Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

passes. I will entertain a motion to approve the meeting the minutes from the May 6, 2025 meeting. Motion to approve. Second. It has been moved by Commissioner Derutder and seconded by Commissioner Vincent. All in favor signify by saying I. I. All oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. Uh, will staff in attendance please introduce yourselves? Wes Mccard, director. Uh, Sam Albby, planner one. John Bellammore, planner 2. Rebecca Gilly, service administrator. Go ahead and introduce yourselves. Uh Pat Kelly, contract planner. Nicole Stikney, also contract planner. We're here with AHBL. We contract with the county for on call planning services. Thank you. It is now time for the public 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. Next, emailed comments received during the public hearing will be read into the record by staff after the p after in-person testimony section of the hearing. Three, all comment shall be addressed to the planning commission and should be relevant to the application. Four, each speaker shall have five minutes to provide testimony, hopefully less. and speak into the microphone. Five, please avoid repetitive comments. If there are, we will mention it. Six, please be respectful of each speaker. Avoid personal attacks or disruptive behavior.

Are there any questions regarding the public hearing ground rules? Okay, turning for a moment to our commission 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 may also may not participate in discussions 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 members who may either be benefited or harmed by a decision in these matters. Are there any commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda? Commissioner Corales, uh, I've had a business relationship with someone in regards to the, uh, public hearing item number one, and I'm electing to recuse myself. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Uh, let the record show Commissioner Derutder is going to be excluded. Is there anyone in the audience this evening who would object to any commission member hearing any of the 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. The commission may ask questions of staff. Two, the applicant or applicant's representatives presentation. Three, in-person public testimony. Four, email public testimony read into the record by staff. Five, final staff comments. Six, close the public testimony. Planning Commission

discuss deliberation of the proposed action. Are there any procedural questions before we begin the public hearing? Okay. Item number one is a public hearing for file PUD 2025-1 Cherrywood Estates. The proposal is for a planned unit development to divide four parcels. Parcel 1 126-190-342, parcel 126-190-345, and parcel 12619-336 and parcel 126-2000- 011 with a total of 79.03 03 acres in size into 94 single family resident lots. Average lot size is 23,597 square ft with a minimum lot size of 21,82 square ft in the rural community 1 zoning district. The county's comprehensive plan designates the subject parcel as rural shoreline development. applicant is require requesting a PUD in order to reduce the minimum lot size for all of the lots within the development. I declare the public hearing for PUD 2025-1 to be open at 6:23. May we have staff present the staff report, please? Good evening, commissioners. I'm Pat Kelly, contract planner for this project. This slide summarizes the basic uh characteristics of the project. It is a planned unit development which is a division of land location on Columbia River Road. The parcel numbers as read out by the chair. Uh the zoning for this property is rural community RC1 which

allows uh one dwelling unit per acre on the site. The comprehensive plan land use designation uh for the property is rural shoreline development and also a local area of more intensive rural development and has been designated in this manner uh for approximately the past um since approximately 2005204 in that area. So it's been an area that has been planned for um this type of single family residential development for a great deal of time at this point. Uh it is not in shoreline shoreline jurisdiction. Uh as the chair mentioned the property 7903 acres. Oh apologize for that. Hear me. Okay now. Oh that's better. Okay. Thank you. All right. So our next slide uh just summarizes the location of the property located generally east of Columbia River Road south of the terminus of uh Gizler Road. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. and Sunray the Sunray estate subdivision. Uh the request is to divide the land 94 single family residential lots. Uh the PUB uh features a group A public water system, individual septic systems and 15% 15% open space with limited amenities and that uh constitutes approximately 11.85 uh acres of the site. The project uh would be constructed in phases. Uh but before we go into what those phases are, staff would like to point out um that there are uh some facts in the staff report that need clarification. Um, first of all, uh, with regard to, uh, the surrounding uses and lot sizes, uh, the Sunray Estates

subdivision is a 13 or a 13 lot subdivision, not 14 lots as originally stated in the report, and the lot sizes in that subdivision range uh, from 2.2 acres to about 3 acres. we had included a uh parcel within that subdivision erroneously that was of two 1.24 acres. So we regret that error. Um the River Ridge Estates project um was described as having lots ranging in size from 0.5 acres um actually no they they have lot sizes ranging from 0.5 acres not quarter of an acre as originally described. That was an error. So within River Ridge Estates uh that lot those lot sizes range from 0.5 to 75 acres. So that just gives some context of the surrounding development. The other subdivisions surrounding the site uh were described correctly um in the report. Um some of these um uh clarifications also need to be made uh in the um PUB approval requirements uh chapter or section of the of the staff report as listed above. I don't want to read this whole paragraph out for you out loud, but hopefully this information was passed out to the commission um as as a point of clarification. the 13 lots versus the 14 lots, lot range uh lot size ranges. Um and also um the correct description of the surroundings of the property uh subdivisions to the south of the site have been divided into lots of approximately 5 acres each and currently under agricultural production. That wasn't in the last staff report. So hopefully that gives some improved context.

Um okay so last item is the number of surrounding residential subdivisions should have been described as five and not three. Uh the location reference should have been described as not within a mile but adjacent to the site. So overall um lot subdivision sizes or lot sizes of surrounding subdivision should have been described as ranging from 0.5 to 5 acres not 47 to 1.37 acres. So we apologize for this error. So, um, in order to continue those clarifications into the PUD findings, we'd like to, uh, we just wanted to kind of spell out what exactly the first PUD district recommended finding should be. and it reads there there are five residential subdivisions adjacent to the subject property including three along the Columbia River and two abuing the site to the north. These subdivisions range in size from 8 to 36 lots with lot sizes ranging from approximately 0.5 acres to five acres and that the property is bordered to the north, south, and west by land in the RC1 and RC5 districts. And all this is to say uh in summary that there are a variety of lot sizes um in subdivisions surrounding the parcel um ranging in in the size as mentioned and it's this is just a matter of kind of clarifying where those sizes occur um and um their proximity to the site.

Okay. Um, this next slide shows the vicinity of the Cherrywood PUB uh, adjacent to Columbia River Road. Um, and kind of the the image on the right uh, shows its proximity to Larksburg Road, Gizler Road, and um, again the Columbia River Road to the to the west. And this is about three and a half miles north of Pasco. We wanted to take kind of care to point out that this is an area that has been planned for uh residential growth for quite some time. The area in the aqua shaded color with a black arrow pointing to it is a uh the lam lamred area and again uh signifying local area of more intensive residential development. So it has been planned to for this type of development for some time. Thanks Patrick. I just wanted to interject real quick and explain this graphic comes from the county comprehensive plan. It's a little snippet of it. um it was created some years ago. So the annexation boundaries to the south of Pasco um have probably been amended. But we just wanted to show you this classification of the land um for the spot. So the site that u is shown in the yellow bound that is the approximate site uh location there. And so as you can see it is towards the north end of this lamard but this is against area that has been designated for residential development and it is not within any lands that have been designated for other rural development or for agricultural uh land conservation.

Okay. Uh moving into the project itself. Uh the slide here describes the proposed layout of the property um taking access from see off indirectly off Columbia River Road uh via Panoramic Drive. Uh this the site area kind of shaded in yellow is a bit elevated um from the parcels. Oh, thank you. Okay. Oh, excellent. Okay, great. So, um the topography of the site kind of this is currently in cherry orchard production. Um and this is a recent subdivision that was approved and is slowly being developed. There are one or two houses in this subdivision uh currently and the property generally slopes down to the river. Um these are kind of sloping lots going from um east to to west [Music] and the project phasing is kind of illustrated here. Phase one, two towards the middle, three to the souththeast, four to the south. So the four project phases uh we just talked about earlier about how the site incorporates um open space and this slide shows where that open space is located primarily to buffer the project site from adjacent um agricultural lands to the east. And next slide is the roadway network proposed to connect to Panoramic Drive and then to Columbia River Road.

Can we go backwards? Sure. The other um Oops. I'm going to interject once again. The other thing I wanted to call out here is that you may see this um designation of SA access to the north that's connecting to uh I think Larksboro Road and Giesler Road. Those are not going to be open connections. Uh so folks won't be able to drive straight through that. It's not going to connect those neighborhoods. Uh to the contrary, this isn't going to be emergency access only. And so it's really for emergency egress egress or ingress purposes. Um it's important to have those areas of connectivity in the case of an emergency, but again it's not um going to be planned as any sort of routine circulation area. Thank you, Nicole. This slide summarizes the project phasing kind of illustrated in the slides before and this slide kind of details what Nicole was just talking about at the bottom the uh supplemental emergency vehicle um access points in the see I think right yeah the orange arrows here represent where the supplemental EVA occurs um along on the north end of the north um boundary of the property. Okay. Uh so essentially um the zoning district that would normally go with this particular comprehensive plan designation is RC5 or actually no RC1. Apologize. So, so that basically would involve right now like the current zoning is RC1 which

allows one dwelling unit per acre. The county code has a provision to allow uh a planned unit approach to developing properties which basically in exchange for providing amenities and this is the code is specific on this uh providing um 15% of open space to the site um that they're allowed to uh basically reduce the lot sizes to um there is actually no minimum lot size they can they can reduce to. just what the the overall requirement is that they maintain the required um the minimum required density which in this case is one dwelling unit per acre and they get a 20% density bonus uh and for including the um common open space. So that's the approach that the applicants have taken in this case and the proposed lot sizes are 0.5 acres to 75 acres whereas it would normally be required to be um 1 acre but for the inclusion of the common open space and the common open space includes um land to be used for native landscaping uh recreational opportunities such as walking trails and a dog park. Give you a posy a drink of water. Um, I also wanted to call out, many of us who've been in this room um, here recently are well familiar with the um, relatively recent change to the county code regarding the amount of open space designation um, at a minimum point that must be designated for a PUB. It used to be 35% um, a little while back, but the commissioners did change that following a recommendation by the planning commission um, a short time ago. Unfortunately, it didn't go to the codifier very quickly. So, it took a little while for the online codes to be updated. So, I just wanted to call that out in case there was any confusion um for folks who were unfamiliar with this um maybe new to this type of process.

But the current county requirement is 15% not 35%. Thanks. Okay, next slide uh lists the uh mitigation measures proposed for the project which basically involved dust control during the site construction um inadvertent discovery protocol during construction in case of archaeological resources being inadvertently discovered. A group A public water system uh with operational fire hydrants is required. And on that point um the water system that is proposed to serve this site uh upon development is the Rich View water system. And this system um obtained approval of a conditional use permit. The system as currently designed and approved uh does not fully reach the project site and so a new conditional use permit is required to extend this system to serve the project before the final plat can be recorded and lots developed. Um other mitigation measures include drainage system to capture dispose of storm water runoff. uh dust control measures for that are requirement of Franklin County's clean air and dust control uh best management practices. The following of the geotechnical report recommendations is also uh included as a measure and um if the proposed portable water and fire suppression methods to be served by adjacent group A water system does not receive approval, the plat will start over. So essentially if that group A water system that is going to be provided by the Rich View water system does not get approved um then the plat process has to start over and the property would have to be evaluated under potentially um drawing water from from individual wells. And these were the um SEBA conditions that were set administratively by the department. And so I just want to call

out these are the mitigation measures under the state environmental policy act. In a a few more slides we'll go over our proposed plaque conditions for this project. Okay. essentially um received obviously uh due to the interest you can tell in the um attendance tonight and letters there were several comments provided on the project. Many of the comments focused on um traffic was was a big topic um impacts on Columbia River Road and other adjacent roads. Um this project has been reviewed by the public works department of the county uh the loss standard which is a level of service uh ranging from A to F. A being an ideal kind of free flowing of traffic conditions and F being fully congested, multiple um light cycles necessary to get people through intersections. Um a lot of congestion intersections essentially and C being kind of the middle of the road where there's some level of congestion, but it's it's very manageable. Anyway, um the countyy's road uh standard level of service is C and the project has been reviewed and determined based on the number of lots that it will not exceed that standard. It will continue to operate as a level of service C. Um other comments uh address the compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses and essentially it is a single family uh one uh dwelling unit per lot project that is consistent with the type of pattern that is around the site. It the subdivisions to the north are larger uh to be sure 2

and a half acres to 5 acres. Um there are 1acre lots to the west, 5 acre lots to the south. Um but this particular piece of property was zoned RC1 which allows 1acre properties and through the PUD process that can be reduced with the provision of the of the open space. So essentially it's a single family project within a single family context and for that reason u staff believes it is is it is is it is compatible um with the area? Uh I believe there's some additional comments that may be entered into the record um at the hearing. Wes, was there anything that you wanted to add at this time? No, we'll add that at the end. Okay. Thank you. Um several agencies reviewed this project. Uh Department of Ecology, um Benton Franklin Health District, the Assessor's Office, South Columbia Basin Irrigation District, uh Department of Archaeological and Historic Preservation, and Franklin County Public Works. The health department reviewed the potential use of the s of um individual septic systems for the site and the use of the group um a water system and approved the use of those for the project. Okay. So in summary, um you know, staff has reviewed this project and for the reasons cited due to the project being compatible with the surrounding, the peripheral treatment of the property will include a compatible uh mix of single family uses adjacent to existing single family. Uh there will be boundary walls constructed along the the borders of the existing subdivisions as individual homes get constructed and uh

the open space provides an additional amenity helping modulate um or moderate the the density of the project. So, uh, staff, uh, believes or recommends that the planning commission, um, approve the project due to being consistent with these findings as outlined in the staff report. Uh, several conditions of approval are included, um, which are listed here. Uh there is one uh additional condition that we would like to uh include that was not included in the packet with regard to the approval of the conditional use permit for the new water system. And that condition reads number 10. Final approval is contingent upon the Ridge View water system receiving a new conditional use permit and seep approval to allow the service area expansion to include the Cherrywood Estates PUD. Uh, and that so Patrick, if I can add to that just a little bit. So um from the time the sepha was put in till the time the packet went out uh the rich view water system expansion was approved by the department of health and also by the department of ecology. However it has not received approval from the county. Uh all three of those conditions need to be met in order to get final approval for the water system. Okay. Thank you. This concludes staff's presentation. Does any commissioner have questions of staff? Does the applicant or applicants representative wish to speak or give a presentation? So, Mr. Mr. Chairman, if I might interject here, um I think it would be appropriate for me to read into the record the comments we received

between the time the staff went out a week ago and today's meeting before the applicant so everybody is aware of what comments have been submitted. Is that appropriate? Great. Thank you. So, for the record, um, again, we received a memo, uh, which went over in the slide presentation from, uh, our contract staff basically going over the changes that were there. Um, I received a comment um from Peter Harpster. Uh, we are not in disagreement with you on the need for a CUP application. Uh this is in regards to the water system. Uh and uh we anticipate the additional conditional condition of approval for the plat of which we have no issue. Uh just want to bring that to your attention. Um we received a comment from the uh engineer from from Craig. Um John actually John Christensen is the one that authored it. Uh please see the attached documents related to the Columbia River mo road mitigation fees. Mitigation measures are in place for the safety enhancement of the traveling public. Franklin County has adopted a regional level of service standard C loss transportation facilities is designed by capacity. The primary measure of service quality at time delay and with speed and capacity utilization employed as secondary measures. level of service are used as gauge for evaluating the quality of service of the transportation system and can be described by travel times. Um, table 17 in in the handbook uh is also pointed out which rule two-lane highways generalized service volume

table simplifies that um level C level service C and 50 mph are applicable to Columbia River Road. There's also the attached uh for the record uh engineering report on Columbia River Road proposed mitigation in that frame as well as the table and the level of service handbook that was uh that I'll point out it's in your packet. Um, I did receive um the following text message that was meant for the record. Uh, that was sent to me. So, I I forward it to myself so I could put it in the record. Uh, this was from Mr. Hails, James Hails. Uh, this was written as a persuasive talking about the staff report. This was written as a persuasive argument. Trying to convince rather than using any fact, finding an unbiased presentation of evidence. To even say that there are quarteracre lots is ridiculous. You can't have quarteracre lot outside the city because you can't have a septic system on it. The entire written recommendation is so unprofessional, inaccurate, and unreliable. I know texting doesn't portray voice. Well, I am not mad at you, Wes. I know by talking with you that you are very competent and good person. Well, thank you for the kind words trying to do a good job. Please don't be offended, but I I have to wonder how we can how can we the people and citizens of the county get a proper representation from our government. Uh so that was one. Um I also received um several others that are in your packet um that were clips out of the staff report. Uh same James Hail. Uh I received the email today from the county with the notes on recommendating

approval for Cherrywood Estates. I just want to point out that these statements on the PUD approval requirements are completely inaccurate. There only 13 lots in the Sunray uh estates development and a minimum lot size of 2.2. In addition, there are zero lots of quarter acre size in the River Ridge estates and the smallest lot is 47 acres and only 22 total lots of the 63 are less than one acre. The statement made by the county publication are inaccurate and misleading. Is this neglect research or intended bias? Regardless, it skews a recommendation to the planning commission. Despite the 15% green space, the overall density is not moderated. You end up with 94 homes and 79 acres acre piece of land. I know you can do the math. That is not characteristic of the area where several hundred acres are occupied by 63 lots. Don't forget to include the circle to the south of this proposal which is minimum 5 acre lot. It also says only three comments were received. However, I know for a fact that more than that were received. Uh writtens Hy Carlson Hails and I expect that there will others as well. Uh again pointing out something in the staff report. These findings of fact are completely inaccurate as well. Did anyone read through this? This is misleading. There are no subdivisions to the southeast. There is a canal and RC5 to the southeast. There are also more than three subdivisions within a mile and the 36 lots along the river are that

are mentioned here are not within a mile. As evidence of that is that the county did notify them of the development. Ron Carlson will be witness of that. And one more um pointing out suggested findings of fact. Number four is complete opinion and not finding a fact. It can be proven that greater harm is done to the safety and health of the community than good. uh received another um comment here and this one is really long but I need to read it anyway because it wasn't in the original report to the public. Um and this was written by Ed um Hy. Hopefully I pronounced that right. The following comments address incomplete data and incorrect statements providing answers and corrections need to be made before the decisions should be made. Without answer and correction, a proposal should be denied. Plan unit development application packet. The cover letter for the application packet says designed to offer amenities and features not found in traditional subdivisions. The Cherrywood estate proposal offer nothing not available in a traditional subdivision. It is not except It is nothing except an attempt to put more houses in a given area. The letter also quotes the required 35% open space, but the applicant has requested only 15% based on past ordinance. The concept is permissive in appropriate areas. It is not required to approve a PUD with a 15% aside from open space. Uh PUD must meet all requirements. Two, the supplemental information

document says the irrigation source will be private. In other documents, the application says irrigation will be provided by the South Colombia Basin Irrigation District. Which is it? The supplemental information document says phases are to be determined. Yet on the preliminary plat it shows four. Which is it? Termination of non-significance. A sea checklist is incomplete as several responses by applicant are not answers to the questions. It is possible the applicant is avoiding the potential impacts or they don't know. With the lack of information, the CHS list should be returned. At this point of the process, the DNS should be withdrawn or the project denied. The findings of determination of non-significance are wrong. The DNS should be withdrawn for the following reasons corresponding to specific checklist points. Applicant states that project is upon permitting yet the subdivision says there are multiple phases. The response does not match a subdivision plat. Applicant refers to references to Benton Franklin district approval letter. The letter is not an approval. It's a preliminary review. The applicant's response is misleading and not true. A A8 applicant states that they have submitted an application for a group A water system. The water source and system availability paperwork submitted with the project proposal is for another area in the county, not this subdivision. The documentation provided by the applicant does not provide proof of domestic water availability. If such approval is made, the documentation should have been provided before the SEAR determination was made. A10. The applicant states the proposal is compatible and complimentary to nearby land uses. It is not. There are no other urban halfacre subdivisions even close to this area. B1E the

applicant's response doesn't answer the question. The location to the west had extensive cut and fill to minimize view. The applicant has no has an idea as to the proposed cut and fill depth. What is proposed for this project? Uh B1G. The applicant knows the length and width of the proposed roads and can estimate coverage homes, garages, out buildings, and driveways, etc. The applicant's response doesn't provide information to determine environmental significance. The DNS should be withdrawn. B2A. The applicant's response is incomplete as it doesn't address nearly 1,000 vehicles traveling at least eight miles to town. B2C. The applicant's response does not acknowledge aerial agricultural spraying of the field to the east will be eliminated. B3A4. The applicant states that the proposed project application that irrigation will be provided by private and sepha checklist states irrigation will be provided by Skiibbid if Skibid is the supplier. Will it be possible to change the use from agricultural to residential? What is the proposal? B3B1. The applicant claims that the proposed project will be provided by well ID BPS821. The wells located several miles away from the proposed project. The 90 pages submitted for domestic water does not mention Cherrywood Estates. The ecology letter specifically states the place of use uh of this water. right will be the parcel numbers listed above. The proposed project is not included in those listed. If this has been addressed, was it done before the DNS decision was made? B4E. The applicant states that there are noxious weeds or invasive species on or near the site. Puncture vine is on the site and listed as a noxious weed. There are probably

others as the orchard has not been maintained for weed control. The applicant's response is not an answer to the question. B5D, replacing acres of trees with open space will not enhance opportunity for life, wildlife. The applicant's response is misleading to say the least. No DNS should be based on this type of answer. B6C. No mention of the increased energy use due to the urban density residential project constructed more than 8 miles from city admin amenities. While the existing electrical lines handle the increased demand, the DNS should be withdrawn until this issue is addressed. Urban residential development, that's B7B2, urban residential development of 94 homes in a rural setting has a noise impact on the surrounding area. Applicants response ignores the impact on the surrounding area. B8A. The applicant says the proposal will not affect the use of adjacent properties, but 94 homes next to agriculture will eliminate aerial application because of the liability to spray applicators. 8 B8B. The applicant's response is for a different proposal and not for this proposal. A DNS cannot be determined using the applicant's response. B8C oversized farm equipment use the existing Columbia River Road aerial spray of agricultural land will be eliminated due to liability um to the applicators. B8D the applicant's response is wrong. There is an existing residence on site. B8E the applicant's response is wrong. The existing residence and shop are planned to be demolished. B8M. The applicant states that the project will be compatible with the existing land use. Halfacre lots in the residential rural residential and agricultural area is not compatible.

B9 C halfacre lots is a negative impact on the large rural residential lots to the north. Mitigation measures should be taken to reduce the housing impact. B10A the applicant's response does not answer the question. and the DNS should be withdrawn until responses to the questions are complete and accurate. B10B, the applicant is unclear. Are the changes limited or are the views limited? Without clarification, the DNS should not have been issued. B10C, the applicant's response is not true. It does not improve the aesthetics of the area. B1A, subdivision of this size will impact the night vision for the existing rural residents. Resolution of nighttime light pollution should be proposed. B14 C. The applicant's response does not answer the question, will the proposal require new or improvements to the existing road, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, etc. B14E about 1,000 vehicles entering Columbia River Road at one point will increase the potential for accidents. Restricted road width and weight restrictions on the Squassel Bridge should be addressed. B15A all public services will be impacted by concentrating 94 homes 8 miles from urban services including fire protection, police protection, health care, ambulance, school attendance, and school bus routes. B16A. Are existing power lines adequate to service the proposed project? No domestic water source for the project has been identified. B16B. The paperwork provided for the domestic water does not include the proposed project area. Irrigation water source has not been estimated. Can the water be transferred from agricultural to residential? If skiibbid is a source summary. The determination of non-significance was issued based on

incomplete, misleading, inaccurate and wrong responses. The DNS should be withdrawn. The sea checklist can be modified or replaced. Once all the responses are submitted, the answers may still be a DNS, but until complete, accurate responses are submitted, a termination should not be made. For now, please withdraw the DNS. Application narrative one, the narrative is completely misleading. Putting weight on the designation of shoreline res uh rural shoreline is wrong as the property is not on or close to the shoreline. It is on the flat quarter mile from the body of water and 200 f feet higher than elevation. The applicant's statement that the proposed project is clearly compatible is their opinion only. And no matter how often they write or say it, it doesn't make it a fact. there are more people that say it is not compatible. Number two, peripheral treatments described in this narrative are not mentioned in the SEPA checklist or the subdivision plan. If that is the plan, these things should be part of the plan. The response is misleading as there is no mention of adjacent farming. The PUD does not ensure proper transition between halfacre lots and all properties to the northeast and south. The only place where possible proper transition would be the location to the west where it transitioned from 1 acre to half acre. If the project is approved as it is uh presented, the peripheral treatments should be included as conditions of approval. Three, totally misleading. The purpose of the PUD district is clearly spelled out in FCC 175810 and is not just to make halfacre lots in RC1 zone. That is all the project accomplishes. A subdivision would meet

the same goals as the narrative quoted in the PUD. It does not provide anything more than a subdivision would. Four, totally misleading. The responses should be directed towards why the PUD is a benefit. Doubling the house housing density 10 miles from the city amenities does not improve public health, safety, and welfare. The subdivision has the exact same results as a PUD except the half is it is half of the negative impact on public health, safety and welfare in the rural area. In general, the concept of processing the project as a single event is not right. PUDS consist of two separate things. One is the creation of a district. The second is a physical project. The plans for the district are generally quite simple with no construction details. The plans for the PUED project are essentially construction plans which are called the final PUED application with a subdivision. The preliminary plat is essentially construction plan. The requirements for a final PUD application must include A through K of uh Franklin County code 1758120 which is primaril primarily subdivision plat is only a part of these requirements. It appears the only way to combine the creation of a PUD district, a PUD project, and a subdivision is to submit an application with a preliminary subdivision plat that meets the requirement of uh Franklin County Title 16 and Franklin County Title 1758120. Presently, it does not meet the minimum requirements and therefore the project should be denied. We received comments from James Hail. Um, the findings of fact in the application narrative are inaccurate and deceptive in how they portray the development, which could seriously skew the decision if they are accepted as

true. Instead of 94 home on halfacre lots, this development should be kept should keep the 1acre designation and reduce the homes to 45 to 50. Even then, the concerns with water availability is significant. Despite all this, the developer's proposal should be rejected because of the facts are inaccurately presented by the developer. Actual findings of fact, Franklin County code 1758090E. A PUD may be recommended for approval only when it has been determined that one, the PUD district is compatible with the nearby developments and uses. Two, peripheral treatment ensures proper transition between PUD uses and nearby external uses and development. Three, the development will be in contrast with comprehensive plan and the purposes of the PUD district. Four, the public health, safety, and welfare have been served. addressing point one. My facts are taken from the Franklin County Tax Shifter website and Google Earth and refute the inaccurate statements made fat m of fact made by the developers. Harpster says the proposed 94 lots of halfacre size is compatible and even uses the word consistent with the comprehensive plan which is completely inaccurate. The comprehensive plan does not allow anything less than one acre with the rare exception of Riverview lots that go down to 6 of an acre and are very rare. Consistent would mean that they there would be a majority or even large majority of lots similar to what is being proposed. the factual numbers of 63 homes in a two-m radius of the proposed development and within the comprehensive shoreline development area. So, excluding homes east of the canal, which are mostly 5 to 20 acre lots, they're only 22 lots, five of which are half acre with no house on them with less than one acre and none of

them less than 047 of an acre. So 22 of 63 or 35% of the lots only 27% of the houses are less than one acre and some of these are.75 acres. All of these lots are less than one acres are immediately along the river and with the river view. None of the lots in the proposed development will have a river view and none of them are along the river. They are a mile and a half from the existing one and halfacre lots along the river. 13 lots in the Sunray estate or the ray sunray estates. Smallest is 2.2 acres. Average lot size 2.5. One of the lots is 5 acres. One existing home in the proposed development site and it is over 1 acre minimum. Larks Road, 10 lots of five acres. One lot broken off of these lots is 1 acre. Along West Sagemore, two homes with a minimum 1.4. four 1.24 of of the one of these was included by the applicant in the Sunray estates but does not belong to the development and the way is presented diminishes the facts of all lots in the Sunray uh estates are 2.2 2 plus acres. River Ridge Estates 36 lots. There are one there's one lot of 47 acres. All the other lots are half acre with 22 of 36 lots being half acre and 1 acre and 14 lots are 1 acre or more. All of these lots are riverfront and have river views. All the lots to the south proposed developments are 5 acre lot 5 acres or more in size. Adding 94 homes on half acre lots would shift the area from 65% of the lots on lot sizes over one acre most more than two acres to 74% of the lots of half acre th that is a complete change of the environment

inconsistent with 0.1 of the requirements of it for a PUD in addition to 94 halfacre lots are very inconsistent with anything uh in seven mile area between the proposed development and the city of Pasco. Here is the math. Currently, 17 homes of halfacre lots, 22 lots of halfacre, and 41 of 63 lots over one acre, shifting to 116 of 157 lots of 1/2 acre. That is a huge flip and against the growth management act. Addressing point three, the proposed development is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and and the growth management act. Approving the development proposal of the PUD would set a danger precedent and overrule all zoning designations. There is no developments 94 homes on halfacre lots located 8 miles from the city boundaries in all of Franklin County, Grant County, and Adams County. There are no developments of this size and nature anywhere within three miles of any town in these these counties. The PUD project proposal would is not consistent with any comprehensive plan. Approving it as it is would set a danger precedent precedent. There are currently developers and homeowners in the Birch Road area who are watching what happens with this proposal because if it passes, they will have grounds to develop their existing lots and undeveloped land in higher density. The growth management act applies even in the comprehensive growth plan area like the shoreline development area. It restricts urban sprawl which would include making the dominant influence of undersized building lots. It is also prohibits leapfrogging by building large building large developments far out and skipping over large areas of land as would be happening in this proposal. This

proposal is at the northernmost border of the comprehensive plan growth plan shoreline development area and is out of place. This proposed project which is if passed would need to be addressed by the serior court as the code is peacemeal and comes in conflict with the growth management act as well as the current zoning and could set a dangerous precedent. Addressing point four, safety. The proposed development is bordered on two sides by canals to the east and south and there is only one exit from this proposed development to go down the hill where there are two exits out onto Columbia River Road. However, one no one is going to drive to the northern exit. But all will use the shortest route which is immediately adjacent to the bridge over this squassel canal. a very dangerous pinch point. The width of the bridge is not consistent with the width of the width of the road for this size development. The roads are not even the width that the city says they are. Previously, there were no fog lines painted on the road because it wasn't wide enough. Last year, the county chip sealed the road and literally sprayed tar on the gravel shoulder and then painted fog lines. Some of these fog lines are on unpaved gravel areas and have been chip sealed. There are no there is no shoulder in most of the areas through the county says there is a three-foot shoulder. Go and measure all along the area. This is a finding a fact. The road is insufficient for the current use and not appropriate or safe for increasing traffic with the development of 94 homes even if done in four phases. traffic. Increasing traffic along Columbia River Road by 94 homes would be dangerous to existing residents and wildlife. Roads infrastructure are inadequate and need to be improved for existing traffic. Lighting. Putting 94

homes in a halfacre lots with no proposed lighting is a danger that would increase crime and other problems. This avoidance of adding curbs, gutter, sidewalk, and lighting is at a cost-savings attempt on the part of the developer. It is also trying to avoid light pollution because development with lighting for this many homes and street lights would create light pollution and sound nuisance from for the rural area. Nothing like this anywhere in the rural Franklin County. Crime and fire. We currently have in inadequate fire protection and building 94 homes on halfacre lots would drastically increase the danger. It would also draw more crime into the rural area of the county that is currently underserved by police. A much more reasonable increase of 40 to 50 homes on 1acre lots would be substantially different and would be less of an impact. Water. Although the project proposal can be presented without having specifics for providing water, a seipa cannot be approved without specifics about how water will be provided. And in this case, a seip was approved. The supplied 90 pages of water proposal, apparently 360 additional pages not provided by the county in advance of the hearing, are nowhere specific about what will be done with the water supply. Where um where will the wells be drilled for the community well or the group A water system? There is insufficient detail and it should be it should never be approved as a sea. In addition, there are no easements or rightaways for water lines to pipe the water from Underwood development to this proposed Cherrywood development. It is unfeasible and impractical. There is insufficient information. The developer and Randy Mullen are attempting to drown the public, the planning commission and county commissioners in 90 pages of paperwork that is wordy, filled with errors and never actually explains the

plan. I doubt that all the planning commissioning county commissioners will read it, let alone understand it. I had a friend who was an engineer and worked with another county planning department read it thoroughly twice and finds that is incomplete, inaccurate, and should never have been approved for a sea. Even if the water rights it says are being transferred as noted in Grant County and are actually in Franklin County, the review process was faulty and or non-existent and sea and the project should never have been approved with a DNS. In addition, the county was negligent in providing the 360 additional pages which presents the appearance of fair unfairness with by withholding important information for those opposing the presentation. I'm almost done. Um, I received one more from uh Ryan Whitten and Natasha Mandona. Sorry if I pronounced that wrong. Um, we're writing to provide comments on the Cherrywood Plan Estates references uh subdivision 24-03. Um while we are not opposed to the residential development in this area, um we are deeply concerned with the proposed density infrastructure plan are incompatible with the surrounding community and do not adequately address critical public safety concerns. One, inaccurate representation of surrounding development. This application narrative claims the proposed development is compatible with nearby neighborhoods, citing Sunray's comparable subdivision with lot sizes as small as 1.24. This is incorrect. The smallest lot size is 2.2 acres and most lots are larger. Claiming compatibility based on inaccurate data undermines credibility of the application and misleads both

officials and the public. A development uh with 94 homes on 79 acres is not like development when compared to Sunray, Columbia Bluff, or Rivercrest Estates. In addition, with a two-mile radius of the proposed development site, there are 22 lots that are halfacre in size. However, five of these lots are currently vacant. This means that only 17 existing homes are on halfacre lots and all of them are located immediately along the Columbia River, taking advantage of river waterfront views. If this development proceeds as proposed, it would shift the air area's housing mix from 41 out of 63 lots being 1 acre or larger to 116 out of 157 lots, 74% being a halfacre. This represents a significant and abrupt departure from the existing lot size character in the area. Traffic and road safety concerns. The sea determination non-significance notes that the proposal will generate approximately 895 additional daily vehicle trips. Colombia River Road and the surrounding rural road are not currently equipped to absorb this level of traffic safety. There is limited infrastructure for pedestrians, bicycles or school related transit. The increased traffic will compromise the safety of current residents, especially children walking to school bus stops, create dangerous intersections or bottlenecks due to the lack of turning lanes or shoulders, increase accident risk along narrow rural roadways not designed for highdensity access. A formal traffic impact analysis and mitigation plan should be required before this project proceeds. Three, emergency services and response time. Adding 94 new homes to this area will significantly impact the overwhelm and overwhelm the fire, EMS, and law enforcement services, especially given the distance from a fully staffed service to the development. The application narrative only mentions the

addition of fire hydrants, but it does not provide any coordination with or capacity analysis from the local emergency service providers. an assessment of access routes and potential to delays due to increased congestion. Clear plans for adequate road widths, emergency vehicle turnarounds, or wildfire response preparedness. Without a formal public safety impact review, it is premature to claim that this project serves public health, safety, and welfare. Four, density bonus request is unwarranted. The applicant is requesting a 20% density bonus, citing open space amenities like dog parks and trails. While these may enhance resident en enjoyment, they do not justify squeezing more lots into a rural area. The surrounding subdivisions were not granted such bonuses and there is no precedent for this kind of density in rural RC1 zone. Increasing the number of homes without corresponding investment in infrastructure and services undermines the rural character and livability of the area. Five, inadequate mitigation for environmental and infrastructure impacts. There are no pledged impact mitigation arguments. Uh, excuse me. There are no pledged impact mitigation agreements despite clear pressure on utility school capacity and solid waste systems. Septic systems are proposed for every home which raises concerns about cumulative environmental impacts on groundwater over time. There is no legal there is no street lighting which poses potential safety issues for pedestrians and vehicles in the absence of sidewalks and other traffic claiming measures. Conclusion: This project as proposed is inconsistent with the scale and character of the surrounding community and raises unresolved safety and infrastructure concerns. We respect the request that the planning commission and county commissioners withhold approval of plan unit development until a full

traffic impact analysis complete. Uh emergency response capacity is reviewed by the appropriate fire and EMS agencies. The applicant application is amended to reflect actual surrounding lot sizes and true compatibility and a more moderate development layout in line with existing neighborhoods is presented. Thank you for the opportunity to present these. That completes all the comments that came in uh between the staff report going out and being posted and what we received as today. Thank you. Wow, Peter, you're up. Good evening, planning commissioners. Uh, Peter Harpster, Harpster Land Development. Address is 5804, uh, Road 90 Sweet C here in Pasco. Um, here this evening representing the project owners, uh, Jim Kelly of Perona Properties and, uh, Ratchy. Um to start off with just in response to some of those comments, if I was a homeowner with no experience in uh development, I would certainly be concerned. Um, as well, the good news, as you've all seen in your packet, is that this application has been reviewed by staff, uh, HBL, as well as several other agencies locally and across the state that, um, either had no issues with the project or if they did, they provided comments and asked for conditions approval for for conditions of approval, excuse me. Um the conditions of approval that were presented this evening uh we have no issues with and um uh also have no issue with any of the agency comments that were submitted. Uh before you this evening is a residential plat like several others that have come before you. This is now the third PUD in

Franklin County and um as noted by staff an hour ago. Uh it is uh the area is contained within the rural shoreline development Lambert. Uh a site really the only site in the entire county that is suitable for a planned unit development. Um, speaking of the the comprehensive plan um that designates the site as such, uh, Franklin County's comprehensive plan as adopted by our county commissioners uh, and approved by state department of commerce, uh, requires the county to build 2,35 housing units um, by the year, I believe it was 2030, I mean, uh, 2038. um we are falling woefully short of that goal and then we're at approximately 230 housing units since that plan was passed in 2018 and um projects like this help to implement those goals as required by the state and again as I mentioned approved by the county commissioners. Um, you saw that map earlier that shows that in the entire county, it didn't show the entire county, but for the majority that it did show, there's one section where development like this can occur uh to help meet those housing goals. So, it's imperative that um the uh appointed members of this planning commission, the elected representatives in the county commissioners uh approve projects like this to help provide housing um at a time where housing is is desperately needed. Um, as stated by um, HBO planning staff, uh, in the Franklin County Code, there are simply four requirements for approving a planned unit development. Um, we believe that our application meets every single one of those requirements and staff

concurs with that uh, as shown in their staff report. Um the I won't uh belabor them, but uh you've read the staff report and you've seen that we meet all four of those. Um as far as compatibility, there's you heard some concern, you'll probably hear more concern that this site is not compatible. Uh the size of lots and the other uh subdivisions or short plots that have been created in the past um are not what we're looking at with compatibility. We're looking at is there residential uses going in next to residential uses? If not, what kind of buffering is there? You've seen on the map that that the area that was shown is is for rural shoreline development. Next door to is for a that's why we're proposing open space along the outside of the development. Um there's also skid canal that separates those um those land uses. Again, this site is designated for residential use. So, um, uh, working with our real estate broker, uh, one thing that we noted, they couldn't be here this evening, but, um, once homes are built on these sites, the average sale price will be just over a million dollars. There'll be some likely that are in lower 900s. Um, and then, uh, some that are over 1.1, 1.2 million. Um, good point of reference is any number of the other developments that this board has approved over the last few years. Um Spencer Estate Space 4 is not a PUD, but is a halfacre subdivision in the county. And uh those um those lots, the cheapest one that I've seen was just over 900,000. Again, this neighborhood um one of the requirements of a planned unit development is to have an HOA uh to maintain the neighborhood and um the uh the aesthetics of it. Um the uh Richview water system as mentioned has been approved by ecology and the

department of health. Um Franklin County did a couple years ago approve the original service area map. It was since amended uh to include this property and the circle south of this which is also suitable for residential development. Um that revision is what's been approved by Department of Health and Ecology. As Mr. McCart stated, it's not yet been approved by Franklin County. And so uh to that additional uh condition approval, we have no issue and uh we'll work to get that submitted to staff. Uh one just point of clarification that we noticed was on some of the documents in the staff report refer to this project as sub2025-02 and then another place is sub2025-01. Um so just we just want to make sure that on our end we get it right for um future meetings with the commissioners. Uh the uh another concern that was brought up was traffic and um this area is subject to Columbia River Road mitigation fee. Um that was referenced. That's $500 per unit. Um as mentioned by staff, public works has reviewed this application and deemed that this the uh the roads will operate at an acceptable level of service. That was that LOS that was mentioned. Um just want to thank everybody here for their extended time here this evening. Um, and we ask that you vote in favor of this project, uh, in accordance with your recommendation from staff who are experienced land use planners, uh, and, um, can speak to, uh, concerns that were, uh, read tonight like they did when they wrote through the staff report. Um, that's all for me. You'll hear from, uh, Mr. from Mark Ficus, our client's land use attorney, who uh will kind of help fill in the blanks if you will. Thank you. Thank you.

Now, what's going on here? Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mark Ficus. If I know you, do we have Can we do two presentations from the owner? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And it's not two pres presentations. It's the same presentation. And trust me, we'll be a lot shorter than the public comments read into the record. Um, my name again is Mark Ficus. I'm a shareholder at the Halverson Northwest Law Firm in Yakama and I'm an experienced land use attorney. I thank the opportunity to be able to make another presentation to this board. Again, this is the third PUD uh in the county, both of which you've approved. This one's not that unusual other than, as uh your outside planners have indicated, this one's at the northernmost part of the limited area of more intense residential development that your county commissioners have already approved. It's compat. It's made for residential use. It's not made to be a farm anymore. I know some people would probably appreciate looking over a cherry farm for years, but this property is going to develop and it legally has to develop. There's three things driving development recently. Um the three things driving the development and the density are are the lambert itself, your PUD ordinance that has been amended to include a slightly lower open space requirement that provides flexibility to reduce the minimum lot size from 1 acre. Our client's application is not doing anything illegal or inappropriate. it's allowed under your ordinance that the commissioners have approved. And then the third thing that's happening, the reason you're seeing a uh significant increase in the development is the development of the Richview water system, which is almost complete. And legally, I want to just summarize a few things. Again, the water rights to allow the owner of the Richview water system provide water has been approved by the

Department of Ecology. They're the only ones with jurisdiction. The county doesn't have any jurisdiction to approve where water is getting used. That has been approved. It's nonappealable. It actually includes the property within the application tonight. So, the place where you can use water. The second one is the Department of Health has approved it to safely operate. It is final approval. Hasn't been appealed. That's part of the packet. And the third thing, as Mr. McCart uh accurately pointed out is it the potential to get a cup for the water system. Now, full disclosure, the conditional use permit that the county will issue has nothing to do with the residential PUD before you today. It simply looks at where the water system is located on Richview's property. Uh and to make sure that the infrastructure doesn't impact the uses around there. it doesn't um uh and there's a question of whether it's needed but out of abundance of caution uh a cup u certainly could be appropriate. So all the legal approvals for the water system have happened and that's what's generating the ability to do a slightly more dense development. Um uh again, I'm not going to go over the general approval criteria. As you can see, staff, applicants, and the members of the public can have difference of opinion on what's compatible. But as a land use attorney that's been doing this for 38 years, compatibility is based on the type of the use, not the intensity of the use or the size of the lots in general. Um in fact, I'm going to it's coming. I wish Mr. Briggs, Jeff Briggs, your county attorney, was here tonight. There's some recent laws that normally I don't like to cite laws coming from Olympia because over here in Eastern Washington, where I'm from and you're from, they're uh they're telling us what to do. But there is some laws that one's

becoming effective in July 27th, some new middle housing regulations that are requiring cities to allow much more dense development. And they can't even have an R1 zoning anymore that limits the acreage. They have to allow flexible housing like duplexes, triplexes, multif family. That's mandated in cities. It's encouraged in counties. And if you want a citation to that, it's it's uh in gross Senate House Bill 5471. It's effective July 27th. And again, you're going to see that that the flexibility allowed in your PUD ordinance, a slightly more dense development is the wave of the future, at least based upon the state and and I've heard some comments on the growth management act. This is being implemented through changes in the growth management act. Um, so again, another encourage that Mr. Harpster said this encourages your county meeting the housing goals. This is consistent with the new flexibility and affordable housing coming from the west side and this should be approved. Um, just a few comments legally. I'm not going to go into I don't know the area as well as the people here in this room or as the members of the public here today, but a few legal I hear a lot of comments on sea and there's been some confusion. You might if you've reviewed the record. In fact, there was a initial uh appeal. somebody tried to to file a SEPA appeal and the county determined that that wasn't appropriate and that's rightfully so. I do not believe this body has the ability to resend or recommend rescending a DNS. Any appeal would have to occur at the commissioner level or in the courts at a later stage. And and again, uh I appreciate everybody trying to be an attorney, but that's a fact. um traffic, you know, I'm not going to

repeat all the traffic. I'm not going to repeat all the traffic issues other than your public works department has approved this. Every development has to be what's called concurrent, meaning the roads have to be adequate at the time, not at time of approval, but they have to be in place at the time they'll be finalized. and your public works department has confirmed they're operating at level of service C which is allowed and you already collect a traffic mitigation fee which means you couldn't impose any sepha based conditions anyways the $500 per lot is what the county allows to mitigate any impacts on Columbia River roads there's simply no basis for any traffic mitigation on this project Um, basically, um, you know, that's that's, uh, it. I think your staff has done an admiral job. they properly apply both the subdivision and PUD ordinance and we would recommend uh would like to see this board recommend approval consistent with the staff report with the nine conditions of approval that have been recommended. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, now we are going to have public testimony. I'm going to call them up. I can't read all these names. Um, what's that? Okay. And we're going to keep this to five minutes and under. Hopefully well under. I'll try and keep this short. Good evening, commissioners. Good evening, Mr. McCart. HBL. My name is Ryan Nelson. I was a planner here at Franklin County.

I did work on this project initially um when it first came in in 2024. Um staff did send this out for a sea consult in 2024. Um and what that does is it allows ecology and other agencies to review the sea checklist um without us without the staff issuing a determination. So, it allows for a longer review time and because we had a transition in staff that allowed this um application to come before you now rather than during the holidays when it was supposed to. Um, so to the public, you're welcome on that. That way, you actually had time to actually look at this. Um, I'm actually here on a semi-professional level. One, in that regard. two. Um I had a conversation with uh planning staff with current planning staff about um adding to the note of face of the plat about adding um in Ben County and Franklin County Emergency Management there is a 10m Hanford planning emergency zone. Um, and this site is approximately mileage, but it is west of the 300 area of Hanford. So, if something were to h were to happen at Hanford, these residents, if approved, should be notified through an alarm system. Now, the nearest alarm system is on Alder Road, but I still believe that notifications that they are within the Hanford emergency planning area should be somewhere either on the user as condition on the face of plat something and I know you recommended that should be through the um real estate I mean real estate agents and all that. Um, another thing, um, now this pertains more to the

application itself. Um, when we reviewed this, I completely disagreed with, um, the area of open space being proposed since it is open area number two, I believe is Nicole. Open area number two. Is that towards the canal? Yes. Yeah. So, are you talking about track? Yeah. Pull it up though. I don't have a memory. Okay. While she's pulling that up, I will also state that um my family has property to the west of this development, which is also why I'm here. Um, so that's where the personal level comes in because um, as a member of my family will state that there is going to be that there's going to be access that's going to be needed to those areas to like um, Sierra Gold Lambert. Um, so the own space number two as you see was right on canal and it goes and then the access road to the south is the um is parallel to the squassel drainage canal which as we all know is a very fastmoving water source. Um as far as the canal to the west I don't know how big or how wide that is or how fast moving but as far as far as I'm concerned that is a huge huge safety concern for any kids. Um, and it should be redone. Um, and I know that myself and other members of staff, previous staff discussed moving the open

space to the front of lots 1 through 11 to provide more for a viewpoint. Um and then um I think the only other thing the only other thing I have to say about this is you as a plan commission in the code you have power to approve approve with conditions deny or you can continue this application to to a later to address any concerns that the public may have or anything like that. Um I suggest that uh this application be continue to a later date until um such time that any mitigations that the public proposes is conducted. Um, and that's all I really have. But I'm glad that Peter got the rich VR system to approved to serve this because that was not in the original CUP when it was approved. Um, so that will need be amended CUP. Five minutes, Mike. Five minutes. We're we're time. I kind of figured, but thank you. Thanks. Okay. Next would be Natasha. Uh my name is Natasha Mandona. My address is 401 Geese Road. Um I'm going to condense my verbal comments. Um I was told that we had a date to submit our written comments and I submitted them by the date and they were not um in the packet. So I'm unsure what happened there. So I'll condense them since a lot of this was talked about. Um, so the proposal fails to demonstrate how it

safely supports emergency response traffic and infrastructure. Um, today Columbia River Road currently average 670 vehicles per day. This project alone adds 900 more daily trips, which is a staggering 134% increase. In the May 2025 commission meeting, Commission Diddier said at time stamp 4042, "Our roads are failing out there." And at time stamp 4212, we need safe roadways and we need to start investing in our roadways out in Franklin County. This development would more than double traffic on already failing roads. Approving this without addressing traffic is not irresponsible. It's also unsafe. Um, in comments to the SEPA determination, this was covered quite a bit, so I'm going to leave some of this out, but there was 360 pages of technical documents that were submitted after the public review period. So, we weren't able to review all of those before we were able to provide comments. Um, and in regards to the SEIPA appeal, um, although the staff is great and has provided a lot of guidance, we submitted the appeal based on the process provided by the staff. Um, and what we were, you know, given was that it was reversed after developer legal pressure. The SEIPA process lacks transparency and completeness. There are too many red flags suggesting bias and lack of fairness. This proposal is not consistent with established land use patterns in the area, does not conform to the planning framework set forth in the Franklin County comprehensive plan, and lacks a comprehensive analysis of traffic impacts and public safety. We respect we respectfully ask you to deny the proposal as submitted, require at least one acre lot sizes, and demand a full honest infrastructure and safety review. Um, thank you all for your time and considering the concerns of local residents directly impacted by this proposal. Thank you. Can I speak next? I

apologize. We were planning to speak tonight but not so your name. I'm Rachel. Apologize. I'm Rachel Kennedy. Um, I live at 351 Gesler. Uh my husband and I were in attendance tonight. Uh I had a whole thing written up for you guys, but after listening tonight, what I'd really like to get across to everybody, or I hope you guys heard, there's I'm not a lawyer obviously, but having a number of QDs already approved. Does that really explain to this how this is impacting us? Just because they've been approved in the past doesn't mean this is a good plan. um housing goals. Does that mean there's a lack of due diligence or public accountability in these sea reports? We didn't get them. There are somewhere in the ballpark of 300 documents. We did not fairly get to review prior to this hearing. If things are above board, why um some people in EMS that I've spoken to, we do not have um a fire department that is out there that is close enough to handle fire calls. We're adding in 94 households. How is that going to impact 94 new houses out there? That's not even talking about emergencies, not talking about fire, police. Um, if these legal water approvals, if you guys are looking at that, that's going to improve, you know, that we're talking about a density, you know, increase of over 50% right now. what we're seeing right now. Um, I think that these studies need to be done in a more comprehensive fashion. I think I I ask that you guys ask for transparency so we can review it. We can speak together and find something that knits what the community is saying, what

our needs are versus what this development wants. So, thank you guys. I I and the other thing I wanted to note was I know that they were talking about uh our lawyer was talking about zoning laws that are changing in January of 2026. Well, we're not in January of 2026 yet. And I don't think we're the west side here. Our needs are not the needs that are on the other side of our state. So, I ask that you take that in consideration. Thank you. Is your husband going to speak? Um if he does, he'll be in. We're going to switch out. So, okay. Now we're going to go back to Mark E. No. Oh, okay. Gotcha. All right. Um I can't read this one. Yes. Salma or Yesi. Okay. Oh, you're Are you for this? Okay. Sorry. Okay. Next is Robert Suits. How you guys doing? I'm Robert Suits. Sorry. Uh at 220 Gistler Road and I live out there since uh 2012. My wife and I uh we built on um one of old man Geese's um plots out there, one of his pieces of land. And uh it's a really special place. And I know that because I used to live at Le Vista Farm in a housing development. And people that are packed together in that kind of a development, they don't they can't breathe. There's not enough land for them to breathe. You need to give these people at least an acre. At least an acre. Let them have a septic system and then a backup drain

field. Let them have some space that they can stretch their their mind and their spirit and let them let them really love the land. This is not enough for them. It's too packed up. We are at the very end, the skirt of the development. So, let this be a special, you know, in where the the lots are, you know, larger size. They're maybe even larger than an acre. We own 2.21 21 and it's a wonderful, beautiful, just the right size piece for us, but maybe 1 acre is is fine for some others. But these small little lots out here in this beautiful country setting, it's inappropriate. These rock walls that are binding these people in and shoving them down onto this little piece is it's not appropriate for us out there. We got a security system and um it's really neat. all of the beautiful animals that we get to see out here. We've got turkey out on our property. Wild turkey and we've got all sorts of um coyote and there's fox and there's skunk and there's all sorts of wildlife that run through this area here. Interestingly enough, we've also got moose. We've had moose that have come into the esquazle and into this back irrigation ditch and deer get into the irrigation ditch and have to be rescued out sometimes. But it is a special rural area. Please don't put this development out there. The people that are advocating for it, they don't live out there. If they did, they would not be advocating for this development at all. They would be wanting to keep it beautiful and rule and give these people some some land so that they can again so they can breathe.

This is not any different than La Vista Farm down there, you know, on the other side of road 100. But Sunray Estates and all those other little developments up there, they are special and they are they are different and unique. I do want to touch on a couple other things. Open space 1, it's kind of an interesting place where Open Space 1 is. It happens to be right next door to Mr. Kelly's friend, which is interesting, who also has about 5 acres of cherries, but I talked to Mr. Orosco and yeah, that's an interesting place for open space one, open space 2, and open space 3, it already has an irrigation easement. it's not going to be able to be developed on anyway. And you really don't want your kids back there playing on those irrigation ditches. So to call it open space and that we're meeting this 15% is a little disingenuous. They wouldn't be able to use that land anyway. I really appreciate your time and I really hope that you guys don't don't approve this. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh, Cynthia Good evening. My name is Cynthia Muse. I live at 260 Ridge View Drive in Riveridge Estates out and have been a basin original for 65 years. Um, Ridge View Estates, may I speak to that since we've lived there for this 30 years, was George and Bernie Sanderson's dream of an old grazing farm you No, it was a farm unit that was left out of the irrigation district and

they got together with some Hamford scientists and uh technical people and and wanted to develop a housing unit and because of the tiered steep nature of the backside of their farm unit, they created the halfacre lots. This was in the late60s and that was developed and and they put the first graded road in in 1975. So I don't know where that was part not part of any kind of coding or I don't understand the zoning laws or anything of of what's happened more currently. But if you're basing halfacre lots on that particular development, you are not basing it right. I'm sorry and I'm against what you're doing because that was a whole different a whole different era with a whole different reason for it to be developed. Um, as far as the U Ridge View water system, if you drive by there and look at the surrounding areas that are possible for development, then you know that that water system is going to be used for housing developments of maybe less dense than this one. And we're talking what, five miles or more to transport that water from that development up to yours. It It just doesn't sound right to me. There's something wrong with this. It's And this this density is taken away from the character of Franklin County. Now, now for another thing. I'm worried about Birch Road. Yes, I own I own the 160 acres at the corner of Birch and Taylor Flats. It is the one of the most beautiful units in block 16. You can see all the way to the um um the bend in the river. I can't even think right now. It's it's beautiful on a clear day. And I have a 150year dynasty. And I will never ever be greedy enough to subdivide that land ever. And my grandchildren and their grandchildren know that. And Corey Brock and his law firm are reassuring me

that we certainly can keep that, that we're not going to be predatory to farmland. We're going to keep it in nice open beautiful space so that any of you ever driving up and down Taylor Flash Road can look out and enjoy that wide open beautiful space and know that it will never be. I could be a multi-millionaire over and over if I would allow people like this to develop my land but it won't happen as I rule from the grave. So that is you know my concern is where is what are we confusing with the word rural where where are we drawing the lines north south east and west on where these developments can happen. Um I don't care if it's 123 ABC or PUD. These don't need to be this far out. They need to be within the urban growth boundaries and within urban areas. We need to stop this kind of development now in beautiful rural settings in federal projects that were designed for agric um for egg production a commercial a industrial they were not designed for get-rich housing schemes. Thank you. Go ahead. So, this statement is a general statement to everybody in the room. When you're testifying, please be respectful of everybody in the room. There's no reason to make um faces to the proponents or the opponents of this application. We need to treat everybody with respect. Thank you. Okay, I think this is Sarah. Hi, I'm Sarah Nelson. Um, I have property to the west of the proposed

development and I submitted a slide. Who's running the PowerPoint? I have handouts, too. Thank you. Okay. So, I'm coming to you with an itty bitty teeny weeny problem in the midst of all of this chaos. So, forgive me for for dealing with such a tiny little issue. Um, my property is over here off of Cameas Road and we have easement issues. The red easement on the far right is imp um it's 10 feet and then it goes to 20 feet then it goes to 30 feet. It cannot be widened to 30 ft making it impossible for us to build back on those properties. The easement in the middle, the red the red line easement in the middle, that is a true easement as far as I understand, but there is a cliff there that makes makes developing a road very very expensive, very very treacherous, um, very difficult. And then our third access is the Esquatzel Canal Road across the bottom of your map, that red line. And that as I understand it can never be a legal access. So my request to you both to the developer and to you as a planning commission is could we punch one of these roads through to give access to all of these properties that are currently landlocked or virtually landlocked. So, the first the first option is to go um right there between lots 19 and 20 or at the top end of lot 19 and just punch a road through. It

would go across the esquatzel. Not that's not the esquatzel. Um it would have to go across the canal and that I'm not I've not sought permission for that or anything. I just want to ask if we can even do this as a starting point. The other option would be to punch through between lots 42 and 82. Or conversely, we could have the county ask the county to put a road across the top of the development or across the bottom of the development. Um those would be those magenta lines. So anyway, in doing so, in in creating some sort of access coming in off of Columbia River Road, it would help out nine property owners who are currently virtually landlocked. Thank you. Are we able to ask a question? Yes. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry, Sarah. I I wasn't clear on this. Are you for this development or against this development? That's a great question. Um, I am not happy with it being halfacre lots. I would prefer it be oneacre lots. I'll leave it at that. But you're proposing some sort of easement roads or transitional roadways too through the landlocked. Yes. area. Yes. Because that would allow us to come in through here and get to these properties. So, you're trying to find a solution. Is that what I'm getting? I am trying to find a solution. And the more development that goes on, the less likely a solution. Well, I shouldn't say less likely, but the more property owners get involved and the more easements have to be acquired. It would

just be great to handle it now. Thank you. Yes, Ed. Yeah, I don't really know where to start. A little offended by some of the comments that were made earlier, like the lack of intelligence or knowledge of uh the citizens here. That kind of bothered me a little bit because I happen to have more experience than these gentlemen do at the at that since I am a retired county administrator, county engineer that has reviewed I don't know how many subdivisions, land development processes. I made those comments on the on your sea checklist based on facts and there's no other way to say it but you cannot you just can't make the developments and some later date as was mentioned by your attorney that you can then do the sea that doesn't work that's that's illegal so I don't know what your attorney or their attorney has been proposing, but that's that's wrong. It's illegal. And as far as rural definition has been mentioned a couple times, I'm sure you've had a chance to look at your comp plan. It's been approved by you, but rural is defined pretty clearly. Historic I'm not going to go into complete definition there. Historically, it's uh etc. rural lands in those areas outside of the UG and which are not classified as a designated rural areas allow low to moderate densities that can be supported and sustained etc. Uh rural areas are traditionally used for hobby farms, tree nurseries,

greenhousing, agricultural crops, legs, livestock, mineral extraction processing, lowdensity residential development. Those are quote out of your comp plan. It goes on to say in the RCW, you look at their development uh essentially the same development densities that support and maintain rural area characteristics. Halfacre lots out in that area. That's not rural. That's not a rural characteristic. You talk about the uh limited area of more intense rural development. Yeah, that is part of it. That's good and bad. Actually, it's also shoreline management. That I found a little humor in this whole thing. It reminds me of a song. Got oceanfront property in Arizona. I mean, this is not shoreline. I mean, this is 200 feet above the river and a quarter mile away from it. It should never have been classified as shoreline management. But let's look at the uh uh limited area more intense rural development. Those were supposed to be created. Look at your comp plan. Those were supposed to be created for special areas where there has been some development and you set uh boundaries around that and those have been set. It's called around a built entire a built environment. Now, page 42, your comp plan. The lots will infill at a maximum residential density of one dwelling unit per acre. You can't get any more clear than that. Um, so I don't know. You talk about the road inter the road ratings. Yeah, they built

that up. Yeah. Makes makes meets all its county requirements for county road. Well, nowhere has it been mentioned what the impact is of an intersection with a thousand vehicles coming in where the tra where the traffic is only 670 I believe actually uh I think it's 800 I had the numbers here 870 or something like that that it creates that's in addition to what's on the subdivision that's already approved up there which will put the vehicles of over a thousand vehicles per day entering onto that road where you have a restrict restricted sight distance with the brush that grows around the esquatzel with a guardrail that's on the esquatzel. The bridge is restricted in weight that it's I don't know if I could find a worse place to put an intersection like that. That's more than double the traffic that's on the road. That's just it's just wrong. Now the information that was used to develop the declaration of nons the the DNS that was based on certain criteria certain information that you received that the planning department received what was that information when I requested a copy of everything I was sent an email message with the attachments. We we have to wrap it up as possible. Well, it's a little tough to respond to 500 pages in five minutes. We've got some ground rules. Yeah, I don't care about the ground rules as much as I do the representation of what the facts are. And that's been slanted. Uh I am going to turn in my comments and you need to look at that to see the impact of what the planning contracting people have and what their business is. You're going to see that their primary business is to help people through the maze of this to construct a project.

That answers why all of those answers on the sea checklist are slanted towards this is good. This meets compatibility. This matches everything that's out there. We're using this halfacre lots to transition from 1acre lots to five acre in lots. Well, halfacre lots do not transition between one acre and five acres. It's all slanted. It's it's simply wrong. Uh it is not a rural area and you should not be proven anything or recommending approval of anything until you do a DNS legally and unapproved on accurate information and complete information. Not slanted, not no answer. We have to keep this the same for everybody. We got to roll. Yep. I'm going to I'm going to close. But this is not anything that should be approved here. Clearly, there are legal representations for that. Legal reasons. Nathan, is Nathan here? You don't want to speak? Okay. So, that's everybody that was signed up. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Okay. Do we have any email public testimony? No, sir. Does staff have any final comments? I have a few um comments to provide. First, I wanted to clarify that there was no SEIPA notice of consultation done on this project. I think Mr. Nelson was confusing it with another project where we did do a SEIPA notice of consultation. And so I just wanted to clarify that that there was just the determination of non-significance issued and a comment period was um provided for

that process. Um I wanted to also make a note about compatibility. Compatibility if you look at the comprehensive plan doesn't call for things to match. it's about uh whether or not it is, you know, going to have these external impacts or effects that are um you know, not something that would be typical. And uh and so I think the point about residential next to residential typically being considered compatible. I think I think that um makes a lot of sense. Um there were notes about public works standards. Um folks calling for things like street lights. Um the road widths and type need type type need to be different. Um people have made some comments about septic systems. Um we're not uh able to really look into all of those things in depth for each development. Instead, we have a standard and a policy that applies countywide and those are the measures and the standards that we look at and that the developers are expected to build to. So, I just wanted to be clear on that. Um that it it would be um outside the purview of the planning commission to consider that or even to try to condition that. Um the that's really all I had. I mean, I think that all of our analysis um has been presented. I just wanted to just uh put the suggested comments of approve conditions of approval back up on the screen if I may. together with our um recommended motion. One moment here. And again, I'm just trying to be brief because I know the hearing has gone for a while. Um so just looking at these um proposed

conditions of approval. This is just a summary version on the slides. Um but we're um the first several conditions have to do with complying with the requirements of the different agencies and departments that have reviewed this proposal. Um next we have a standard condition number four which is proposed about um recording covenants on the um plat. Number five is also typical. It has to do with uh using addresses and road names um that would be approved. The sixth one has to do with um post office uh requirements for um mail service. Number seven is also typical uh preliminary plat approval is valid for a period of 5 years following um any approval by the board of county commissioners. this uh project may be a phase development and also prior to obtaining the county treasur signature. These are all just the typical conditions of approval. Um why is this is because the conditions of the county, the development conditions and all of the codes that are in place in title 16 which you have reviewed recently and updated recently are going to apply as this development moves forward. So what I'm trying to say is there's a benchmark, there's a standard for a lot of these things. um you've been given a lot of information and opinions tonight, but I we we need to truly look at what the um requirements are and the legal uh opportunities that that property owners have to ex um to use their property rights. And then finally, I just uh wanted to remind you that we have added number 10. I wanted to draw that to your attention again because it wasn't in the written staff report. Um and the final approval would be contingent on uh cup being changed. That's an item that would go back before planning commission uh with a public hearing. So, this is not um something that we we would gloss over

by any means. Um and therefore, that brings us to the suggested motion. I'll just read it very quickly. I move that the Franklin County Planning Commission port forward a positive recommendation to the Franklin County Board of Commissioners to approve with conditions the application with the suggested bindings fact and conditions of approval as detailed in the staff report and modified following the hearing. So that gives you the opportunity to say, "Hey, yeah, we need to add in that number 10." Um, and uh, did you have anything else? No, I don't. Thanks. Okay. And so I just want to thank you for your time and your careful consideration of this. Um, we know that this is a area that a lot of folks really love and um, so we know there's a lot for you to consider, but we thank you for the opportunity to present this and to uh, bring these um, facts before you and to remind you once again about what the uh, criteria are. and and that's really what we focus in as staff is looking at what the criteria is so that we can make sure that we are um preserving uh folks development rights and their rights to this public process. That being said, I'm also really appreciative of the public comments because it gave us an opportunity to kind of pivot before this meeting, make those um corrections where we needed to and um you know, I just love hearing people talk about uh their concern for their their uh neighborhoods and so forth. So, we're just really appreciative of everybody that's participated tonight. Thanks. I will entertain a motion to close public comment. Move to close public comment. I will second. It's been moved by Commissioner Daru and seconded by Commissioner Gutierrez. All in favor say I. I. I. Okay. Public testimony portion of public hearing PUD2 2025-1 is closed. Is there any discussion from the

planning commission members? I have a couple questions. Um, if these are halfacre lots, that's 21,780 square ft and these are all septic systems. Correct. I just recently went through a permit process where it's going to take fourbedroom house and I I understand soil types will change all this but it required about 8,000 square ft of space for the drain field and I have to have a secondary location. So here all of a sudden potentially there's 16,000 square feet of this lot that can't have anything else built on it. You can have a potentially a lawn going across it I suppose but no structures at some point. I'm just wondering if this lot size is so condensed that it's almost not possible to make halfacre lots work with septic systems with the current requirements. That's my first question. Do do you mind um chairman? May I respond to that? Uh no. Can we wait? Okay. Thank you. So, who is going to answer my questions? Nobody. Well, technically you've closed that. We can we staff can answer the question if it's in the record. We cannot provide additional information. It is in the record if if I may. So, I just would clarify that the uh Franklin uh Frank Benton Franklin Health District has reviewed the proposal. They did change their uh requirements in the last year or so is what I've been told. I have not gone back and read their requirements. Um so I believe that they have looked at it according to what their board has approved and they have

said that they don't have any concerns. The other item that I would highlight is that um site conditions can vary dramatically um in terms of what amount of land you need for septic. So they would have looked at the soil and done they go out and they do a site reconnaissance before they write this pre-approval letter. That's all I wanted to say. I didn't see a response in writing in here. Was there one from Benton Franklin Health Department? Yes, it's in this. Yes, it's uh recommending preliminary approval, but obviously when when the lots are developed in the final plat um each lot will have to have the test and site evaluation done. Um, but in this documentation that we have, I I see them addressing water but not septic and I may have missed it. It was in the application. There was a letter from the health district. That's what condition number one refers to. And I believe that's they are required to response to both. So I'm sure it's in here. Okay. And I guess the next is is only going to be a statement is same my same little bit of frustration with the road department. Um this size of project at what point does this trigger some sort of I don't road use study? And it I I get that they're going by the guidelines that they have in front of them, but it clearly there's a we've increased the traffic or potential traffic by this development and other developments. And the $500 um mitigation fee is kind of laughable at

this point to handle that. It wouldn't it wouldn't gravel a mile of road. So, I'm not sure what the point of the $500 is. So, Commissioner, in the packet I gave you of new material that was been turned in. Okay. Is information from the road department who based on the comments um it's in that packet. Based on the comments, they went back and made sure that the level of service would stay at a C, which is a requirement. Um, and the mitigation fees uh are meant to uh address any issues that uh would come up related to to the road inaccur adequacy or future improvements that need to be made. Now, I will admit that we probably need to review the dollar amount at some point, but that'll be in the comp plan update, not at this juncture. Any more questions from planners? I got a qu question for staff. in regards to I also have a a concern about the surrounding roads out there because I know them well. I live out in that area. But what does uh condition number 10 look like? framework of that as far as final approval by the county for the Rich View water system and what's the logistics of getting that water from substantially south uh across the Columbia River road and I believe also across the Esquaza. This may not be a satisfactory or a satisfying answer, but the answer is that has to be determined under a separate permit application. And it's not our job tonight with the PUB application to know all the details of the water system. We wouldn't be able to do that. You've seen there's tons of paperwork. So, they're showing you, you know, that this is in progress and

what's already been approved and they're showing you the approvals that have already come to light. But one thing I want to emphasize is that development is risky and expensive. And many times developers will come forward trying to get this is called an entitlement to move a project forward so that they know that they can make investments and move forward with other processes before they say if they were to try to get the cup changed first and then that didn't work. you know, they it it's it's they'd like they like to have some assurance of what is possible and get the entitlement in place so that they can move forward with the other investment in and investigative work. And then just uh I wanted to let you know there was an email and it was dated May 21st, I think, as as as noted. Um and I can read it into the record. Hello, Nicole. This office has reviewed the above reference C the DNS. Cherrywood Estates appears to generally meet all of our conditions asked for. These lots meet all usable land area requirements in accordance with Benton Franklin Health District Board of Health Rules and Regulations. Number two, we have no objections to the proposed plat. Thank you. Um, this is from the environmental health specialist one. I don't believe that was in our page 74. Thank you. Yeah, page 74. Yeah. and it addresses uh although it doesn't specifically says that they have to look at water and sewer or septication or that's on page 74 of your packet numbers bottom bottom right 74 okay y any more questions from yeah my only question um this is for staff I think Patrick uh mentioned this I wasn't really clear on the statement on the fact that this development has been designated and

planned for residential development for some time. Can you specify the time that this has been planned for? It's my understanding from speaking with staff it's been for about 20 years. If you go back and you look at the tw 2008 comprehensive plan which is archived on the website, you can go to the land use map from then and see even back at that time the lamard was already in place. The limited area of more intensive rural development and it was designated as a rural shoreline development. I think they named that because it stretches pretty far and it's I mean I don't know why that they named it that. Um, but also as a point of clarification, we did at the beginning of the outside of our presentation clarify that this is not in shoreline jurisdiction. And what we mean by that is that this is not subject to the shoreline management act. So, I just thought I'd clarify that because I know you guys might remember seeing that come before. Okay. So, so can I add to that since you're on that subject, the shoreline and I think we mentioned um that there are halfacre lots 17 potentially along the existing Riverview. What is the difference between those residential lots and the proposed lots of half an acre or more? that uh development wasn't done under a planned unit development process and so those are those are lots of an acre in size and so these they're they're larger lots essentially so they didn't include the open space benefit um that's the difference got it okay thank you any more questions okay I will entertain a motion Anybody?

I'll do it myself. Uh, can we have a motion back up, please? No problem. I'm sorry. I wasn't I was reading something. I will second. Nobody's made a motion. Nobody's Oh, I'm sorry. Does anybody want to make a motion? I will make the motion. I move that the Franklin County Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Franklin County Board of Commissioners to approve with conditions application PUB205-01 with the suggested fines of fact and conditions of approval as detailed in the staff report and modified following following the hearing. Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Gutieras and seconded by Commissioner Corales. Um, is there any discussion? Seeing none, we'll have a roll call vote, please. So, Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, your motion includes um number 10. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Just want to make sure. Thank you. I forgot about that. Okay. Uh Remy Daroo, yes. Uh Manny Gutierrez, yes. Mike Vincent, yes. Mike Corales, yes. Chairman, the motion has passed. Thank you. I what about the DNS?

It's been appealed. You rejected that with no reason. So, the DNA the DNS that was appealed went to our county attorney and the county attorney had made a determination after checking with outside legal counsel that that appeal was untimely f uh filed and that any appeal that needs to be done can be done so in conjunction with the project within the time span of 14 days from today's hearing. So if you want to file an appeal against the SEPA, you have 14 days. Hasn't that been done? Uh no sir, that was withdrawn and sent back. You guys returned it? We returned it with the fee based on legal counsel's advice. So you just approved something without No, sir. That's a recommendation of the county commissioners. the recommendation, the sea and any other recommendation is appealable in a 14-day period according to our code to the board of county commissioners. They make the final decision. So, the appeal process is 14 days after the commissioner's meeting. After today, this hearing. Yes. So, you can still appeal to They just recommend. They just recommend. Yes, sir. I got to tell you, your code is screwed up big time because it's not clear on several issues. I can guarantee you that. Okay. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on item one. Second. Somebody has to make the motion first. I'll move to close the hearing on SEUB. Okay. It's been moved by Commissioner Darus, seconded by Commissioner Dutder.

Uh, all in favor I. I. Okay, we're going to take a Thank you. 10 minute break and then we're going to pick up the pace. [Music] I think that's

water system. Thank you. Okay, we're going to get started. 8:33. We're going to start item two. Item two is a public hearing for file CUP 2025-2 Perez plants. This application is to allow for the sale of plants and agricultural products on site. The plants are trees not grown on site but are purchased then replanted in pots on site and sold at designated storefront on the property. A specific location has been designated as customer parking and no more than 15 sales are expected per day. Hours of operation are set from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 7 days a week. This application is to allow advertising of the plant business online. May we have staff present the staff report, please? Good evening, commissioners. Can you declare the hearing open with the gavl, please? I declare the I declare the public hearing for CU 2025-2 to be open. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. This is Jen Bellammore, planner 2 with the Franklin County Planning and Building Department. I will be presenting CUP 25502. On this slide, it gives the description of the site. It is located in 4920 IV Road, Pasco, Washington. It is currently zoned as rural residential 1. It has approximately 2.56 acres. Um this request as mentioned is for um is to allow for the sale of plants and agricultural products on site. These plants and trees are grown offsite, purchased then replanted in pots on site and sold at a designated store on the property. Um the applicant gave a specific location on a site plan on

where the customers will be parking and gave information on where the um plant business will be located. Hours of operation are set from 9:00 a.m. to to 5:00 p.m. 7 days a week. This application will also allow for advertising of the plant business online. Here is the vicinity map where the um property is located. And here is a site plan submitted by the applicant. As you can see on the north part of the property up here, this is the house of the applicant. This has been designated as parking. This has been designated for the plant business and the rest has been designated for storage. Um for in terms of planning analysis, um the staff received uh originally a home occupation application from the applicant for the um the landscaping and plant business on the site. During the um home occupation review process, staff have noted that um plants were not um planted and grown on site under the home occupation um rules in the Franken County Code. Anything that's sold under a home occupation needs to be grown on site. Thus, um staff is requiring a conditional use permit from the applicant in order to allow for this business to run from their property. Um this conditional use permit is being applied for under um a rural retail business and a greenhouse which is permitted under a cup for the RR1 district. I also want to note that um rural residential one allows for um rural businesses or small businesses in the area. Um

this uh zone allows for the combination and the transition of residential in the rural neighborhood and also allow for small businesses to occur within reason of um of the zoning and with compliance and compatibility with surrounding neighborhood. So, um, we received agency comments, one from the Benton Franklin Health District that they reviewed the proposal and, um, they meet all their conditions. The Benton Franklin Health District also required the applicant to have a group B well on the property since it will serve the um the residents and will end up being used as um the source of irrigation for the greenhouse. The Franklin County Public Works Department reviewed the proposal and um required an approach permit to access the Franklin County Road and um they deemed that there's no issues with um with any increase in traffic to the proposed site as they proposed the rural retail business. Franken K County GIS in E9 911 commented and they have um designated a new situs address for the uh the greenhouse that is separate from the building for 911 purposes. Franklin County Planning and Building Department added um comments um before construction of any structure to related to the nursery, greenhouse or rural retail business, a building permit shall be required. Um all structures shall comply with standards of the building code. Any structure shall not be sold

separately from the primary dwelling unit. Um this is a condition specifically made for this um project. All plants and agricultural products sourced from the off-site supplier and offered for sale to customers shall comply in with applicable state and county regulations regarding prohibited and noxious plant species. The applicant shall contact the Franklin County noxious weed control board if any non-native or regulated noxious weeds are identified on the property or observed in shipments received from the suppliers. Um the applicant also added in their site plan that there will be fencing around their business and around their home. So the um planning and building department added um a condition that fencing around the rural retail business must comply with fencing desire design standards under um 17.74.050. Um we received 12 comments in in favor of this proposal. Um I will most of the comments um stated that uh they have been long-term customers of Perez plants and they are aware of this business. Some of the comments mentioned that they originally were a mile from their original lo from their previous location and they just moved to a new location um to fit their growing business space. Um I'm not going into details just so we can move along. Um we did receive one comment that is in opposition of this project from Victor and Sylvia Hubard. Um Mr. and Mrs. Hubird expressed that um they strongly oppose this project project. Um they mentioned that allowing commercial or business activity even with conditions undermines the very purpose of this zoning and erodess the expectation

residents reasonably rely upon when choosing to live in these areas. This could set a precedent that could lead to further commercialization of rural residential properties potentially increasing traffic noise and land use conflicts. They believe that any conditions imposed upon the cup, if approved, is questionable due to the complaint-driven model of the code enforcement. Um they believe that conditions may not be um imposed without regular oversight. Um which is uh not um which they said that there is little assurance that the business will remain within its approved bounds. Um based on the uh findings of fact this these are the recommendations of staff. The proposal is in accordance with the county's goals and policies regarding development regulations zoning in the applicable comprehensive plan. I would also like to note like mentioned that um the construction of nurseries greenhouse requires a conditional use permit in the RR1 zone and the sale of agricultural products grown or produced offsite requires a conditional use permit which this project will cover. This proposal will not adversely affect affect public infrastructure based on the comment from public works department. This proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated in harmony with existing or intended character of the gener general vicinity. Um I quoted the Franklin County um code 17.14.010. Um the existing and intended character of the area is rural residential. Um, RR1 zone supports smallcale agriculture, lowdensity residential development, and rural economic activities that do not require urban level services.

The location and height of the proposed structure and site design will not discourage the development of permitted use on the property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof. The operation in connection with the proposal will not be objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights that would affect uh that would be the operation of any permitted use within the district. And number six, the proposal will not endanger the public, health, safety, or general welfare if located where proposed. These are the suggested conditions of approval. Number one would be to comply with require requirements of the Franklin County Public Works Department. Number two would be to comply with requirements of the Franklin County GIS and E911 addressing which would require um a separate address for the greenhouse. Number three would be to comply with requirements of the Franklin County Planning and Building Department which was mentioned earlier for outdoor lighting at the proposed nursery or rural residential rural retail business and all existing structural shall be shielded down. Any discontinuence or abandonment of the approved use for a period of one year shall make this conditional use permit approval null and void. Any use of the proposed nursery or rural retail business for purposes other than the approved use shall deem this cup null and void. The site shall maintain shall be maintained at all times as to not let the land become a fire hazard or accumulate with debris and weed. It shall comply with Franklin County fire code as expressed in FCC chapter 8.40. Um there's a mention of the right to farm um for them to be aware that this

facility is located in an area where farming and farm operations exist. Um if any archae archaeological materials or human remains are observed um all work shall um in the immediate vicinity shall stop. Future expansions and improvements at the site shall comply with the submitted and approved plans. Um any changes that is determined to be uh minor may be administratively approved by the planning department and any major changes will need to be reapproved and reviewed by the planning commission through a new CUP. Nothing in the CUP approval shall be construed as excusing the applicant from compliance with any federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations applicable to this project. In accordance with the county zoning code, any special permit we may be revoked by the 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. This permit applies to the lands described and shall be above uh for the abovementioned individuals and or his heirs and or assigns and um by accepting the issuance of this permit. Um they agree to accept full responsibilities for any and all operations or negl negligence occurring at this location and any incidents that occur on surrounding properties caused by the operations or negligence at this location. Here is the suggested motion. I move to forward CUP 202502 to the board of county commissioners with a positive recommendation based on the six suggested findings of fact and 15 conditions of approval. Does any commissioner have questions of staff?

Does the applicant wish to speak? come on up. Uh good evening. My name is Jessica Landa. I'm the owner of Paris Plants. We've been running that for four years. Well, when CO starts, five years, five years. And uh we've been we work as a family and u my three kids and my uh husband. and we work together and we try to you uh have uh everything clean and nice. Even our neighbors now they they're happy because they said the property is looking nice. We try we we live in the same property for uh 18 years another address and we always get along with our neighbors because we believe that neighbors is very important uh to be you know to uh to be get along with them because neighbors sometimes becomes friends family friends friends and then family that's our previous uh neighbor neighbors that we are. And now we've been there for a year and now our neighbors they just go there and uh they they love our place because we have a lot of plants and flowers and stuff and they said this good because that can prevent the fires. We clean every every time the weed the tumble weeds and even one of the neighbors is a little bit uh sometimes and he's happy now and because he says oh I like see your trees and and stuff. So we get along and uh in those years that we've been doing

this uh we contribute to the community also. I'm spons I have been sponsor the wrestling Chijuana for a while because I I believe in like I said community and also uh every year I do a fundraiser for uh the kids when they graduate because like I said for me education is is like uh everything. Uh myself, like you can tell I'm an immigrant and I have a very very very strong accent, but uh I'm a realtor, too. I've been I've been realtor for five years and uh I run the business. The I can probably make more money, you know, do the rest the real estate. But what I like is my goal is to teach my kids how to work because if you teach your kids how to work, you have better community. And I think having the good family is like good, not good kids because you know they do crazy stuff like everyone. But uh to me the family that we work as a family we work at the flea market and also we work there. We work seven days a week. I'm not that this color like natural. I'm very very dark now. But I love to do what I do because I can feel the people when they they see a flower, they see plants, they see life. And like I said, I have been uh if you go there and and tell me like, you know, I have this problem with this community with the and can you help me like do a fundraiser? I will give you a plant. I will give you a tree. To me, a tree is just like, you know, just one tree, but for somebody else is something else. But we raised all our plants with love.

And we have been having clients for like a lot of years. And like I said, we believe along with the community and like uh we we our neighbors, we try to keep their privacy. We have a lot of trees to boot for privacy. So we use those trees that way we keep them the privacy because like I said for us for me it's very important my private the privacy of my family. So that's how I treat them like as a family and that's it. I don't know if you have any questions or nothing. Okay. We allowed to ask questions. Yeah. Is the business more seasonal? Yes is seasonal. Yes. Okay. Yeah, it's uh from March to uh November. By this time of the year, we wish we have 10 cells. We we don't we we have very few right now, but uh like only like April, May, that's the hard like the busy time. Okay. We sell like fruit trees and uh and any kind of plant like there from here. And also I have the permit the somebody goes there the agriculture department of agriculture they go there and check my plants. So this now just like they have they check my plants that I don't have like any weeds or like right now the be the Japanese beetle you know I keep an eye on them and I have those traps and I I keep uh to try my plants healthy. I got a question. Great. So, are you planting your seed, growing the plant, and wholesaling it? No. Or will this be a storefront where you're just buying the plant and growing it? Yes. I Yeah, that's the reason I is like a special permit.

Otherwise, would be just like a right to farm. Yeah. Yeah. Got it. Wonderful. And And if I make a can I make a comment? I guess I Okay, real quick. it the coming from a landscape contractor myself. This is why Franken County uh a rural residential one allows the condition conditional use permits for smallcale businesses like such cuz I started at my house once upon a time my landscaping company. So I completely understand that. Thank you. Thank you. Any more questions? Okay. Is there any public testimony? I have a comment, but I didn't make it on the list. No, we're going to not go off the list. I have a comment, but I didn't make it on your We need a name and address. My name is Blanch Parahas, uh, City of Pasco, uh, 2203 North 7th Avenue. And I just wanted to add a little bit to what Jessica was saying. She she you can definitely tell the passion when she's talking about her business. Um, one of the things that I noticed, I'm also a consumer of her plants. My landscaping in my house, I bought a very old home about 6 years ago that needed a complete overhaul. You drive by my house, the front of my house is is is designed to attract. Um, and that's what her business is. I've been to her business. One of the things that she that has happened when she moved into the new location, she lined the if you bring up the picture, she lined the per perimeter of her business with trees to where it controls dust. It controls to the neighbors. It controls um and she's got programmed irrigation to where it's constantly irrigating, watering all these plants. So again, controlling dust, blowing into the neighbors. So

when she initially had moved into this location, it was arid. It was dead. There was nothing out there, tumble weeds that she now cleans up. But you can tell the perimeter perimeter of the 300 square ft where the plants are, it's all controlled irrigation. So again, uh mitigating the potential fire hazards out there because of the heat or any damage to neighbors uh with possible open windows. But again, you know, my vote is to, you know, ask you to allow this and thank you again for listening to me. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment? Um, my name is Juan Perez. Um, same place as my mom, 4920 IV Road. And I'll say this. Yeah. The every the the arboids we put up to block out for our neighbors, man. Me and my old man, we set it up. We set up the duck systems oursel throughout winter. So, I kind of laughed when he said seasonal job cuz I'm like, man, you don't stop. You don't stop no matter what. That's what my old man taught me. And um and respect to my old man because he's part of the reason why prayers plants exist in the first place. We started out in California. Can you speak into the mic? Oh, my bad. My bad. I I'm very softspoken. Um my old man, he's been doing this for longer than I've been alive. And I guess he cultivated me along with the plants here. He puts so much effort in these things. Like, man, you wouldn't believe. Everyone looks at him like some sort of shaman um working at the at the flea market. Like, you just first you notice the money, then you notice the people just surrounding it.

And I don't think I've ever seen that man smile more than when he gives someone what they need. That's why I completely understand with just providing that essence of community. And I hope one day I can do the same thing. But until then, I got to worry about my neighbor filing a complaint. And no, honestly, he is pretty chill now. We try to keep it even. His goator aritis, but I'm just going to keep it brief. We've been here for a while. Um, I'm Juan Perez and I motion positively towards this movement. Thank you. Thank you. Any more comments? Okay. Is there any email public testimony? No, Mr. Chairman. Does staff have any final comments? No, Mr. Chairman. I will entertain a motion to close the public comment. Second. I'll move that we close the public comment. Okay. It's been moved by Commissioner Vincent and seconded by Commissioner Dutder. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. I. Motion passes. The public testimony portion for CUP 2025-2 is closed. Is there any discussion amongst the planning members? If not, I will entertain a motion. Chairman, I move to forward CUP 2025-02 to the board of county commissioners with a positive recommendation

based on the six suggested findings in fact and 15 conditions of approval. Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Dutder and seconded by Commissioner Vincent. All in favor? I. Motion passes. Public hearing is closed. Item three. Item three is public hearing for CUP 2025-5 Collins D AU. This application is to allow for the construction of a detached accessory dwelling unit to provide sufficient housing for family member to care for an aging parent. The proposed DADU will be approximately 1,200 square ft of floor space which is under the allowable 1 1600 square ft of floor space for D AUS. I declare the public hearing for CUP 2025-5 open at 8:59. May we have staff present the staff report please? Good evening commissioners. This is Jim Bellamore again, planner 2. Um I will present CUP 202505. This proposal is from um Kelly Collins applied for by Mr. Robert Rickman from Hatton Homes. This cup is located in um the the DAD will be located in 2401 North Belleview Road, Eltopia, Washington. Um the property is zoned AP20. It is approximately 5.89 89 acres in size. The conditional use permit is to allow for the construction of D a D AU which will provide sufficient housing for a family member which will be um mi Miss Collins son. Um this is for the son to care for an aging parent which is Miss Collins. The

proposed de detached ADU will be approximately 1,200 square feet feet in floor space. Here is the location, the site location. Um the the home exists up here and the detach ADU will be here. Um thank you. uh the applicant submitted a site plan which uh not visible but if you look into your packet it should be on on um page four of the packet um the house the dad will be on the west side here the north um west side of the property um there is gravel parking in a garage located on the site. And um they do have um the proposed size of the manufactured home, which will be the DADU, is 27x 44 ft in size. Uh the proposed use is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan. Staff received no public comments during the notice period. The Benton Franklin Health District gave a comment regarding this detached ADU and they have rep uh reviewed the um condition uh the cup with the proposed detached accessory dwelling units and um they meet they generally meet all the conditions asked for. Um, one thing I want to know is the application did not have um an attached septic permit yet. um per uh based on my conversations with the applicant and the owner, they want to make sure that the um the CUP is approved prior to applying for a septic permit due to the length of

time for um test holes needing done. And um if um they are denied, they are not going to move forward with applying for a septic permit. Um, I want to point out that I added that as one of the conditions um for the CUP if it does get um approved that they need to apply for a septic permit um from the health district prior to uh prior to applying for a building permit. The Franklin County Public Works Department um made a comment that uh it will not sign have significant impact on the county road system and an approach permit will be required for the detach ADU. E911 gave a comment that a future address will be given to the new ADU and will be set as 2403 North Belleview Road. Um the house will remain the same address. Um like I mentioned um planning and building department gave comments almost the same as the previous um cup with the added condition that um an approved septic permit shall be required from the Benton Franklin Health District prior to the construction of the detach ADU. This proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the county development regulations and the applicable comprehensive plan. The AP20 allows for a detached ADU and um an AP20 zoning district under a conditional use permit. Uh this proposal will not adversely affect public infrastructure. This proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity. The location and height of the proposed structure and site design will not discourage development of permitted uses on the property in the general vicinity.

Um the operation in connection with the proposal would not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic or flashing lights. The proposal will not endanger the public health, safety or general welfare if located were proposed. Um the suggested conditions of approval uh listed the they might they must comply with requirements from the public works department. They must require uh comply with requirements from the Franklin County GIS and E911. They must comply with requirements from the Franklin County Planning and Building Department, including the added condition that um a septic permit must be um must uh a septic permit is required prior to the the construction of the DADU. Outdoor lightning at the proposed DADU and all existing structure shall be shielded down. Any discontinuence or abandonment of the approved use for a period of one year shall make this conditional use permit approval null and void. Any use of the proposed D-ADU for purposes other than the approved use shall deem this conditional use permit approval null and void. The site shall meet be maintained at all times as to not let land become a fire hazard or accumulate with debris and weeds. It shall comply with Franklin County Fire Code. Um it talks about the right to farm within the county and they shall be aware that this facility is located in an area where farming and farm operations exist. Um and should there be any archaeological materials or human remains, it shall be reported and all activities and work shall be stopped immediately. Future expansions and improvements shall comply with the submitted approved plans. Minor u or incidental changes may be approved by the planning department

and any major changes must um it shall be reviewed by the planning commission through a new cup. Uh nothing in the cup approval shall be construed or excusing applicant from compliance with other uh state, local and federal statutes, ordinances or regulations. Um the board of county commissioners may revoke the special permit if after public hearing it is found that the condition conditions were not been have not been fulfilled. Uh this permit applies to lands described and shall be for the above mentioned individuals and or his heirs and or assigns and um this talks about the accepting acceptance of full responsibility for any and all operations and any possible incidents or negligence about the location in the proposed project. Here is the suggested motion by staff. I s I move to forward CUP 202505 to the board of county commissioners with a positive recommendations based on the six suggested findings of fact and 15 conditions of approval. Thank you. Thank you. Does any commissioner have any questions? Does the applicant wish to speak? Is there any in-person public test? Oh, you're gonna I'm Kelly Collins at 2401 North Belleview Road and we were um gifted a manufactured home and I'd like to put it on my 5 acres. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any in-person public testimony?

Robert Robert Rickman, 6119 West Pearl Street, Pasco, Washington. Uh Miss Collins has engaged me to help her get through this uh permitting process and be her contractor if it's approved. And uh I just have a couple comments. I don't think that there's going to be any impact on the farming activity with this home out there. And I think that this is a tiny little step in resolving our housing shortage here and staff has done a great job of reviewing it all. It's all I got. Question. Thanks. I got a question. What's the standard as far as the manufactured homes far as building code compliance and that kind of thing? 1600. As far as the exterior finishes, as far as I think that in Franklin County, as long as you uh have a HUD built home, which would be a home that's built after 1976, it meets the requirements. There are some there used to be some zones where they had some age restrictions and stuff, but I think that's all gone from the What's the date of this home? It's a 95 or 96. It's what I consider to be a modern generation manufactured home. It will require It will require the LNI alteration and life safety application since it's a 1975. No, no, it's a it's a 95 or Oh, it's a

95. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. No, it's more like a modular home then. It's a manufactured home. So, it's stick framed, right? Yes, it is. It has a it has a metal frame that is uh part of the transport mechanism and that metal frame stays with it in place. It's part of the foundation system. The tires and axles come off. the hitches come off, but the the metal frame stays basically two long I beams on each section of the home that you're able to get all the insulation requirements fulfilled because of the way that it's built. It's already insulated and all set up. If this is a 1996, it was probably built during the uh super good sense era of the manufactured homes. That was predominantly what was built in that area era. I wouldn't be able to tell you the exact uh R values of the walls and ceiling. I know just staff is going to be looking at as far as permitting and code and everything else that what they would look at as far as uh acceptance and final occupancy type thing. So, Mr. Commissioner, that would be um part of the building inspection approval, right? That's not part of the CUP. Um, but yes, it would have to meet all the standards and if it's bill 96, that would generally meet all the requirements. We just have to make sure it's LNI inspected. Our folks will inspect the site when the building permit is applied for.

Any more questions? Thank you. Thank you. Any more public testimony? Any email public testimony? No, Mr. Chairman. Does staff have any final comments? No, Mr. Chairman. I will entertain a motion to close the public comment. Move to close the public comments. Second. Been moved by Commissioner Daru and seconded by Commissioner Vincent. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. The public testimony portion of public hearing CUP 2025-05 is closed. Is there any discussion from the pub from the planning commission members? I would entertain a motion. I move to forward CUP 2025-5 to the board of county commissioners with a positive recommendation based on the six suggested findings of fact and 15 conditions of approval. I'll second. Sorry. Been moved by Commissioner Daroo and seconded by Commissioner Gutierz. Is there any discussion? May we have a roll call vote, please? Remy, yes. Remy Daroo, yes. Manny Gutierrez, yes. Mark Dutder, yes. Mike Vincent, yes. Mike Corales, yes. Mr. Chairman, the motion has passed. I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing on item number three. I move to close the public hearing for on item number three. Second. It's been moved and seconded to close the thought we did that. No, we closed discussion. Now we're closing this. These are add-on things. I don't know when they started, but All

right. Uh, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. We're tired. That's fine, Mike. You're good. Okay. Item four is a public hearing for file CUP 2025-6 Schultz commercial intermittent kitchen. This application is to allow for the remodeling of an existing 30x30 detached structure as a commercial intermittent kitchen. The proposed commercial intermittent kitchen will be used for the making of frozen custard and Italian ice. From pre-made mix that is shipped to the address. The homeowners will move frozen products from the commercial intermittent kitchen to a food truck to be served at local events in Franklin County. All activities are done solely with the within the confines of the structure other than sales. No sales are being made on the property. I declare the public hearing for CUP 2025-6 to be open at 9:14. May we have staff present the staff report, please? Good evening, commissioners. Um, I will present COP 202506. It is located in 2250 Buffalo Lane, Misa, Washington. It is zoned AP20 and has approximately 1.95 acres. Um, this cup like mentioned is for the remodeling of an existing structure um as a commercial intermittent kitchen. anything that they are bringing into uh the detach um commercial kitchen is a pre-made mix. Um so there are no sales being conducted on the property. This is solely just to mix um any of the pre-made mix uh into Italian ice and frozen custard. Here

is the location of the site and this is the submitted building plans from uh the applicant. Um half of the existing building will be converted into the intermittent intermittent commercial kitchen. I would like to point out that we've had um a preapp meeting with the applicant which included the Benton Franken Health District both from the uh environmental health side and the food safety side. And I would like to uh point out that um the planning department um received as part of the application from the applicant um a construction approval from this food safety um side of the Benton Franklin Health District which reviewed their proposal and their building plans and um they have deemed that um as presented it complies with their food safety requirements. The proposed use is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Franken County comprehensive plan. The planning and building department received no comments from surrounding property owners and residents within the county. The Venton Franklin Health District gave a comment that they've reviewed the proposal and um uh it meets the general um requirements and conditions asked for. Uh the public works department gave a comment that and mentioned that the proposed use will not have any significant impact to the county road system. E911 addressing and GIS um made a comment that a new situs address will be given to the detached structure which is different from the existing home. uh planning and building department um gave comments uh same as the pre previous comments with the added um

condition that no sales shall be conducted on the property. All frozen food processing related to the intermittent commercial kitchen must occur entirely within the existing structure with the exception of transporting supplies and finished goods to and from the site. This proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the county development regulations and the applicable comprehensive plan. This is um being put in front of the planning commission under a cup under um under crearyy bottling ice manufacturer and cold storage plant which requires a cup under the AP20 zoning district. This proposal will not adversely affect public infrastructure. The proposal will be constructed, maintained, and operated in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. The location and height of the proposed structure and site will not discourage the development of permitted uses on the property um in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof. The operation in connection with the proposal will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust traffic, or flashing lights. The proposal will not endanger public health, safety, or general welfare if located were proposed. Um, as uh suggested conditions of approval, um, we put in that they must comply with the requirements of the Benton Franken Health District Food Safety. It's in the report. We didn't include it in here because it went from A to P. There was a long list of conditions from the food safety department. Um, they must comply with the Franklin County Public Works Department requirements on needing an approach for it. Uh, they must comply

with requirements of E911 and GIS. Um, that a new address be uh designated for the uh intermittent commercial kitchen. They must comply with requirements of the Franklin County Planning and Building Department, which is the same as the previous ones. Other than um other than no sales shall be conducted on the property, all frozen food processing related must be uh entirely within the existing structure. Outdoor lighting at the proposed detached structure and all existing structural shall be shielded down. Any discontinuence or abandonment of the approved use for a period of one year shall make this cup null and void. Any use of the proposed um project um for the purposes other than what has been approved shall deem this cup null and void. The site shall be maintained at all times and not to not let it become a fire hazard or accumulate debris and weeds. It shall comply with fire code. Um the applicant shall be aware that the facility is located in an area where farming and farm operations exist. Should any archae archaeological materials or human remains be observed, all work must be uh all work in the immediate vicinity shall stop. Future expansions or improvements other than minor or incidental changes must be approved and reviewed by the planning commission under a new cup. Nothing in the cup approval shall be construed to excuse from any other regulations or ordinances or statutes. Um, in accordance with the county zoning code, the the board of county

commissioners may revoke the special condition uh special permit if um conditions have not been fulfilled. This permit applies to the lands described and um and the above mentioned individuals and his or her heirs or assigns. And the last one would be um the applicant accepts full responsibility for any and all operations, any and all negligence um and incidents that occur regarding this property and any of the projects or actions proposed. Here is the suggested motion by staff. I move to forward CUP 202506 to the board of county commissioners with a positive recommendations based on six suggested findings of fact and 16 conditions of approval. Thank you. Thank you. Does any commissioner have any questions of staff? Does the applicant wish to speak? And you do not have to. You're the applicant. Yes, I am. That's how it's listed on here, too. Oh, I didn't know. Dave Hardy, DDSL, General Contracting, representing Travis Michelle Schultz. Couple of quick items of interest. Number one, it is Buffalo Road, not Buffalo Lane. So, that's one correction. Number two, commercial kitchen. We already have the approved septic permit from Benton Franklin Health Department. We already have that. Um test holes were done, permits been issued. We just haven't done that yet. Waiting for a tank to arrive. Um we've already paid the fee for the South Columbia Basin Irrigation District. Um fee to cross the canal, which was a new one to me because both access points both to the garage, which will be the commercial

kitchen and the property both cross over an buried irrigation canal. Number three, um the road approach permit was already done. It was evaluated by the road department. They came out said with no additional traffic because there's no point of sales on site. There's no read no reason to do anything for the approach permit and what's already there is sufficient. Only other point that I would like to make is commercial kitchen might throw up red flags. There is no cooking source in this structure. This is purely ice. It's cold. is frozen. There's no heat. There's they're not cooking anything. It's correct me if I'm wrong. It's powder form that comes in frozen or it's a frozen product and then it goes into the freezer. There is nothing that's heated. So, the fire suppression aspect, this is literally the next step short of building permit and insulation credits being engineered. Other than that, that's all I had. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Is there any more public testimony? Is there any email public testimony? No, Mr. Chairman. Does staff have any final comments? No, Mr. Chairman. I will entertain a motion to close the public comment. Mr. Chairman, I would move that we move towards closing the public comment. Second. Then moved by Commissioner Vincent, seconded by Commissioner Dutder. Uh, all in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Motion passes. Public testimony portion of public hearing for CUP 2025-6 is closed. Is there any discussion amongst the planning members? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion.

I move to forward CUP205-06 to the board of county commissioners with a positive recommendation based on the six suggested findings of fact and 16 conditions of approval. Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Gutierz, seconded by Commissioner Dutder. Is there any discussion? May we have a roll call vote, please? Remy Daroo. Yes. Manny Gutierrez. Yes. Mike D. Mark Dutder. Yes. Mike Vincent. Yes. Mike Corales. Yes. Mr. Chairman, the motion has passed. Thank you. I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing on item number four. A motion to close the hearing on item number four. Second. It's been second. It's been moved by Commissioner Dutder and seconded by Commissioner Vincent. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Motion passes. Public hearing closed. Other business? None. Administrative items. Commissioners, we still need you to fill out your forms for that OPM open public meetings act training. Great. If you have them, uh, please give them to staff. If you don't have them, please get them done. Uh, you put the county at risk. If you don't have those done, it's real easy online. If you need the instructions, again, please let us know. We'll send them out. Uh it doesn't take very long. Uh it's a pretty easy process, but we do get audited on those. Uh the county does and we don't want a finding. So, question on that. So, there I saw that link and there's just basically a video that lasts, I don't know, three or four hours. Is that what it is? Certified. It It should only last about 20 minutes, I believe. Oh, really? Yeah, if you need help, just call us. We'll we'll walk you through where the

right one is. It's it's it's literally you can do it in about five minutes. And then one last thing, if if you guys uh do not need your books, please leave them and we will take them back. I will reuse them for the county commissioners in order to save a few trees. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll let you turn it back to you for public comment. Okay, there is no member here. So, the meeting is adjourned and I want to bring something up. Wes had some issues with me and he told me and I accepted them and I want to ask the staff to please have this meeting ready to roll on time. We got I mean I don't know what it is or what it takes but get them here 10 minutes early and get this. We've had this a lot of times. So we emailed I was at a staff meeting I was at as director. I know I emailed Bo at it. Uh they followed up. They emailed Bo at I or the staff at IT. They were called ahead of time to make sure they were going to be here. I apologize. No, I understand. on it here. Well, I don't know who it is, but I know that the meeting didn't start on time. We had a room full of people where it's 9:30 at night. You know, I understand. But and it's your this is your first one I've been with you before. We had these we had a deal before where our meetings at Well, is it real? Well, not not as bad as this one, but we had meetings before where at 8:00 the whole meeting would shut down. And they knew it. They knew that there was a redo at 8:00 and we'd have to stop the whole meeting. You know, we got to get these things worked out while people are here waiting to do this stuff. Yes, sir. I I agree. I'm not chewing anybody out.

I just don't understand. I can't do the IT stuff. I don't get it. I will bring it up to the to the director of that department and I'll bring it up to the administrator and I'll talk to you. Never been an ongoing issue even previous to what No. Yeah. It's not you. It's not you. It's just been on and on and on. We We need We need to get it fixed. Yeah, I I I agree. I mean, it's ridiculous to sit here for 15 or 20 minutes, especially tonight. It was lucky that I had the phone number to get a hold of somebody at all. Otherwise, we we we do something different. But, I mean, I think one of the suggestions we might have is um we can invest in a recorder. Exactly. If we can't if we can't get it started, we'll just start on time and record it that way rather than on the YouTube. Um but I I I will definitely bring that up sir. Um I was not very happy myself. I know. I know. For me just minor. It has nothing to do with this. So we used to all get that thing that Mike has the agenda. The script. The script. The script. We would all get it because then it would have the the proposed uh But this didn't have the motions on it today. Oh, it didn't. It should. So we used to have that. We used to all get it and then we would also be able to go back and review all those findings instead of just what was on the screen. We would we would get that packet that Mike was getting. We were all getting it. Okay. And is there a reason we So I have changed the script. And the reason I changed the script is having been a county commissioner for 12 years and dealing with lots of lawsuits and stuff. I will tell you that some of the stuff that was being done was being done inappropriately. So, some of the script and stuff we've we've reworked, even the sign-in sheet, you'll notice that we we kind of modified that a little bit. We've even

modified the closed record hearing in front of the of the board of county commissioners. As staff, I don't give another report. It's a closed record hearing. I give them a copy of everything a week before the hearing. They are supposed to review it. They open it up. They have a chance to ask me about anything that's in the closed record hearing. There is no public testimony. They make a decision based on everything that's in here without any public input and no presentation from staff. If I as staff present in front of the board of county commissioners, there's a very high likelihood that I would inject something that's not in the record. So, you just you don't do that. Uh, in an appeal, it's only those people that do appeal, they get to talk on their direct appeal. They cannot bring in anything that's outside of the record. So, there's a lot of stuff tonight like me reading all that stuff in there. I really suspect someone is they've already appealed it once. Wasn't valid. I suspect they're going to appeal it again. We need to make sure that we're doing the process right. And the reason I say that is because the liability of the county is very high if we don't. Um, I've had an executive session with the attorney in front of the county commissioners to commissioners to go over that. I just want to confirm we haven't adjourned the meeting yet. It's journed. It's adjourned. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So, so anyway, just trying to clean up some of those processes and stuff, but yeah, I like I can get you the staff report. The hard part about this just from our logistical standpoint