currently in the comp plan designation of um the rural shoreline development lamard type one and like I mentioned earlier it is this one the Columbia River West area lamurred.

On March 11, 2026, a SEIPA DNS was issued for the project. Comments were due on March 26th. It was posted on Ecology's website under SIPA 202600985. We did receive one comment from um a neighboring property for regarding this project. It was from Mr. Brian Freeman received on March 16th, 2026. He owns the property located at 271 Larksburg Road directly across from this property to the east and they are writing to expressed he is writing to express his support for the proposed zone change at 290 Lurksburg Road. We received a comment from public works that an approach permit is required for access um and any utility extens ext extensions crossing Franklin County roads will be addressed at the time of application. Here are the recommended findings of fact. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the comp plan. It is in the rural shoreline development lamard. Reszoning it from RC5 to RC1 is consistent with the underlying comprehensive plan designation. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. The surrounding properties are also within the Columbia River West Lamard where rural community uses exist. There is merit and value in the proposal for the for the community as a whole. Reszoning it to RC1 will allow these lots to be subdivided into smaller lots. Conditions will not be required to be imposed in order to mitigate any significant impact. Um the comment from public works will apply if there is any future development. And like I mentioned earlier, this is a non-p project action. So they are not currently doing anything that will

require an access um an approach permit or any utility extension um crossing agreements. A concommmitant agreement is not being entered into between the county and the petitioner. Here is the suggested motion. I move to forward zone change 2026 03 SEPA 202605 to the board of county commissioners with a positive recommendation based on the five suggested findings of fact. Thank you.

Thank you. Does any commissioner have questions for staff? Does the applicant or applicants representative wish to speak? No. Is there any in-person public testimony, email? No, Mr. Chairman, there's not. Does staff have any final comments? No final comments. I will entertain a motion to close the public comment. I'll move to close the public comment.

Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Knifton and seconded by Commissioner Dutder. All in favor signify by saying I. I. All oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. The public testimony portion of the public hearing of ZC 2026-3 SEPA 2026-5 is closed. Is there any discussion from planning commission members? I will entertain a motion.

I move to forward ZC 2026-03/IEPA 2026-05 to the board of county commissioners with a positive recommendation based on the five suggested findings of fact. I'll second that. Been moved by Commissioner Derutder and seconded by Safe Commissioner Knifton that we forward ZC 2026-3 SEPA 2026-5 to the board of county commissioners with a positive recommendation based on the five suggested findings of fact. Is there any discussion? May we have a roll call vote? Mike Corales?

Yes. Mike Vincent? Yes, Remy Daru. Yes, Mark Dutder. Yes, Stacy Knifton. Yes, Joel Prantle. Yes. Mr. Chairman, the motion has passed. Thank you. I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing on item number three. So moved. Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Daroo and seconded by Commissioner Vincent. All in favor signify by saying I.

I. All oppose. Same sign. Hearing is closed. Okay. Item four is a public hearing for CUP 2026-2 reevu. The request is to allow for the construction of a detached accessory dwelling unit to provide sufficient housing for the applicant to care for their aging parents. The D A DU is approximately 1600 feet in living space. I declare the public hearing for CUP 2026-2 to be open at 6:48. May we have staff present the staff report, please?

Good evening, chairman. The address for the site is um West Fur Road in Pascal, Washington, partial number 123170103. uh zoned as uh AP20. Uh comp plan designation is agricultural. The approximate uh size of the site is 4.10 acres. Uh you can I'll pause a moment for you to read the location in section township and range. If you'd like, the property is generally located north of Elm Road, east of Furl Lane, south of West Fur Road, and west of Taylor Flats Road in unincorporated Franklin County. The conditional use permanent application is to for to allow for the construction of a detached accessory dwelling unit to provide for sufficient housing for the applicant to care for their aging relatives. The ADU is approximately 1,600 square ft. This is roughly the vicinity of the uh site. Uh the applicant has also provided a site plan showing the location of the existing house, garage and parking, the D-ADU, the new septic tank, proposed uh the proposed water line, and the lot dimensions. Here is said site plan. uh planning analysis shows that the purpose of the detached accessory dwelling unit under Franken County code uh is for the care of aged parents, aged relatives, disabled children or disabled relatives. Per the applicants uh detailed narrative, the DAD will house family to assist in the care of relatives. This proposal is consistent with the overall intent of the AP20 zone and the requirements for detached accessory dwelling units. Perview of the surrounding properties, there exists detached accessory structures, including detached shops and/or garages in the immediate vicinity. The approval of the DADU on the site is consistent with the built environment of the surrounding properties of the neighborhood. Proposed use is in accordance with the goals and policies of Frank County

comprehensive plan. Staff received no public comments during the notice period. Uh public works has uh comment that we received on March 27th. uh public works has concluded that the proposed use will not have a significant impact on the county road system. They have the following general comments regarding uh approach per being required and uh any utility extension crossing Franklin County roads will be addressed at the time of application. Uh our agency comment uh Franklin County planning economic development. Uh we have determined the following suggested findings and recommended conditions for the application request. Should the planning commission move forward a positive recommendation to the board of county commissioners for the construction of a DADU or Frank County building permit application shall be submitted to the Franken County Planning Economic Development Department. The DADU shall comply with the standards of the current state and 2021 International Building Code. The DADU shall not be sold separately from the primary dwelling unit or other existing structures on the property. Application will need to follow the provisions of uh FCC uh 17.66.060. 060. Uh, any deviations from the submitted site plan or building plan shall be submitted to the Franklin County Planning and Economic Development Department for review. Suggested findings of fact number one, the proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the county deter development regulations parentheses zoning of the and the applicable comprehensive plan. The Frank County comprehensive land use designation is agricultural. The uh county zoning code designates this land as AP20. The construction of a DADU requires a conditional use permit. Uh the applicant has applied for a conditional use permit. Uh number two, the proposal will not adversely uh affect public infrastructure. Uh Fre County Public Works has determined that the uh proposed use will not have a significant

impact on the county road system. Number three, the proposal will be constructed, maintained, and operated in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. The existing and intendal character of the area is AP20. Uh the proposed DADU will not generate excessive traffic, noise or light, nor interfere with residential or agricultural activities. Proposed DAD will not have a negative impact on the intended character and general vicinity of surrounding properties. Number four, the location and height uh of the proposed structure in site design will not discourage the development of permitted use on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof. Uh the pro DAU shall not exceed the maximum building height of an accessory building in the AP20 zoning district uh which has a maximum building height of 35 ft. Uh number five, the operation in connection with the proposal will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of uh noise, fumes, vibrations as traffic or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district. Number six, the proposal will not endanger the public health safety or general welfare if located where proposed. The proposed DAD will not have a negative impact on public health safety and general welfare. The DAD is required to comply with health district and public works regarding health and access safety standards for the proposed use. Suggested conditions of approval are number one uh that it needs to comply with the requirements of Franklin County Public Works as stated before and approach permit is required for access to Franklin County roads. Uh per the county road approach policy requirements include required permits, approach construction, minimum design standards, etc. per Franken County design standards for the construction of roads and bridges. Uh, additionally, any utility extension crossing Franklin County roads will be addressed at the time of application.

Number two, um, it must comply with the requirements of Franken County Planning and Building Department. Uh, for the construction of the DADU, a Franken County building permit application shall be submitted to the Franken County Planning and Building Department. Uh B, the DADU shall comply with the standards of the current state in 2021 IBC. C the DADU shall not be sold separately from the primary dwelling unit or other existing structures on the property. D application will need to follow the provision of Franken County Code Chapter 17.66.060 uh ADU uh- detached. Uh e any deviations from the submitted site plan or building plan shall be submitted to the Franklin County Planning and Building Department for review. Number three, outdoor lighting at the proposed DAU and all existing structure shall be shielded down. This will assist in ensuring that outdoor lighting will not become a nuisance to neighboring properties and will limit light pollution in the rural area. Four, any discontinuence or abandonment of proposed use D-ADU for a period of one year shall make this conditional use permit null and void. Five, any use of the proposed DADU for purposes other than the proposed uh than the approved use shall deem this conditional use permit null and void. Uh six, the site shall be maintained at all times as to not let the land become a fire hazard or accumulate with debris and weeds. Seven uh shall comp comply with the Franken County Fire Code as expressed in Franken County Code Chapter 8.40 8 right to farm applicant shall be aware that this facility is located in an area where farming and farm operations exist. Further to assist in preserving the right of farmers to operate utilizing accepted and appropriate farming practices, the county has adopted Franken County right to farm ordinance as amended. At no time shall a farm operation or accessory farm related enterprise such as crop dusting operation or air distributes be deemed to be a public or private nuisance as it

relates to the activities associated with this land use proposal. Number nine, should archaeological materials uh such as bone, shell, beads, ceramic, old bottles, hearths, etc. or human remains be observed uh during project activities all work in the immediate vicinity shall stop. the state department of archaeology and historic preservation, the Franken County uh planning, any building department, the affected tribes and uh county corner, if applicable, shall be contracted immediately in order to assess the situation and determine how to preserve the resources. Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to archaeological resources is required. Number 10. Future expansions and improvements of the site shall comply with the submitted and approved plans to allow for future flexibility. Changes to the plans which are determined to be minor or incidental may be made administratively by the planning department. Major changes which do not meet with the intent of or seriously rely on the approved plan shall be re-reviewed by the planning commission through a new conditional use permit prior to that change occurring. Number 11. Nothing in the CP shall be construed as excusing the applicant from compliance with any federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations applicable to this project. Number 12, in accordance with the county's zoning code, any special permit may be revoked by board of county commissioners. If after a public hearing, it is found that the conditions upon which the special permit was authorized have not been fulfilled or if the use authorized has changed in size, scope, nature, or intensity is to become a detriment to the surrounding area. The decision of the board is final. Number 13. This permit all applies to the lands described and shall be for the abovementioned individual and or his heirs and or assigns. Any transferring of this permit will require that notice be granted to the Franken County Planning and Building Department or the permit will be cancelled. Once granted, the permit cannot be transferred to another site. Number 14. By accepting the issuance of this permit, the permit holders agree to accept full responsibility for any and all operations conducted or negligence occurring at this location and any

incidences that occur on surrounding properties caused by operations or negligence at this location. Permit holders further agree to indenify and hold the county harmless and agree that the county is in no way negligent in relation to granting this permit or operations or negligence on this property. Permit holders further agree to accept full responsibility for any future cleanup needed due to activities conducted that this location may impact uh that impact surrounding properties and obtaining and retaining appropriate insurance coverage. Suggested motion is I move to forward CP 2026-02 to the board of county commission with a positive recommendation based on the six suggested findings of fact and 14 conditions of approval.

Thank you. Does any commissioner have any questions of staff question? Uh item four, the discontinuence after a year and define dis does that mean that if you don't have someone in that unit for a year is discontinued or yours is available, it still has that purpose. So, so that is basically we've if it's granted, they have a year to start the project to get it going. Once they do it and it's built, it continues regardless if there's someone in the dwelling or

That is correct. Okay. Any more questions? Does the applicant or applicants representative wish to speak? come on up to the mic and state your name and address.

Uh Evan Mendoza. Uh the address is 3021 Wester Road. So, as Sam just broke it down, we're just wanting to build a DAU to help take care of the property and this is my fiance's grandparents and uh just start the new the next generation that will take over said property. Thank you. Thank you. Any more in public testimony? Can I say something? Sure. Come up. State your name and address. I only understood about half of what he was saying. Me, too.

Mike Reed. Uh Amelia is our granddaughter and she's been riding barrel horses from the age of six. In 2019, she qualified for the National Finals Junior Rodeo in Las Vegas and in 1920 the National Finals Junior Rodeo in Fort Worth, Texas. So, she's serious about it. And that's why we want her there to take care of her horses. I'm aged, but I'll be 80 this year. I can no longer move three tie hay bales. So, Evan can do that. But the thing is, she will be there to take care of her horses. and we get to watch and uh in fact right now she's training outside horses too. So plus we got two great grandkids to live in the country and grow up like they ought to. Thanks.

Thank you. Any more in person? How about email? No, Mr. Chairman, the staff have any final comments? Uh, I actually would like to just make a final comment regarding uh some issues we've had with um uh scammers. Um so just a note um in case you receive any emails or uh contact regarding additional payments. Um that's that does not come from our email addresses. that is not um uh official capacity. So, just want to acknowledge that again. Thank you.

I will entertain a motion to close the public comment. I move to forward CUP. Oh, sorry. We got to do close. I move to close public comment. Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Knifton and seconded by Commissioner Dutder. All in favor signify by saying I. I.

All oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. No. No. Public testimony portion of public hearing CUP 2026-2 is closed. Is there any discussion from the planning commission? Members, I will entertain a motion. I move to forward CUP 2026-02 to the board of county commissioners with the positive recommendation based on the six suggested findings of fact and 14 conditions of approval.

Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Knifton and seconded by Commissioner Daru that we move forward CUP 2026-2 to the board of county commissioners with positive recommendation based on the six suggested findings of fact and 14 conditions of approval. Is there any discussion? May we have a roll call vote? Mike Corales? Yes. Mike Vincent? Yes. Remy Daru? Yes, Mark Derrder. Yes, Stacy Knifton. Yes, Joel Prantle. Yes, Commissioner. The motion passed. Thank you.

I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing on item four. So moved. Seconded. It's been moved by Commissioner Dutder and seconded by Commissioner Prantle. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. All oppose. Same sign. public hearing is closed. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Wes, you have some items for us.

Uh yeah, I'm going to make this real quick. I just want to run this by you guys, uh so that you're all aware. Uh as you see a lot of the seas we do are DNS's um it's an exercise we have to go through. Sometimes it's uh a very good exercise and a lot of times it's not. Our current code uh has it it lacks some of the um flexible exemptions that we're allowed to do. There is nothing in there about unincorporated UGS uh which we still have authority over. I want to include the maximum with the exception of multif family units. I'll be consistent with uh Pasco at 30 units would be exempt. Uh we want to bring we're at 20 units uh currently with dwellings. uh would like to keep that consistent but move it up to 30 in the um unincorporated UG again to be consistent with Pasco. For agricultural buildings, you're allowed to go to 40,000 square feet. Uh it's going to be my recommendation to the commissioners that we do that. Uh for parking spaces, we're allowed to go up to 40 in the unincorporated area and 90 in the UG. Uh again, moving that to the maximum. And then for uh grading filling, you're allowed to go up to a thousand cubic yards uh before sea kicks in. And we're currently at 500. So we're we're doing a lot of extra sea work that would already be covered uh this will be protective of the environment and uh just want to bring it to your attention. It's my intention to take this straight to the county commissioners, but want to make sure you guys are aware of this change.

That's it. Thank you. Sounds reasonable. Any questions? Okay, that's it. Staff updates. Nobody here to comment. Okay. And thank you for your OPM training. Yeah. Meeting adjourned at 7:07. That's weird. I don't know. Nice.