Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Development December 11 1990WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, December 11, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 2 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 1000 N. Forest, by Chairperson Marge Laidlaw. Also Present: Emily Jackson Don Hanley Absent None 1. ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE POINT ROBERTS SPECIAL DISTRICTS PROHIBITION ON TREE REMOVAL WITHIN THE HERON ROOKERY OR WITHIN THE HERON ROOKERY BUFFER (AB90 -397) 70 -72 Laidlaw explained that this is basically an extension because negotiations for the sale are still pending. Hansey added that originally the sale had been scheduled to close in June, but now has been extended to August 31, which gives a safety margin. He also pointed out that the last WHEREAS in the ordinance says December 18. It should say December 11. The other dates were reviewed, HANSEY MOVED THAT THE DOCUMENT BE RECOMMENDED. Motion carried unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1990 D -H OPEN SPACE /TIMBER AND OPEN SPACE /OPEN SPACE APPLICATIONS: HILL, DAVIS, ISENHART (2), AND ERHOLM (AB90- 445) 73 -94 Hansey said the reason the resolution is so long is that everybody withdrew except Davis and Isenhart. Davis scored 60 points on the open space /timber, so there's no doubt that he's qualified. Isenhart was rejected on both his parcels. The Planning Commission asked that this be reconsidered; Isenhart then withdrew one of the parcels. He scored 45 on the other for open space /timber. He made it. There are some specifications he must fulfill, and he needs to sign his timber management plan which was done by The Soils and Conservation Services. But the Committee can act on the Resolution. Laidlaw asked if it specified that the plan has to be signed within a certain time frame. Hansey said no, but it has to be signed for the Timber Management Plan to be valid, and if the plan isn't valid, he doesn't score. A note needs to be made that the Assessor check for the signature. Planning and Development Minutes, 12/11/90, Page 1 Laidlaw questioned the continuity of pages 90 and 91; were they separate meetings? Hansey said they were. HANSEY MOVED THAT THE RESOLUTION BE RECOMMENDED. Jackson questioned Isenhart's commitment to the Timber Management Plan; does it actually state that he will do the Plan? Hansey said that he had not read the plan, but from talking to Sarah, yes, Isenhart's signature would commit him to follow the plan. Jackson explained that her only concern was that it would say in effect that Isenhart would do the plan or lose his open space /forest designation. Haney said he would check that out and get back to her. Motion carried unanimously. 3. DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FIRS' LAND USE CONTRACT EXPIRING (REQUESTED BY HANSEY) (AB90 -445) no ppr Laidlaw pointed out that the land use contract expires in 1992 and there is now some paper work on that. Haney said a Mr. Johnson from Adelstein, Sharpe, and Serka contacted him about the matter. Haney suggested that Johnson put together the necessary paper work, then come to the Committee and explain what they want to do. The two guests introduced themselves: Greg Kimlock, Executive Director of the Firs, and Bill Johnson, attorney with Adelstein, Sharpe, and Serka. Johnson presented the background on the Firs. It has been an organization in the area for some 70 years now. Back in 1977 they began developing their plan with Whatcom County. On the back of their contract with the County is a map of the area. The existing buildings are outlined, but the dark shapes have not yet been constructed. The development plan was scheduled to expire in 1992, but the corporation is behind schedule and would like to extend the date for five years. They would also like to have something in the extension that would allow them another extension for items that they might not be able to finish in that time period. Laidlaw pointed out that it looked like there was a substantial amount that needs to be completed. How likely is that to be accomplished in five years if it hasn't been accomplished in 12 or 15? Kimlock said that they own a large parcel of property, and that much of it lies near Sudden Valley. Consequently they've been focusing on water and sewer development in that area. The costs have been considerable for a nonprofit organization, and they haven't had the funds available to do everything. The master plan the Firs developed was quite aggressive; funds haven't kept up with costs. They did not foresee the kinds of restraints that would be placed on them on their other properties. Those things seemed crisis elements, while the property in question here could simmer. And they are also seeing some of their ministries being located at other sites, relieving some of the development need in their first plan. Laidlaw asked if they were then planning to modify not only the time frame but also Planning and Development Minutes, 12/11/90, Page 2 the items on the plan. Kimlock said that realistically they probably wouldn't accomplish all those items. They're major projects. So they're asking for not only an extension of the time frame, but also some kind of mechanism so that when they come to this stage five years from now, there could be a further extension. Much of what they could get done would depend on what happens with their other two properties, and they have no control over that because of things that are being legislated for them to do. Haney wanted to know if any of their activities were going to be transferred to other sites. Kimlock said not at this time, but that had been considered. Laidlaw asked if the County did change to a contract zone back in 1977. The answer was yes. Haney remembered that when the Lake Whatcom subarea was done, it was recognized that this area was different, and that was acknowledged. At that time it had been in existence for 70 years and the City had grown out around it. This contract is the result of a lot of thought about how to treat something that was there first and that was not residential, but represented a lot of work and quite an expenditure of funds at that time. The coexistence of the entities in that area have been satisfactory. Johnson pointed out that the items on this list were not items necessary for the organization to exist. The necessary items were already there. But this plan was indicative of the way in which they wished to grow. During the 15 years of the contract, the Firs was not utilized as heavily as it has been lately. Now the facility is fully booked for the next year and a half, and now financially it is becoming feasible and even critical to add such things as a swimming pool, a gymnasium, tennis courts. Discussion clarified that the Geneva Community Church is located on the Firs property and is owned by the Firs. The Church has leased that portion of the property. Considerable discussion followed about items completed, those partially done, and not done, and which would be priority properties. Laidlaw suggested that they should re -do the paper work showing the update on facilities completed, etc., and laying out priorities for next items and their time frames. She suggested they reference the old contract in their paperwork. Jackson said she herself was less concerned about the projects themselves- -they seemed quite clear- -but whether or not the Committee planned to extend the agreement. Would a public hearing be held on the extension and on the general plans. If there was no great public outcry, it would seem to her legitimate to extend the time frame. Johnson said that a public hearing wouldn't be an option. The contract was really between the County and the Firs. The County could agree to extend without the need for a public hearing. The whole process of a public hearing was gone through in 1977. Discussion between Don Hansey and Laidlaw determined that the contract would have to lapse or somehow be retracted before the County could go to a different process, which a public hearing would be part of. Jackson pointed out that there were contractual agreements on both sides, and if it appeared that one side or the other had not fulfilled the contract, then the whole process should be gone through again, and to keep the public out of that process wouldn't be really fair. Johnson said it seemed to him that the public didn't seem to object to their being Planning and Development Minutes, 12/11/90, Page 3 there, and that an extension for the same purposes and the same overview could be agreed upon without all the formalities, which were time consuming. The Firs is not asking for anything new, for a whole bunch of additional things. They're just asking for an extension for things that have been approved already. HANSEY MOVED THAT THE COMMITTEE REQUEST THE FIRS TO UPDATE THE EXISTING PLAN AND BRING IT BACK TO THIS COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. Hansey clarified by saying that he would like to see the up -date to include a list of the things they have done, just for the record, and would anticipate that it would not included new things they add to the list, and then request an extension for the uncompleted items. He would suggest time frames, because the timeliness of doing these things is to their benefit, not the County's, and he would like to see them move right along on it. Johnson and Ki.mlock agreed to update the plan as discussed and to return to Planning and Development Committee as early in 1991 as possible. Motion was carried unanimously. Because there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ATTEST: Ramona Reeves, Council Clerk nc PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Marge 'dlaw, Chairperson Planning and Development Minutes, 12/11/90, Page 4