[0:00] fairly good video looks like we're okay. Mm

[0:13] It is 702 and I call the October 5, 2021 regular meeting of the franklin County Planning

[0:20] Commission to order before we get into the meeting? I will turn things over to staff

[0:24] to discuss the format. Thank you. Tonight's meeting will be conducted through a hybrid

[0:30] in person online meeting platform. Should an individual planning commission every

[0:35] time unexpectedly disconnected, please rejoin the meeting at your first opportunity,

[0:41] The record will reflect your attendance. The meeting will be praised for 10 minutes

[0:45] to address technical difficulties. If they cannot be resolved within 10 minutes then

[0:50] the meeting will proceed. So long as the Quorum of Planet Commissioners are present,

[0:55] please activate your mute button at the bottom of your computer screen when not speaking.

[1:01] As a reminder, the Youtube video stream is not working. If you are watching the meeting

[1:06] from a remote location, please do so on a v capture. Of course they're watching youtube,

[1:12] they won't see this. But anyways, if you wish to comment or need clarification on

[1:17] a public hearing item, please send us an email at Planning Inquiry. All one word

[1:23] at ceo dot franklin dot la dot us before the public comment period closes. Once

[1:31] public comment period has closed on set item comments will not be included as part

[1:36] of discussion.

[1:39] Sure, but planning staff please call roll and announce whether or not we have a quorum

[1:44] can't Mcmullen present mike Vincent.

[1:50] Right. Uh huh. No. Yeah. Oh, oh no, not this

[1:58] again.

[2:01] Like my boy right now, is there like this, are there?

[2:12] Yeah. Mike

[2:17] I stand good. Why?

[2:23] Mike Vincent.

[2:31] Yeah.

[2:34] Mm I don't. Is his audio off.

[2:46] Um

[2:50] let's keep going with real cold laid low.

[3:00] Did we lose everybody? Yeah.

[3:04] Mike paralysis present roger lane

[3:11] Belinda video.

[3:16] Claude parent.

[3:23] Oh, how many commissioners do we have four? We have to present and

[3:30] to on the phone.

[3:35] Hey Rebecca, did you call my name? This is laden yes, yes, late. Oh you guys came

[3:42] in right late so I just want to make sure you guys know I was here for the commissioners

[3:48] please go ahead and keep do not turn on the mute. We can't tell if you're hearing

[3:52] us or not. Yeah

[3:57] and that's normal.

[4:02] Mike Vincent. Why do you private

[4:10] Mr Chairman, We do have a forum. Thank you. Well staff in attendance. Please introduce

[4:14] yourselves. I'm Derrick Braaten. I'm the Director of planning and building for franklin

[4:19] County. I'm Rebecca gilly and the funding and building services administrator. I'm

[4:27] Eric Gunderson on the planter one but mhm

[4:34] you have the ammonium, the public works Director and I'm attending to your webex.

[4:40] This is just a civil attorney for franklin County attending via webex

[4:48] that it

[4:51] I will now lead us in the pledge of allegiance

[4:57] regulations to flag. All right

[5:06] indivisible. With liberty to throw off.

[5:14] I will now entertain a motion to approve the agenda for tonight's meeting?

[5:25] I'll make a motion to approve the agenda for tonight's meeting. This is late In Iowa

[5:30] 2nd. This is commissioner Kent McMullin. It is moved by, it has been moved by layton

[5:37] and seconded by I can't all in favor. Hi

[5:44] I fire mm

[5:51] motion carries. I'll entertain a motion to approve the meetings from the August 3,

[5:57] 2021 meeting.

[6:02] Commissioner Camp. I move that we approved the meeting the minutes from the August

[6:07] three meeting.

[6:12] Second. It has been moved by Commissioner Mcmullen and seconded by commissioner corrals

[6:17] all in favor. Signify by saying aye. Hi I cried

[6:24] might still out

[6:29] right okay

[6:35] like a community. Mhm Right no kids, can you hear me

[6:42] now?

[6:49] Mhm It is now time for the public hearing portion of our meeting. Good evening and

[6:53] welcome. I will turn things briefly over to our staff host who will go over the ground

[6:57] rules for tonight's hearing.

[7:02] I got it. Here are the ground rules for tonight's hybrid hearing. These rules primarily

[7:08] apply to the folks listening on the other side. Um but uh huh and also

[7:16] here to all speakers will be called upon individually during the public testimony

[7:22] portion of the hearing giving their name for the audio record as well as if they

[7:26] are in favour neutral or against the proposal. Please mute your audio when you're

[7:31] not speaking. All comments and questions shall be addressed to the planning commission

[7:37] and should be relevant to the application and not be of a personal nature. Each speaker

[7:42] shall have five minutes to provide testimony. Please avoid repetitive comment. If

[7:48] there are a large number of speakers who are part of a group or organization. Police

[7:53] select a representative to speak on behalf of the group behaviours such as clapping,

[7:58] booing, hissing or remarks is re prohibited. Every citizen here tonight should have

[8:04] the opportunity to testify without such distractions. Are there any questions regarding

[8:10] the public hearing? Ground rules

[8:15] turning for a moment to our commissioner members that is keep in mind that we are

[8:18] prohibited by law from communicating with members of the public on this subject.

[8:23] Matters of these hearings, except in these hearings, we also may not participate

[8:27] in decisions in which there is an appearance of conflict of interest to the average

[8:32] person. So let us take a minute to consider as to the matters which are before us

[8:37] for the hearing today. Whether he had any export a communications, whether we have

[8:42] any ownership interest in the properties, whether we have any business dealings with

[8:47] proponents or opponents of the matters or whether we have business associates or

[8:51] immediate family members who were there may be benefited or harmed by a decision

[8:55] in these matters. Are there any commission members who have a declaration at this

[8:59] time regarding any of the items on the agenda?

[9:05] Yeah, let the record show there were no declarations. Is there anyone in the audience

[9:12] this evening who would object to any commission member hearing any of the items on

[9:16] this agenda.

[9:20] Let the record show there were no objections. The er the hearing shall be as follows.

[9:25] Planning staff shall provide a staff report. The commission may ask questions of

[9:29] the staff. The applicant or applicants representatives presentation public testimony

[9:36] for against or neutral call in public testimony for against or neutral regarding

[9:44] the project. Final staff comments. Clarification of public statements that occurred

[9:50] during the testimony period of the public hearing. Close to the public hearing and

[9:54] planning commission discussion of the proposed action. Are there any procedural questions

[9:59] before we begin the public hearing

[10:06] Item one is a public hearing for files. c. p. 2021-08. It is a proposal to allow

[10:13] for a commercial winery in the rural Community 1 RC-1 Zone Commercial winery while

[10:21] not listed as a conditional use in the RC-1 zone Staff is interpreting

[10:28] interpreting as similar to a agricultural use commercial as listed in FCC

[10:35] 17.18 .040. Yeah. Are there any additional people

[10:43] logging on to see comment on this matter?

[10:52] Good time there. Is there anybody anybody looking to log on for public comment?

[11:00] Hold on hold on. Uh huh

[11:05] there. Yeah.

[11:10] Good.

[11:14] Yeah it's all there. I declare the public hearing for c. p. 2021-08 to be open.

[11:22] Yeah maybe we have a staff when we have staff present the staff report please. Thank

[11:28] you chair and I want to thank everybody especially the folks were here last month

[11:32] and had to come back again. We again, apologize for that. Welcome home and thank

[11:38] you for how many to our public hearings? Pretty full room doesn't usually happen

[11:44] on planning commission days, but happy to see you all. Um hmm. So first of all this

[11:51] is a conditional use permit 21-08 for commercial bakery, bakery. Sorry,

[11:58] baker commercial winery. Um

[12:06] property is located on the south to the south of Hill drive, east west, north of

[12:12] Summit loops. I'll have a map. It will make it a little more clear here shortly.

[12:17] The address is 4 50 Summit Loop. Al Topia Washington 99330 parcel number 12346 oh

[12:24] 112. Legal description is lot 12 with west own subdivision recording volume

[12:32] D. Of platts, page 3 13 auditors file number 16872 to 1.

[12:40] Mhm. So yeah, a little hard to see with the lights, but it's this parcel

[12:49] and the loop goes like that. It's a loop hence the name. Uh But

[12:56] uh remember it. That's he'll drive up here. Um L Topia West

[13:04] is way up here somewhere. Um So that's the main drag. And then, and then it pretty

[13:11] much goes into this. Yeah, the there's a

[13:19] residence on the property and currently this area here and maybe some others, but

[13:25] for sure in this area are a vineyard that Want to say 3-5 years old.

[13:33] I'm sure applicant is bill speak to that specifically.

[13:41] The com plant designation for this area is rural settlement and the zoning is rural

[13:46] community. One RC. One original. Originally we received a request to

[13:54] deviate from accessory structure, roof fight standards. As we're reviewing the property

[14:00] and other items associated with the application, we notice that there's

[14:08] actually a commercial winery and operation um without a conditional

[14:15] use permit which would be required. Um It's not unusual for that to occur sometimes

[14:23] just folks aren't aware of all the pieces or when we are speaking to each other.

[14:29] We're not always on the same page as to what the request is. So um we've received

[14:34] no complaints regarding this activity at this. Up to this point. However, such an

[14:42] application or use in a RC one zone requires a conditional use permit. So the

[14:50] C. P. Was modified to include the or to reflect as a commercial

[14:58] winery operation. And the initial request to deviate from the accessory structure,

[15:03] roof height standards was rolled into that as part of a conditional use permit. Um

[15:09] current property sides of the parcel is approximately 3.12 acres Area to be used

[15:16] as approximately two acres. And there's apparently an accessory structure, existing

[15:20] shopping house.

[15:23] He's a site plan.

[15:27] The

[15:31] proposed new building is right here.

[15:40] Yeah. Shots of the existing structures on the property

[15:48] they actually want zone does not list commercial wineries and or rural retail businesses.

[15:52] Either permitted or conditional use. It also doesn't provide. Um, staffs interpretation

[15:59] is the growing of grapes and production of wine. Great profiting should be considered

[16:03] a commercial agricultural use. That's our closest nexus. Therefore,

[16:11] the requirement go through this uh conditional use process. It's

[16:19] in our opinion, most analyses as agricultural use commercial and that is listed as

[16:25] a possible conditional use on in this zone. Mhm. Um, tasting rooms and or on site

[16:32] sales should be considered retail activities And therefore such uses are not intended

[16:38] to be located within the RC one zone As provided for in 17.181 through four

[16:48] Staff notified agencies. On August 5, 2021 staff mailed notices to, We mailed the

[16:56] notice is the property owners will own mile sign was posted on the property on or

[17:00] about the 6th sepa determination of non significance was issued on august 5th in

[17:06] public notice was published in the franklin county graphic on august 19th. All these

[17:13] were in 2021. Mm. This is the one comment that we received

[17:21] at the time we prepared and mailed out our staff reports. Um, or no wait,

[17:29] we had other ones do that went. My apologies. Don't be on the next line. We didn't

[17:34] forget about you,

[17:37] wow.

[17:40] So what we have on the left. We did receive a few comments and things after the fact

[17:45] mostly via phone or oral. However, the gist of those comments matched up with these

[17:51] comments. Um, so

[17:57] it's a little hard to see the writing. But the long and short is there's a concern

[18:03] regarding traffic impacts of the neighborhood. It's a residential neighborhood. Um

[18:10] the there's concern regarding a tasting room with basically folks

[18:18] drinking potentially and driving drunk or under the influence.

[18:26] There's a lot of kids in the neighborhood and the impact of potentially on them.

[18:32] Mm

[18:35] And man, I can't, I'm gonna have to pull out. I'm sorry, I just can't read those

[18:42] and I don't want to miss something.

[18:47] Mhm. Yeah.

[18:58] Mhm.

[19:05] Where are the

[19:08] better?

[19:15] Okay. So yes. Mhm

[19:33] comments aren't in here. They have other, there's one. Okay. Yeah, that is what happened.

[19:41] So I don't

[19:45] and this is why I bring the folders

[19:55] and I apologize.

[20:02] Mhm.

[20:04] Right. Okay. I just I want to look in the that they're not anyone.

[20:14] I need to know where they went.

[20:28] Yeah.

[20:38] Mhm. Yeah. I don't have, I don't have these and I

[20:45] apologize. Okay. Mhm. Not clear why they're not

[20:53] my heart.

[21:03] Thank you.

[21:07] So,

[21:15] um

[21:17] as stated neighbor. Okay, so in the petition just belong with the signatures underneath

[21:23] it. Mhm.

[21:28] This one um the neighborhood is known for intended purpose of residents living here,

[21:34] not for commercial business to operate here location with its properties in the middle

[21:38] of said neighborhood and it's not an appropriate setting for commercial watery operation.

[21:43] We do not support the permitting of a commercial operation that will be producing

[21:47] selling and serving alcohol within a small residential neighborhood. A commercial

[21:52] operation would allow for an influx of unwanted noise. People trafficking herb uses

[21:57] trash and potential trespassing a residential roads are designed for low volumes

[22:02] of residential traffic. It cannot handle excessive commercial music. Opening up of

[22:07] private roads for commercial business would create an unwanted increase in traffic

[22:11] and cause potential safety issues for residents utilizing said roads for residential

[22:16] purposes. The private residential roads in our small neighborhood house three different

[22:21] bus stops, one of which sets a mayor 30 ft from the property in question. Children,

[22:25] other residents living within our neighborhood should not be subject to the dangers

[22:29] of commercial travel or potential drunk drivers leaving the wine tasting facility.

[22:34] The preschool operates a few blocks down the street from the property as well. Commercial

[22:38] winery operation should not be functioning so closely to our small neighborhood preschool.

[22:44] The dimensions of this commercial structure could potentially cause of Israel in

[22:47] congruence among our neighbourhood. Since every other structure was in our small

[22:52] residential neighborhood. Our compliance with the current residential building codes,

[22:56] this structure would be very noticeable and not allowing the intended structure of

[23:00] restrictions for the residential neighborhood. By allowing these permits. Planning

[23:04] and building just a clarification, we don't allow permit, we merely process these

[23:11] things. That this is a decision is made by the Board of County Commissioners, not

[23:15] staff um is setting a precedence that encourages individuals to purchase homes in

[23:22] rural residential areas instead of purchasing appropriately zoned properties for

[23:26] their commercial business endeavors. In conclusion, we encourage the department to

[23:31] deny this permit and uphold its responsibility to make responsible safe decisions

[23:37] that benefit our community as a whole. And it is signed by judy Booker Carrie and

[23:43] john strong luke and Alison strong jenny burke,

[23:50] jennifer comfort. I'm sorry. Clapper.

[23:58] All right, apology. Yeah, I couldn't tell if it was a C. Or Okay, thank you. Tiffany

[24:04] Booker a little bit hall sam GOP poppy.

[24:11] Okay. Before Rosenthal from the public so, and then there's a postscript,

[24:20] the above signed agree that raising your own great and converting into your own wine

[24:27] product is great, but all that has been said and unsaid by the owner and the county

[24:34] planning departments left a lot of questions we need answered thank you.

[24:40] The other comment. Um they were riding in protest of conditional use

[24:47] permit after discussion conversation with me On August nine, the department was

[24:55] blatantly sidestepping impacts that the proposed permit would have on our small neighborhood.

[25:01] It was communicated that the owners of this parcel were also applying to open a wine

[25:05] tasting room within this commercial operation. Below are the reasons why this would

[25:11] be detrimental to our small, safe rural neighborhood. This neighborhood is done for

[25:17] the intended purpose of residents living here. Not

[25:24] okay, can I regret, I just don't want to be reading the same thing over it is grossly

[25:29] concerning that this department would not only have allow the function of a commercial

[25:33] operation within a residential neighborhood, but a winery in which alcohol will be

[25:38] produced sold and served according to the department website, the objective of code

[25:43] enforcement program benefit public as a whole and not a specific person. How exactly

[25:48] does allowing a commercial winery operation tasting room to function within most

[25:52] of the small family oriented residential neighborhood benefit the public And does

[25:56] it perhaps instead primarily benefit the specific landowner precedents by approving

[26:03] this permit, The board is setting a precedent for future individuals purchase residential

[26:07] homes and open similar commercial operations under the umbrella of agriculture instead

[26:12] of purchasing property appropriately done for their businesses. I was told my aforementioned

[26:17] conversation. Every landowner has the right to agriculture on their property. While

[26:23] this statement may be true, I strongly urge the board too consider whether or not

[26:27] you're manipulating the reality of what would be taking place growing grapes or the

[26:32] agriculture is not the issue here. The issue is the building of this commercial structure

[26:36] in the operation of the winery tasting room in the midst of our family oriented neighborhood.

[26:41] Three safety, when talking with a neighbor about this permit, they said we're all

[26:46] for it, although we don't have small Children. I am hopeful that this board does

[26:51] not share the same indifference, roughly a dozen homes in our neighborhood have Children

[26:57] playing in their yards and riding their bikes down the street. There are three different

[27:01] bus stops within 100 yards of this parcels location, one of mayor 30 ft away. There's

[27:06] also a preschool which operates less than 1500 ft away as well. According to the

[27:12] franklin County Code of ordinances. The purpose of the zoning is to promote the development

[27:16] of a more wholesome and serviceable and attractive county county resulting from an

[27:22] orderly planned use of resources turning someone's yard into a commercial winery

[27:26] operation and tasting room in the middle of a residential neighborhood is neither

[27:29] wholesome nor an orderly planned use of resources, harming property values and the

[27:36] character of our community. We live in quiet. I'm sorry this is for harming property

[27:41] values and the character of our community. We live in a quiet family, family friendly

[27:47] neighborhood. This is not the appropriate setting for a commercial operation or a

[27:51] wine tasting room Are roughly 20 homes within close proximity of this property that

[27:57] may be subject to a decrease in value as it could be quite a challenge to send sell

[28:01] our house homes when there is a wine bar at the bus stop. Furthermore, commercial

[28:07] operation would allow for an influx of noise. People rode uses trash potential trespassing

[28:13] him, not to mention the great potential of drunk driving from tasting room patrons,

[28:18] all of which negatively impact property values. We are pleading with this board to

[28:23] be reasonable about the actuality of what you would be allowing to take place by

[28:26] approving this permit. We strongly feel that you should next permit and uphold the

[28:31] integrity and character of your responsibilities of planning and building department

[28:37] personnel which will have a direct influence on the integrity and character of a

[28:41] small neighborhood Megan and Jason paper.

[28:59] Mhm. No. Um and just how everybody knows you'll have you know we we will have the

[29:05] public, I was just wanting to read what was on the slide for folks that couldn't

[29:10] necessarily see that public works comment

[29:17] there was this is responses right? Yeah, easier spots. Okay

[29:24] approach from it is required. These are the comments we received from the various

[29:29] agencies during the agency comment period. Um ecology center standard letter received

[29:35] dated August 182021. What that covers is basically if you're doing this then you

[29:42] need to do that. It's a generic form letter they send out unless they have a specific

[29:48] concern regarding a proposal. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation comments were received

[29:54] on August 17, 2021. Ben Franklin Health District. Um see

[30:02] if he requires existing family family well to be upgraded to a great group B water

[30:07] system in accordance with black 24691291 and or benton franklin County.

[30:15] Thanks Ben franklin District Board of Health Rules and Regulations # seven mm hmm.

[30:25] A new on site sewage system is required and shall be inspected, approved and permitted

[30:30] by Ben franklin Health District for this cdP proposal. The existing septic is on

[30:37] is permitted only for personal homeowner shop sink and toilet If the tasting room

[30:42] has permitted. The proposed establishment shall 10 for food service license to operate

[30:47] the proposed station room accordance with 2 46-15. Mhm.

[30:56] So the planning commission, so these are recommended finding facts if not open to

[31:03] the public and all sales are off site. Then a commercial winery defined as an agricultural

[31:08] use in the R. C. One zoning district is in accordance with the goals and policies

[31:13] of the county development regulation zoning and the ethical comprehensive plan. Those

[31:19] will not adversely and this again is not open to the public will not adversely affect

[31:26] public infrastructure. If not open to the public and all sales are off site then

[31:32] the proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the

[31:37] existing or intended character of the general vicinity. If not open to the public

[31:42] and all sales are off site then the operation in connection with the proposal will

[31:46] not be more objectionable. two nearby properties by reason of noise um vibration,

[31:51] dust, traffic with flashing lights that would be the operation of any permitted uses

[31:56] in within the district. The operation condition connection with the proposal will

[32:02] not be more objectionable than nearby properties

[32:06] by reason of Noise didn't I just read that one

[32:12] worded differently by reason of noise, fumes, vibration, dust or flashing light that

[32:18] would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district and if not open

[32:22] to the public and all sales are off site proposal will not endanger the public health

[32:26] safety or general welfare located were proposed. Mm

[32:34] So are recommended conditions of approval are in addition to standard CP language

[32:41] that the commercial winery shall not be open to the public and all sales have been

[32:45] conducted off site requires the existing single family well to be upgraded to a group

[32:50] B Water system in accordance with wax to 46 on new on

[32:58] site sewage system will be required, shall be inspected and approved and permitted

[33:02] by the health district and if the tasting room is permitted the proposed staffing

[33:09] themselves to obtain a food service license.

[33:18] So are suggested motion Is that Franklin County Planning Commission recommended the

[33:25] Board of County Commissioners without the six findings. In fact, in 16 conditions

[33:28] of approval detail in the staff report and approved case file CP 20 21 Dance 08.

[33:36] Um some clarifications on that. So in those six

[33:43] conditions of approval around second I gotta go back 16 conditions of

[33:51] approval. Um staff is not recommending approval of the

[33:59] tasting room or that the facility be open to the public and staff is also recommending

[34:05] in the staff report that the all sales be off site. This is because as shown it's

[34:13] kind of in the middle of a residential large lot residential zone. Um If it were

[34:17] in a different location in the zone, it might be a different story, but that's not

[34:21] where we're at, Where we're at is it's a residential neighborhood that said the facility

[34:27] has been operating for a number of years um with no complaints from the public brought

[34:33] to our office or anything like that. Therefore we believe that the applicant would

[34:38] be able to continue operating as they have

[34:43] but to do so with the proper permitting which would be required an approval through

[34:50] a conditional use permit. The um So that's kind of where we're at on that. I just

[34:57] wanted to clarify that. I'm not saying adopt the 166 findings of fact in 16 conditions

[35:04] of approval um as necessarily proposed in the original application. But as

[35:12] provided for in the staff report. And those are again, as I've stated so

[35:19] more than happy to answer any questions. Mhm. Does any commissioner, does any commissioner

[35:26] have any questions of staff? Okay.

[35:31] Okay. Does the applicant or applicants representative wish to speak?

[35:41] Mhm. Yeah.

[35:46] Yeah, meditation and well, that's all right man. So now you heard, what does

[35:54] that say? This is your opportunity to face in the clarifications, explain anything

[36:00] that you want before you have it tomorrow. These these types.

[36:08] I understand come up state your name, address at the might Well, I

[36:16] guess is that Mike working I guess. Okay, Phil daily for 50 summit lip. I'm the applicant

[36:22] or one of the applicants and yeah, I understand where they're coming from with the

[36:27] traffic and all that. But and I understand not having an open tasting room. I get

[36:31] that it's not going to be a bar or tavern or anything. I was never planned to be

[36:37] that. It was only going to be open maybe one or two days a week, maybe in the afternoon,

[36:42] friday or saturday afternoon. That's all we had ever envisioned. So, I'm sorry if

[36:47] anybody got the wrong idea on what we're really trying to do here. It's really just

[36:51] a very small boutique winery is what we got in Division Gene and I were going to

[36:55] run and just have a nice little family business there that maybe we're open just

[37:00] now and then, but we understand where you're coming. I do have a question On page

[37:06] three at the the middle paragraph, you better say? However nothing in this recommendation

[37:12] suggests the applicant, not applicant, cannot apply for a short term special event

[37:18] permits. What exactly does that mean? I mean, why would I why would I want to do

[37:26] that? If I you know, if I'm not allowed to sell alcohol that goes advance or is it

[37:31] just for like a dinner? What was your intent with that sentence? Which is yourself?

[37:40] Yeah. Page three right here. Last sentence.

[37:51] Okay.

[37:55] A man altogether.

[38:04] It just means that like, I don't know what you would or wouldn't we didn't want it

[38:09] to come across as saying that we're like prohibiting you from doing anything out

[38:13] there. Other than that, it's just a clarification statement. So they can't be interpreted

[38:19] to say that we're trying to ban or recommend banning off. So in other words then

[38:24] to also All right. So you say we we should not have a retail operation tasting and

[38:30] we understand that. But how about you know, what would like if somebody just drove

[38:35] up and wanted to visit our vineyard? Would we be un permitted to sell them a bottle

[38:39] of wine if they wanted to buy one? I mean, what's the difference between, you know,

[38:43] running an Amway thing and something out of your house and you know, selling the

[38:46] bottle of wine? We don't have a retail. We don't have regular hours of operation,

[38:51] but a friend or somebody came and visited. You couldn't sell them a bottle of wine.

[38:57] Uh huh. Okay. A couple of things. Are you asking about the recommendation made by

[39:03] staff or because you have to understand? We're not permitting agency entity. We make

[39:11] a recommendation. So I can't tell you answers to those types of questions because

[39:16] I'm not the one who sets the final if you're asking about based on my interpretation.

[39:21] No, you would not be able to sell it. It's a commercial activity. It's a commercial

[39:24] trade. What defines commercial activity is the exchange of goods or services for

[39:30] money. Um And so technically, no, you would not be able to do

[39:37] that. That would not be, that would not be legal under this recommendation.

[39:45] Right. Right. Okay. All right. Well, that's all I have. Thank you for your time.

[39:54] Okay. Now we are in the public testimony, uh, section. We want

[40:02] people, we're going to break this up into people that want to speak for it against

[40:07] it and then neutral. Does anybody want to speak in favour of the project?

[40:16] Okay. Nobody Does anybody want to speak against the project?

[40:23] Okay.

[40:34] Yeah. Right.

[40:38] Hi, I'm Megan. Hey, for I live at 3 to 1 summit luke in Al Topia. All you need to

[40:45] know. Okay. Um, I want to speak directly about the comments made about the complaints

[40:52] that haven't been received to this point. Um, I'd like to point out that I think

[40:56] one of the reasons you haven't received complaints because a lot of us as neighbors

[41:00] really had no idea about the intended scope of this project, Um, currently as its

[41:05] operating, um, right. They have about one acre of grapes, which if you know anything,

[41:10] some of your farmers right about the amount of tonnage they can produce their, um,

[41:14] it's roughly 122, cases of wine annually. Right. So we just thought it was a neighbor,

[41:19] um, making some homemade wine. No big deal. However, um, when we read the report

[41:27] given by the landowners, um, that is not what they intend to do moving forward. They

[41:31] want to according to the landowners narrative. Um on page 34 of the packet you provided,

[41:37] they want to produce 7000 to 10,000 cases of wine annually. They can't do that with

[41:41] the grapes they have there. So they'll be tracking those in. Um, so now, right reading

[41:46] that we definitely have concerns about our roads being able to handle that Um, about

[41:52] our Children, um and traffic being affected by semi trucks bringing in the tonnage.

[41:57] That will be required to make the additional 6800 cases of wine that they can't produce

[42:03] with what they have on their property. Um Also concerned about the existing operation.

[42:10] Um, when looking at their website. Um, they're already advertising that despite their

[42:15] tasting room not being open. Um they are more than willing to give tours for their

[42:19] growing facility um, and to speak in person about how they can help you enjoy your

[42:25] Washington wine experience. Um, if you join their wine club, you can receive complimentary

[42:31] tastings for your guest exclusive winemaker, and barrel tasting club dinners and

[42:36] other superfund events. So this type of activity is already be encouraged being encouraged

[42:41] on their website and that's without the approval of the conditional use permit. They're

[42:45] already advertising that, right, that's available. So moving forward, if just even

[42:50] the commercial winery operation was approved, we would be concerned as community

[42:54] members that this type of activity would probably continue. Um taking place. Um They

[43:01] even describe, I like that. You put the picture up there with um all of our houses

[43:06] around it because the original photo that was sent out in the notification letter

[43:10] only had their parcel. And I just like to point out that this is in the middle of

[43:14] 20 homes. Um and in the middle of a subdivision, this isn't Walla Walla wine country

[43:20] where wine tasting rooms, boutique wineries, our common, this is in the middle of

[43:25] a subdivision where no other similar or complementary businesses operate unless you

[43:32] want to count. I guess tim's which is a gas station up the road. Maybe his chicken

[43:36] taquitos tastes really good at the glass of wine. I don't know, but there's nothing

[43:40] like that in this neighborhood because it's designed for us to live in it. Um They

[43:45] describe however, their estate on their website, our sunny Al Topia estate was purchased

[43:52] as the families first investment into the Washington state agricultural industry.

[43:56] Um It's a home in the middle of a subdivision. Um It's built on the site of a former

[44:01] irrigated farmland. Stone pillars vineyard provides unique nutrition to the vines

[44:07] and the arid climate of the region helped provide the vines with the heat and sunlight

[44:10] they love. Um Again, we're referring to a home in the middle of the subdivision and

[44:15] when you read that on the website, it's a little misleading and it's little concerning

[44:19] for those of us who lived there, that this is how this is being currently advertised

[44:24] and what that would look like moving forward if it was approved to operate on any

[44:28] bigger capacity. Um Not to mention that approving this um would increase their growth.

[44:34] So while you may not have had complaints up to this point Um that's because up to

[44:39] this point they haven't wanted to build a 6000 square foot facility To produce 7-10,000

[44:45] cases of wine a year. Again that's a lot more than what's currently being done there.

[44:50] Um we feel like approving this permit is really setting a precedence to allow other

[44:57] people to come into our rural communities um instead of buying appropriately zoned

[45:02] commercial ground um and just open up um whatever commercial businesses they like

[45:07] all of us up there have big lots um I could plant hops and open up a brewery if I

[45:12] wanted to. Um But that's not why we live out there. We live out there to get away

[45:16] from those types of things. Um Moving forward, we do have some questions, I it sounds

[45:23] like you guys might not be able to answer those, but we do have questions about the

[45:29] Mhm. Uh special use permits according to R. H. O. A. Agreement and I don't know if

[45:34] you guys honor those, but there are several components this operation that violate

[45:39] the terms of our H. O. A. Agreement that all of us have signed special use permits

[45:43] is one um that has to be voted on by our H. Away. If they do want to utilize those.

[45:49] Not only that but the business operation itself also violates our H. O. A. Uh And

[45:55] I have copies of this if you guys need that are H. O. A. Agreement specifically states

[45:59] that businesses in the home are a shop area shall be no greater than 30% of the law

[46:05] area. Um this parcel is 3.12 acres. The planned usage is two acres. That would definitely

[46:12] go over that 30%. And again um It would be violating our H. Away which then we could

[46:18] pursue civilly obviously believe that the civil matter right? Those of us who are

[46:22] against this. Um So just in conclusion I just want to say that um it's not that we're

[46:29] against you fill in jan it's not that I'm against wine. Um It's just we just don't

[46:35] believe that this is an appropriate setting for this type of business with or without

[46:41] the tasting room. Um And off site sales just reflect, yeah we don't we don't a

[46:49] choice for civil matters. We have no authority to enforce them. We do review them

[46:54] on a new subdivision. Was primarily to ensure that they don't violate any sort of

[46:59] laws other than that it's those a it's a contract between parties. So it's kind of

[47:06] a if there's a claim that violations occurred and that's kind of a I'm drawing a

[47:13] blank as a term of the contract, you're not meeting the terms of the agreed to contract

[47:19] violation of contract, that's how that approach. We don't enforce horus rules. So

[47:27] it is something we always tell people before you come to us, make sure that your

[47:32] to is going to allow. Sorry. Mhm. Thank you. Any more

[47:39] testimony against. Okay. Mhm. Seeing none. Is there any neutral testimony?

[47:48] Just as clarification, neutral testimony generally means somebody is not necessarily

[47:52] for or against something or they have questions that they would like clarification

[47:57] because they don't know enough about the proposal, determined whether they were against.

[48:02] It.

[48:04] Does staff have any final comments?

[48:10] Is there any clarification of public statements needed by anyone from the audience

[48:15] real quick. I do have one thing, there's uh questions about whether or not the roads

[48:20] can handle the tonnage or or things like that, that has been reviewed by our

[48:28] Public works department. Um and they did not determine that, that would be uh

[48:36] facilitate that, that would uh damage the county's infrastructure. Um

[48:45] But that's the only clarification I have on it is that they reviewed the proposal.

[48:51] They provided comments and there was no concerns regarding the volume of traffic

[48:58] in the proposal or with regard to impact to the record, Not not neighborhood but

[49:05] um Mr Mahoney's there if he has something to clarify or change regarding what I just

[49:11] said, mm,

[49:17] I don't have anything other had other than just to say that when we evaluate all

[49:23] of these requests that come through, we just um we look at them from the standpoint

[49:31] of what we call. Yeah. You know, we look at whether additional lanes and all that

[49:38] needs to he had in this case we didn't see a significant addition to traffic and

[49:44] and therefore we're aware how the roads were constructed and they were constructed

[49:48] consistent with well rural standards that exist on the majority of our roots at all

[49:56] major major loans as we all know. So we just look at it from that standpoint what

[50:02] we call a level of service evaluation and this did not this particular one did

[50:10] not increase the traffic to uh take it to a different level of service. So, but so

[50:17] you don't you don't look at the impact from increased todd image or anything along

[50:24] those lines in this type of analysis.

[50:29] Could you repeat that please? Yeah, I said when you're doing the analysis, you're

[50:34] looking more volume, you don't look at whether or not say right now, maybe it's a

[50:38] 5000 gross truck and and it's fine to that. But now they're bringing in larger trucks,

[50:46] that's not part of your analysis. I just want to make that clear on the record one

[50:50] way or the other. Yes, that is part of our analysis as well. How do we know it's

[50:57] going to be? Yeah.

[51:01] How do we know? Well we have to go by. What how do you how do you, how do you take

[51:07] volume into consideration when the facility doesn't exist at the time,

[51:14] what what we do is we look at, there's actually guidelines out there to look at different

[51:19] types of facilities and the potential. So what we do is we'll take well look at it

[51:26] and a lot of cases will take worst case scenario and look at it from that standpoint

[51:32] that you know, the, there's quite a few guidelines out there for us to utilize and

[51:39] anticipating traffic levels based on a certain type of commercial facilities

[51:47] and that's what we did in the paint them. And we also look at the existing structure

[51:52] of the road. But they said our goal in the, in the county road department is

[51:59] look at those elements from a neutral standpoint. We don't make any try not to make

[52:05] any judgments personally on on whether the facility should not exist. We just do

[52:11] the evaluation based on the best information that we have utilizing the guidelines

[52:17] that that we have in front of us and do the best we can to just anticipate

[52:25] what kind of traffic loading we would see very similar to what we've done. And like

[52:29] I said, I had a on earlier, you know, the, and one of the letters, I think I mentioned

[52:37] a preschool and I would assume that's a conditional use permit. We would have done

[52:42] the same type of evaluation perhaps specific neighborhood.

[52:52] Is there any more clarification of public statements for the audience.

[52:59] Go ahead. Uh huh. Right. Yeah. I'm sorry because we have to get it on the record

[53:06] and if anybody's listening any bill. Okay, so on page 47 under section

[53:14] 14 transportation, the document that mr baker produced says how many vehicular trips

[53:21] per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? Uh The answer states

[53:26] approximately 34 trips during peak PM hours. Um and this is listed in the paperwork

[53:31] for the summer and fall summer through the fall um seasons. So can you just clarify

[53:37] that must be an estimate for tasting room patrons only. Um and not including right.

[53:42] The trucks bringing grapes in or employees leaving or anything else?

[53:51] I can tell you from a county road standpoint, that's not the data we use because

[53:57] even for each household we utilize A minimum of 10 daily trips per household. So

[54:04] if you're talking three daily trips from our standpoint, that would be 1.5 vehicles

[54:09] because you've got coming in and going out. So all I can do is just assure you that's

[54:14] not what we use. We do our own evaluation based on the specific

[54:22] facilities themselves. So um yeah, if if it's three trips a day that's

[54:31] Says 34, it's incredibly low. 34, not three. Well

[54:39] 34 is still pretty low. Like I said for one for one standard household, a minimum

[54:44] is 10 daily trip and that's per day per, you know, for all seven days of the week,

[54:50] it's over. So for a facility like this, I would assume it Our staff used a much higher

[54:58] number than 10 daily trips and you're asking yes, this manual, this is a daily trip

[55:05] general usually unless it's specified otherwise in this manual, if that's what you

[55:11] are. Right. And so that whatever number then they came up with would include tasting

[55:19] room patrons and employees and trucking grapes and all of that. It would be inclusive

[55:23] of based on a statistical modeling that they use for these facilities. So you'll

[55:28] have mall listed and it'll have like an astronomical way more trips, hospitals,

[55:36] restaurants, gas stations, different types of uses. And I'm observing. Um, but this

[55:43] was pulled from that manual. Okay. And to add to that derek, we take a

[55:50] holistic approach. So, I mean, we look at the whole, we look at the whole neighborhood,

[55:55] not just that facility. We look at all the daily trips for all of the households

[56:01] of the residents. Of the types of uses. It could be that could be allowed. So Yeah,

[56:09] it's not 34 perhaps a day as a result of this application? It's of

[56:17] course, much higher than that because there are residents out there. Right.

[56:23] Is there the possibility that they'll be more traffic on this road that we've already,

[56:27] we've kind of seen that they want to do 7000 cases per year. That property isn't

[56:32] going to grow that. So there's going to be deliveries of grapes coming in, especially

[56:38] at peak times of the year. Um is that not a consideration we should take in on the

[56:44] use of a residential real road.

[56:49] So I totally, I totally agree that the planning commission should consider that we

[56:57] look at the existing structure of the road and whether or not it could handle it

[57:03] as well as the existing width of the, of the existing facilities out there. So we

[57:09] look at the, the road as they currently exist and, and we run our

[57:17] and we run our analysis over it and that's not just, you know, we talk in terms of

[57:22] what we call easels, which deals with weight on a road. Um, and so I don't want to

[57:30] get too much in the weeds that it's, you know, when, you know, when we, when we're

[57:36] talking internally in our analysis, we're talking easels, which is equivalent axle

[57:41] weight. It's a per year analysis from and I said, I don't want to get too far in

[57:49] the weeds, but I just want to assure the planning commission that, you know, we don't

[57:54] take these, these, you know, applications lightly. We do a full review of them

[58:02] and certainly uh, we would hold our opinions, the best the best we

[58:09] can is what he said, we we believe that every applicant should at least have

[58:17] their, their opportunity to go in front of the, the planning commission. But I

[58:24] guarantee you if we saw that they believe there was going to be a major issue of

[58:29] either traffic or the existing structure of the road. We would certainly bring that

[58:33] up in our comments to the planet.

[58:41] So uh huh Approximately how many truckloads of imported stuff

[58:49] do you got to see? Yeah, redevelopment very well. May be a,

[58:56] I've been the greatest on the back of my trailer, maybe two and that's it for now.

[59:01] I mean in that 10 7000 cases, that's what you requested of us and you said, tell

[59:07] me your wildest dreams on how big this could ever ever be and it's never going to

[59:12] get to that when Janet are running we'll be lucky to get 25, 600 cases

[59:20] and with that we would, we would call breaks in on the back of the trailer. I mean

[59:24] there would be very little impact of the road screen trucks. I mean great. Still

[59:29] weigh that much.

[59:35] Yeah,

[59:40] mhm. Any more clarification. Um, as far as the, how they make decisions

[59:48] regarding the effects of transportation. I notice on page 47 of the packet provided

[59:54] the question asks, is this site or the affected area currently served by public transit

[1:00:00] Mr baker answered no, this site is not currently served by any form of public transportation.

[1:00:06] The closest bus stop is in missile which is 11 miles away. I think it's very important

[1:00:10] to note that this is false. I have a letter here from Jim Jacobs the Superintendent

[1:00:14] of North franklin school district with a lovely map also that outlines the seven

[1:00:18] different bus stops in the immediate vicinity of this including what? That's not

[1:00:23] what that references public transport. So it's Ben Franklin Transit Authority facility

[1:00:29] not a school facilities. So they don't take into consideration the school buses.

[1:00:37] Okay that's it. Thank you. Yeah. Any more

[1:00:44] clarification.

[1:00:51] Seeing none. The public testimony portion of this public hearing for c. p. 2021-08

[1:00:57] is closed.

[1:01:01] Is there any discussion amongst the planning commission prior to entertaining emotionally?

[1:01:15] I will now entertain a motion.

[1:01:19] Uh huh.

[1:01:27] Is any commissioner interested in making the motion?

[1:01:33] Does the most thing have to be a positive recommendations. Not if we vote against

[1:01:37] it.

[1:01:40] Thank you. And also also please remember as far as the rules go, the making of emotion

[1:01:47] does not necessarily articulate your position on the matter. Opens the item up for

[1:01:53] discussion between the planning commission and then um well once a

[1:02:01] second it um then it will be voted on and then it will be voted on. And that's where

[1:02:07] so in other words, just because somebody makes a motion doesn't mean they're necessarily

[1:02:11] support the proposal. Another option is to

[1:02:17] not make a motion at which point it would died for lack of motion. So

[1:02:33] any commissioners. Oh Well I'll make emotion. I'll make emotional side of the Border

[1:02:40] County Commissioner's recommendations for denial of 2021 days. Their weight. We don't

[1:02:45] do the dial motions because what happens if we end up in a we just make the motion

[1:02:51] and then we can vote against it. Vote for or against the motion. But denial motions.

[1:02:56] What? That's what I was asking before. So And so do you

[1:03:04] want to make the motion? I'm not going to make the most cigarette positive recommendation.

[1:03:13] Commissioner Vincent or McMullin.

[1:03:20] Daschle lack emotion. If nobody is going to make them Russia, there's no motion.

[1:03:25] So, the this is Jim johnson, the Civil Attorney. We just need someone to make a motion

[1:03:32] and someone to second it so we can vote on it. I understand it appears nobody wants

[1:03:36] to pass, but we need to get to a voting stage so we can let the commissioners know

[1:03:43] that you voted against it because again, just doesn't make Yes, it makes sense.

[1:03:50] Yes. Chairs busy. He's doing a lot of other stuff in the

[1:03:58] current year.

[1:04:04] All right, well, if we need to just vote on it, then I'll make emotions for Board

[1:04:09] of County Commissioners have followed the recommendations for CP 2021 days to wait

[1:04:13] and see how everybody votes 2nd. Thank you. Commissioner a very bad

[1:04:21] motion. You can hear me. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Yeah. Um

[1:04:29] Commissioner Lo has moved and Commissioner Vincent has seconded that we forward to

[1:04:35] the board of commissioners a recommendation of approval for C. U p. 2021-8 with the

[1:04:43] oh goodness With the six findings effect and the 16 conditions of approval.

[1:04:52] Is there any discussion?

[1:04:57] Okay, seeing none. We will have a roll call vote please. Mike Vincent

[1:05:05] Mike Flynn

[1:06:31] two regarding accessory structure, roof height limit staff, are there any additional

[1:06:37] people logging on seeking to comment on this matter?

[1:06:43] Thank you along there.

[1:06:48] Hold on. Just look we're just right

[1:06:54] right so just leave it on. Don't turn it off unless there's some need to.

[1:07:04] All right. I got to get the same because picking.

[1:07:13] All right.

[1:07:17] Mhm. I got distracted europe apologize.

[1:07:26] Yes this is a we took this

[1:07:33] Conditional use permit. We had three conditional use permits for the same kind of

[1:07:39] proposal which was a request to deviate from the allowed heights associated with

[1:07:44] accessory structures in the RS 20 zone. Um because we had to move everything to

[1:07:52] this one, we consolidate everything into a single hearing because the only difference

[1:07:56] between the three applications is the addresses. So um that said at any point in

[1:08:03] time if there's any aspect of this presentation that or specific um cp that the planning

[1:08:10] commission wishes to discuss or for that matter the public um and call them out specifically

[1:08:16] individually. That's totally fine. It's just too move these forward. Otherwise you

[1:08:24] would see three different presentations that said the exact same thing except for

[1:08:28] the parcel number and address would be different

[1:08:32] had We are here with CP 2021-921 10 and 21

[1:08:40] 11. And these are by 80 construction.

[1:08:48] There's actually three properties

[1:08:53] and I'll get to that

[1:08:56] should elicit that out there. To the properties are located to the north of where

[1:09:00] net southwest of.

[1:09:04] I'm just gonna skip to the map um I'll get it because we've got different addresses

[1:09:09] in different. Mhm. So yes, that part was so I have properties are

[1:09:17] located north, all of them are north of we're not than um To our west of road 57

[1:09:26] Easter Road 60, all of them are east of road 16 south weeks and road there's one

[1:09:33] property though that butts roads

[1:09:40] two properties about Road 61 property. But road 57 The address are

[1:09:47] 26 04. Road 57 ah

[1:09:56] 26 ness is all the single packet.

[1:10:07] Hold on, I'm just going to kick over to this map 0.5 15. So yeah, you got

[1:10:15] 25 15 And 25 9. Those are road 60.

[1:10:23] This is the one on road 57. So this is '09, this is 10 and this is 11

[1:10:30] mm

[1:10:37] all the properties, his own low density residential city of Pasco Yoga allows for

[1:10:42] 2-5 units per acre residential subject bourbon 20 RS 20 Zone. The request is allowed

[1:10:50] deviation from accessory structure 18 Building 18 ft height limit to approximately

[1:10:58] 19.5. There's a differential about a foot and a half. Um Current property size of

[1:11:06] of the parcel for nine is 2.41 acres And then one

[1:11:13] acre for CP 2021, 10 and 2021 11 um

[1:11:22] There's a single family dwelling on the property for nine

[1:11:29] And then 11 has a residence under construction and 10 is vacant. I apologize at the

[1:11:36] type of Yeah,

[1:11:41] Here's the proposed site map for nine. So here's the house potential

[1:11:49] future pool. What's that?

[1:11:54] Oh sorry. Um Pool. And then this is the approximate location or the location of the

[1:12:02] proposed

[1:12:06] is about 60 house proposed shop. This is a 10 and then

[1:12:14] 11 road 60 house future pool proposed shop.

[1:12:23] I have one picture. Um and this is of 09, that's the house that's on 09.

[1:12:33] The staff notified agencies on august faith 2021 mailed notices to property owners

[1:12:40] within one mile

[1:12:44] or 500 ft I think it was 500 ft. Right, okay. Um sign was

[1:12:51] posted on the property on or about August five, See if the determination non significance

[1:12:56] was issued on August five. and public notices Published in Franklin County Graphic

[1:13:01] on August 19.

[1:13:07] We did not receive any written comments as of August 30, I did get a couple of calls

[1:13:13] asking for clarification as to what you know, sign represented. Um and then one party

[1:13:20] did mention that they weren't keen on it. They didn't necessarily want this to move

[1:13:25] forward but it's not part of the record per se except for just to indicate that they're

[1:13:31] not all people were just neutral about it but they didn't provide written comments.

[1:13:38] Mhm. Um Public works stated that approach permits would be and this is these comments

[1:13:46] are the same for all of the cps uh approach from it is required

[1:13:54] ecology Providing a standard letter received August 18 no comments from the franklin

[1:14:01] County irrigation district or concerns and health issue had no

[1:14:09] comments or objection for a deviation to accessory structure heights.

[1:14:19] Mm

[1:14:21] um Both uses in the RS 20 zoning district is in accordance the purpose for this,

[1:14:28] which I probably should have explained as the to allow for the parking of rVs and

[1:14:35] these structures With the nowadays you got different ranges, some as many as

[1:14:43] 14 or 16 ft when you throw in the a. c. unit and therefore northwest according to

[1:14:49] the applicant was to be able to accommodate those for future homes.

[1:14:57] So, uh proposed uses in the RS 20 signing is in accordance with goals and policies.

[1:15:03] Italian development. Red Okay, what is that?

[1:15:11] My family's looking

[1:15:15] four. The proposal will not adversely affect public infrastructure. Will it will

[1:15:22] be constructed maintained, operated to be in harmony. Generally speaking, you're

[1:15:26] not going to see it 1.5 visually see that difference in height, elevation ground

[1:15:34] provide that. So that's part of the basis for our decision There proposal will be

[1:15:40] constructed, maintained operated be in harmony with the existing or intended character.

[1:15:45] Um

[1:15:48] Uh huh fabric all correctly. You know, we're talking matching um Rouge materials

[1:15:55] matching siding material,

[1:16:00] location, height. Like I just said, we're looking at about a foot and a half and

[1:16:06] just natural a vision of the ground can deviate that much. So hence we don't believe

[1:16:12] that it would discourage the development of permitted uses or impair the value thereof.

[1:16:20] Um These these structures are intended for the purpose of residential use, not not

[1:16:26] to live in, but I mean basic residential storage buildings or keeping cars or vehicles

[1:16:31] or things like that. Um and they will not endanger the public health safety or general

[1:16:39] welfare is located were proposed. Again, we're only talking about height difference.

[1:16:42] We're not talking about increased volumes of traffic or strange uses or anything

[1:16:48] going on.

[1:16:52] Building permits will be required. I can't hear anything on web it. Okay,

[1:17:01] well, it was the last thing you heard.

[1:17:04] Okay, no, course here,

[1:17:13] but how far back do I need to go?

[1:17:22] I can now. Yeah, it's been maybe a minute or so.

[1:17:30] What's going on? Did you see the slides? I could watch it on a V captures. I could

[1:17:38] tell you were still talking because I could I could see it moving. Um and I can see

[1:17:44] your I've been watching your slides on A. B capture and listening on the way back.

[1:17:49] Okay. I see what you're saying.

[1:17:53] I'll just I'll go back and kind of explain to our justification for findings of fact,

[1:18:00] um,

[1:18:03] the proposed use, um, the desire to store personal equipment in the building is in

[1:18:08] accordance with the county development regulation zoning in the ethical comp plan.

[1:18:15] These are proposed for residential use not to live in, but for residential type activities.

[1:18:23] Um, They won't impact the public infrastructure. The

[1:18:30] Different or the quest is about approximately 1.5 ft taller than what would normally

[1:18:36] be allowed. But you can't even generally see. And also elevations, just natural elevations

[1:18:43] or changes in grade on property could project of building at least that high, um,

[1:18:49] said therefore, we believe that it would be constructed maintained operated to be

[1:18:53] in harmony. Um, the location height will not discourage or harm the uses on

[1:19:00] property in the general vicinity. The operation in connection with the proposal will

[1:19:06] not be more objectionable, It's just a little bit taller.

[1:19:12] Yeah, that's not. And then, uh, the proposal, again, increasing the height of the

[1:19:19] structures, would not endanger the health safety and general welfare of located were

[1:19:22] proposed.

[1:19:25] Um, building permits will be required and these would be required to be

[1:19:33] compatible, similar roofing, siding materials with type and color and similar in

[1:19:37] relation to the primary home Since their proposed to be larger than 1680 square feet.

[1:19:45] So in other words, they'll match the house and our suggested motion

[1:19:53] as as stated. Any questions.

[1:19:59] Does any commissioner have any questions of staff?

[1:20:05] Yes. So we have three different the U. K. We'll need to make a motion on each one.

[1:20:13] I appreciate you asking that. Yeah. Yeah. Is there a structure on each one?

[1:20:20] Some. Okay so right now we've got one built one under construction and um

[1:20:28] One most likely planets vacant that said what he's doing is he's looking to get pre

[1:20:33] approval for it. So he would not be permitted to start construction on those until

[1:20:38] he's recent least 50 of the residents. The residents has to be at least 50 has to

[1:20:44] be permitted and it has to be under construction before he'd build. We do allow for

[1:20:50] simultaneous bills too. But the point being is he can't on that bacon property he

[1:20:56] cannot start construction of the storage building until the residents then the permits

[1:21:02] been issued for that property. Okay. And so it requires three suggested for yourself,

[1:21:09] correct? Yes. Yeah. Any more questions.

[1:21:18] Does the applicant or applicants representative wish to speak?

[1:21:27] Is there any public testimony for the project?

[1:21:34] Is there any testimony against or neutral?

[1:21:40] Is there any call in public testimony?

[1:21:44] No. Does staff have any final comments?

[1:21:52] Is there any clarification of public statements needed by anyone in the audience?

[1:22:01] Public testimony portion of public hearing. C. U. P. 2021 09 10 11 is closed.

[1:22:09] Yeah. Is there any discussion amongst the planning commission prior to entertaining

[1:22:14] emotion?

[1:22:18] I would entertain a motion please.

[1:22:23] This is Commissioner Mcmullen. I would move to forward to the Board of Commissioners

[1:22:29] a positive recommendation of C. U. P 2021-9 with six findings of fact

[1:22:36] and nine suggested conditions of approval. Second, it's been moved by Commissioner

[1:22:44] Mcmullen and seconded by my by commissioner corrals that before order forward to

[1:22:49] the board of commissioners a positive recommendation for C. U. P.

[1:22:55] 2021 nine correct 9 with

[1:23:02] the uh huh deductible six findings effect and nine suggested

[1:23:10] conditions of approval. May we have a roll call vote please? Mike Vincent

[1:23:24] Mike Vincent Layton low. Here we know, yep. Yeah. Mhm.

[1:23:32] For mike Vincent Uh huh. Commissioner latent Low. Yes.

[1:23:40] Commissioner Mike paralysis. Yes. Richard can't. Mcmullen. Yes.

[1:23:48] Mr Chairman the emotion.

[1:23:53] Okay. Uh If I can make it, I would recommend we just do that and then just change

[1:23:59] that last number. Yeah. Okay, um I will entertain a motion for

[1:24:07] the Next Parcel which is 010 which is 10.

[1:24:14] Commissioner McMullen, I would move to forward to the Board of Commissioners a positive

[1:24:20] recommendation of c. p. 2021-10 With six findings of fact and nine suggested

[1:24:28] conditions of approval.

[1:24:34] Second, it's been moved by Commissioner McMullin and seconded by Commissioner Corrales

[1:24:41] but we forward to the Board of Commissioners recommendation of approval for C. U.

[1:24:45] P. 2021 10 With the six findings effect and the nine conditions approval. Is there

[1:24:53] any discussion?

[1:24:56] Seeing none? Maybe we have a roll call vote. Commissioner Mike Vincent

[1:25:04] Commissioner late and low Yes. Commissioner Mike Corrales. Yes.

[1:25:13] Commissioner Kent McMullin. Yes. Commissioner Mike Vincent.

[1:25:20] All right, Yeah. Can you hear me now? The motion is approved. Mhm. I will

[1:25:28] now entertain a motion on dash 11

[1:25:36] Again. This is commissioner McMullen. I moved to forward to the Board of Commissioners

[1:25:41] a positive recommendation of c. 2021 11 with six findings of

[1:25:48] fact and nine suggested conditions of approval. Mhm I'll second that motion.

[1:25:56] This is Commissioner Vincent. It has been moved by Commissioner Mcmullen and seconded

[1:26:02] by Commissioner Vincent that way forward to the Board of Commissioners. A recommendation

[1:26:06] of approval for C. U p 2021-11 with the six findings of fact and the nine

[1:26:14] suggested conditions of approval. Is there any discussion?

[1:26:20] See none. May we have a roll call vote please? Mike Vincent. Yeah,

[1:26:29] missing her latent low.

[1:26:32] Yes. Commissioner Mike Corrales. Yes. Commissioner Can't Mcmullen. Yes. Mr

[1:26:40] Chairman, the motion has been approved

[1:26:45] Item # three, Item 3 is a public hearing for files c. 2021-12. It is a

[1:26:53] proposal to allow for the installation of a church which is allowed only with an

[1:26:57] approval approved conditional use permit application purposes applicant proposes

[1:27:04] to build Features such as a 38,502 sq ft church facility,

[1:27:11] 1800 square foot maintenance building and a 339 parking space, Parking

[1:27:19] spaces that includes 888 parking spaces. Additionally, there are plans to have a

[1:27:24] private cemetery for the church congregants and creating at and creating access to

[1:27:32] tailor flats road. Mhm. Staff further mm.

[1:27:44] Are there any people logged in with comments? No,

[1:27:51] I declare the public hearing for c. u. p. 2021 Open may we have staff present the

[1:27:59] report. Thanks chair. This is your CP 2021-12 or 12 conditional use permit for the

[1:28:06] signing of a church.

[1:28:11] The property is located the north of Clark Road, south of South Landing Road, east

[1:28:16] of taylor Flash road and west of Lake North Road. Current address, there is no current

[1:28:22] address to vacant parcel. Oh, Proposal Number 124340043 legal

[1:28:30] descriptions. Northwest. Well, I'm not gonna read that a whole bunch of letters.

[1:28:35] Um Yeah, except that there's a 30 ft chunk of that property

[1:28:43] anyways.

[1:28:47] This is the site.

[1:28:52] So that's the site. This is taylor flat roads. The access is proposed basically runs

[1:28:59] right along that section line. There's 30 ft on

[1:29:06] halfs north of it, half south of it. So that's roughly the center line. There's actually

[1:29:11] a couple of different pieces that are kind of cobbled together to create that access,

[1:29:17] but they all they are continuous

[1:29:26] com plan designation for the properties. Agricultural designing is Agricultural production

[1:29:32] 28 20 to request to build a church facility with 393 parking spaces,

[1:29:41] a maintenance building, private sector cemetery and access to and an access

[1:29:49] road to tailor flats road

[1:29:54] Probably size is approximately 40.32 acres area to be used as 2.46 and

[1:30:01] features church maintenance building, private cemetery access road. This is the first

[1:30:08] site plan, the church building here

[1:30:17] than the maintenance building stuff was over there, correct flowing

[1:30:25] that's the maintenance building. I was gonna say. What is that? There's like a smart

[1:30:32] building.

[1:30:34] Mhm.

[1:30:37] Was that the septic drain field. Okay. Okay. And that's some sort of retention upon.

[1:30:43] It looks like

[1:30:46] where is the storage building?

[1:30:51] I just can't quite read it. Yeah, southeast corner right here. Yeah. Sorry about

[1:30:58] that. Okay,

[1:31:06] so here's a get him vicinity map broader larger area, that's pretty much what it

[1:31:13] looks like out there.

[1:31:18] Different crop circle then it looks like crops but

[1:31:23] and again that's showing the access proposed access route goes through to access

[1:31:29] the property.

[1:31:33] So it's two easements that were granted to franklin County and um it

[1:31:41] would extend from the northwestern edge of the site and terminated taylor flats road.

[1:31:49] So on September 20 September 2nd 2021 Staff notified agencies melt notices to

[1:31:57] property is within one mile a sign was posted on the property. See if the determination

[1:32:04] of non significance was issued and public notice was published in franklin County

[1:32:10] graphic

[1:32:15] mm how it works responded proposed access the site will need to be designed for current

[1:32:21] county road standards, tearing lives will be required on taylor flats road and approach

[1:32:28] from it will be required. Any utility extensions that across franklin County roads

[1:32:36] will be addressed at the time of the actual structure application. Again, this is

[1:32:42] a conditional use permit. The applicant is merely seeking permission to proceed with

[1:32:46] the application to actually build

[1:32:51] ecology standard. Again, standard letter received, which is again just that generic

[1:32:58] language. Big Man Electric Cooperative sent response email dated September

[1:33:06] 13, 2021 which is in the pop.

[1:33:13] Why do I have clothes just outside of BBC's service area? Yeah. Is that what

[1:33:21] their comment was? Okay. So and basically

[1:33:28] peut has no issues with the property. What's gonna happen is gonna need power. They'll

[1:33:33] have to go in there and they have to talk to them and it's really between the landowner

[1:33:37] and the electric provider as to what requirements, standards or or systems need to

[1:33:43] be installed by the landowner to accommodate to propose use on the property. So they

[1:33:48] tend to not get too detailed most of the time, especially out in these areas. Um

[1:33:58] And then the health district stay, they have no objections provided the applicant

[1:34:02] obtains the on site sewer permit and approval for public water supply through the

[1:34:07] through the health district.

[1:34:11] Yeah. Okay.

[1:34:17] What the findings of

[1:34:22] Yeah

[1:34:27] what do you mean? So he's busy etc.

[1:34:37] Oh yeah yeah. Okay

[1:34:46] so you're talking about the thank you sir. Hold on.

[1:34:54] Well we got hold on

[1:35:03] we will

[1:35:06] get that taken care of now.

[1:35:10] Okay so the proposed users in the a. p. 20 go ahead and leave that up. Unless is

[1:35:16] okay. Okay. Um

[1:35:56] I apologize for this, we'll get this real quick. I just wanted

[1:36:03] Mhm.

[1:36:12] Okay and of course now it's being all weird with the formality.

[1:36:21] Mhm.

[1:36:33] Mhm. Okay. Bad thing

[1:36:49] let's trust which no

[1:36:56] got a place in the staff

[1:37:03] now this is a photo why wouldn't let me amend it? That's weird, keith grabbing instead.

[1:37:11] Not good.

[1:37:25] All right. Anyways go back oh just turn the power point

[1:37:33] back on. Hi.

[1:37:42] Okay.

[1:37:52] Oh because I've already set off the hairline,

[1:37:57] it's just so it won't let me Okay, whatever.

[1:38:15] Mhm.

[1:38:21] So these are recommended findings of fact that it will not

[1:38:31] the proposed uses in accordance providing all the required conditions are met because

[1:38:36] we will not adversely the fact public infrastructure again providing the required

[1:38:42] conditions are met, proposal will be constructed maintained operated to be in harmony.

[1:38:48] This is the right to farm area so the you know, as long as the surrounding farmers,

[1:38:55] you know operate as is industry norms um there's no claim for

[1:39:03] noise, dust smells, things like that, cattle operations operating next door.

[1:39:12] All of that's protected in franklin County mm. Therefore all of those activities

[1:39:18] would be able to continue and then the residential lots to the east would also be

[1:39:24] able to continue and may actually benefit from the access um the operation

[1:39:38] those are the same conditions fighting a fast have any really. Okay. Thought that

[1:39:45] was the case on the last one

[1:39:51] and um for whatever reason I could not remove this line from the slide so I apologize

[1:39:59] it just it just who wouldn't let me. So this is proposed finding a fact not

[1:40:07] including that and again providing the required conditions are met. There's no reason

[1:40:13] to suspect that the the proposal would endanger the public health safety or general

[1:40:18] welfare it's located were proposed.

[1:40:26] Um These are in addition to our standard C. P. These are

[1:40:33] recommended conditions of approval

[1:40:39] which I already kind of mentioned in the comments section.

[1:40:45] And this is the recommended motion.

[1:40:53] Does any commission or have any questions of Staff

[1:41:00] Commissioner McMullan, I didn't find anything in the packet regarding cemetery requirements.

[1:41:07] Is that not something that comes before the planning commission? Um That is requirements

[1:41:14] for liners, that kind of thing for burial is that that would all under different

[1:41:19] agency. It would be under a different agency as far as I understand. I have no regulations

[1:41:25] regarding cemeteries. My understanding is that is um

[1:41:32] those cemeteries are one of the few properties are allowed to be segregated without

[1:41:36] going through the subdivision process. They have special rules. I would assume there's

[1:41:42] a state agency at this point in time. They're not looking to actually install it.

[1:41:46] They're looking for your mission to be able to do so in the potential future as part

[1:41:51] of this application. Um Technical stuff like that would not be under our purview,

[1:41:58] that's whoever regulates and I'm still looking to figure that one out. I just haven't

[1:42:05] had an opportunity to nail it down. But it's again, this is a general request. The

[1:42:11] specifics associated with the church, that volumes of traffic, things like that.

[1:42:15] But the specific of how the the cemetery would need to be laid out in the specific

[1:42:21] requirements that's usually regulated through whoever regulates funeral directors

[1:42:26] and things like that. Thank you

[1:42:32] any more questions.

[1:42:36] Does the applicant or applicants representative wish to speak?

[1:42:47] My name is Dave Hall, me, I'm a member of the old apostolic Lutheran church

[1:42:55] and a retired land use consultants. So they asked me to assist them

[1:43:03] in this endeavor. I do want to point out a a typo in

[1:43:10] the your statement of facts property to be used

[1:43:17] Approximately 2.46 acres. that should be 1246 acres to include the

[1:43:25] all of the immensity zor improvements on the site.

[1:43:32] We do want to concur and support this statement of facts.

[1:43:40] Our statement are the findings and the requirements as listed by the staff. We certainly

[1:43:47] do acknowledge that the right to farm and we believe that there's certainly

[1:43:55] compatibility the old apostolic Lutheran church says facilities across the country.

[1:44:02] Many of them are located in the rural areas surrounded by farmland. Our churches

[1:44:09] are only used for religious worship, not further activities. So sunday is the

[1:44:16] predominant they of use with the exception of weddings and funerals.

[1:44:25] In answer to the question about the cemetery, we have constructed cemeteries that

[1:44:33] some of our other church sites across the country, including in the state of Washington.

[1:44:39] And yes, there are are CWS that specifically require cemeteries to be

[1:44:46] operated in a particular way and designed. And there's also as Derek pointed out,

[1:44:53] the funeral board that deals with those regulations and permitting

[1:45:00] processes. Would be happy to answer any specific questions that you may have about

[1:45:07] this project? Uh This particular layout in facility? If this is approved,

[1:45:16] It would actually be the 7th church of this design and layout that has been recently

[1:45:23] constructed. And we have developed this prototypical site design and facility

[1:45:31] because it's worked so well. We are under construction at the present time with a

[1:45:36] very similar church size and layout and design just

[1:45:44] east of battleground Washington And here several months ago just completed one in

[1:45:52] Lewis County, just outside the town of wind lock. So this is a is a

[1:45:59] familiar design that we have been using for our church facilities

[1:46:08] please to answer any questions that anyone might have.

[1:46:16] Thank you. Mhm. Is there any public testimony for this project.

[1:46:28] Was there any against the project

[1:46:33] or neutral?

[1:46:38] Is there any call in testimony? Yes, yes. Uh huh. I'm guessing Ross

[1:46:45] Carpenter 34 20 road 88. Uh I guess basically I've got a parcel land that borders

[1:46:53] the the the southeast corner of this. Okay. Um Okay,

[1:47:01] I guess my question is for 80 acres and they're going to have 12 acres. What's the

[1:47:07] proposal for the rest of the, basically what would it be uh 65, acres or something?

[1:47:14] What what do they plan on doing with the rest of it?

[1:47:18] That's that's really up to them. I mean they have no requirement, they could leave

[1:47:23] it vacant or propose something at a later date. If it were to be used for ag land

[1:47:30] or ag use or something like that then we would, you know, they could lease it, they

[1:47:34] can do whatever they wanted to with it uh Within I mean within the allowed uses,

[1:47:39] if they were to do anything beyond or expand the footprint as proposed, they would

[1:47:44] have to come back to us regarding that action. Okay, I guess my question because

[1:47:50] of that is uh I live out the most paschal Argent rode and rode 100 Olson

[1:47:58] farm for years, A church got it, and it was supposed to be a school there at church

[1:48:05] school and ball fields and stuff and the next thing turned into a housing development.

[1:48:12] So I guess at some point you kind of question what goes on and I'm, and I don't have

[1:48:18] a problem with the church. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have a church and all that

[1:48:24] ground in church property than a bunch of houses around. Um, but it just makes me

[1:48:30] wonder why all that ground and then you had this, I guess it's page

[1:48:39] 50 58. Um kind of the layout of what the property is going

[1:48:47] to look like and well you said that's a settling pond out in there. I

[1:48:54] guess it would be proof east of the church from

[1:49:04] talking about. Yeah, that's settling on now. The settling pond is up for

[1:49:12] sanitary purposes. I would guess it's for running potentially for

[1:49:20] run off. Okay. For like storm drains and stuff. Okay. Okay. We'll have your basic

[1:49:27] septic drain field system and not a settling system upon. I don't believe that we

[1:49:34] can do, I don't even know if you're allowed to do open water. You got a pretty major

[1:49:40] permit. Okay. Okay. Well I was just curious because I said settling pond and um,

[1:49:48] because I've been around those in the past and there's not which you really consider.

[1:49:55] I'm pretty sure they're not accept it anymore. That's my understand too. I mean that

[1:50:01] would be between them and the health district, but I would be surprised if open the

[1:50:08] other controllers. Um, I got a few questions. I hope I don't take up too much of

[1:50:13] your time, but I bought my property out there and in fact it's parcel

[1:50:21] 124,341,060 right now sir, can you look up here and let me, it would

[1:50:29] be right in the very corner this one no right on the very corner of the proposed

[1:50:36] site. Oh down now. Down down down right there right there. You're in those that glamour.

[1:50:43] Yeah. Now there's 16 properties in there, Yep. Okay, Yep. Okay.

[1:50:54] I got a noise issue from me at times possibly I bought that land. I go out there

[1:51:01] and I shoot quite a bit. Okay now what's that going to do it for me or against me

[1:51:08] because I don't want to interfere if they've got a service or something going. But

[1:51:12] on the other token I've been out there for a long time and I don't go out there and

[1:51:15] shoot every day. I don't shoot every week. But when I go out there I'd like to use

[1:51:18] my property and so I don't regulate shooting a problem. No, I'm saying what I mean

[1:51:25] is it's legal to shoot out there then then as long as you're operating within your

[1:51:31] legal rights and you're not doing stuff I can't speak to what I can't prohibit a

[1:51:37] party from taking action or doing something against another party that there's there's

[1:51:42] nothing that we have the authority to do that. But in the same token maybe there

[1:51:46] could be some ways of learning what their activities are down the road or something.

[1:51:50] So a person could work together. That's all I'm trying to say communicate and work

[1:51:54] together, but, and that would be between land. I can't mandate that. All right. I

[1:52:00] wish I could. Now. You said in there, I looked at some where I saw a hard surfaced

[1:52:06] road okay. On page 33 it says a road access 24 ft and I thought it said gravel,

[1:52:18] it's going to be whatever the public works requires for that type of Okay, So I,

[1:52:24] um, or, and or what they propose for example, it may be that public works says all

[1:52:30] you need to gravel road, but then they choose to put in a paved or not. You know,

[1:52:35] that would be up to them. But I would have to go back and look at that. I apologize.

[1:52:40] Well, just, you know, and I'm just saying I'm just trying to be neutral, but it's

[1:52:46] just like all of a sudden this come up and I've been real busy and I haven't had

[1:52:49] time to really. I wish I could have got this packet and I would have maybe ask more

[1:52:53] questions and not bothered you guys here at this meeting. Oh, so you're fine. That's

[1:52:58] what the purpose of this me out of it.

[1:53:03] So basically, I mean the design standards associated with the road are going to be

[1:53:08] based on a few different caveats, you know, volume with 300 400 ft,

[1:53:15] 393 parking spaces. Um, you know, that load may

[1:53:23] trigger a, and it didn't say specifically in the

[1:53:30] comments, but again, that's going to be post from access to the, the exam for Canada

[1:53:36] standards independence. I want for an access road. Um, and I just don't know

[1:53:44] what that means. I apologize. All right. Wait, New Red will need to be accepted in

[1:53:51] the county and required to be hard service. So it should be paid. Okay. So it won't

[1:53:57] be a gravel road that will be paid.

[1:54:00] That's my understanding. Okay. Well, I guess that's because there was too, I saw

[1:54:06] two different, um, statements in there. One was for a hard surface road. One was

[1:54:12] for 24 ft gravel road.

[1:54:16] Okay. I will look into that and we'll make that clarification. I apologize for that.

[1:54:23] Um, and the location of the cemetery and that's kind of not anything set in stone

[1:54:30] per se. It's just something that is maybe going to be down the road according to

[1:54:38] that. Okay. And things like proximity and where I would have to be final cited would

[1:54:45] be up to the agency for control over that and the cemetery is going to be that bottom

[1:54:49] piece. The dark that piece right there. Is that correct? Okay. Okay. Yeah.

[1:54:59] Okay. Um, and I guess, uh,

[1:55:06] what I really came here tonight to, is, uh, is a prime opportunity to ask some questions

[1:55:12] about this because this is going to be dealing with roads and right aways.

[1:55:19] Who would I see or who could I talk to about establishing some right aways for those

[1:55:25] landowners out there because right now I encroach that property to come out to my

[1:55:31] property and I don't have any problems with establishing something for people to

[1:55:38] be able to work together and have access to getting out there. But what's going to

[1:55:44] happen is the longer this goes on, it's going to get squeezed down tighter and tighter

[1:55:49] and then it's going to be issues. So who would I talk to about getting Access to

[1:55:56] these properties? Well, I mean, I don't know if anybody else here is a landowner

[1:56:00] on those 16 parcels but

[1:56:05] Okay. And I know he's been working his money off trying to get that's that's going

[1:56:11] through there. Okay. Well who do you talk to? That's why I'm here. Who would there's

[1:56:16] there if you're asking too get dedicated right of way or something like that? That

[1:56:24] that would be the land owners. Okay. And then once that those deeds were established

[1:56:30] and things like that, access these men's and things than you would apply to install

[1:56:36] the road or a lot of it depends on the specifics associated with what it is you're

[1:56:41] proposing, but then you would get first step is to get those things recorded and

[1:56:47] all the affected landowners on board with it or at least the majority enough of them

[1:56:53] to get the access going. I know there's already access is in here. I can't

[1:57:01] believe this when it runs through there. Yeah, yeah. They all have access easement

[1:57:06] on them. Okay. No, but to access the property from what I understand this has been,

[1:57:13] there's been an issue regarding like being a where the people come up in the south.

[1:57:20] They come in, I don't think very often coming from the north, but I usually come

[1:57:25] down the power line road and go east on the power line road and then write down the

[1:57:29] right joining with 40 years. The church is going to be, it's a little outside the

[1:57:35] purview of this meeting. Um, but feel free to give me a call. Uh, we can talk off.

[1:57:44] Okay. That's basically what I was wanting to find out. I won't, I won't probably

[1:57:50] be the one helping you get the road, but I'll be able to figure out how to get you

[1:57:53] to talk to. Well, at least I start moving forward to answer some questions about

[1:57:58] this because it's going to get more confusing as time goes on and so it's better

[1:58:02] to try to establish something before it becomes a big mess. Uh, these access, this

[1:58:09] access to here is dedicated. I'm sorry, not through here to hear that is a county

[1:58:15] dedicated right away. So that's permit anybody can use that. The problem is that

[1:58:21] it doesn't seem to move beyond Right. Right. It stops pretty much as a stop at that

[1:58:26] corner where the church is Okay. And so now but that road's been there for quite

[1:58:32] a while and it says private property, no trespassing all the time. Now that's county

[1:58:37] road, why would somebody be able to put a sign up there? It's not it's not county

[1:58:42] road, it's just easement that has been dedicated accounting for the use. So basically

[1:58:48] what happened is that the county had come decided they wanted to put in the road,

[1:58:52] then they'd be able to just put in that road uh and then

[1:58:59] but that hasn't been developed. So these folks have decided that they want to go

[1:59:04] ahead and do that and put up the expense to put in that access road. Um Otherwise

[1:59:10] they won't be able to access that property. So it's kind of a condition. Uh But they,

[1:59:16] you know, eyes wide open on that. You know, they knew they acquired this property

[1:59:20] that they would need to put in this access. Now what they do with it and how, you

[1:59:28] know, as far as access rights and stuff like that, that would be a discussion you'd

[1:59:31] have to have with them. That would be what that you would have to happen with them.

[1:59:35] Yeah. Okay. All right, well let's at least give me some answers here and then I can

[1:59:39] go from there, but I appreciate your time. Thank you.

[1:59:45] Mhm.

[1:59:48] There's no call in testimony.

[1:59:55] The staff have any final comments. Not at this time. Is there any clarification of

[2:00:02] public statements needed by anyone in the audience.

[2:00:07] Uh huh Question.

[2:00:15] So my name is ricardo cuevas and I own the parcel that shares the the south

[2:00:24] east corner of that a lot. So to the left problem. So

[2:00:32] I'd like to say that I and most of the owners from those properties I communicate

[2:00:38] with and most of them are happy uh to see that something is happening especially

[2:00:42] at church. So just on behalf of that, just uh know that there are a lot of happy

[2:00:48] people that are already owning land close to their happy to hear of what's happening.

[2:00:53] I only have one question and I don't know if you guys have the answer, if you guys

[2:00:59] or you guys have the answer to it and that has to do with with the well And uh the

[2:01:07] allotted amount, I believe it said something about 5000 gallons. I don't know if

[2:01:11] that was per day. I think it's on there. But for me, my question would become

[2:01:21] if the cemetery will continue to grow and most of that would become cemetery. Most

[2:01:28] likely every cemetery that I've seen is grass. And for me, I don't know how it would

[2:01:35] affect just the aquifers in general from those those areas. So I think that's my

[2:01:40] only question um that I have, I know that this pond, that's right here. I've seen

[2:01:46] the irrigation of franklin County there all the time. and I don't know if that water

[2:01:50] specifically comes pumped from the river versus the aquifers, but I just want a little

[2:01:58] bit of information if that were possible. Just to understand if that could potentially

[2:02:03] be a route instead so that the wells would not be affected as much. And again, I

[2:02:07] am, I am not an expert in it. So some clarification would be would be awesome just

[2:02:14] so that we understand whether if it's going to be significant and I know that I'm

[2:02:18] there that it said that it wouldn't with that plan, but if the cemetery would continue

[2:02:22] to grow and that grass grass would need to be watered daily. I just would like to

[2:02:27] know if it would be affected and if there could be a potential to, to use the irrigation

[2:02:32] water if it came from the river instead of directly from the aquifers, uh, the irrigation

[2:02:37] system and specifics would be up to U. S. B. R. And or BB era skip it because

[2:02:45] they're the ones that control that, so the exact point source that they would make

[2:02:51] those contamination. I doubt that parcel has any water. If it did it be irrigated

[2:02:56] right now. So that doesn't have any irrigation water. Right. But they may be able

[2:03:00] to know what are you saying that they don't have any services available if it's not

[2:03:06] irrigated. It's because it doesn't have water period. Okay, so whatever their plans

[2:03:12] are for water, they have to get a well permit or water access. It's not an irrigation

[2:03:17] district and it doesn't have whoever access either. Am I correct? Yes. Yeah I was

[2:03:24] going to say the The 5000 a day rule applies to exempt wells. Okay. Um

[2:03:32] that and that's for like the whole what they call the whole subdivision usually or

[2:03:36] something like that. The they to have to coordinate with

[2:03:43] ecology. Um Health district and potentially the irrigation districts regarding how

[2:03:50] all that works out again. This proposal is this the application the C. D.

[2:03:57] C. Is for permission to apply For the specific

[2:04:04] details. So this is more of that 30,000 ft level whether or not they'll be able to

[2:04:10] meet the requirements or conditions associated with actual construction is completely

[2:04:15] different element. Um It just does if they do receive approval

[2:04:23] doesn't necessarily mean that they'll be able to meet all the material needs to do

[2:04:29] what they're doing. We're not at that technical level yet. Okay awesome. Thank you.

[2:04:34] Thank you

[2:04:39] Any more questions. Does the staff have any final comments? one More Question For

[2:04:47] You. Right here on 43 of page 43. Number five,

[2:04:55] separate source of irrigation water shall be implemented and provided during the

[2:04:59] life of the project to mitigate groundwater withdrawals via exempt exempt exempt

[2:05:06] wells. So that's not our agency. We don't do that. They have to deal with that with

[2:05:13] the Health department or the department of ecology that has nothing to do with us.

[2:05:17] So you're talking about the secret mitigation requirement. I don't know what that

[2:05:23] is, but the water issue is not our issue. It's just exactly what. So if you guys

[2:05:28] vote on this, there's no water issue. Then if they can't get the water, they can't

[2:05:33] build their facility. When they apply to build the actual structure, they'll have

[2:05:38] to provide us with all this stuff. If they come out and say you need a class a water

[2:05:43] system, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, then that's what will happen. That comes later.

[2:05:48] So that, that's round the pond. Right? I don't, it's somebody's pond and I don't

[2:05:55] know where that water comes from. It might, they might have a river permit or well,

[2:06:01] permit and what are you guys proposal for florida? No department drill. Well,

[2:06:09] We were told al adequate for 5000 gallons a day. Uh, that's, that's their limit on

[2:06:17] an exempt Well, Yeah, it's state law department of ecology limits in the exempt wells

[2:06:24] to 5000 gallons a day. And even though this is a large structure,

[2:06:29] it will take many. Excuse me, based on the experience that we've had with the similar

[2:06:35] buildings of this size at full capacity. The maximum amount of water uses around

[2:06:43] 2000 gallons Per day of service, saw Sunday as 2000 gallons the rest of the week.

[2:06:50] The church may not be used. So we're not even approaching the 5000 gallons of usage

[2:06:58] per day because of our facilities being used for worship only. These guys seem very

[2:07:05] concerned about the water. Just a little perspective one of those little tiny circles

[2:07:11] you see on that screen Uses 1300 gallons a minute A minute. 5000 gallons a day

[2:07:19] is nothing. Think so. Some of those are none of those are well. So that's why I wanted

[2:07:27] because of the river and I feel like because as much the film but again that those

[2:07:33] aren't our issues we can't do anything with. Yeah. Uh huh.

[2:07:40] How would you say you can't really compare those circles that they're pulling off

[2:07:46] that set that are? Well again I'm just I'm just giving you a perspective of how much

[2:07:51] water is used. And the church uses very little water work. Again. Not our issue and

[2:07:58] we can't address it here any more questions besides the water. Okay

[2:08:06] uh Public testimony portion of this hearing for c. p. 2021-12 is closed. Is

[2:08:14] there any discussion amongst planning commission prior or entertaining emotion?

[2:08:23] Mm Did we have a changing a change of one of the six findings of fact in regard

[2:08:30] to the acreage? I couldn't find it on the Where the acreage has been? In my packet.

[2:08:36] I couldn't find where the acreage has been misstated. It's not in the finding it

[2:08:42] right at the beginning property to be used on page three. I see. Okay thank you.

[2:08:48] I've marked it. I will go through and make sure that we've corrected if it shows

[2:08:52] up somewhere else. Thank you. Mm.

[2:08:59] Any more discussion?

[2:09:06] I would like to entertain a motion.

[2:09:11] This is Commissioner MCB on. I would move to forward to the border Commissioners

[2:09:16] a positive recommendation of C. U. P. 20 21-12

[2:09:24] With six findings of fact and nine suggested conditions of approval.

[2:09:33] This is a whole room A 17 I'm sorry, correct.

[2:09:40] Ok. 9 17 17 conditions conditions of approval

[2:09:47] suggested conditions of approval. Is there a second

[2:09:53] 2nd this is commissioner Loeb

[2:09:57] Right. Commissioner Mcmullen moved and commissioner low seconded that we forward

[2:10:02] to the board of commissioners a recommendation of approval for C. U. P. 2021-12 with

[2:10:09] the nine findings of fact six fighting's effect and 17 conditions of

[2:10:17] approval.

[2:10:21] Is there any discussion? Get tired, get tired seen none. May we have a roll call

[2:10:29] vote. Commissioner Mike Vincent.

[2:10:35] Yeah. Commissioner, late and low Yes. Commissioner Mike Corrales.

[2:10:43] Yes. Commissioner can't Mcmullen. Yes. Mr Chairman, the motion is approved.

[2:10:53] Uh huh. Item four, item number four is a public hearing for file S. U. B.

[2:10:59] 2021-6. It is a proposal to allow for development of a single family residential

[2:11:05] subdivision comprising of one parcel totaling approximately 10 acres and creating

[2:11:12] 8 1 acre law minimum. The area where the project is proposed has a zoning designation

[2:11:19] of rural residential one R. R dash one for the comprehensive plants as a plan designation

[2:11:25] of rural residential.

[2:11:35] Thank you. Chair as day this is a

[2:11:40] request to for a preliminary platt creating a lot subdivision, residential subdivision

[2:11:47] located in the Clarks edition, planetary planets. Eight single family residential

[2:11:53] lots of Africans HDL, acting as agents for the owner Rita's eric goes up. The project

[2:11:59] is to subdivide approximately 10 acres comprising one property and eight approximately

[2:12:04] one acre parcels for residential use. A parcel number Is 1, 1 4 - 4 to go to five.

[2:12:10] It's vacant and as mentioned, locating Clark tradition zoning is rural residential.

[2:12:17] One comp land designation is rural residential.

[2:12:25] This is a subject property access will be from an extension of roberta road that

[2:12:32] has develop

[2:12:36] um to some degree through here, but as you can see, the existing road structure does

[2:12:43] not necessarily meet before we went to the right of way specifics of how that will

[2:12:49] be designed will be done at the time of actual development. Um Another access is

[2:12:56] proposed to come into here. This is ivy road, this is shown on the plateau as being

[2:13:03] quell street. Um It would become quell road because we have roads, not streets, um

[2:13:11] I'm not sure what this would be called, I assume it would be quail as well, but um

[2:13:17] so that's that's a proposed access onto the site.

[2:13:24] Mhm.

[2:13:28] Yeah. Okay.

[2:13:33] Mhm. Yeah. Again, this is the actual layout of the proposed platz or the access coming

[2:13:41] up through the middle roberta roads here. Well, roads here linking to and then this

[2:13:49] goes up Navy Road to be about right there.

[2:13:56] Mhm.

[2:14:00] Um It's 20 21 12. We have provided a SEPA they included documentation with

[2:14:08] self imposed mitigation measurement measures, for parks and recreation impact, transportation

[2:14:15] impacts and for school facility impact based on some paperwork and information known

[2:14:23] at the time. County building planning to our issue to seek the determination of DNS

[2:14:29] Discrimination of non significance on June 17 and comments were due by July one several

[2:14:35] comments were received our car melody there from agencies. Um I have

[2:14:42] one comment with concerns about access and Mhm.

[2:14:51] Then other people were asking a lot about whether or not they'd be able to continue

[2:14:56] using the

[2:15:02] asking whether they'd be able to do this and keep I guess this continues down and

[2:15:07] people come down here at the bottom of this trap circle. I inform them I can't speak

[2:15:14] to that because once they crossed that line right there they were moving on private

[2:15:18] property and that was between them landowner. Um The proposed access would be

[2:15:26] this and then anything beyond that we can't speak to. Mm I mean there is

[2:15:35] this continuation potentially but that's not what they were asking about. They were

[2:15:41] actually about that.

[2:15:48] The passing school district appealed to see if the determination our an agreement

[2:15:52] was reached between the african and PSD On three September 2020 one and the appeal

[2:15:59] was withdrawn and that's why this has been delayed. Um

[2:16:06] was pending that as mentioned, 10 plus minus acres has funded along the

[2:16:14] west extensive roberta road connects to every road be a proposed new access to the

[2:16:18] north welfare, proposing new rules of residential parcels be provided with private

[2:16:23] wells and private septic system for each lot, no more than one half acre of each

[2:16:28] property shall be irrigated using private wealth. The entire subdivision is limited

[2:16:34] to no more than It says two more than but it should say no more than 5000 gallons

[2:16:41] per day. Fire suppression we provide through fire separation requirements found in

[2:16:47] FCC. In other words, they have increased requirements of setbacks and separation

[2:16:54] between structures, rural fire standards basically. Um It's located within franklin

[2:17:01] PDD service area and as mentioned, the school district passing school that serves

[2:17:07] the area.

[2:17:10] Staff does recommend that the

[2:17:15] planning commission for positive recognition to the Franklin County Board of Commissioners

[2:17:20] for applications, 21 sub 21, 2021 66 suggestion findings of fact and six

[2:17:27] suggested conditions of approval. These conditions are in addition to the mitigation

[2:17:33] requirements listed in the sepa DNS reality is you'll see that there may be some

[2:17:39] overlap there, but um didn't want you to think that there were only the six conditions,

[2:17:44] there's also mitigation requirements. ZEPa DNS or sepa mitigations are different

[2:17:50] than counting mitigations. Uh sometimes they can be the same, but in that role I'm

[2:17:57] acting not as an asian of the county. I'm acting as an agent of the state with regard

[2:18:02] to the enforcement of the SEPA State Environmental Policy Act. So sometimes you may

[2:18:08] see overlap but I just wanted to point out that there are eight mitigation requirements

[2:18:12] listed in the SEPA DNS

[2:18:15] and recommended motion.

[2:18:20] Any questions, any questions.

[2:18:27] Mhm. Any questions of staff.

[2:18:32] Does the applicant or applicant representative wish to speak?

[2:18:40] Is there any public testimony for

[2:18:45] any testimony against or neutral?

[2:18:51] And he call in testimony?

[2:18:55] Does the staff have any final comments? Nothing at this time. Is there any clarification

[2:19:02] of public statements needed from anyone in the audience?

[2:19:09] The public testimony portion of public hearing Of the public hearing for s. U. b.

[2:19:14] six is closed. Is there any discussion amongst planning commission prior to entertaining

[2:19:21] a motion?

[2:19:25] Hey Derek, what does that mean? This commissioner and I was having a hard time hearing

[2:19:29] that that what we see suggested finding the fact that suggested positions of approval.

[2:19:35] What's that conclusion of law? What does that mean in there

[2:19:40] you're talking about in the staff report where it says, it suggests conclusions of

[2:19:45] law. That's the reference points. Usually I just want to make sure that I'm looking

[2:19:52] at the same thing. So I'm not speaking incorrectly. But it's the the specific

[2:20:01] or dancing. I'm looking I'm looking on page eight down at the bottom of page a where

[2:20:07] it says, you know, the recommendations. We see that I need the fact that the additional

[2:20:12] conditions. I don't even remember seeing the conclusion of law thrown in there. And

[2:20:18] even if there was a specific reason for that

[2:20:23] from page eight As far as page eight, Stage nine of You. Yeah, patient

[2:20:30] night. Yeah, sorry, 1978. Yeah,

[2:20:38] very well.

[2:20:42] I'm looking at

[2:20:46] So key is that we start recommendations. Finds a bet criteria by the Planet

[2:20:54] Commission.

[2:21:00] My man. It says this positive recommendation may be forwarded with the following

[2:21:06] suggested findings of fact, conclusions of law, suggested conditions of approval.

[2:21:13] That's okay. And what I'm doing is I'm looking for where those were the conclusions

[2:21:18] suggest the conclusions of law on page 14 And basically what that does is kind of

[2:21:24] say, Hey, we got this on the 24th and it was deemed complete on May 28, which means

[2:21:31] it's vested meaning that If the laws changed after May 28 there, they adhere to the

[2:21:37] laws prior to that um that the city has been done as required by law.

[2:21:45] Um that there was a hearing hell, which we're doing right now and then that we used

[2:21:52] FCC FCC 16.2 oh seven oh um as the review criteria in other words, that section of

[2:22:00] code guided how and why and we made the process that we used.

[2:22:08] So that should be stipulated as such in a recommendation. Using the terms conclusions

[2:22:15] of law. Right? Because these are our suggested conclusions of all the planning commission

[2:22:21] may see it differently and therefore want to go a different route again. We are only

[2:22:27] making a recommendation on our stuff. We don't nothing that we when we cite case

[2:22:32] law or whatever or codes that's still us and that's our interpretation. So everything

[2:22:39] we do is suggested. Thank you.

[2:22:46] Yeah. Yeah. If there's no more comments, I will entertain a motion

[2:22:58] mm Commissioner level. I'll make a motion passed on the border County Commissioner's

[2:23:04] recommendation for approval S. U. 2021 Days 06. What the six suggested funding the

[2:23:11] facts, conclusion of law and six conditions have approved

[2:23:19] of second step Commissioner lo moved and Commissioner Corrales seconded that we ordered

[2:23:25] forward the board of Commissioners to the Board of Commissioners recommendation of

[2:23:29] approval for s. b. 2021-6 with the I didn't get the numbers.

[2:23:36] 66 adopted findings of fact and six conditions of approval.

[2:23:45] Is there any discussion? Thanks

[2:23:49] seen then we will proceed to a roll call vote. Commissioner Mike Vincent.

[2:23:57] Yeah. Commissioner late and love. Yes. Commissioner Mike Corrales.

[2:24:05] Yes. Commissioner can't make moment. Yes. Mr Chairman the motion is approved.

[2:24:14] Okay.

[2:24:17] Meeting adjourned

[2:24:23] chair. Fine. I don't see anything else. Yeah, there

Planning Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript