19840207 City Council MinutesFebruary 7, 1984
1
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Larry
Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmomds Library. All present joined in the flag
salute.
PRESENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor
Jo -Anne Jaech
John Nordquist
Bill Kasper
Laura Hall
Steve Dwyer
Lloyd Ostrom
Jack Wilson
Brian Stewart, Student Rep.
• OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEW COUNCILMEMBER
STAFF PRESENT
Art Housler, Finance Director
Irene Varney Moran, City -Clerk
Marlo Foster, Police Chief
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Bobby Mills, Acting Public Works Supt.
Mary Lou Block, Planning Director
Duane Bowman, Assistant City Planner
Jim Jessel, Property Manager
Mark Eames, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
City Attorney Mark Eames administered the oath of office to Councilmember Steve Dwyer.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items (E) and (G) were rerioved from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember
Nordquist was not present during the Consent Agenda.) The approved items on the Consent Agenda
included 112 following:
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of January 31, 1984 and February 2, 1984.
(C) Acknowledgment of receipt of Claim for Damages from Joseph and Marsha Harmer in the
amount of $13,104.94.
(D) Authorization to sign contract with "Banner Works" in amount of $4,747.60 for library
banners.
(F) Approval of funding and classification of full-time Crime Prevention/ Community
Relations Officer.
(H) Adoption of Ordinance 2417, amending Chapter 15.38 of Community Development Code
(Shoreline Master Program).
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE'DICTATION/RECORDING SYSTEM '[Item (E) on Consent Agenda]
Councilmember Wilson said he did not think he would use the proposed dictation system and he
• noted that the Council has an excellent Resource Person. As he understood the system, it is
14'
February 7, 1984 - continued
basically one where the dictator calls in and leaves a recording.. He sa.id he is as busy as
anyone on the Council, but he did not think he would use it. Councilmember Kasper added that
he knows nothing about the Lanier system, and he thought this was moving ahead of the computer
acquisition.and:.he noted that the .`Council had stated that -they wanted .to hold off on all equipment
purchases until the computer system is acquired. He said he never would use the dictation system.
Also, he had not seen any information as to other systems. He said this was a $2,400 expenditure
for just the start of an elaborate system. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
KASPER, TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE FEBRUARY 25 MAYOR/COUNCIL WORKSHOP WHEN THE FINANCE DIRECTOR
WILL BE PRESENTING INFORMATION ON THE COMPUTER SYSTEM, AND THEN TO MAKE A DECISION AT THE FEBRUARY 28
WORK MEETING. Councilmember Hall thought it should be presented to the Council for discussion,
rather than putting it on the Consent Agenda, so she favored the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVAL OF REPLACEMENT OF OBSOLETE PATROL VEHICLE [Item (G) on Consent Agenda]
Councilmember Kasper asked why the movement was to an Impala, which is a larger car, when the Malibu
had been used recently. Police Chief Marlo Foster responded that the Malibu has been discontinued,
and he had a choice of going to the slightly larger Impala or else to the Celebrity which is a four-
wheel drive vehicle and has not been satisfactory on a maintenance basis. He thought that eventually
would be the vehicle to use, but not at this time. The proposal now was to lease a 1984 Chevrolet
Impala at the rate of $495 per month, for two years. Ina memorandum, Chief Foster had discussed
the merits of leasing over purchasing.. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HALL, TO APPROVE ITEM (G) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Naughten proposed that two items on this evening's agenda be continued to future dates because
the agenda was so full this evening. He suggested that Item 5, the hearing on an appeal from ADB
approval of the sign on the north face of the proposed Edmonds National Bank building at 125, 137,
and 145 3rd Ave. S., be continued to March 6, 1984; and that Item 7, the hearing on the appeal from
the ADB denial of the existing freestanding sign at the Dairy Queen Drive -In Restaurant at 7530 •
212th S.W., be continued to April 3, 1984. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH SO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
KASPER. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
555 WALNUT ASSOCIATES CONDOMINIUM (APPELLANT: TUPPER)
Councilmember Dwyer stated that he is on record as having spoken against this proposal at the
Hearing Examiner hearing, so he excused himself from participating and left the room. Councilmember
Jaech stated that when the other appeal on this project was before the Council recently she was
advised by City Attorney Wayne Tanaka that she should disqualify herself from participating because
she lives across the street from.the proposed project, and she also had been told she should not sit
in the audience. She asked if that applied also to this hearing. City Attorney Mark Eames advised
that she should step down but, she could go to the back of the room (the full hearing room was open
this evening because of the large audience in attendance). Councilmember Jaech did leave the
* rostrom and went to the back of the room.
Ray Martin, 18704 94th W., called for a point of order and wished to address the Council. Mr. Eames
stated that only the Council could call for a point of order, but they could vote to allow Mr.
Martin to speak on that point only. Councilmember Wilson stated he thought they should stay with
their established rules. Mr. Martin was then told he could not speak at this time. Phil Carter,
the attorney for the applicants, said he did not know what Mr. Martin wanted to talk about, but from
his clients' point of view he wanted to be sure this hearing was conducted in the proper fashion and
did not want the hearing to be tainted, and if Mr. Martin's point of order concerned the make-up of
the Council hearing the appeal he -would like that known. Mr. Martin refused to reveal the subject
of his call for a point of order. Councilmember Hall felt that he would have his turn to speak, and
she said the Council intended to proceed in a -fair and orderly manner. Mr. Martin then said his
point did have to do with the constitution of the Council. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO ALLOW MR. MARTIN TO SPEAK. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Martin read from Section
1.14.040 of the City Code regarding participation of public officials and he stated that Council -
member Kasper had received $100 from the Echelbarger Land Development Co. as a campaign contribu-
tion, which was indicated on his public disclosure form. That section of the Code prohibits
participation in any matter concerning individuals, groups, corporations or associations or other
businesses or entities contributing over $50 to the public official's campaign expense. Mr. Martin
went on to say that Councilmember Kasper had participated in a conversation concerning this project
several months previously, prior to the ADB hearing, and had explained the entire project to those
present and when asked how he knew so much about Ahe project he -'the Echelbargers had approached
him for its financing, and when he was asked if he was going to finance it he said he told them to
come back to him after it cleared the Council. Therefore, Mr. Martin felt this was a direct con-
flict of interest. He said he suspected this occurred prior to the previous hearing also. Coun-
cilmember Kasper responded that it was true he had received the contribution and it was on his
disclosure form, but he said he did not discuss this with the Echelbargers and, in fact, did not
even know about the project until it went to the ADB. He said the project in question was another
one and he had stated at the last hearing that the project he had been asked to finance was the
Willow Run project and he had turned them down and said he was not interested until such time as it
had gone through the process, which it now has done and he has taken the application. He said he
does not enter into financing anything until a building permit is issued or the city is ready to
issue it --sometimes the city will not issue until the financing is in place. He thought what had
happened here was that people might have heard him talking about the Willow Run project, but it was
not the 555 Walnut project. He was not willing to step down from this hearing unless instructed to
do so by the -City Attorney. He added that he disclosed four or five contributions that he had
received and that is public record in the courthouse and in Olympia. Further, he said Mr. Dean
Echelbarger has given money to a lot of candidates with no strings attached. Mr. Eames stated that
the State Legislature has recently passed a law that campaign contributions are exempt from that,
but the City has an ordinance as stated. Patrick Echelbarger, one of the principals in the 555
Walnut project, asked to speak. He said his father, Dean Echelbarger, is not associated in this
project at all, but he had written a personal check from .his own personal account to several Council -
members and to the Mayor. He said all the documents are signed by his brother, Lindsey Echelbarger,
*See February 14, 1984 Minutes 40
315
•
February 7, 1984 - continued
and himself, and his father.has been at the meetings as an interested party to see how his boys have
learned their lessons. Councilmember Kasper stated that he did not feel he had received any money
knowingly from anybody involved in this project. Mr. Eames said that from the City's interest if
the contributions made were not made by anyone directly or indirectly interested or benefitted by
this project, then he would say the City's law is not violated. He also pointed out that Mr. Kasper
stated there are no connections through his occupation with this project, so Mr. Eames thought
Councilmember Kasper was entitled to hear this matter. Councilmember Kasper stated that he had not
discussed this project with Dean Echelbarger, and Mr. Eames advised him that he could remain.
Planning Director Mary Lou Block reviewed the appeal. A public hearing had been held by the Hearing
Examiner on December 1, 1983 at the request of the 555 Walnut Associates for a Conditional Use
Permit to grade approximately 3,700 cu. yds. of material at that location. A manor portion of the
requested grading involves earth removal necessary to provide the underground parking authorized by
the ADB and, subsequently, the City Council, in their approval of the building and site design. The
Hearing Examiner issued his decision of approval on December 22, 1983, subject to specific conditions,
and on January 9, 1984 that decision was appealed by Finis Tupper. The Council had been provided
.copies of all the pertinent documents. Ms. Block reviewed,the conclusions of the Hearing Examiner
and read the conditions of his approval, as follows: (1) The applicant is to submit an erosion
control plan for review and approval by the City Engineer, which plan is to be submitted with the
building permit applica.tion.and to include a temporary erosion control plan. (2) The applicant is
to review all truck routes for excavation purposes with the Public Works Director and the City
Engineer, who are to approve truck routes into and out of town. (3) The hours of operation for
grading shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. (4) The application
shall make provisions to keep all. public streets cleared and swept during the grading and building
phases of the project. (5) The applicant shall provide a centerline profile of the driveway into
the. garage, showing the proposed slope. (6) The applicant shall make provisions for gravity storm
drainage of the garage or a back-up pump shall be required with the drainage plan. (7) The applicant
•
shall erect a fence to encircle the excavated area. The fence shall be locked when work is not
being performed. (8) All landscaping shall be done as shown on the exhibits that were submitted by
the Applicant. The landscaping shall be approved by the Planning Department of the City of Edmonds.
(9) The applicant shall remove all backfill from the site when it is not being used. The applicant
shall be required to return the backfill to the site when it is ready to be used. (10) The applicant
shall obtain a street use permit for any storage of building materials that occur on City property.
(11) The conditional use permit is not transferable. Ms. Block stated that a declaration of non-
significant environmental impact had been issued.
Finis Tupper, the appellant, 711 Daley St., said a conditional use permit is a special privilege
granted by the City through the Hearing Examiner process.to provide control and guarantee consistency
and compatibility to other existing or permitted uses in the same zone. He referred to Section.
20.05.010 of the Community Development Code and said those criteria must be applied to the decision,
but those criteria were not met, one of them being that the proposed use be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, which is Title 15, but the Hearing Examiner had mentioned the Comprehensive Plan
Map which is a minor element of the City policy. He said it should be realized that the Hearing
Examiner is only allowed to base his decision on testimony provided at the hearing. He spoke of
grading, filling, and tree cutting, sayina the Hearing Examiner did not require any of the vegeta-
tion to be retained on this site and there are some older trees such as the magnolia tree which is
in the building pad area. He said the staff report failed to detail the nature of the site and
described the topography as an 8% slope from east to west on Walnut, but there is a 40% - 50% slope
from north to south. He read from the Code that buildings on slopes of 15% or greater should be
designed to provide minimum disruption to topography, and he said developers should not have the
right to build a taller builder because of the topography. He presented several petitions supporting
retention of a two-story residential character of development. He said a building the size of the
proposed condominium cannot and will not harmonize with the existing structures in the area. He
noted.that the topography of the property south of 555 Walnut would not allow a building taller than
25' because it is flat, so he said that makes the design inconsistent with the neighborhood. He
urged that only 1,850 cu. yds. be allowed to be excavated which would allow underground parking and
•
reduce the size of the proposal.
Lindsey Echelbarger, 23614 102nd P1. W., one of the principals in the project (owning the property
with his brother, Patrick Echelbarger), said it is ironic that Finis Tupper is appealing this because
back in November after an ADB meeting, in talking.with Mr. Tupper, Mr. Tupper had indicated that if
a condominium had to be built then it was better to build the parking underground. Mr. Echelbarger
read from the Code the four findings that must be made in order to grant a conditional use permit
anddiscussed how the project met the criteria. He said they are proposing a redevelopment of an
existing developed lot --not like what would be found in a forested part of the City. The grading,
cutting, and filling are mainly restricted to the building and driveway areas. Only about 1/8 of
the soil will be removed outside of the building pad. He said for a site larger than 1/2 acre in
the middle of town 450 yards is not too -much, especially when it preserves the existing topography.
The balance will be removed from under the building. Outside of the building pad the grading will
be minimal and will preserve the natural features on'the site. He noted that it is customary to
park cars mainly outside in parking lots, but that decreases landscaping. He gave for an example
the Seacrest Condominium which has 46% of the land covered with asphalt. He said he proposes to
cover only 8 1/2% with asphalt, and where Seacrest has 19% in landscaping he proposes 4.6% in land-
scaping. He said he is very much in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Design
section. As to conformity with the zoning ordinance, he said it was stated by the Hearing Examiner
that the project is an allowed use in an RM-1.5 zone. He noted that the Hearing Examiner had
imposed conditions for them to follow to assure that the project will not be significantly detrimental
to the public health, safety, and welfare. Further, he.noted.-that--the Hearing Fxaminer had ruled
that the conditional use permit is not transferable, and although he did not agree with that, he
said it was minor. He noted that the. Council had adopted the findings on December 20, 1983 in the
denial of the appeal of the SEPA threshold determination, and in the testimony the issue of excavation
was discussed thoroughly and the Council found that it would not result in a significant adverse
environmental impact. He noted that the issue this evening was not whether or not 555 Walnut Associates
should build a condominium,.as the Council had already decided that, but this discussion was on
whether or not they should have an underground parking lot, and if they are not to have that they
r�
u
3- 16'
February 7, 1984-.continued •
will have to change the design.of the building and put the parking outside. He thought that the
people who say they are concerned about the interests of the City.should recognize that the under-
ground parking was in the interest of the City. The hearing was opened.
Karl Niggol, 809 Walnut, said he did not have any idea what the building will look like, and he
asked if the City Council could not make up its mind on how the laws are written. He said something
must be wrong with this, and.he asked why there must be a "significant" impact on the environment,
why not complete. He said the storm sewers are overloaded and the man who approves this should ask
more of what the people want.
Dan W. Carroll, 716 Cedar St., said he just plainly does not like more condominiums, and more than
anything else he does not like the intent to build a larger building by.digging into the hillside,
and if there is an ordinance saying 25' above the existing level,.that is where it should stay.
Robert Jones, 23106 100th Ave. W., professional engineer with Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, repre-
senting the applicants, said he was present to answer any questions.
Bill Mathias, 540 Holly Dr., asked the Council to overturn the Hearing Examiner's findings on the
basis of error. He.said the information was not presented correctly to'him in that the building
does not meet the required rear setback requirement which is 15' and the building is within 13' of
that setback. Moreover, he said the Code says parking is not to take place in the street setbacks
and they have designed three at the rear of the building that occupy the setbacks. He was sure if
the Hearing Examiner had been aware of that he would not have granted the permit. Ms. Block responded
to his allegation regarding the rear setback that on a corner lot there is no rear setback, there
are two fronts and two sides, and she quoted the section of the Code which states that. The required
side setback is 10' so it is met. Mr.. Mathias said again that there is a violation in the parking
locations. •
Jean Marr, 504 6th Ave. S., addressed the driveway requirement which she thought was overlooked in
the plan. She said the driveway shown on the plan is not perpendicular to the lot .line as required
and that entry will require an almost 180° turn. She thought the project should be denied because
the driveway does not meet the criteria in the Code and it is not safe due to the turning radius and
the dimensions of Walnut St. She provided two photographs of Walnut St.
Kirby White, 639 8th Ave. S., said this should be.looked at as a whole. He thought the ADB did not
have the proper input from the citizens and he asked them to postpone this until there is more
citizen input. He said he did not want Edmonds to be another Lynnwood.
Lois Lucum, 702 Alder, a 30-year resident of Edmonds, said she had worked with the original group of
people who decided what they wanted for Edmonds, and she thought they had a height ceiling. She
said this was a monstrosity and not in .keeping with what the citizens said they wanted. She said it
would destroy her view.
Trudie Thornbrough, 821 Walnut, said she is interested in heights and she fails to see why the
subject has to reappear before the Council every two years. She asked what the height of 25' is
based on and if it is street level. Ms. Block explained the formula, that the building can go up
25' from the mean of the four corner points of the building.
Lee Abbott, 658 Maple, asked how much of the landscaping will be visible. He said that looking out
his window what view he has will be destroyed with the rest of the condominiums going across the
skyline.
Dan Jaech, 546 Walnut, asked that the proposal be denied. He thought the project did not comply
with the Comprehensive Plan, and he said although the designation of two stories did not get into
the Code, the intent was there. He said this building is significantly higher than 25' because of a •
loophole in the Code, and that the design should be similar to the design idiom of the single-family
homes. Further, he said RM development should preserve views of surrounding buildings. He said one
of the petitions presented is from people.who say this building will affect their views. He said
the project does not comply with.the zoning ordinance, and that -one of the previous speakers testified
that the landscaping can only be seen from 6th Ave. He said the.landscaping is only meant to
benefit the people who live in the condominium, and if you are.looking at the building from the face
it does not matter if it is of sawtooth design because all.you see.is a wall. He thought Beck Lane
to be a street, so he said that would cause the site not to be a corner lot and that it should have
a rear setback. He felt the granting of the conditional use permit for the excavation would not be
necessary if the project complied.with the spirit of the Code.. He said the building was placed at
one end of the property to maximize the development, and.the right to develop property is not an
unrestricted right. He thought some compromise.should be mandatory. He said maybe someday a
developer will get together with the neighbors before starting on a project like this.
Ray Martin, 18704 74th W., had attended the ADB hearing on this matter and he made some statements
later that he had never seen a more unfair hearing, which he -wanted to elaborate on now. He said he
had been trying to lay out the things in the Code that this project did not comply with, and the
regular chairman was not present, and Greg Selvidge, one.of the board members, interrupted him and
pointed out that the City Attorney had already advised them that what they were intending to do was
legal so why was he wasting his time talking to them. He said their minds were set and they were
not interested in public input, but he pursued his presentation, and another member acted like he
was about to fall asleep. He said he asked if he was bored and he answered yes and asked why he
(""r. Martin), did not go away. "Ir.. "lartin said these were -his observations of the process. He asked
the Council to consider carefully the input heard tonight.
Betty Mathay, 8006 240th S.W., said the Code was made by the citizens and they want a two-story
residential character. She was against having this excavation as proposed because it is extensive,
and she wondered about the accumulative effect of many of these projects. She said it would be nice
to have a good technical study by the City. She thought this should be denied or at least modified.
She asked the Council to consider a letter that was given to.her to be read into the record, which •
317.
• February 7, 1984 - continued
she did. It was from Barbara Andersen, president of a "Save Our Code" organization, the membership
being of Lake Ballinger area residents. She asked that the "variance" (which this is not) be denied
because the excavation exceeds Code provisions, would permit greater development than the public
desires, and that an exception situation does not exist for which a variance should be granted.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr., had attended the ADS and Hearing Examiner hearings, and he agreed
with the objection to the building height. He said excavation and design go together, and it appeared
to him that the project has a large courtyard in the raiddle but the total building pad of four
corners includes that. He said the project is spread out to cover the lot so the average comes Out
higher, but if you were to put the two buildings together without a courtyard it would reduce the
.building pad and very possibly reduce the building height. He felt there to be a problem when there
are four stories.on one end -of a building and two on the other. He felt that buildings on steep
slopes with the present method of calculation present'a problem, and that people did not expect four
story buildings on one end of a lot when they wanted a 25' height restriction.
Dick Beselin, 1108 12th !., a ten-year resident of Edmonds, said he has nothing to do with this
project or the Echelbargers, but he is in a similar type of business. He said that three years ago
he built a house and he lookedfor a long time for the building lot. He, too, had an unfortunate
experience with his previous residence where he did not take in the immediate area around him. He
said much was said tonight about what the Code should be, but the question is what the Code is, and
the Hearing Examiner, the ADB, and the Council have looked at this. He thought it was rather
clear, and he said the question is of zoning. He noted that most of the people who had spoken are
right next -door to the project and they have lived there and now somebody has purchased the property
with the zoning on it. He said the people should work to change the zoning, but not come in after
somebody has acquired it to develop it consistent with the zoning and the Code. He also had attended
the other hearings on this and said most of what was said this evening was not regarding the conditional
use permit but was discusssed on December 20. He said the Council should loos: at this in an objective
• manner.
Finis Tupper spoke again, saying City Attorney Mark Eames had been at the ADB hearing and advised
them that the ADB was addressing only the design, not the grading. Mr. Tupper again said a conditional
use permit is a special privilege and is supposed to create a degree of order and control what uses
will take place in existing zones. He asked if Mir: Echelbarger is allowed to build a taller building
and get an extra story because his rear lot has a 40% - 50% slope, and across the street where it is
flat if a developer in the future is going to be able to build a 40' building. He said that since
that future developer will not, this building is not compatible because it will be a large boxy
condominium and future buildings will not be compatible in height.
Phillip Carter, attorney on behalf of the applicants, 1313 Market St., Kirkland, took exception to
Mr. Tupper's statement that the conditional use permit is a privilege. He said the application for
a variance asks for a privilege, but they are not asking for a variance. He said this building in
all respects meets every section of the Code, and they are asking for a conditional use permit and
have a right to such a permit --not a privilege. He said the Council has the right to impose reason-
able limitations on the e,ercise of that permit. With regard to the allegation that the granting of
this permit will allow greater development or greater heights of the buildings on the site, he said
that is not true. He noted that the staff and the City Council had considered this matter before,
and the Council specifically considered whether this building met the height limitations of the Code
in connection with the ADB proceedings, and it approved unanimously the recommendations of the ADB,
finding all the criteria were met on December 13. He pointed out that the people who criticized how
the ADB conducted their hearing and how they were treated left out that they appealed the ADB decision
and this Council approved the project, and they had the option but chose not to go to court. He
noted that they challenged it on the negative declaration and the Council ruled it was appropriate,
and they did not appeal. He noted that virtually all of the matters discussed this evening were not
pertinent, and he asked that the December 13 Council minutes be incorporated into the record. He
said he had written a letter to the City on December 1, 1983, prior to the Hearing Examiner hearing,
relating to the issue of the conditional use -permit, and that -it is his understanding that in every
prior case where there has-been an application for a building or excavation for underground parking,
this City has treated that excavation as being exempt from the grading permit process, and also
excavations for utilities are excluded. He ventured to say the City has projects underway currently
where conditional use permits were not issued. His position was that they do not need a conditional
use permit and their application was filed under protest. As to whether they had met the burden of
the conditional use permit, he said the project itself has been unanimously indorsed for height by
the City Council, and while some people talk about the fact that a lot of landscaping is on the
inside, Mr. Echelbarger advised him that 2,400 sq. ft. is all that is inside the interior courtyard.
He thought everyone present would say underground parking is desirable, and he noted that the Council
said that on December 13, and he said the question is whether 3,250 cu. yds. of material will cause
a substantial detriment to the community, which was considered.by the Nearing Examiner. He submitted
that it will not provide any detriment to the community and, in fact, will provide a benefit.
He recalled that a site layout was shown where they could build a similar building with parking
above the ground, and they are not picking up anymore units, density, or lot coverage, but are only
creating more of an amenity.on the land surface --for the purchasers, the neighbors, and the community,
and the underground garage is a benefit to the City and it is not a detriment. He said there clearly
had been no evidence that it is a substantial detriment. He noted that the Council had specifically
considered the fact that height limitations of 25'.are met by this building and that is not meant to
include basements. Further, that the Code does not include a basement in the 25' in a single-family
home. He added that the Echelbargers own this land and they are not speculators, but they purchased
the property, and it cost them $180,000 additional to put the parking underground. He said this is
not a get -rich scheme, but.it is a quality project that the Council unanimously indorsed, and the
staff had indicated that all criteria of the Code are met, and the Hearing Examiner also found that.
.He submitted that there was'no evidence whatsoever to show this excavation of this material will be
detrimental to the community, and the issue is taking the dirt out of the ground for a project that
has already been approved. The hearing was closed.
Councilmember Ostrom asked the City Attorney if it is a fact that the conditional use permit is a
right and, if so, what is the hearing process to decide. Mr. Eames responded that uses are permitted,
• either outright or with a conditional use permit, and a use is permitted in the zone but the City
31V,
February 7, 1984 - continued •
has the right to place reasonable conditions on the use to make that use compatible with other uses
in the zone, so it is different from a variance in that respect. Councilmember Ostrom noted that
the Code specifies a limit of 500 cu..yds. Mr. Eames explained that all the Code says is if a
person is going to excavate more than 500 cu. yds. then he must get a conditional use permit, and
that is the situation here, and perhaps anything over 500 is substantial and should be reviewed by
the City to see if any conditions should be placed on it. Councilmember Ostrom said he had been
quite concerned about this particular issue for some time, and he thought the City government in
Edmonds has been extremely lax in not monitoring that kind of use in the City. He had seen whole
hillsides gouged out, and he did not see why that practice should be continued. He thought it
should be kept within the 500 cu. yds., within the Code, and let it go at that. He thought they
were risking havoc with the terrain and topography in this City and he saw no justification for
granting the permit.
Councilmember Nordquist noted that Mr. Tupper had indicated he would like to see 1,850 cu. yds, but
that Councilmember Ostrom wanted it kept at 500. Councilmember.Ostrom thought it completely clear
that the reason for getting more than 500 was to get a maximum size building, and that was the whole
point. He said people never build 1 ess than maximum and then they ask for more.
Councilmember Hall said they had to separate in their minds what they were ruling on at this time.
She noted that Mr. Tupper said 1,850 and Councilmember Ostrom said 500. She said the zoning is
proper and she was trying to see what it would do for the neighborhood, and she thought it would
enhance the neighborhood. She advised the opponents that if they were not to have this excavation
they would have the automobiles in their sight all day long, and the percentage to be landscaped is
high so that enhances it. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO UPHOLD THE
HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON.THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO GRADE APPROXIMATELY 3,700 CU. YDS. OF
MATERIAL AT 555 WALNUT ST., BECAUSE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF
EDMONDS; AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL NOT BE SIGNIFICANTLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY,
AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC OR TO THE NEARBY IMPROVEMENTS; AND THAT FINDINGS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER •
ARE ADOPTED. Councilmember Kasper said he would like to affirm .the decisions of the Hearing Examiner
from the standpoint that there are items he has added to this which Councilmember Kasper had not
seen in other cases; e.g., he had required fencing and other items that address problems that have
arisen in the removal of dirt in the past. Councilmember Ostrom asked about the violation of the
setbacks by 2', and Ms. Block said it was the determination before it was taken to the ADB that it
did meet all the setback requirements, as she had indicated, because it is a corner lot and there
are two front and two side setbacks, and the side setback requirement is 10' and they have 13'.
Councilmember Ostrom said that, if they approved this conditional use permit, then once more they
were telling the people who live in an area what is better for them. Councilmember Nordquist asked
him what they would have if they did not pass it --did they drive the building back to a different
design? He said all that would do is move the parking from beneath the building to the top of the
site, but if there were some chance of a compromise that was another thing. Mayor Naughten asked
the applicants what would happen if this were denied and no parking was under the building --would
that change the design of the building significantly? Mr. Carter responded that he had just asked
Mr. Echelbarger that question, and if they were forced to put the parking above they would have to
look at how the parking circulation would be, so they could not answer that question. Mr. Tupper
asked if the design would have to go back to the ADB if they changed the parking, and Mr. Eames
advised him that it would. Mr. Tupper said a change of design is a threat and putting the parking
above is a threat which the Council should ignore. Mr. Eames noted that the ADB approval was
contingent on the approval of the conditional use permit, so if it is not granted and there is any
change to the design it would have to go back to the ADB. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION,
WITH COUNCILMEMBERS HALL, WILSON, AND KASPER VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCILMEMBERS NORDQUIST AND
OSTROM VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was announced, and following the recess Councilmembers
Jaech and Dwyer returned to the rostrom.
HEARING ON PROPOSED 36-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
SUBDIVISION AT 638 ELM ST. (ADB-88-83, PRD-1-83, P-9-83 -- HOMELAND HOMES, INC.)
Councilmember Kasper said this is adjacent to property he is financing on Willow Run and he was •
willing to step down if the City Attorney so advised. Mr. Eames stated that certain similar cases
have been so decided by the courts, so he would ask Councilmember Kasper to step down. Council -
member Kasper left the room and did not return during the rest of the meeting.
Assistant City Planner Duane Bowman said the proposal has been approved by the Hearing Examiner and
the ADB had made a recommendation to the Council for approval. A letter of opposition had been
received from Robert and Marilyn Klepinger'in which they stated their intention to appeal the
decision of the ADB, but that decision was not appealable because it was only a .recommendation to
the Council. That letter, together with the Hearing Examiner's report, minutes of the ADB hearing,
and copies of the proposed development plans were provided -to the Council. The Hearing Examiner
listed certain conditions of approval. Under ST-5-83 was a street map amendment to reduce the
proposed right-of-way of Elm St. from 60' to 50' as no justification could be found to retain the
60' right-of-way width. The actual right-of-way controlled by the City ranges from 30' to 60' from
oth to 7th Aves. Mr. Bowman said if the Council found no objection to the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation then by no action it would go back to them for approval on the Consent Agenda, and if
they should disapprove it then they should set a date for public hearing. Colored renderings of the
proposal were displayed and the site plan shown. Also shown was the proposed realignment of the
intersection of 6th and Elm. The current pavement of Elm ranges from 18' to 22'. As a requirement
of the PRD there will have to be a 22' minimum width. Also, there will be a sidewalk along the
south side of Elm St. Councilmember Jaech noted that with cars parked on 'the south side of Elm and
traffic going both ways it is extremely tight, and there will be a lot of traffic on Flan. She asked
how the existing residences on Elm'can be accommodated for their guest parking. Mr. Bowman said
that was not addressed in this project, that it is an existing situation now. Parking and guest
parking for the PRD are provided within the PRD. He read the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner.
One of the conditions was that $200 per lot be contributed to the City for improvements to the City
park property in the immediate vicinity of the PRD. This .is to be a voluntary agreement on the part
of the applicant, and the applicant acknowledged that at the hearing. Half of the contribution is
to be paid at the final approval stage and the other half on a per lot basis at the time of issuance
of the building permits. The City's former in -lieu park fee had been $300, and the applicant
•
• February 7, 1984 - continued
volunteered $200.per lot. Mr. Dwyer noted that the letter of opposition alleges -that the proposed
development is not sufficient for children to have a place to play. He asked if it was the staff's
position that the $7,200 was a trade-off for that.. Mr. Bowman responded that the Parks Department
in analyzing the development indicated this development would impose an impact on City Park and Pine
St. Park and this would mitigate that. A large amount.of open space is in that development. He
would say there is sufficient area in the PRD for children. Councilmember Jaech noted that the 50-
unit development west of this which was approved in 1979 was still having problems in theZbntrol of
the drainage and this property is uphill from it. She asked if it would have the same problems.
Mr. -Bowman said the applicant and the City are aware of that situation and the lots impacted by that
would be Lots 1-5 which are adjacent to the hillside. The plan is that they would intercept that
groundwater and channel it back into the stream. Mr. Bowman concluded that a declaration of nonsignificant
environmental impact was issued for the proposed and the final plat.
Herb Carpenter of Reid, Middleton & A,ssociates, representing Homeland Homes, said there is approximately
45' of elevation from one side of the site down to the stream and there are three houses there now.
One or two will remain. The stream.runs year-round and there are wetlands in the southeast corner.
Access is limited because of sight distance problems. The homes will range in size from 1,500 to
2,000 sq. ft. A serious effort has been made to protect as many of the trees as possible, and an
objective was minimum individual upkeep for the homeowners, so the homeowners' association will have
most of the grounds upkeep. There will be an area for storage of large recreational vehicles. Mr.
Carpenter said the homesites, themselves, are small and they are designed for people without children --
young professionals and people working towards retirement.
Hank Lewis, also representing Homeland Homes, discussed marketing of the homes, saying they will not
discourage children but the homes are in the $130,000 to $140,000, range so that in itself will be
restrictive to young families. He said there will be private area behind and in front of each home
• and each will be fully landscaped when purchased. Interest thus far has been 95% from people over
45 years of age, and this type of home is appealing to the type of person who likes to travel a lot.
The hearing was opened.
Evelyn Laurine, 1.233 7th Ave. S., said she had attended every hearing on this and is not opposed to
the development as such, as she thinks it will be an asset to the neighborhood. Currently, she
said, children get into the property and have fires and shooting sessions, so she felt it would be
.an improvement to have it developed. Her concern was that more consideration be given to the streets
adjacent to this property. Her builder had put in curbs, sidewalks, and 21' of street, but she has
no guest parking except curbside. She said 7th Ave. S. is an access road with over 60 houses
between Paradise Lane and Elm St. and a 22' street as proposed on 7th Ave. is only 1' wider than
they have now. She does not feel a sidewalk is necessary on the west side of the street, but she
does feel the street should be wider than 22' as Elm St. is already well traveled and with the
additional cars from this PRD and the other condominium they feel the street is not satisfactory.
She noted that one argument against: widening the street is two large trees that already cause Elm
St. to curve slightly. She thought the trees could be sacrificed for safety.
Marilyn Klepinger, 642 Elm St., said she is the most impacted by this development and she is not
opposed to the development, itself. She said the traffic has only one access going in and out and
they all access up 6th to Elm. She said that although the Traffic Engineers say she.will not be
impacted, with these two developments she will be because there is hardly any traffic now. She said
they have a quiet pastoral street now and would like to keep some essence of that. They do rot want
a wire fence and they do not want to be separated and left as an island, so she suggested shrubs
instead of a fence, but she said she was told they want to keep dogs and foot traffic out. She felt
a fence would change the appearance of what they have now. She said three homes will go in next to
her property. Although they are not marketing toward children, she felt there would be a lot of
child traffic, and she said there should be more than one access.
Esther Barnes, 620 Elm St., said it is difficult to think of this area changing, but she has seen
• Edmonds change and most of the changes have been for the better. She said they all need to look at
both sides and try to be understanding of the other side. She appreciated Councilmember Jaech's
concern regarding the parking in the development, but she said there has never been quest parking on
Elm St. and people who purchase these homes will have room for their own cars and guest narking.
She had wanted what was best for the property and she thought this was wonderful and she said there
had been fires and wood chopped down on the property by people who did not know it was Private
property. She thought the development would be an asset to the community.
Dr. Hartford Barnes, same address, said they had lived there many years and the entire area has been
developed while they lived there. He said they have tried to be understanding when other develop-
ments have caused them problems, and they hoped others would understand that they a,ill have some new
neighbors to call on and have them to call on for help. He said it is hard to move from a place
where ,you have such deep roots.
Mr. Carpenter spoke again, saying on -site parking is two in the driveway and two in the garage, plus
the additional areas for guest parking and the clubhouse area with 10-12 spaces and the recreational
vehicle parking. He said the traffic -had been thoroughly studied and the traffic engineers think
more than half of the traffic swill go out on 6th, turn left and go out on 5th. He said the City
asked for 22' on 7th and on Elm, curbs and gutters on 7th, and a meandering sidewalk on Elm, and
they had agreed to. that. He said they have tried to be sensitive to the site and to the needs of
the neighbors. Mr. Eames asked him if it was their intent -to execute a voluntary agreement for the
contribution of $200 per home as a mitigation of the impacts of the development -on park facilities
in this area, $3;�nn at thA time l?f rcCnrriinn �n�l ��,�nr� ?t the A?r^e of b,�ildinc herT"1't SSU?!1CF?.
Mark McNaughten, one of the principals, said the last $3,600 will be disbursed $100 each time a
permit is issued. He acknowledged that it is to mitigate the impact of his development on the parks
in the area. 'He said, as far as children go, the price range of these units and of residences in
downtown Edmonds is not conducive to families with children, and the people who can afford them are
normally people who are older and have higher incomes, but it will be no different from any RS-6
neighborhood in Edmonds as far as space for children. He said they are aware of the water problems
there and have planned for them, but they were a surprise to the other nearby developer. He said
32 0
February 7, 1984 - continued •
they had considered several designs for subdivisions before deciding on a PRO, and then they tried
several PRDs before going with this one. He noted that a regular subdivision would not take into
consideration the topography, but they are leaving as natural a setting as possible in developing
it. Regarding.the traffic concerns expressed by Mrs. Klepinger, he said the engineer stated the
effect would be insignificant, but it is recognized that there will be some impact. Regarding
parking on the streets, he said if Edmonds takes the position that there be parking on the streets
then there will have to be more paving and less landscaping. He added that they had spent a lot of
time with the neighbors and many of their concerns were incorporated into the project and have been
important to them as developers from the beginning. He said all of the principals in Homeland Homes
live in Edmonds and have a real.stake in Edmonds. The hearing was closed.
The traffic was discussed by the Council, and Councilmember Jaech although recognizing that the
ievelopers had worked with the neighbors and that provisions were made for parking in their develop-
ment, was still concerned that something be done about Elm St. heading east from this development
all the way to 8th. Ms. Block said there will not be parking on Elm between 6th and 7th, but there
is not parking there now, and Mr. Bowman said the City's engineer and the traffic engineer, as well
as the applicant's traffic engineer, have reviewed the streets and the traffic loads and indicate
the roadway width is sufficient, but on -street parking was not addressed. Ms. Block added that
there is shoulder property available for parking on the north side of Elm, east of.,7th, where the
City owns property.
Councilmember Dwyer observed that there is adequate parking for the need created by this proposal,
and although the traffic will increase, what they are looking at is whether or not it will increase
:pore than if this were done in a regular subdivision, and he did not think there was any indication
that traffic would be greater with the 36 units than there would be in a regular single-family lot
development, and while this may present a traffic inconvenience it is not presenting the type of
traffic to cause denial, and the traffic of the other development should not bar approval of this
project. He noted there is a trade-off of keeping trees or widening the street, and he was not •
willing to say the developer is wrong when he says keeping the trees is more beneficial than widen-
ing the street. Overall, he did not have great problems with traffic and parking as created by this
PRD, so he was favorably disposed.towards approval. THEREFORE, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED
BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE THE PRD AND THE PLAT. Councilmember Jaech continued to question
the impact on the streets and whether the motion should address that. Mr. Eames answered her
questions as to the Council's duties. She had not seen the environmental checklist herself so she
said she could not vote on the environmental impact. She suggested continuing the hearing to get
more information from the staff, such as the checklist and any other studies that have been done.
She said they have a nice looking development but she did not have information on which to make a
judgment on traffic on 7th and on Elm. Councilmember Hall commented that sometimes widening streets
can be the worst thing to do. She lives by the first PRD done in Edmonds and it has narrow streets
and does not have the problems she has on�the wider street. She thought this development would keep
the pastoral setting the people like there. Councilmember Ostrom agreed with Councilmember Dwyer,
having no problem with the configuration of the PRD, but he said he also shared the concerns
regarding traffic problems. After some further discussion, A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE
MOTION, WITH COUNCILMEMBERS DWYER, HALL, AND WILSON VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCILMEMBERS JAECH,
NORDQUIST, AND OSTROM VOTING NO, RESULTING IN A TIE VOTE. MAYOR NAUGHTEN VOTED YES, TO BREAK THE
TIE. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmembers Ostrom and Jaech said they were not voting against the
project, just the lack of information. Ms. Block said the staff would address the parking problems
there, and Councilmember Jaech asked that she communicate with the people in that area. Hank Lewis
added that the road there is designed with a parking lane on the north side of it, but the situation
they are faced with is that people park on the south side also, and if they all parked on the north
side there would be two clear lanes of travel.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
MINI -DAYCARE CENTER AT 21615 79TH AVE. W. (CU-54-83) (APPELLANT: BORON)
The requested action heard by the Hearing Examiner would allow Cathy Goforth to run a mini -daycare
at her home for up to 12 children. The Hearing Examiner's decision was to approve the request, •
subject to certain conditions. This decision was subsequently appealed by Warren Bohon. The
Council was provided a vicinity map, a copy of the Hearing Examiner's report, and the appeal letter
of Mr. Bohon. The hearing was opened.
Warren Bohon, 21606 79th W., opposed the approval of the daycare on the grounds that it is noisy and
causes traffic congestion in that there is inadequate parking on the cul-de-sac where this home is
located. He recalled that in 1975 the Maple -Bar Ranch daycare had applied for a conditional use
permit and was denied twice by the Council because of the noise and the traffic. He noted that the
Edmonds High School is across the street with almost constant noise except in the summer, but then
the children from the daycare are outside yelling and screaming. He said he had lived with it once
and it is an absolute nuisance and now they are trying to do it on the other side. He said he is a
daytime sleeper and another neighbor also is, because they are truck drivers, and they cannot sleep
with that noise. He said the applicant has space to park five cars but has three cars and will have
to have additional help if the number of children is increased so the helpers' cars will be there
and there is not space for the people dropping off the children. He also felt the property values
of the surrounding properties will be affected by the traffic and the noise. He said the children
have been out in the street. He said he became aware of how much problem it is to the other neigh-
bors when he started circulating the petition against it, and the problems would increase with the
number of children increased. He said there are facilities at the Melody Lane School that she could
rent for this kind of use.
Kathv Goforth; 21615 79th W., said she had been there fo0 r.vears and nobody in the.neighhorhood had
ever indicated to her that there was any problem. She noted that the day sleeper nextdoor to her
signed the petition because she thought this was going to be a large expansion. Ms. Goforth,
herself, had not seen the petitions.. Regarding the traffic, she said her children arrive during one
and one-half hours in the morning and over two hours in the afternoon, and the most she ever has is
two cars. As far as the Maple -Bar Ranch, she said there is no comparison as they had 108 children
with 15 employees. At her home she has,a helper at all times when there are more than six children.
She said she cannot do anything about the noise from the high school, but she said they do not.get a •
3 21"
February 7, 1984 - continued
lot of traffic in the cul-de-sac. Her own children do play in the cul-de-sac with neighborhood
children but none of the daycare children play there. She said the oldest child outside playing is
five years old, and two of the children will be infants. She has a duplex behind her and she said
almost everybody in the cul-de-sac is surrounded by apartments or condominiums, which get weekend
and evening noise. She said her neighbors thought anybody who moved into her house could run a
daycare, but that is not true. She has-been inspected by the City of Edmonds, the Edmonds Fire
Department, the Department of Health Services, and the State. She provides transportion to a
preschool in the neighborhood (she later showed a slide of the van used, with seatbelts for eight
children). She said the Hearing Examiner had said her not being in the neighborhood would not make
for a quiet neighborhood. She asked to see the petition.
Ray Harrison, 21626 78th W.,
said his main concern is noise and traffic. The corner of his property
abuts the corner.of the property
where the children play. He and his wife are retired and they like
to rest in the afternoon. He
said this afternoon was the only afternoon when the weather was decent
that there had not been noise
across the fence. He said traffic is a problem there, especially when
the high school gets out.
Helene Hansen spoke on behalf
of .her mother, Thelma Milaneski, 21609 79th W., saying her mother had
no objection although she had
signed the petition. She said she had signed it not knowing the
facts. She said the daycare
children do not play in the road. She had lived there 15 years and had
no complaints. She said the
cars are not there at the same time.and do not cause much traffic.
Andrea Floyd, 23926 97th Pl.
W., just moved from across the street from the Goforths and said she
had never noticed noise from
the daycare and the children are well supervised and do not scream but
make normal children noises.
She said the neighborhood gets a lot'of noise from the condominiums
and the high school. She and
her husband had considered buying the house but did not because of the
•
noise from the condominiums.,
they are an asset to the neighborhood.
not from the daycare. She said everything is in good repair there and
Larry Floyd, same address, said the times he was going to work and coming home there was never a .
traffic problem and they never posed any problem. He reiterated what his wife said about the reason
they did not purchase the house they had rented there, and he said the Goforths had been excellent
neighbors and had kept up their house at least on par with the rest of the neighbors and better than
some.
Larry Hansen, 21604 78th W., said his house is about 35' from the subject house and the Floyds were
200' away so they could not hear the noise. He said it gets very noisy in the summertime and he
objected to the noise. He said the people on 79th do.not know what the noise is. lie has added
storm windows and plants to help lessen the noise from the high school.
Drienna Bohon, 21606 79th Ave. W., 19 years at that address, said they spent approximately 11 years
fighting the Maple -Bar Ranch and it also was small at one time. She said their residential area is
surrounded by apartments and condominiums but they are places to live, and their area now is being
surrounded by clinics. She said this is a business and she objected to that. She said she had seen
children from the daycare center out in the end of the cul-de-sac. Also, that the cul-de-sac has
room for only one car to park and the rest is driveways, and people turn in fast and then hit their
brakes at the second house. They.knew they had the high school noise when they moved there but she
said they did not ask for daycare centers to move into their neighborhood.
Mary Lehde, 21624 79th W., said she is a grandmotherand worries about children, and she is concerned
that there are no sidewalks and the children are eager to see their parents and they run out when
the parents come to get them. She said they have to double-park.
Ardell Hansen, 21604 78th Ave. W., said she admires this lady for taking care of these children but
she does not think she is in the right location and it does not belong in this neighborhood and is
• very noisy.
Laurie Robles, 6703 204th S.W., Lynnwood, said this is an excellent daycare. She had never seen the
children in the street and had never had parking problems, and she had been there at various times
during the day. She said the deck is locked so they cannot get into the driveway or to the street.
She wants a family daycare. She said Ms. Goforth takes the children to a preschool and has helpers
to stay with the little ones. She noted that a lot of the big daycares will not allow cloth diapers,
which this one does, and food is provided and goes by the child's schedule, not what is convenient
for the daycare.
Connie Merrell, 22905 59th W., said she had prompted Ms. Goforth to apply for a mini -license because
she could not find care for her son. She had takenhim to the Y and he got locked in a closet and
was crying in the dark. She had visited at least 15 daycares which she did not find suitable for
her child. She also wanted someone to transport him.to preschool. She said her son is only there
part-time and that [its. Goforth does not always have her maximum number of children because of
illness or other reasons.
Age Stein, 6609 224th S.W., Mountlake Terrace, owner of the Stein School, said he can testify that
it is very hard to find someone he can recommend to take care of children who need a home during the
day. His school does not have those facilities and he has been very fortunate to have Ms. Goforth
and this situation. All the comments he had received from the parents had been very positive. fie
said it makes him sad to hear that children should be seen and not heard, and maybe it is hard to
hear those noises all the time, but what is the alternative. He said the children are the future,
and people who take on a job like that should be commended.. He had a daycare 15 years ago in Edmonds
and he knows the hardships involved. He said children have a right to exist, even if some do not
like the noise.
Jim Soleau, 8503. Bowdoin..Wa.v.,. is. -a- single Parent. !-!.ithchildren who go to the davcare and also to the
Stein. School. He said it is not really a business but it is a home for his children. He said she
2 2
February 7, 1984 - conti.nued
does a good job and the children are never in the street, they are either in the house or the
enclosed yard when he gets them.
William Tyler, 8024 215th S.W., also is a neighbor although not with abutting property. He has two
children who go to the Stein School and stay at this daycare. He said this neighborhood is zoned
for multiple occupancy and there is a dental clinic on the same street and Stevens Hospital is
near, in addition to the high school. He agreed that there is a lot of traffic. His children are
never in the yard, and he said he knows where they are, and probably most of the people who.have
been complaining cannot say where their children are.
Ed Springer, 7916 216th S.W. for 21 years, said the Maple -Bar Ranch was in his back yard so he knows
the traffic and noise problem, but there was also a problem a few years ago on 79th when there were
15 kids on the block and when their boyfriends and girlfriends came there were lots of cars. He
said it is a noisy neighborhood and nothing is going to keep it quiet.
Another gentleman from 78th W. said he has two children, five and three years of age, and Ms.
Goforth has a beautiful home in a warm family atmosphere, and the yard is fenced and the children
never play in the street. He said this is a high quality daycare and a change for his children
would be very traumatic.
Mr. Bohon said there seems to be a question of credibility, but the people who have a daycare
problem are not directly affected by the noise as are the people who live there. He said she
probably does a good job.with the children but there are other places she can go to do it. He said
she has been operating four years but had only been licensed two years, and she is licensed for six
and has eight. His experiencewas that when there is approval for 12 they end up with 16. He said
one of the criteria is that the proposal not be detrimental to the public health or to nearby
properties, and there are people who live nearby who say it is detrimental, and people farther away •
cannot bear on this decision.
Ms. Goforth said she is licensed for six but can have two part-time children with a helper on the
premises, and she has a helper at all times. She showed slides of her home which has a 40' deck
where the little ones play, and it is locked. She has an extra driveway where cars go to let off or
pick up children. The hearing was closed.
Councilmember Ostrom commented that he had no doubt that the daycare center is well run and well
managed, but it appeared that if it is causing the kind of problems it is at its present level, it
would be detrimental to expand it. Councilmember Jaech asked if the Bohons and Goforths had sat
down and tried to resolve the problems, and Ms. Goforth said she was not aware she had a problem
until she went to the Hearing Examiner. She did not know why she had not been told. Mrs. Bohon
said that from past experience, once it is in your area you cannot do anything about it.
Mr. Eames stated that the use is permitted in a multi -family zone with a conditional use permit, and
daycare centers are defined as seven or more children at any one time, and if you have less than
seven at any one time you do not need a conditional use permit, so the most they could have without
a conditional use permit is six at any one time. Councilmember Jaech suggested continuing this
hearing to give the parties an opportunity to resolve this themselves. Councilmember Hall suggested
a "dead end" sign would help regarding the traffic.going into the cul-de-sac. Councilmember Wilson
thought it would be difficult to allow an•expansion if it is an irritant to the neighbors, even
though she obviously runs a wonderful center and is a loving person. Councilmember Nordquist
observed that if she stays at seven and under she will not need the permit, but she cannot expand.
Councilmember Hall noted that the recommendation to rent other space was not feasible because that
is not the nature of this type of situation and it would be costly and the children would not have a
home atmosphere. She agreed that maybe they could get together and work it out, and that Ms.
Goforth could control within reason where the children play at certain hours. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO CONTINUE THIS MATTER TO MARCH 6, 1984 WHICH GIVES
THEM ONE MONTH AND IS THE FIRST AVAILABLE DATE ON THE COUNCIL'S AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
1reu119
Mayor Naughten congratulated Councilmember Dwyer on being at his first Council meeting.
.Mayor Naughten asked for confirmation of the appointments he had proposed. COUNCILMEMBER HALL
4OVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF ROSEMARY SPECHT TO
POSITION 1 ON THE CEMETERY BOARD, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1986; JON SMILEY TO POSITION 3 ON THE
PLANNING BOARD, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1987; and BARRY BIRCH TO POSITION 6 ON THE ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN BOARD, TERM TO EXPIRE NOVEMBER 5, 1987. MOTION CARRIED.
Approval was'.requested for a Class A and C liquor license for Susie Bear's, a small restaurant at
22814 100th Ave. W. (Westgate). The Police Chief had recommended approval. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH
ROVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED LIQUOR LICENSE.
:LOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL
Council President Jaech read a letter from Kirby White of the VFW, advising of the Emergency Job
Training Act of 1983 which subsidizes the hiring of certain veterans in training programs. Mayor
Naughten is aware of the program.
Councilmember Hall stated an interlocal agreement will be on next week's Consent Agenda regarding
the Performing Arts complex.
There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned at 12:55 a.m.
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, CTJ Clerk LARRY S. NAUGHTEN, Mayor