CU-2002-162_FirdaleDaycare-reduced.pdf121 SDI AVENJE NORTH - w°dflvnd,-, WA 98020- G425 771-0 FAX (425 771 0221
HEARING EXAMINER
CONCLUSIOMS AND DECISION
OF 17HE HFARINC EXANININ
CATSIA (W EDNIONDS
GARY HAAKENSON
(Addlime Imning Cmiter rpmsented by Attorney "]'(,-)in
10hrUchtnan (See Exhibit A, Attach neat 1)
CALSE NO.,: (01"2002.1612
LOC", �)?Q, 'rhe chycare war A Rated within the 1",rrchale Village Aparlment
c�,,)triplex al 91329 240 S1 S VV (See LN h i bh & Amchment I -)
The upNicanMquests tat the: Aginal condAmul use 1permil be
mended to exclude condAons 1), F", and F. I lie conditions are as
IbIlown,
D) There shat be no syns advertking or indicating th.e existe�i.]�Cc
of a day cmv ceiver viAble to any motorist I. rising site oni 24,1�
St KA
El There shW1 be no advertising of the, existence of a ('hty care
ccllt(-,t` 0,11 the suldect propoly in uny medhun separate from
advertisemonts indicationthat apvtments are avai lable for
renl/leaselpurehase (as appro pri ate., �); and
F) AM custimmum of dw day earecenw-'n, shall be residicm� or the on -
SRC apmunam Cumplew
(Ref'ej, to F,.xhihil A, Attackinent 6).
REAJEW 'File t1caring Exandner conducts a pu.bfic heariq) and rmakes, the
nnal deGion,
MAJOR JSS'HKS,
a, CArlphano; Nvidi Ednicnids C',ommunity Developnient Code
(110)(1) Chapter 2, 0J)5 (CONDITIONAI, I JSF, 111"RMITS).,
h. OmWkwe wHh 1AW Chapter 17.50 (PARKING
RL,,,'Q,III' EV,EN'FS,) with the City ofJ`.,dn10.nds Con.p:-cfienMve
F4011.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CUP -2002-162
Page 2
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report,
and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application.
The hearing on the Childtime Learning Center application was opened at 10:52 a.m., March 6,
2003, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed for oral argument at 11:06 a.m. The
hearing was held open administratively to allow additional materials to be submitted. It was
acknowledged in writing by the Applicant that the Hearing Examiner's decision would be
delayed because the Examiner would be on vacation when the administrative continuance ended.
Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A
verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division.
HEARING COMMENTS/LEGAL ARGUMENT:
The following is a summary of the comments/legal arguments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Kathleen Taylor, Project Planner, reviewed the staff advisory report and entered it into the
record as Exhibit A.
• She noted that the City and the Applicant have worked for over one year to rectify the
issues.
• She said the Applicant has shown that there is adequate parking on site, however, the
available parking does not comply with the provisions of ECDC 17.50 and staff cannot
recommend approval unless a variance from the provisions of ECDC 17.50 is granted.
• She also said that staff could be supportive if it could be shown that Snohomish County
parking requirements (in place when the CUP was approved) could be met.
From the Applicant:
Tom Ehrlichman, Attorney for the Applicants, argued that:
• The Conditional Use Permit that applies to this case allows anyone to request reopening
of the case. The request to reopen the case is due to the condition that allows only onsite
clients for the school.
• Childtime is seeking an update to reflect changes that have occurred since 1986 when the
CUP was approved. Childtime is not requesting an expansion of the facility.
• The effect of denial of the application will be to close the facility.
• An order in Limine should be granted.
• The applicant did a traffic analysis voluntarily based on the John Galt's decision.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CUP -2002-162
Page 3
• He believes the application is vested in Snohomish County because the language in the
CUP decision states that "any party" can revisit the CUP. There is nothing in the
annexation or nonconforming use language that abrogates the right to a hearing.
• There will be real consequences not only to Childtime, but also to the community if the
modifications are not approved.
Judy Werkheiser, Area Manager for Childtime, said:
• Childtime wants to resolve this issue.
• There is no resistance or problem from apartment residents that she is aware of.
• The previous owner accepted children from off-site and Childtime was not aware of the
limitation when it purchased the facility.
• Childtime is licensed for 92 children by the State, and that number cannot be exceeded.
Childtime would need to apply to the State to exceed that number. The maximum
number of children allowed at the site is dependent on the amount of square footage in
the facility.
• She would like to see the CUP modified to allow children to come from off-site and to
allow 92 children instead of the 100 children now authorized in the CUP.
• Childtime would be forced to close the facility if it is required to serve just children from
the apartments.
• There are 70 children enrolled at this time and only 6 are from the apartments.
Teresa Bower, Director of Childtime Edmonds, said:
• She has only heard of one complaint from residents of the apartment complex and not
aware of any problems since the one complaint.
• The school is open from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and the kids arrive between 6:30 a.m. and
8:00 a.m. Kids that go to the nearby elementary school get walked to and from school or
are dropped off at the school by parents and picked up by Childtime staff and walked
back to the Childtime facility. Seven kids are dropped off at the elementary school in the
morning and twelve kids are picked up in the afternoon.
• The letter from the Property Manager of Firdale Village Apartments (Exhibit M) indicates
there ample parking in front of the daycare and if any overflow parking is needed there is
extra open parking right around the corner from the daycare building.
• Even though the State allows up to 92 children, the classroom layout effectively limits the
enrollment to 82 kids.
Edward Koltonowski, Traffic Consultant for the Applicant, said:
• There are two issues: access on 244th and parking. The Snohomish County Hearing
Examiner included the condition regarding on-site clients only due to those two issues.
• Regarding access on 244th:
• There are no sight distance problems.
• There is no accident history over the past three years.
• He factored the traffic study to accommodate 100 students from off-site and
-factored them in during peak times.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CUP -2002-162
Page 4
• No access problems were identified.
• Regarding parking:
• He considered full occupancy of the Childtime facility and he determined there is
enough parking available.
The original CUP conditions were required prior to construction of the apartments;
however, history has shown there are no problems with access or parking if children
come from off-site.
John Galt looked at joint parking for the site, but he erred on the conservative side when
he issued his decision, and there is now information to show that shared parking is
occurring and working.
From the Community:
No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing.
INTRODUCTION:
The Childtime Learning Center is located within the Firdale Village Apartment Complex. The
day care center was approved in 1986 under Snohomish County jurisdiction, prior to being
annexed to the city. It was approved via a conditional use permit. The conditions of approval
limited service to the residents of the complex. It also restricted signage and limited advertising.
The Childtime Learning Center is currently operating in violation of these set conditions. The
City of Edmonds issued a determination that the daycare is a legal, non -conforming use, provided
that it meets the conditions as approved under Snohomish County.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. Site Description:
1. Site Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with an apartment
complex including approximately 3 80 units. .
(2) Zoning: The subject property is zoned Multiple Residential (RM -1.5) (See
Exhibit A, Attachment 1.)
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
a) Fact:
(1) North: Although the site is zoned single family residential, it is developed as a
school facility.
(2) South: The properties to the south are developed as single family residential and
are located within the City of Shoreline.
(3) East: The properties are zoned and developed as single family residential
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CUP -2002-162
Page 5
(4) West: The property is zoned and developed as neighborhood commercial.
b) Conclusion: The proposed development of a daycare center is consistent with the
zoning and surrounding area.
B. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
1. Fact: No additional building square footage or parking spaces are being added at this
time.
2. Conclusion: SEPA review is not required at this time. The applicant and City have
complied with SEPA regulations.
C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
Chapter 20.05 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMT) for daycare center
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Section 20.05 contains the review and approval criteria for Conditional
Use Permits. According to the aforementioned code section, ,"No Conditional Use
Permit may be approved unless all the findings in this section can be made." The
findings are as follows:
a. .Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use is compatible with the Comprehensive
Plan.
b. Zoning Ordinance: That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with
the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the zone district in
which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all the
applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
c. Not Detrimental: That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not
be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to
nearby private property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity.
d. Transferability: The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether the
conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal.
(2) Applicant's Response: Refer to Exhibit A, Attachments 3, 4, and 5, and.
additional information submitted by the applicant during the administrative
continuance (particularly Exhibit N, Attachment Q.
During the administrative continuance, the Applicant submitted additional
information, which included a recommendation from the Snohomish County
Planning Division (Exhibit N, Attachment B) and a decision of the Snohomish
County Hearing Examiner (Exhibit N, Attachment Q. The Snohomish County
Planning Division recommended approval of a request for modification of the
Conditional Use Permit to eliminate Conditions D, E, and F relative to the subject
day care center. The Snohomish County Hearing Examiner eliminated Conditions
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CUP -2002-162
Page 6
D and E, and modified Condition F to read: "Not less than 50% of the customers
of the daycare center shall be residents of the on-site apartment complex."
a. Exhibit A, Attachment 6 includes the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner's
original decision on this matter. Pertinent sections of that report follow:
1 Finding 8 reads: The zoning code does not establish a parking standard
for day care centers. The Examiner takes official notice that the PD
(Planning Division) issued an Administrative Determination some time
ago setting the parking requirements for day care centers at one stall for
every 12 students (based on maximum capacity) plus one stall for each
employee. On that basis, a day care center with a capacity of 100 students
and 10 employees would require 19 stalls. With 15 employees, the number
ofparking stalls would be 24.
2 Finding 9 reads: The zoning code provides that in the case of mixed
occupancies in a building or on a lot, the parking requirement shall be the
sum of the requirements for all uses (SCC 18.45.060) unless some of the
uses are day time and others night time, in which case some sharing of
parking stalls is authorized subject to the administrative approval of the
PD (SCC 18.45.070).
3 Conclusion 8 reads in part:..... There could be a strong conflict in parking
if the apartment dwellers are still in their units when the day care is
operating at full tilt. Of course, the parking conflict would be
substantially reduced, if not totally eliminated, if all of the users of the day
care center actually came from the apartment complex itself. In part for
this reason, and in part for other reasons that will be mentioned in
succeeding conclusions, use of the day care center will at least initially be
limited to residents of the apartment complex. Even so, the PD must
follow the administrative procedures of SCC 18.45.060 and .070
regarding parking adequacy before any day care activity can occur.
4 Conclusion 9 reads: A second major reason why the Examiner is inclined
to limit use of the day care center to only on-site apartment residents is the
access situation. In order for an off-site parent to deliver a child to the
day care center, they would have to enter the site from 244`h Street SW and
drive some 1300 feet (one-quarter of a mile) through the apartment
project before they would reach the day care center. The road network in
the apartment project has not been laid out with an eye towards having a
heavy, off-site traffic generator located at the far end of the project. The
Examiner believes that substantial traffic conflicts and inconvenience to
the apartment residents could result from open use of the day care center
by non -apartment complex residents.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CUP -2002-162
Page 7
5 Conclusion 11 reads in part:.... If experience warrants, the permittee can
petition for a reopening of the case and ask for relaxation at a later date.
6 Condition L reads: No occupancy for day care purposes shall occur until
the Planning Division has determined (as it is required to do pursuant to
Chapter 18.45 SCC) that on-site parking fully meets the zoning code
requirements. If more parking is found necessary in order to comply with
Chapter 18.45 SCC, such parking shall not reduce the community open
space areas on the site.
b. Exhibit N, Attachment C is the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner's
modified decision on this matter. Pertinent sections of that report follow:
1 Conclusion 4 reads: The original limitation against non-resident usage of
the daycare center was based upon concerns that there might be a parking
conflict and that access problems could occur within the apartment
complex itself (Exhibit 26, Conclusions 8 and 9). The Examiner
recognized, however, that such concerns might not turn out to be
significant. In Conclusion 11 of the original permit the Examiner stated
that SCC 18.72.190: that SCC 18.72.190 `provides a permittee with the
opportunity to ask for more flexibility and/or freedom if experience shows
that such is warranted. It is usually easier and less traumatic to relax
conditions than it is to tighten conditions. Therefore, the operational
conditions will be initially made rather strict. If experience warrants, the
permittee can petition for a reopening of the case and ask for relaxation at
a later date. "
2 Conclusion 5 reads: The traffic analysis indicates that traffic conditions at
the apartment complex entrance would not reach the signalization level if
up to 50% of the daycare patrons came from offsite. Since that analysis is
based upon an assumption of not more than 50% offsite patronage, that
patronage limitation will be relaxed to 50% rather than totally eliminated
as initially requested by the applicant.
3 Conclusion 7 reads: Original Condition L required that county staff
ensure that adequate parking existed for the mixed use (apartment and
daycare center). The Examiner finds no reason to change Condition L.
Condition L will thus still be applicable and will require that adequate
parking be available. The preponderance of the evidence in the record
indicates that adequate parking is present.
4 Conclusion 9 reads: The only reason that Conditions D and E were
imposed on the original permit (barring and/or restricting advertising)
was to ensure that the resident -only limitation of Condition F would be
preserved. Since the Examiner is now willing to relax the limitation of
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CUP -2002-162
Page 8
Condition F, Conditions D and E serve no useful purpose and should be
eliminated.
b) Hearing Examiner Analysis of CUP Criteria:
a. Comprehensive Plan: The property is located within the high-density multi-
family comprehensive plan designation. The comprehensive plan's goals and
policies for the designation are primarily related to design, location, and
compatibility with the neighborhood. Since the daycare is near a commercial
complex and has access on an arterial, the examiner believes it is compatible
with the neighborhood.
b. Zoning Ordinance: The proposed daycare center is a commercial use. It is an
allowable use in the Multiple Residential zone (RM -1.5), but requires a
conditional use permit.
In this case, the daycare facility is a legal nonconforming use that was
approved in Snohomish County. After review of the record, the Examiner
finds Snohomish County Codes and procedures were complied with when the
daycare facility was approved, including the Code requirements for apartment
parking and Administrative requirements for daycare parking. The instant
application does not propose an increase in the size of the facility nor does it
propose an increase in attendance.
c. Not Detrimental: The daycare's location at the northwest corner of the site
does not appear detrimental. When the daycare was originally approved, only
residents of the apartment complex could use the facility. As a result, no
additional traffic was generated. Overtime, the vast majority of the children
attending the facility have come from off-site. The current proposal does not
restrict customers. The applicant has included two traffic reports and field
notes, which indicate that extending the facility to customers outside of the
apartment complex will not significantly impact the currently level of service
on 244th St SW. Furthermore, the information submitted, indicated that
elimination of the condition will not create a parking problem on-site.
d. Transferability: If the conditional use permit amendment is approved,
transferability of the amended permit should run with the land.
D. Technical Committee
Review by City Departments: The application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire
Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks Department.
Comments were only received from the Engineering Division. Refer to Exhibit A,
Attachment 7.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CUP -2002-162
Page 9
E. Conclusions
1. The Snohomish County Hearing Examiner eliminated conditions D and E, related to
signage and advertising in 1988 (See Exhibit N, Attachment Q. Therefore, this
Examiner will not address Conditions D and E any further since they had already been
eliminated before the subject property was annexed into the City of Edmonds.
2. The Snohomish County Examiner, however, took a more conservative approach to his
original Condition F. Here, he relaxed the requirement that all of the children attending
the day care facility must be residents of the subject apartment complex and allowed up to
50% of the children attending the facility to live off-site. It is clear that his decision to
limit off-site attendance to 50% was based on a traffic study submitted with the request
for modification of the CUP. The traffic study submitted with that application analyzed
the traffic impacts expected to occur if up to 50% of the daycare children came from off-
site. It is also clear that his initial concerns about parking were resolved and that the
parking requirements had been satisfactorily met.
3. In the instant case, City of Edmonds Planning Staff recommended denial of the proposal,
because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the parking requirements of the ECDC
17.50 would be met. Staff suggested that Childtime either demonstrate compliance with
the city's parking requirements or apply for a variance from the parking requirements.
Staff also indicated at the hearing that Staff could be supportive o the request if it could
be shown that Snohomish County parking requirements (in place when the CUP was
approved) could be met.
4. This Examiner believes the parking requirements were complied with when the CUP was
approved by Snohomish County. Furthermore, review of Exhibit N, Attachment C
clearly shows that the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner believed sufficient parking
was available on-site. Lack of parking was not the reason that the Examiner modified
original Condition F to only allow up to 50% of the daycare children to come from
offsite. Rather, the reason for the 50% limitation was that the traffic study submitted with
the request to eliminate Conditions D, E and F was based on the assumption that 50% of
the children would be from off-site. This Examiner concludes that issue has now been
directly addressed with the testimony of Childtime's Traffic Consultant and with the
information contained in Exhibit A, Attachment 5 and Exhibit K. Based on that
information, this Examiner does not anticipate significant traffic impacts will occur if
Condition F were to be eliminated. However, as a precaution, and in keeping with the
suggestion to reduce the number of attendees offered by the Childtime Area Manager at
the hearing, this Examiner concludes the total number of attendees allowed at the
Childtime facility should be reduced from 100 to 92 (which, according to Childtime is the
maximum number of attendees allowed by the State of Washington).
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CUP -2002-162
Page 10
DECISION:
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for an amendment to eliminate
Condition F of the Conditional Use Permit approved by the Snohomish County Hearing
Examiner on August 20, 1986 (as modified by Condition C in the Snohomish County Hearing
Examiner Report on March 2, 1988 - Exhibit N, Attachment C) is approved by the City of
Edmonds Hearing Examiner, provided that the total number of attendees at the facility does not
exceed 92 children.
Entered this 14th day of May 2003 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
F r'Q� &
Ron McConnell, FAICP
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL:
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration and
appeal. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact
the Planning Department for further procedural information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION•
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the
initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register
and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land
which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must
cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances
governing the type of application being reviewed.
APPEALS:
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the
name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and
reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with
the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CUP -2002-162
Page 11
TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL:
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock
for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed.
Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time
clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a
reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9
more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the
reconsideration request.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL:
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is
required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval,
the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.'
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR:
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request
a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
EXHIBITS:
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 7 attachments
1. Vicinity Map
2. Application
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's declaration
5. Traffic Reports, dated 9/17/02 and 2/11/03
6. Determination of Legal Non -Conforming Land Use (includes conditions of original
approval
7. City Engineer memo dated 12/12/02
B. Letter from Tom Ehrlichman, dated 2/27/03
C. Letter from Tom Ehrlichman, dated 3/3/03
D. Letter from Kathleen Taylor, dated 9/10/02
E. Letter from Kathleen Taylor, dated 11/14/02, with attached letter dated 9/10/02
F. Letter from Kathleen Taylor, dated 12/13/02
G. Letter from Kathleen Taylor, dated 2/13/03
H. Letter from Tom Ehrlichman, dated 3/6/03, with 3 attachments
A. Applicant's letters as part of CUP submittals
B. Authority in support of Motion in Limine
C. Materials in support of Request for Continuance
I. Letter from Tim Davis, Childtime Childcare, Inc., dated 4/29/02
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CUP -2002-162
Page 12
J. Employee Parking Status
K. Field Notes from Gibson Traffic Consultants
L. Joint Use Parking Requirements
M. Letter from Kimberly Travis, Property Manager, Firdale Village, dated 3/5/03
N. Letter from Tom Ehrlichman, dated 3/17/03, with 3 attachments
A. Request for Review Checklist, dated 10/1/87
B. Planning Division Staff Recommendation, dated 2/16/88
C. Decision of the Hearing Examiner, dated 3/2/88
O. Memo from Kathleen Taylor, dated 3/19/03, with 3 attachments
1. Interlocal Agreement between City of Edmonds and Snohomish County concerning
annexation within the City's Growth Planning Area.
2. ECDC 20.100
3. Memo from Zach Lell, Office of the City Attorney, dated 3/19/03
P. Letter from Tom Ehrlichman, dated 3/20/03
Q. Letter from Tom Ehrlichman, dated 4/14/03
R. Letter from Tom Ehrlichman, dated 4/22/03
PARTIES of RECORD:
Equity Residential Properties Trust Tom Ehrlichman
c/o Mr. Wendell Hill, VP 2717 Rockefeller Ave
16400 Southcenter Parkway Everett, WA 98201
Tukwila, WA 98188
Tim Davis Teresa Bower
Childtime Learning Centers 9239 240 SW
38345 W 10 Mile Rd, Ste 100 Edmonds, WA 98020
Farmington Hills, MI 48335-2883
Judy Werkheiser
Childtime Learning Centers
461645 th Ave. NE
Tacoma, WA 98422
Engineering Division
Public Works
Planning Division
Edward Koltonowski
Gibson Traffic Consultants
1712 Pacific Ave. #100
Everett, WA 98201
Kimberly Travis
Property Manager
Firdale Village
9501244 Ih Street SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
( Ll( - P- - / & 2-
74lel_2p-
a
0
a
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVICNUENORTH, EDMONDS, WA 980,20
PLANNING, DIVISION
Al Wl ' SORY'RE11011T
H.NDINGS,' CONC"LUSIONS, AND RE("'O,M MEND ATIONS
"I'm Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
From
. . . .. .... ..............
Project P "a'nner
Daftr: FEBRUARY 27, 2003
File: (7UP-2002- 162
('°H H.J.)TIM [,,;,'IEARN ING (-'HNlJ,'R
RURESENTED BY1,01M ER11CHMAN
Hearing Datc, Tim,el and Place: March 6,2003, At 9 �.3.Q_A,A
.... ................. . ................ . . ........... . . ............ . .......... . ................................. . . ....
"I'bird'Floor, Rootvi 304
Ed rvionds Cit I [alf
121 5"' AVC[ILic N.,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
............. . .......... . ........ ...
Page
I. IN'TRODUCT10N........................... ............. ......... I ..... ......
13. ItECOMM [INLIATIONS ............ ...... ......... 2,
H. Fl.NDJ NGS OF FACTAN D CONCLUSI ONS ............................ ........... ..... 1.2
k 'st'n" 1) Rl "'I'loN. ........ ................................ 2
B STATI,:, � a q n ,.rw IAt. Po� .,i ' M - (SEP A)... ...... 3
IC. ED N1 () N UNS C0 N1 M � INTY I ) I EV b 11) P M N'T U IDE ( ECDQ C'0 N1 11 IJ ANC I;- ........... ...... ........... 3,
DTF-,(-TTNV'M .... ......... ... —.L.— ......... — - - 11.1 --.. 1.1 .......... ........ ..'. ....... .... � ....... 4
IIL JUXONSIDERATION AND APPEALS ....................................................... .— ............. _4
A R �'' Q us'r ro r� R tlC 0`14 S l 0 f- 11 A " I" N ........... .... ...........
B. ..... ...... ...... ....... 4
C I'mu, Lwvfs, uoi� ......... ......................... ....... ....... — ..........m...5
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL......., ........ — ................. ....... ................... �.5
N,i. N01"ICE TO, CMINTY ASSESSOR .............. ......................................................................... ..5
V1. APPli�ND,I(Il?,S.....,..,.,.....I .......... ......................................... - .................... 5
VIL....... ............................. 5'
Fd�rl'sary 2", N'A)l / slalf kcpcill'i"
Childtime Learning Center
File No. CUP -2002-162
Page 2 of 5
I. INTRODUCTION
The Childtime Learning Center is located within the Firdale Village Apartment Complex. The day care
center was approved in 1986 under Snohomish County jurisdiction, prior to being annexed to the city. It
was approved via a conditional use permit. The conditions of approval limited service to the residents of
the complex. It also restricted signage and limited advertising. The Childtime Learning Center is currently
operating in violation of these set conditions. The City of Edmonds issued a determination that the daycare
is a legal, non -conforming use, provided that it meets the conditions as approved under Snohomish County.
A. Application
1. Applicant: Childtime Learning Center represented by Attorney Tom Erlichman (See
Attachment 2.)
2. Site Location: The daycare center is located within the Firdale Village Apartment complex at
9329 244`h St SW (See Attachment 1.)
Re uest: The applicant requests that original the conditional use permit be amended to
exclude conditions D, E, and F. The conditions are as follows: D) There shall be no signs
advertising or indicating the existence of a day care center visible to any motorist passing the
site on 244`h St SW.; E) There shall be no advertising of the existence of a day care center on
the subject property in any medium separate from advertisements indication that apartments
are available for rent/lease/purchase (as appropriate.); and F) All customers of the day care
center shall be residents of the on-site apartment complex. Refer to Attachment 6.
4. Review Process: The Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes the final
decision.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.05
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS).
b. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 17.50 (PARKING REQUIREMENTS) with the City of
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
B. Recommendations
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report staff recommends
DENIAL of the Conditional Use Permit.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Site Description
1. Site Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with an apartment complex
including approximately 380 units. .
(2) Zoning: The subject property is zoned Multiple Residential (RM -1.5) (See
Attachment 1.)
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
a) Fact:
(1) North: Although the site is zoned single family residential, it is developed as a school
facility.
(2) South: The properties to the south are developed as single family residential and are
located within the City of Shoreline.
CUP-2002-162SR.doc / February 27, 2003 / Staff Report
Childtime Learning Center
File No. CUP -2002-162
Page 3 of 5
(3) East: The properties are zoned and developed as single family residential
(4) West: The property is zoned and developed as neighborhood commercial.
b) Conclusion: The proposed development of a daycare center is consistent with the zoning
and surrounding area.
B. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
1. Fact: No additional building square footage or parking spaces are being added at this time.
2. Conclusion: SEPA review is not required at this time. The applicant and City have complied
with SEPA regulations.
C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
Chapter 20.05 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMT) for daycare center
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Section 20.05 contains the review and approval criteria for Conditional Use
Permits. According to the aforementioned code section, "No Conditional Use Permit
may be approved unless all the findings in this section can be made." The findings
are as follows:
a. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use is compatible with the Comprehensive
Plan.
b. Zoning Ordinance: That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with the
purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the zone district in which
the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all the applicable
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
c. Not Detrimental: That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not
be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to
nearby private property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity.
d. Transferability: The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether the conditional
use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal.
(2) Applicant's Response: Refer to Attachments 3, 4, and 5.
b) Staff Analysis:
Comprehensive Plan: The property is located within the high density multi-
family comprehensive plan designation. The comprehensive plan's goals and
policies for the designation are primarily related to design, location, and
compatibility with the neighborhood. Since the daycare is near a commercial
complex and located on an arterial, it is reasonable to assume that the proposal
would be compatible with the neighborhood.
b. Zoning Ordinance: The proposed daycare center is a commercial use. It is an
allowable use in the Multiple Residential zone (RM -1.5), but requires a
conditional use permit. Assuming a conditional use permit is approved, the
daycare facility must comply with the zone.
Another element of the zoning code that must be addressed is the parking
requirement provisions. Approval of proposed amendments to the conditional
use permit would require that the entire site meet the current parking
requirements of ECDC 17.50. The applicant must provide the number of stalls
required for the multi -family units and the daycare. The number of required
stalls for multi -family is as follows: 1.2 spaces per studio apartment, 1.5 spaces
per 1 -bedroom unit, 1.8 spaces per 2 -bedroom unit, and 2 spaces per 3 -bedroom
CUP-2002-162SR.doe / February 27, 2003 / Staff Report
Childtime Leaming Center
File No. CUP -2002-162
Page 4 of 5
unit. The number of spaces per daycare center is follows: 1 space per 300
square feet, or 1 per employee plus 1 per five students, whichever is larger. As
currently operating the daycare would require a minimum of 30 stalls. The
applicant has not submitted any information to verify that the site complies.
If it does not comply, the applicant may apply for a variance from the parking
requirements. However, a variance was not included with the application.
Not Detrimental: While the daycare's location at the northwest corner of the site
does not appear detrimental, there are some issues that may be. When the
daycare was originally approved, only residents of the apartment complex could
use the facility. As a result, no additional traffic was generated. The current
proposal does not restrict customers. The applicant has included two traffic
reports, which indicate that extending the facility to customers outside of the
apartment complex will not significantly impact the currently level of service on
244`h St SW nor will it create a parking problem on-site. However, the applicant
still has neglected to demonstrate that the requirements of ECDC 17.50 will be
met. The city's Traffic Engineer cannot perform a full study of the site, without
the applicant submitting the proper information. Refer to Attachment 7.
d. Transferability: If the conditional use permit is approved as amended, staff
recommends that transferability run with the land.
c) Conclusions: Staff recommends denial of the proposal, because the applicant has
failed to demonstrate that the parking requirements of the ECDC 17.50 will be met.
Staff suggested that Childtime either demonstrate compliance with the city's parking
requirements or apply for a variance from the parking requirements. Per the
applicant's request, the hearing was rescheduled from January 16`h to March 6`h to
accommodate such information.
D. Technical Committee
Review by City Departments: The application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire
Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks Department.
Comments were only received from the Engineering Division. Refer to Attachment 7.
III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial
decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or
presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the
subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific
references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
B. Appeals
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name
of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the
CUP-2002-162SR.doe / February 27, 2003 / Staff Report
Childtime Learning Center
File No. CUP -2002-162
Page 5 of 5
appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community
Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed.
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration
is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is
stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner
has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues
from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request were filed on day 5 of the
appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing
Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request.
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required,
substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the variance shall
expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the
expiration date.'
V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in
the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office.
VI. APPENDICES
Attachments 1 through 7:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Application
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's declaration
5. Traffic Reports
6. Determination of Legal Non -Conforming Land Use (includes conditions of original approval)
7. Engineer Memo dated 12/12/2002
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
Equity Residential Properties Trust
c/o Mr. Wendell Hill, VP
16400 Southcenter Parkway
Tukwila, WA 98188
Tim Davis
Childtime Learning Centers
38345 W 10 Mile Rd, Ste 100
Farmington Hills, MI 48335-2883
Tom Ehrlichman Parks & Recreation
2717 Rockefeller Ave Department
Everett, WA 98201
Engineering Division
Fire Department
Public Works Division
Planning Division
CUP-2002-162SR.doc / February 27, 2003 / Staff Report
a mn e n _
—21 vw
8 =_ a
oR A2-4 LL
E
xrz sers R u n u nve
n yig 'g xn 1 >xn
Q235TH ST SW zxx RM -1
21—
�i nm xm xm
— 9514a 211. 1 zx=,
e
MW 2
-2 T
is ssio =ssrc '
5T
g s I s sacs
ST 3
a
ss3, m a r.
236 wz —
21
J =x==
a 2-1
m � vsoz
$ 2 HP
2-1
a =
Site Location
121
9329 - 244th St SW
wz n 3 m zmis
TSW k a $ d
a g z zmzs zmm
x
z
mx � m y e ^
asu a 8
240TH ST SW
a "a a .— .,, —
w —
41 24114 N- 1121
.1. 11113
EM
Zoning and Vicinity Map
t
Attachment 1
File No. CUP -2002-162
city of edmonds
development information
❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT / q
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/o►M9AJ"6fJT FILE#` (i'f(�ZZONE
❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE 7J � Q2iREC'D BY
❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION
❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE RECEIPT #
❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 6HEARIINGDIATE
C3PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
ElOFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT HE STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC
❑ STREET VACATION
❑ REZONE
El SHORELINE
_ �
SHORELINE PERMIT � ":'
❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
❑ OTHER: +� ry B % 1�1.�-5-t-}}� ((�C,
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 9 r_ 2` 9 `. • • � �y 0QAL "' * 5
PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) r—VAI+-0, ivne CWL06Q;1O cetyl-erk
eQUITq R[S► it WrAL. G o PRE. iweA fie IX H ►VLA V.
PROPERTY OWNER _PiWW-11ES T" ejT PHONE # (20(o� S14- 3341
ADDRESS 16800 .500TAUNTEM PAtLcv,rAy, TSk+NMt-A OA 191-98
E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX # _ 400 i6 / - It 36
TAX ACCOUNT# Z70330003400 SEC. 36 Twp. 27 RNG. 036
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE M.-13
TLS:N S big *- F
tn1 Z Q.4 C ft fW c u P
PGewoq, yea A-'t11.)Y} aPA I -I m
1, co pwr:
APPLICANT Co"TIME l,Ut�"46 aWTV"PHONE# (Zy8) 4N2' 3185 ikon wis
ADDRESS38 3N ar u11FS f i� PA1L,� A-0 10 W ril. loo FAR1+1�6-1W F�1"4 jM %
E-MAIL ADDRESS p' �FAX # 0143) ,tu r r 22 S
M'1 L �✓
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT _1'Q 191 M Af-4, #q" . PHONE # (495) Z58 - 4 Z I z
ADDRESS Z'11"I a,0( -KC- 1r �-"AV
E-A* A. A' 6 � Tl� " 9 $ Z 0 I
E-MAILADDRESS_tG►{r�i��W�A{� �'e'QV1%� CA W1 FAX# (4a5) Z5�' 6ZOZ
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application
agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of E nds harmless from any and all damages, including
reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any tion or mi ti based m whole or part upon false, misleading,
inaccurate or incomplete information furnish the ap tc t, 's/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the informatio exhibi ere 'th submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file pl'catio behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use
application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject
property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE
This application form was revised on 1/27/00. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220.
G:\SHARMLIBRARYTLANNINGTomis & Handouts\Public HandoutsUwd Use Applicsdon.doC
palNJ0r(Zy
1•
IL
Attachment 2
SITE PLAN
Childtime Learning Center
9329 244" St SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Maximum Occupancy: 100 Students
Site Plan is approximate, based upon Childtime fire plan and measurements provided by:
Teresa Bower, Director
Tel: (206) 542-6113
Fax: (206) 542-6113
December 2002
Attachment 3
PA-R-r,i Kib
G7t'14 11>�7)-vi
APPLICATION
CITY OF EDMONDS,•
August 13, 2002
Applicant:
CHILDTIME LEARNING CENTERS
FARMINGTON HILLS, MI
Representative/Contact:
Tone EHRUCHMAN
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
Attachment 4
• Applicant:
1. CONTACT INFORMATION
Childtime Learning Centers
38325 West 10 Mile Rd, Suite 100
Farmington Hills, MI 48335
Contact: Tim Davis, Director of Real Estate & Development
(248) 442-3185
Childtime Learning Centers operates dozens of childcare facilities
across the nation, including 9 facilities in the Puget Sound area. The
childcare facilities are state licensed, and operate under the business
name of Childtime Childcare, Inc. All facilities are non -denominational
and are open to public enrollment without regard to gender, race,
national origin, religion or disability.
• Contact/Representative:
Please direct all correspondence, notices, decisions, determinations or
other communications concerning this application to the applicant's
agent, as follows:
Tom Ehrlichman
Attorney at Law
2717 Rockefeller Avenue
Everett, WA 98201
Tel: (425) 258-4212
Fax: (425) 258-6202
Conditional Use Permit Application Page 2
Childtime Learning Centers
2. PROJECT AND APPLICATION INFORMATION
• Assessor's Tax Parcel No.:
27033600403800 (formerly 362703-4-039-0001, 4-038)
• Project Name and Address:
Childtime Children's Center
9329 244TH St. SW
Edmonds, WA
• Brief Summary of Project:
The Childtime Children's Center is a 100 -child daycare center located in
Edmonds, Washington. It was purchased by Childtime Learning Centers in
1997. Prior to that, the childcare facility (in its same size, shape and form)
was owned and operated by Abundant Life, Inc. The facility was planned and
constructed as part of a Planned Residential Development (PRD), in order to
provide childcare amenities. Since its construction, the center has
continuously served up to 100 enrollees under state license.
The center operates under a conditional use permit (CUP) obtained from
Snohomish County in 1986. Because the use is authorized pursuant to a
conditional use permit, the childcare facility is permitted within the RM -
Multiple Residential Zone. Sec. 16.30.010(C)(3) Edmonds City Development
Code (ECDC). It appears the center currently may not be in compliance with
conditions of the CUP limiting enrollees to on-site residents and placement of
minimal signage. However, the center has been operating with off-site
enrollees and entrance signage, apparently without disruption since its
approval in 1986. This proposal is to amend portions of the Decision, as an
update reflecting current, actual conditions.
• Application Contents:
This conditional use permit application consists of the following:
1. The Applicant's application fee paid by check in the amount of
$1,305.00.00.
2. This narrative.
3. City of Edmonds Application Form (Development Information), complete
and signed.1
4. Names and addresses of the property owner, street addresses within 300
feet of the property.
1 The applicant can provide a site plan or other materials if requested. During a pre -application
meeting on May 8, 2002, the applicant's agent discussed with City staff the specific items needed for
filing a complete conditional use permit application, under ECDC Sec. 20.95.010. City staff did not
require submittal of a site plan, environmental checklist, architectural drawings, landscape plan, or
critical areas checklist. Prior environmental review was conducted as part of the 1986 CUP approval.
No appeals were filed.
Conditional Use Permit Application Page 3
Childfime Learning Centers
5. Decision of the Hearing Examiner, Snohomish County, File No. ZA
8604117 (Aug. 20, 1986) (Decision).
6. Council Order, Snohomish County Council, File No. ZA. 8604117 (Oct. 29,
1986).
7. Property Account Summary, Snohomish County Assessor's Office (Aug. 12,
2002).
8. Snohomish County Assessor's Parcel Map (Feb. 26, 2002).
• Pre -Application Meeting:
Meeting with Star Campbell, Assistant Planner, Edmonds Development
services Department on May 8, 2002. Supplemented by telephonic
discussions with Darrell C. Smith, P.E., City of Edmonds Traffic Engineer, May
10, 2002.
• Application Fees:
The applicant is providing a check in the amount of $1,305.00. This includes
the $1,000.00 fee for a conditional use permit; two sign -posting fees at
$150.00 each, and the $5.00 surcharge, as specified in the City's Land Use
Application Fees form, provided at the pre -application meeting. The applicant
has not submitted an environmental checklist based on our discussion with
City staff concerning the lack of any change in use and the adequacy of prior
environmental review for the project.
• Basis for the Application:
The Hearing Examiner decision approving the CUP made clear that the
limitations on operations were based on initial conclusions that could be
overridden based on experience, upon request of the applicant. The 1986
CUP decision characterized the limitations as "initial" and provided the
applicant "with the opportunity to ask for more flexibility." Decision at 5,
paras. 8, 11. This application seeks modification of conditions in the Decision
to allow greater flexibility, based upon current and changed conditions.
• Environmental Impacts:
The use authorized by the CUP was fully evaluated in terms of environmental
impacts, when the use was first proposed in 1986. It is our understanding the
County's environmental determination approving the use was not appealed.
Because the application does not seek expansion or a change in any current
facilities or operations, and the proposed amended conditions do not
authorize expansion or new activities, review and approval does not trigger
any probable, significant, adverse environmental impacts.
The applicant was not required to submit an environmental checklist, as
provided in Sec. 20.15A.120 ECDC. The applicant conducted a voluntary
traffic review confirming that City traffic history does not show any accidents
at the entrance to the project at 244th St. SW. Internal circulation and parking
appear to be adequate, as demonstrated by the lack of problems and
complaints since 1986.
Conditional Use Permit Application Page 4
Childtime Learning Centers
3. FINDINGS SUPPORTING AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
In Section 20.05.010 ECDC, the City Code lists criteria that must be satisfied
prior to approval of any conditional use permit. On the basis that the same criteria
will apply when amending an existing CUP, the applicant offers the following
proposed findings.
A. The proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
This childcare facility was planned and constructed as part of a Planned
Residential Development, under Snohomish County's jurisdiction, prior to
annexation. A childcare facility operated continuously up until the time
Childtime acquired this facility in July 1997. The prior childcare operation was
doing business as Abundant Life Childcare Centers, under Christy Walmarth's
ownership, but may not have been the original developer of the Firdale Village
complex.
Upon acquiring the facility, Childtime has operated in the same scope and
manner as its predecessor. The facility operates under Childtime's national
daycare standards. Childtime did not expand the facility. Childtime has
provided high quality childcare services to residents and neighbors, without
disruption or complaints. This proposal will not change the scope or intensity
of the existing use.
The childcare facility, in its present and proposed form, was in existence prior
to annexation, in compliance with the Snohomish County comprehensive plan.
Upon annexation, the City of Edmonds comprehensive plan designated the
property with a residential designation. Childtime's use complies with all City
policies and regulations applicable to this residential designation.
B. The proposed use is consistent with and meets all requirements of
the zoning ordinance.
The City's zoning code, adopted under the Growth Management Act, RCW ch.
36.70A, implemented the City's comprehensive plan policies. The City's
official zoning map designates the property "RM - Multiple Residential 1.5"
("RM - 1.5"). The purposes of the RM zone include maintaining a residential
environment, with additional uses that complement and are compatible with
multiple residential uses. Sec. 16.30.000 ECDC.
Daycare facilities are expressly permitted within the RM - Multiple Residential
zones, by conditional use permit. ECDC Sec. 16.30.10(C)(3). Thus, by
operation of law, the use is deemed to complement and be compatible with
multiple residential uses, i.e., not in conflict with a residential environment.
Sec. 16.30.000 ECDC. Prior to annexation of the property into the City of
Edmonds, the use also was authorized under the Decision. Pursuant to this
Conditional Use Permit Application Page 5
Childtime Learning Centers
CUP approval, hours of operation are from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday.?
The Childtime Children's Center operates within the parameters of the
conditional use permit decision, with three possible exceptions, to be
remedied by this proposal. With approval of this proposal, Conditions D, E
and F of the Decision will be modified to reflect current conditions.
C. The proposed use will not be significantly detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare, and to nearby private property or
improvements.
This application is not a proposal to expand or otherwise change the childcare
facilities or operations already in existence and operating at this level since
1986. The applicant requests that the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
modify Conditions D, E and F of the Decision to reflect current, real-world
conditions at the site. This facility provides a benefit to the residents of the
PRD and its neighbors, by providing quality childcare services within walking
distance of homes and businesses.
The purposes and intent of the original Hearing Examiner's decision and
conditions are met in this proposal. The Examiner acknowledged the
likelihood of growth and changing conditions.over time. Accordingly, the
Decision included some flexibility for modifications, based on real-world
experience. The modifications are requested to reflect the fact that, since
1986, the facility has served off-site residents and utilized minimal signage at
the PRD entrance, without complaint or adverse impact. Childtime only
recently learned from City staff that current conditions did not conform to all
aspects of the Decision.
The neighborhood in the vicinity of Firdale Village has changed since approval
of the original CUP in 1986. In both directions, along 244th Street SW,
significant commercial and residential development has occurred in the past
16 years. The need for the childcare facility has growth stronger, as the
neighborhood population has grown and as this particular PRD has become
more closely integrated with neighboring subdivisions, businesses, and
schools. The facility provides a well -supervised, licensed daycare facility
within easy walking distance for many parents.
,,Condition F of the Decision limited enrollees to on-site residents; Conditions D
and E prohibited signage indicating the existence of the day care center.
However, in each case, the Hearing Examiner adopted findings that allowed
the applicant to return with a request for additional flexibility. Evidently, the
prior owners did not avail themselves of that process. Approval of this
application will resolve any discrepancies.
The Hearing Examiner's decision cited parking, access and use and
enjoyment as issues relevant to service of off-site residents. Approval of this
2 The Decision was modified by the Snohomish County Council on appeal, to establish these hours of
operation. Snohomish County Council Order on Appeal, File No. ZA 8604117.
Conditional Use Permit Application Page 6
Childfime Learning Cenfers
application is in harmony with the intent of the decision, since experience has
demonstrated the ability to operate the center in the manner proposed,
without significant conflicts with residents or the adjoining area.
Since the CUP approval, the surrounding area has urbanized, with substantial
improvements to arterials serving the area, and substantial urban residential
development in the area under the City's GMA comprehensive plan. The PRD
is no longer a semi -rural, isolated residential community, adjacent to a
growing urban area. The urban area now encompasses this PRD, further
integrating it into the community. The increasing demands for local childcare,
from community residents off-site, are capable of being met under this
proposal. Access to the site during the preceding 16 years was adequate to
serve non-residents. Parking appears to have been adequate during this time
period, within the cul-de-sac adjacent to the center. The center provides its
own recreational facility, and therefore does not interfere with recreational
uses of residents throughout the PRD complex. Thus, it appears the use in
existence since 1986 has met and continues to serve the general welfare.
Since the proposal does not include any proposed changes, it would not
appear to adversely affect any nearby private property or improvements.
Approval will simply modify the CUP decision to reflect existing conditions.
Following modification of the CUP conditions, the applicant intends to apply
for any approvals necessary under the Edmonds Sign Code, Municipal Code
Chapter 20.60, in a separate submittal.
D. The conditional use permit shall run with the land and may be
recorded in the form of a covenant with the Snohomish County
Auditor, to enable its use by a subsequent user of the same
property.
The applicant is proposing continued public disclosure of the CUP, as
amended. Upon approval of this application, the Hearing Examiner's decision
may be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor, referencing the property.
Subsequent owners would therefore have notice of the conditional use permit,
and be able to use it as provided for in applicable City ordinances.
Conditional Use Permit Application Page 7
Childtime Learning Centers
W
0 0 6OK 1 NZ1 FHC O KBU L UZG K7B
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
1712 PACIFIC AVENUE • SUITE 100 • EVERETT, WA 98201 • PH: (425) 339-8266 • FAX: (425) 258-29221
September 17, 2002
Darrell Smith
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Childtime Children's Center; GTC Job 4 02-078
Traffic Impact Analysis
Dear Mr. Smith:
Gibson Traffic Consultants (GTC) has been retained by Tim Davis of Childtime Learning
Center to provide a traffic study for the existing Childtime Children's Center. This letter
is intended to supply the City of Edmonds with the necessary traffic impact analysis to
grant a revised conditional use permit. The impacts of the proposed development on the
site access point and the adjacent parking have been discussed in this study. This study
has been organized in the same manner as the SEPA Traffic Impact Requirements for the
City of Edmonds.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Childtime Children's Center is an existing learning center for children that has an
occupancy limitation of 100 students. The center provides all day care and after school
care for kids age 4 months to 12 years. The center is currently located in the Firdale
Apartment Complex located on 244th Street SW. The center is located in the north end of
the apartment complex and uses the apartment's access to 244th Street SW. At the time
of the GTC counts and analysis, the center operated at approximately 60% of its capacity,
due to seasonal downturn during the summer months. At its maximum capacity of 100
students, the learning center would only operate near 80% of its capacity. The center
would operate near 80% of its capacity due to student/parent vacations, illnesses,
schedule conflicts and other reasons. A vicinity map has been included in Figure 1.
COUNTS/SURVEYS • SITE IMPACTS • LOS ANALYSIS • EIS • HEARINGS • SAFETY • SIGNALS •
Attachment
IN
Mr. Darrell Smith
September 17, 2002
Page 2
TRIP GENERATION
M
Trip generation rates for the learning center is based on actual counts taken by GTC at the
existing learning center. The counts were taken in early August of 2002. The existing
counts showed that the existing child care site generated a total of 17 trips (10 inbound/7
outbound) in the PM peak -hour.
This trip generation is the existing trip generation. With a seasonal adjustment from 60%
capacity to 80% capacity, the learning center would generate more trips than counted by
GTC. The increase from 60% capacity to 80% capacity represents a 30% increase. This
increase was applied to the existing trips to determine the number of trips that would be
generated with a seasonal adjustment. The learning center would generate an additional 5
PM peak -hour trips for a total of 22 PM peak -hour trips (13 inbound/9 outbound). No
pass -by reductions were taken in this trip generation.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The trip distribution for the learning center was determined by using counts at the
apartment complex access point. Traffic counts were taken at the intersection of 244th
Street SW and the Firdale apartment complex access point on Tuesday, August 13, 2002
by Traffic Count Consultants. The counts showed that approximately 60% of the ingress
movements are from the east and the remaining 40% are from the west. The distribution
for the ingress and egress traffic is not the same. Approximately 65% of the egress
movements are to the east and the remaining 35% are to the west. These same
distribution patterns were assumed when analyzing the level of service at the apartment
access point with the increase in trip generation.
SITE ACCESS AND SAFETY
Gibson Traffic Consultants has performed a field review at the intersections of 244th
Street SW and the apartment access point.
In the site vicinity, 244th Street SW has a 2 -lane section. There is one lane in each
direction for left, through, and right -turn movements. The apartment complex access
point consists of two lanes for the egress movements, one each for left and right -turns.
0 aR,A"F2F('1'C"
W
Mr. Darrell Smith
September 17, 2002
Page 3
Accident Analysis
Accident information was provided by the City of Edmonds for the latest 3 years at the
apartment driveway access. There were no recorded accidents in the latest 3 year study
period.
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
The level of service has been analyzed at the intersection of 244th Street SW and the
apartment complex access point. The intersection has been analyzed for the existing
conditions and with the expansion of the learning center.
Congestion is generally measured in terms of level of service (LOS). In accordance with
the new 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), road facilities or intersections are rated
between LOS A and F, with LOS A being free flow and LOS F being forced flow or
over -capacity conditions. A summary of the level of service criteria has been included in
Table 1. The LOS at signalized intersections is based on the average delay of all
approaches, while LOS for unsignalized intersections is based on average delays for the
critical stopped approach. Geometric characteristics and conflicting traffic movements
are taken into consideration when determining LOS values. The level of service analysis
has been performed using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS), developed based on
the 2000 edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).
The volumes used to analyze the intersection are the same volumes used to determine the
trip distribution. The existing level of service is LOS C with a delay of 23.3 seconds for
the worst movement.
With the learning center increased occupancy, a total of 5 trips (3 inbound/2 outbound)
are expected to be added to the intersection. The trip distribution discussed earlier has
been used to determine where these trips would be added. With the addition of these
trips, the intersection would operate at LOS C with 23.6 seconds of delay for the worst
movement. The LOS calculations have been included in the attachments.
PARKING ANALYSIS
A parking analysis was performed for the learning center. Currently there are 13 parking
spaces located near the learning center. These 13 parking spaces are for the learning
center and the surrounding apartment units. Of the 13 parking spaces, 6 spaces are
designated for the learning center and the remaining 7 spaces are not designated for the
apartment complex or learning center. During the field review, a survey of the parking
was also performed. The PM peak -hour survey showed that approximately 10 parking
O�LI�JaR',A"FOF I^�VL�l1L".1U�1 ll
9
Mr. Darrell Smith
September 17, 2002
Page 4
spots were used. Customers of the learning center used a maximum of 5 parking spaces
in the peak hour.
With the learning center seasonal adjustment from 60% capacity to 80% capacity, the
required parking will also increase. The same increase of 30% used for the trip
generation was used to determine the maximum parking used by the learning center.
Based on this increase, the learning center will use approximately 7 parking spaces. The
surrounding parking will be able to handle this increase in parking.
MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The seasonal adjustment of learning center from 60% capacity to 80% capacity will
increase the traffic on the surrounding streets by 5 vehicles or less. The existing parking
supply should handle peak parking demand and the site access to 244th Street would
operate at LOS C even during the seasonal peak.
We trust that this letter and attachments adequately address the traffic impacts of the
proposed 212th Street commercial development. If you have any questions please don't
hesitate to contact us at (425) 339-8266. Thanks.
Sincerely,
GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSUL TS, INC. PS.
Edward . Koltonows
Senior Traffic Engineer
Attachments
XC: Tim Davis, Childtime Learning Centers
FF'
GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS TRAFFIC IMPACT ^STUDY
CHILDTIME
LEARNING
CENTER
CITY OF EDMON DS
LEGEND
PROJECT SITE
SITE VICINITY MAP
X
TABLE 1
R
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA
* When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered
with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the
intersection.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000.
1 LOS A: free-flow traffic conditions, with minimal delay to stopped vehicles (no vehicle is delayed longer
than one cycle at signalized intersection).
LOS B: generally stable traffic flow conditions.
LOS C: occasional back-ups may develop, but delay to vehicles is short term and still tolerable.
LOS D: during short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial but are
tolerable during times of less demand (i.e. vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signal).
LOS E: intersections operate at or near capacity, with long queues developing on all approaches and long
delays.
LOS F: jammed conditions on all approaches with excessively long delays and vehicles unable to move at
times.
Control Delay
(Seconds per Vehicle)
Level of
Service 1
Expected
Delay
Unsignalized
Intersections
Signalized
Intersections
A
Little/No Delay
<10
<_10
B
Short Delays
>10 and <_15
>10 and <_20
C
Average Delays
>15 and <_25
>20 and <_35
D
Long Delays
>25 and _<35
>35 and <_55
E
Very Long Delays
>35 and _<50
>55 and <80
F
*
>50
>80
* When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered
with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the
intersection.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000.
1 LOS A: free-flow traffic conditions, with minimal delay to stopped vehicles (no vehicle is delayed longer
than one cycle at signalized intersection).
LOS B: generally stable traffic flow conditions.
LOS C: occasional back-ups may develop, but delay to vehicles is short term and still tolerable.
LOS D: during short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial but are
tolerable during times of less demand (i.e. vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signal).
LOS E: intersections operate at or near capacity, with long queues developing on all approaches and long
delays.
LOS F: jammed conditions on all approaches with excessively long delays and vehicles unable to move at
times.
Two -Way Stop Control j
Page 1 of 1
HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information
Site Information
Analyst Brad Lincoln
Agency/Co. Gibson Traffic Consultants
Date Performed 8/15/02 1
Analysis Time Period PM Peak -Hour
Project Description Existing Conditions
Intersection
Jurisdiction
Analysis Year
Firdale 2 244th
CL of Edmonds
2002
East/West Street: 244th Street SW
North/South Street: Firdale Apartment
Intersection Orientation:
East-West
IStudy Period hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street
Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1 2
3 4
5
6
L T
R L
T
R
Volume
48 310
1 0
453
72
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF
0.90 1 0.90 1
0.90 0.90
0.90
0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
53 1 344
1 0
503
80
Percent Heavy Vehicles
0 --
-- 0
--
--
Median Type
Undivided
RT Channelized
0
0
Lanes
0 1
0 0
1
0
Configuration
LTR
LTR
Upstream Signal
0
0
Minor Street
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7 8
9 10
11
12
L T
R L
T
R
Volume
1 0
1 48
0
26
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF
0.50 1.00
0.50 0.97
1.00
0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
2 0
2 49
0
26
Percent Heavy Vehicles
0 0
0 0
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
Flared Approach
N
N
Storage
0
0
RT Channelized
0
0
Lanes
0 0
0 0
0
0
Configuration
LR
LR
Dela , Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach
EB WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1 4
7 8 9
10 11
12
Lane Configuration
LTR LTR
LR
LR
(vph)
53 0
4
75
C(m)(vph)
1001 1225
313
271
/c
5% queue length
0.05 0.00
0.17 0.00
0.01
0.04
0.28
1.10
Control Delay
8.8 7.9
16.7
23.3
LOS
Approach Delay
A A
-- --
C
16.7
C
23.3
Approach LOS
-- --
C
C
HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b
Two -Way Stop Control 11� Page 1 of 1
HCS2000TM Copyright CUA' 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. 1 b
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information
Site Information
Analyst Brad Lincoln
Agency/Co. Gibson Traffic Consultants
Date Performed 8/15/02
Analysis Time Period PM Peak -Hour
Project Description Future Conditions with Ex ansion
Intersection
Jurisdiction
nal sis Year
Firdale @ 244th
Cit of Edmonds
2002
East/West Street: 244th Street SW
North/South Street: Firdale A artment
Intersection Orientation:
East-West
IStudy Period hrs : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street
Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1 2
3 4
5
6
L T
R L
T
R
Volume
49 310
1 0
453
73
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF
0.90 0.90
0.90 0.90
0.90
0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
54 344
1 0
1 503 1
81
Percent Heavy Vehicles
0 --
-- 0
Median Type
Undivided
RT Channelized
0
0
Lanes
0 1
0 0
1
0
Configuration
LTR
LTR
Upstream Signal
0
0
Minor Street
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7 8
9 10
11
12
L T
R L
T
R
Volume
1 0
1 49
0
27
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF
0.50 1.00
0.50 0.97
1.00
0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
2 0 1
2 50
0 1
27
Percent Heavy Vehicles
0 0
0 0
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
Flared Approach
N
N
Storage
0
0
RT Channelized
0
0
Lanes
0 0
0 0
0
0
Configuration ---F
LR
LR
Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service
Approach
EB WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1 4
7 8 9
10 11
12
Lane Configuration
LTR LTR
LR
LR
(vph)
54 0
4
77
C (m)(vph)
1001 1225
310
270
/c
5% queue length
Control Delay
0.05 0.00
0.17 0.00
8.8 7.9
0.01
0.04
16.8
0.29
1.14
23.6
OS
pproach Delay
ILpproach
A A
-- --
C
16.8
C
23.6
LOS
-- --
C
C
HCS2000TM Copyright CUA' 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. 1 b
'Aug 13 02 23:24 Tom' 425 557-8240 p.4
TTraffic Count Consultants, Inc. 13623184th Ave NE, Woodinville, WA 98072
Phone: (425) 861-8866 PAX: (425) 861-8877
l
Turning Movement Diagram
PAF
i
i
E
194
Location: Edmonds
WB
0.8%
c R.
�
74
120
0.0%
0.50
m U
SB
0.0%
0.97
Checked By: EC Intersection
b
0.97
I
244th Street SW
w
26 0 48
244th Street SW
480
72
453 525
839
0 884
359
48
310
F3591
1
]
1
0 1
m
it
d
[L2 j
Check
In: 960
3
Out: 960
v
RS
%AV
PAF
Intersection: 244th Street SW @ Firdale Apartment Complex Entranc,
EB
0.6% 0.90
Location: Edmonds
WB
0.8%
0.90
Date of Count: Tues 8-13-02
NB
0.0%
0.50
Peak Period: 5:00 P - 6:00 P
SB
0.0%
0.97
Checked By: EC Intersection
1 0.6%
0.97
Prepared For: Gibson Traffic Consultants
Hug 1e uc cct: c -r
r- . —
TC2
Traffic Count Consultants, Inc.
136231e41hAvL NE, Woodinville,
WA 9x072
Phone: (425) 861-8866 FAX (425) 861-8877
Vehicle Volume Summary
Intersection:
244th Street SW @ Firdale Apartment Complex Entrance
Date of Count:
Tues 8-13.02
Location:
Edmonds
Checked By:
EC
Time
From North on (SB) From South on (NB)
From East on (WB)
From West
on (EB)
Interval
interval
Firdale Apartment Complex Residential Driveways
244th Street SW
244th Street SW
Total
Ending at
T
L
S R T L S
R
T
L
S
R
T
L
S
R
4:15 P
0
17
0 3 0 0 0
0
1
0
94
18
1
8
83
0 223
4:30 P
0
10
0 5 0 0 0
0
0
0
81
14
0
7
71
0 188
4:45 P
0
15
0 5 0 0 0
0
2
0
94
11
0
10
79
1 215
5:00 P
0
20
0 6 0 0 0
l
0
0
102
12
0
8
71P�O.'
220
5:15 P
0
10
0 7 0 1 0
0
0
0
121
9
1
8
BO
237
5:30 P
0
13
0 6 0 0 0
1
1
0
103
23
1
15
85
246
5:45 P
0
13
0 6 0 0 0
0
0
0
105
18
0
15
73
230
6:00 P
0
12
0 7 0 0 0
0
3
0
124
22
0
10
72
247
6:15P
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6:30P
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
6:45P
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
7:00P
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Total
Survey
0
110
0 45 0 1 0
2
7
0
824
127
3
81
614
2 1 1806
5:00 P 10 6:00 P Ptak Hour Summary
Total
0
48
0 26 0 1 0
1
4
0
453
72
—T—T—
48
310
1 960
A roach
74
2
525
359
`360
%HV
0%
0'�0
1%
1%
1%
PHF
0.97
O.SO
0.90
0.90
0.97
Legend:
T= Number of heavy vehicles (greater than 4 wheels)
L= Left -Tum
S= Straight
R= Right -Tum
HV= Heavy Vehicles
PHF= Peak hour Factor (Peak hour volume / (4' Highest
15 minutes))
Prepared For:
Gibson Traffic Consultants
1,02089.002p
MOON RLr FNC 0H6ULV&HV-B
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
1712 PACIFIC AVENUE • SUITE 100 • EVERETT, WA 98201 • PH: (425) 339-8266 • FAX: (425) 258-2922
February 11, 2003
Darrell Smith
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Childtime Children's Center; GTC Job # 02-078
Additional Parking Analysis
Dear Mr. Smith:
Gibson Traffic Consultants (GTC) has been retained by Tim Davis of Childtime Learning
Center to review the original hearing examiner parking analysis and provide additional
parking analysis for the existing Childtime Children's Center. This letter is intended to
supply the City of Edmonds with the necessary parking situation to grant a revised
conditional use permit.
HEARING EXAMINERS ORIGIONAL DECISION
GTC staff reviewed the original hearing examiners day care and apartment conditional
approval that had extensive parking analysis conducted. The Findings of Fact, paragraph
5, clearly identified that the proposed day care would have in the range of 10-15
employees with an anticipated maximum of 100 children. The intent of the day care was
clearly to have students from both apartment and from outside of the apartment complex.
Paragraph 6 analyzed the proposed available parking. The hearing examiner clearly
considered a 125 feet radius as being readily accessible/adjacent to the day care. He
identified 20 parking stalls as being such with an additional 17 as being not so convenient
but in the vicinity. Further in paragraph 8 the available parking code at the time indicated
the parking needs to range between 19 and 24 spaces for the 10-15 proposed employees.
In paragraph 8 of the hearing examiners conclusions, the examiner appears to be
concerned primarily with the 19-24 parking space demand of the day care and the
potential competition with apartment dwellers over the 37 spaces in the dead end. This
lead to the initial limitation to resident students only. However it is clear from paragraph
11 that that this initial limitation could be changed based on actual experience rather than
only the theoretical projection available to the examiner at the time.
COUNTS/SURVEYS • SITE IMPACTS • LOS ANALYSIS • EIS • HEARINGS • SAFETY • SIGNALS • PARKING
MEW
Mr. Darrell Smith
February 11, 2003
Page 2
PARKING ANALYSIS
GTC's prior report indicated there were 13 parking spaces located adjacent to the
learning center.
"These 13 parking spaces are for the learning center and the surrounding
apartment units. Of the 13 parking spaces, 6 spaces are designated for
the learning center and the remaining 7 spaces are not designated for the
apartment complex or learning center. During the field review, a survey
of the parking was also performed. The PM peak -hour survey showed
that approximately 10 parking spots were used. Customers of the
learning center used a maximum of 5 parking spaces in the peak hour.
With the learning center seasonal adjustment from 60% capacity to 80%
capacity, the required parking will also increase. The same increase of
30% used for the trip generation was used to determine the maximum
parking used by the learning center. Based on this increase, the learning
center will use approximately 7 parking spaces. The surrounding
parking will be able to handle this increase in parking."
GTC has since completed additional field checks on parking use and reviewed the
original hearing examiners decision to determine the appropriate parking demand and site
use restrictions.
GTC staff conducted an additional parking demand review on February 5th during the 5
PM to 6PM which was determined the peak parking demand between children being
picked up and apartment dwellers returning from work. GTC completed the additional
survey as the existing schools enrolment has now increased to 66 and staff levels are now
close to the expected full occupancy as the facility ramps up from its recent remodel.
The survey indicated that of the adjacent 13 parking spaces 9 were utilized at 5 PM and 8
were utilized at 5:40PM. Additionally 5 of the 7 other spaces identified in the hearing
examiners decision being within 125 feet of the center were also occupied. Therefore
during the peak parking demand time for the existing 66 student facility there was a
maximum of 14 of the 20 nearby spaces occupied.
The observed parking was consistent with GTC inquiries of the day to day existing and
future anticipated operations of the day care facility. GTC interviewed the learning
centers director (Teresa Bower); who stated that there present full time staff (13) and
part time (4) staff are staggered during the day. Also that only 6 of the full time staff
drive (others live within walking distance or use the bus) and only 2 of the part time staff
drive (others live within walking distance or use the bus). Based on the scheduling a
maximum of 7 staff vehicles would be present at the child time facility.
A OF
Mr. Darrell Smith
February 11, 2003
Page 3
Based on the prior trip generation analysis provide (22 peak hour trips) an average of 11
parents vehicles pick ups are anticipated during the peak hour. Therefore an average of
one every 5-6 minutes. Typically a pick up takes less than 5 minutes. Therefore this is
consistent with the director's observation that typically there are only 1-2 parents at the
center at a time picking up there children. Thus only 2 additional vehicles to the 7 staff
vehicles for a total of typically 9 vehicles associated with the chowtime facility.
As stated previously presently the majority of students live outside of the apartment
complex. The child time facility presently has 66 students (over a quarter are siblings in
combined trips) with hoped for increase to a maximum of 92 students. This could
account for a 39% increase in students. This would not however equate to a 39%
increase in parking because as previously stated the facility has already ramped up its
staffing level to accommodate future demand. Potential a shift in schedules or changes to
part time and full time work could add an additional staff vehicle for a total of 8 staff
vehicles. This combined with a 39% increase in existing parent cars on site (1-2 parent
cars going to 2-3 parent cars) would lead to a an average worst case of 11 child time
facility related parked cars at ay one time. This is still well below the original hearing
examiners analysis of 20 spaces available for the day care shared with local apartment
dwellers.
GTC also took a parking count for the additional 17 parking stalled in the child time dead
end road that made up the total 37 local spaces identified in the hearing examiners
decision. On the survey day a maximum 26 of the hearing examiners identified nearby
37 spaces were occupied. Thus it is clear that during the peak parking demand time there
are still available spaces within the adjacent 20 spaces and 37 nearby spaces identified in
the original hearing examiners parking calculation even with the majority of students
being from outside of the apartment complex.
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The peak parking demand for the existing day care (9 spaces), that already has the
majority of it students from off-site, is easily contained with in the 20 parking spaces
identified by the hearing examiner as being nearby to the day care center. Additionally
the projected peak parking demand (11 spaces) for the future 92 student totals would still
be easily accommodated within the 20 local spaces thus alleviating the hearing examiners
concern of apartment dwellers and day care conflicts over parking. Based on the actual
parking counts the original hearing examiner limitation on for offsite students should be
removed.
D � �OM
A OF
Mr. Darrell Smith
February 11, 2003
Page 4
We trust that this letter and attachments adequately address the parking issue. If you
have any questions please don't hesitate to contact us at (425) 339-8266. Thanks.
Sincerely,
GIBSON TRAFFI, ON TANTS, INC. PS.
Edward T. Koltonowski
Senior Traffic Engineer
Attachments
XC: Tim Davis, Childtime Learning Centers
O L1�.JaR',A"FOFI UVL�,�f 11V�U
CITY OF EDiMONDiS
"DPVELO,,PMENTSU4R�V]�CES'DEP,A,RTAl:EN
121511H. AVENVENORTH, EDMOrQ(S,WA 99020 (206)771.02l
DETERMINATIONCIF LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 9329 34414
TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NUMSE R; 3OZ703-4j-
LOCATION;
X, J
.1,091 J52 Atafka
It It horebyl 910terol that purnlAW to cite 17,40 of tile l�tl,vbgn4$, C4111MMIty DeYdopment ("lode lite property
identified share erntarklme a (dwelt billy I'lof the follovil
nvwil µ LOT.
Descriptiol of legal noac&nforpting wl!, bufldigg, lot or sign (drmirlbe In detailli-
ThIs deterallastion Was of blmised on, the followitiff, larorfltatlbal apli IteclImentallon: jJM Fdrop"two c"!oRlIn"011
M=
Date knisaxpd- MZ- Date, Coli aructud-
Zoning, at Tinee of Amlaza ll AILLA- Ortopsl Grou
No,
This d'eter"flualson it inade Willi the nanlderetondiaag Iltht the status of the Farrel may be attere#s I*y Aftleadmill to jhc
FAIniands Cowtimwity J),qVpt0imMftj Code (ECIDC) aclopted iubseq,3sjq to tile issol of lite do1jernsislAtIon Rod
PrO0404 that 1118 CRY 111111" "fit he 11abM far 44111109jus for 105 49110" to em1,e®d The ECDC Affst0lig, this deltrialunflom
This 46tereldn"Vol, Pil be null land Vold if arty AtfiVjjY,,ACtjl Dir M51111131 08 "
504 lift ICDC Cliapter 11.413, OCCUTA
which, Would lerinkiale the hancenflar"1109 stiliec, T k4cludill but Is not limited tl Alkeralla"n 90 the itonconfiernifills,
list,, InwildIng, lot or, lign, nat In accardael lwith the requirements, of the Eduelolds Conemn,pity, I)Lvolopow,"t (alder,
including required Approvals aud, gear alliku NOTE; The stall of this btlidn"li Oil a legal tion-confOrml usiv depen dns
upon the aperaftfin of 11w buelness arVordloo 10 ilio candIdo"Isaitatheol to (be CondlOonal Use PersvdI Divelsion., The
fOtins Wthe condflWas relate speciltrollyl to lilt lowniner In orb it the dayvare rokilial operate:
'T'here sil be, no signs advarijoing or hitdicating Ilse existence ore dayeare contervisible to any wororlet
Passing the die On 244" St. SW
Ther
e shall be no advertising 1q the existence of A dayeare canter an the sableel property b any ruedium
80pa rivia from advert isetnen Is Indkolliag that apartwoonts all avilitable,
Tile Customers of file d fty4vare Center sil ble residents of the all -mite aflarimenf celaiplex,
It 'The filaximunt number of children val for at Any one tinto shall wilt exceed 109l,
0 The Mallsenimi hours of Operation forthedaygare oll shall be 6.00 a.m. to 6:10 p,m., Moriday
through, Friday,
List Attached 11),ocuntenis.(lo"tols. can adi 101,
ll Alf 0 a l rep,
Lego lNoucoWandk)0932��4,4f]!Wt,,dioir
A0-aelvi
14:21 FAX 248 4' 1164 CHILDTIVE UaMING Cn JUDY WERIUMISER Q003/003
a y;,tiiftr'',
2
r• 04 �- •
• • - .: H���� is
a
I. 741s Sildbit is
diapaimatic. eises and
dLessaims are ApproKimat
and ject to revs .
2. Tenant mbill be
rempmolble for fief
verMestion of aU
1vti�w rirm wfw.r.4w.A
• 4V
o �
S
o
Ss0-fes NI N _ O
PQ '� N9S'0�1� o EZo- b
LSO-� vai
W
co
mo M 0� N , �® ��`-V AM
m
S of a~ z - I 1
41 -
In
CD
0
00 a a
N Q
caN�.�
H cx
4
'O c
h
®• o
M 'ld
z* 0- b'z • H l
N n h e �• -- ° J' Za�
Z SQQ 40 '
d3 �/ s
AlO
z
e W• W 0
�! C9 1 v
W: CC ~® v
z
o J � _ r, �
v a o � � , x
® Ncm
vi -4 h O N W •� A.r�, z
® g
® � � ®, � � � � N v
O
� � O
ft) o
0
-AM
S N 0 H 0 M I S H C 0 U N T Y C O U N C I L
COUNCIL ORDER
APPEAL FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISION IN FILE NO.
ZA 8604117, FIRDALE DEVELOPMENT LTD., PARTNERSHIP,
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ESTABLISH
A DAY CARE
WHEREAS, the Firdale Development Ltd., Partnership applied to
Snohomish County for a conditional use permit to establish a day care
center as part of an apartment complex located approximatelys*1/2 mile
west of SR -99 on the north side of 244th Street SW, j
ust ehe
Firdale Shopping Center; and
WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner issued his decision
on August 20, 1986, to approve the conditional use permit subject to
conditions; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Cathy A. Bihler appealed the Hearing Examiner's
decision to the Snohomish County Council in accordance with the
provisions of SCC 2.02; and
WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Council held a public meeting on
August 29, 1986, and
a public hearing
n the on October 29, 1986, to review
and consider the
WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Council considered the appeal based
upon the record.before the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner and all
written and oral testimony presented at the Council hearings;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED:
Section 1: The Snohomish County Council makes the following
W4"A4+gs of Fact and Conclusions:
The subject property is located approximately 1/2 mile west
of SR -99 on the north side of 244th Street SW, just east of
the Firdale Shopping Center..
The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on August 5, 1986,
and granted the applicant the conditional use permit, subject
to certain conditions, on August 20, 1986, to establish a day
care center as part of a 386 dwelling unit apartment complex
(Exhibit A).
The Snohomish County Council adopts the Hearing Examiner's
Findings of Fact and Conclusions as found in his decision
dated August -20, 1986.
k', as found
4. The Snohomish County Council determines it is in the public
Examiner's disposition
interest to adopt the Hearing tion of
with the exception in his decision dated August 20, 1986,
Disposition J which is modified as set forth in paragraph 5
below. The Council determines -it within its inherent
authority to impose a reasonable additional condition upon
such permit as set forth in paragraph 6 below.
5®
It is in the public interest to modify Disposition J to extend the maximum hours of operation for the day care center
to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.
6. it is in the public -interest to impose an additional
condition to require the day care center's books be open to
inpection by Snohomish County on a quarterly basis to certify
that customers of the facility are residents of the apartment
complex.
decisioin
Section 2: The Snohomish County enters its
Ltd.-, Partnership, ZA 8604117,n as
the appeal of Firdale Development
follows:
1. In accordance with the authority of SCC 2.02.180(5), the
Snohomish County Council does hereby affirm the decision of
Sno below.
the Hearing Examiner with modifications as stated
2. The Hearing Examiner's Disposition J, page.6, is modified to
extend the maximum.hours of operation of the day care center
to 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 P.m., Monday through Friday.
.3. An additional condition is added to require the day care
center's books be open to inspection by Snohomish County on a
quarterly basis to certify that customers of the facility are
residents of the apartment complex.
Dated ®CT 2 9 tggg
Chairman
ATTEST:
Clerk of the Council
Orf ice of the
_. 11EARING EXAMIINI•:R -�
. Snohordsh County, Washington
DECISION or the BEARING EXAM1IN0.
PART I: SUMIARY INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Firdale Devclopownt Ltd., Part- ership
FILE 110.: ZA 3604117
REFE111ii:Cli TAX ACCOUI4T NUMBLIZ: 362703-4-039-0001
TYPE OF'1tEQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to establish a day care center
S1111tL111Y OF REQUEST:
Location: The nubject property is located approximately 1/2 mile west of SR 99 on
the north side of 244th SLrect SW, just east of the Firdale Shopping
Center.
Section 36, Township. 2711, Range 31., ll.l1.
Comprehensive Plnn - Area: Southwest
Desibnation: Parks and Medium Density Residential
:Acreage: AppruxililMol)' 9 acres
Zoning: Planned Residential Development-Nultiple residenClal(PRD-M1P.)
Utilities - l:'ster: Clyiapi.c View slater District
Sewage: Olympic Visna Miter District
School District: P.duionds
Fire District: No. 1
SL'1'A CoNPLIAI:CC: Determination of tionsiSnificancc issued by the lead department
P1,oCIiDURAL BACE.G:1OU10:
A
1. The Examiner viewed the subject property and its surroundings on August'.4,
1986.
2. The Examiner held a public hearing on the subject application on Augustly,
1986.
SELECTED AGENCY RECO1•2•IENDATI01•IS (AP.SIIEVIATED)
Department of:
))
�E
Community and Educational Services: No comment received
!
:Tanning and Community Development:
Development Division: No objection
j=
Plauning Division: Approve
If '
Public Works: Approve
Snohoriish Health District: No comment received
HEARING EXAMIINER DECISION (SUMMARY):
Grant sulject.to conditions
YL1iASE i•IOTE: A reformatted, restructured zoning code went into effect on July 1,
1986. All zoning code Cfitle 18 SCC) citations in this decision are to the new
code unless specifically stated otherwise.
PART II: FINDINGS OF FACT
The ►ixaminer, having viewed the property, 'weighed the evidence presented and heard
the testimony of the parties, makes the fol lowing. Findings of Fact:
1. The subject property coutaius _- portion of a 306 dwelling unit apartment complex
which is presently under construction by the instant applicant. The apartment-*
coriplex includes two recreational facility structures: one near the project en-
trance on 244th Street SUT, (not oil the subject property) the other near the cen-
tsr of the north property line (on the subject property). The developer now
desires to utilize tae ssajurity of the recreational structure near the north
property line as a for 4 pay day care center.
ZE 8604117 August 20, 1986,
2. The proposed project would be operated as s day care center as defined by SCC
15.90.260. The subject prupurL is zoned PlID-INP, (Exhibit 15). The PI1D zone al
lows all use.,, authuriaLd by Lhe_ underlying zone unless expressly I�rohibited
r:ithin the 11RD zutae itsOlf [SCC 13.51 .050(01 A dad —Led
Led
conditional use I:er Lill: 1,1Z sone [SCC 18 .32.01,00)] . Dai care centers are not ex
press_y prohibited by Lite PItD zone. The h4% zone est .i.lishes a mininum require-
r.:ert that day care centers have all outside play areas feuced and buffered for
m ise pr0LecLioil [SCC IC.32.040(S)(_')(L`)].
3. The subject proporty and tine reSL of the apartu:cnt• complex became zoned PRD-idR on
August 11, 1960. On Nay 21, 1930 Lite Cuuuty Council approved a subsLatiLial revi-
sion to tilt• PIRD site plan: which had been approved in 1969. The 1980 revision
authorized Lhe cunstrucLiou of 406 dwellinL unitS ou Lite subject property
(Exhibit 10. The approved site plan (Exhibit 20) indicates that all vehicular
access Lo tete 406 dwelling uniLS t.as to occur from a major entry drive onto 244th
SLreet SU. Usieri;ency vehicle-unly :recess was provided at the northeast corner of
Lire subject property onto 240th Street SW. The landscaping plan which w:+^ also
approved in 1950 iudicatcd that a clubhouse and swiumlllig pool whould be con-
structed just Lo Lite west of the main entry along 244Lh Street SW, that a jogging
tail would meandcr-arurind Lite•eastern three-quarters of the site and that a
children's play area and approximately three informal picnic areas would be
located in an upon area at the norLlr central portion of the site (Exhibit 21).
In cur around 1954 a minor revision Lo the project layout was administratively ap-
proved by the Planning Division (PD) of the DeparLnrent of Planning and Community,
Developaierit The revised layout indicated that in addition to the recreation bu-
ilding anti swir.uning pool Bear tete project entrance at 244th Street $W, a tennis
court would also be provided. The 1984 revision also exchanged the children's
play area and informal picnic areas in the north central portion of the site for
a recreation building and srrimnriub pool (Exhibit 22). In mid 1985 the developer
came before tine Hearing Examiner asking for a change irr the dwelling unit mix.
That requrest was approved on August 14, 1905 (Exhibit 1) subject to three condi-
tions, one of which required that "[als a part of the development of the open
space and recreational facilities within Phase IV, the applicant shall construct
Lwo tot lots in locations generally shown on Exhibit 12 herein." (Condition B)
rite partial site plan which the applicant submitted as Exhibit 12 in the 1985 ap--
plicaLion showed the recreation building and swimming pool along the. north -
property linc and also indicated the location of the two tot lots (Exhibit 23
,&rein is a copy of Exhibit 12 from Lire 1905 application).
4. The applicant now proposes to construct a 6,045 square foot day care center and
recreation building in the area shown on the 1934 and 1985 plans as the.location
for the northerly recreation building. The proposed structure would be entirely
dire story (except for a bmall loft in one corner of the structure). The appli-
cant has iudicatcd that all but about 900 square feet of the structure would be
devuted to a day care facility. The 90 square feet which would not be part of
tine day care facility would contain an apartment rental office, a men's room, a
lady's room, two showers associated with the outdoor swimming pool (located near
Lite building), a soda pop machine and a lounge with wetbar in the loft area. The.
day care activity would incorporate a fenced outdoor play area which would be
separated from the fenced swimming pool. Next to the office and swimming pool,
the applicant proposes to construct a barbeque area. The two -tot lots required
by Cite 19S5 decision would also be built.
5. ine applicant anticipates that the day care facility would be licensed for a
capacity of 100 children. Testimony indica Led that between 10 and 15 employees
would be involved in the day care operation. The projected hours of operation
are 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Small limited babysiting and tutoring services might be
provided in the evenings and on weekends. The applicant intends to market the
day care facility primarily to tonarits within the apartment complex but did indi
ca Le that some Outside marketing might be undertaken too in order to fill the
facility. .
6. The proposed day care structure would be located at the fur north end of the
apartment Lomplux which is some 1,300 feet north of the main entrance at 244th
Street SW. The day care building would be accessible over a dead-end portion of
Lite interior access and circulation system.. There are a total of 20 parking r
stalls which would lie within 125 feet of the entrance to the day care facility
No other parking stalls are readily accessible from the day care center. The
dead-end .road which serves the day care facility nl3o provides access to approxi-
mately 24 apartment units. There are a total of 37 parking stalls on the road
segment serving those apartments and the day carr, center {Exhibit 7.4).
7. The ronin,, coati requires L:ro parkin3 stalls for each of the first 50 dwelling
units and 1.5 parking stalls for each dwelling unit over 50 in an apartment com-
plex [SCC 10.45.0400);. The phase of Lhe project in which Lite day care center
-2-
A ti :n `
August 20, 1986
zi+ $004117
tnow called Phase
is located (origittailly referred to as ha s which would required205parking stalls.
aveloper) will eau
The site plan shows 206 parking sculls (Exhibit 24).
S. The zuninG code dues nut establish a pari:ing standard for day care centers. The
Examiner takes official notice that Cite PD issued all Adcare centers uttrative to eLstalln
some time ago setting the purhittS requirements for day
for every 12 students (based on caxilauettterawith'apcapacitylus one sof1100ostudents and
employee. Oil that basis, a day
10 employees would require 19 parking stalls. With 15 employees, the number of
parking stalls wuuld be 24. `
9. Ill zon`n6 code tprot ide`q`11=`m«�ttshallsbcothclsua oEctlliienrequirementslfornallt
un a to Ind day LiMC
uses [Sh�c1Se4soUn0sharin- ofoparkingtile
stalls isuses ar`authorizedasubjectrtoltthetadmin-
in whic
isLrative approval of Lite PD [SCC 1:.45.0701. ,
ill
it
nto
It in
10. T.t is the applicaut's Opinion
tints.tltThesapplicanty care pa rfeelswthatithe lapartment'arking
pattern of Lite ap:trUae-% care employees
d%aellcrs will be leaving fur work at Lite same tit.ur that the day
d is versa.
and users are eonting to the site, all v
in Oc-
res
11. Title 26D SCC .(commonly known as iitCiteCounty
ccmPutedJLevelttofcService 1(LOS)Eof1adja-
tions by applicants deprt:eent apo r'.
cent road systen: The Department of ruL•iic ilurks (DPW) has indicate) nt that if
the: project is ta::rl:eteu to un -site residents there would be nosiguificant traffic
ieapact anLicip:it0d and therefore no requireweuts under Title 26D SLe•`ic�leupar'W
did testify.durin;; the public hearing, however,couthat if the daybe as
here
tronized by ersatstother ersectiuntof tlielprojecttdrivewaylwith 244thnStreettSN.
traffic problem
ro art owned by the Edmonds
12. The subject pruperty is bordered on the north by p L Y ren-
Sel:ool District upon t:hich nre situated two schools, neither of which are app
tly ill ttsu by said District. file: ::cltool structure which is located in the south-
Fest corner of the Dit•�ica PrivatcyJayill
caretcenter.words,
ThetproplosedtOf
day care scen'
is appareotly occupied! p
20
ter woule: be [cr�aetabucndury.tely 350 f c14'oet `storyost f ap'trtte tt(stt building sUSt project olie abetween 2the
feet west of lines (Sec uh ibit 24). The
day care structure and•the,cost ana west property
apartment lit
is burdcred on buth its east and west sides by existing single
fumily ncioltborhoods (Exhibit 15 and site itis%>ection).
ng
13. A petition in oPPosTUcn etitio�ercted oppose cd by iiine l
was thedaycarefcenterte conitthelbasi single that
family rc :idents. ,t
it would 6cuorate additional traffic and noise illthe area and because "it repre-
sents a commercial use Of residential zoned area" (Exhibit 25).
14, The Olympic Gjet., %later District has indicated that adequate water and sewer center,
facilities have been insta[ee Chil et`adequate electrical Project SiLe to rservve ice dcan ay cbe proviscd
(Exhibit 7), The PUD indica
to tite instant development with distribution facilities as they presently exi '
(Exhibit 13).
PART III: CONCLUSIONS
1. Lel;al notice of cite puLlic huariup, was riven -is required by county code (Exhibits
11 and 14).
was
2. Nn chnllenge Curtiss hearinblead `p�The a e'nvirunmcutatlEcvaluationLal n audtthreshoiedetetrmiised r
ing the E:utmine
based upon the evidence in the
nation made by tite lead department constitutes,
record before the L•xaml
iner, adequate compliance with the State he proposed action
l
Policy pctll evidence alternativesftettttltuetpropusedninental ltactionrhavebeen coasiJeredby the
and reasonable
oes
tement
not
lixaminer• Tltc de�srnotutncau that there arentuottadverseImpact
envSraunentalaimpacts,need"
to be Prepared o
ilie county has authority under the police power to mitigate identified impacts as'
Deemed necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare.
3. The neigltburino property cn.•tters wlgned Cite petition in opposition (
w s(Exhibit
25) apparently are under a :r.i.stahen impression reg..rding the nature of condi-
tional
ondi
Cignal uses.. A conditional use is one: which has been legislatively determined to
lie allowed within a giver. lune if aitpropriate conditions can be imposed to insure
its compatibility with Ctiuse uses which are permitted as a hatter or, right w itlun
-3- :?
<.•x ; x.� .,. �*sem .-�'��
2t> 0604117August zu, LVOU
that zone. A conditional use thus carries a fairly heavy assumption of accepts
Lility within the zone within which it has been included. Since a conditional
use permit does not invu]ve a change in the zoning of the subject property, and
since only those uses which have been specifically listed within a zone can be
granted a conditional use permit in that zone, iL is generally not relevant to
ration of any condi-
question the adopted area comprehensive plan. In his conside
condi-
tional use permit ap
plication, the Examiner is requirdd to consider the degree of
com atibilie which would exist between the use acrd its particular surroundings
and pmay. impose such necessary conditions as are required "to establish. parity
with uses permitted is Lire sa:ae zone in their freedom from nuisance generating
features in matters of noise, odors, air pollution, wastes, vibration, traffic,
physical hazards and similor matters." (SCC 1S.72.060(01 If compatibilityilit
li can-
not be insured, Lite permit may be denied. On the other.hand, if compatiby
car. be insured, then the permit r,tust be approved.
4. before Setting,forth Lire detailed conclusions which lead the Examiner to issue
Lite decision that is coucained wiLhin this documcut, a very brief, simple summary
tai�hL be helpful for the reader.• Basically, the i:xaminer has been convinced by
ed within an apart
Lite testimony and Lite evidence that a day carr, center operat
t.u:nt eornple): would not be incompatible with its surroundings and coulL actually
prove to be beneficial. However, in order to operate a day care center -within an
:tparttnent .complex, one muse be_very co;,nizant of th•_ traffic. and noise implica-
tions of lire center both as pertains to the residents of the neighborhood around
the project as well as to the future residents of the apartment project itself.
.')tie must also be cognizant of Lite impact that the center would have upon the re-
creational facilities provided by the apartment comp;ex for its residents. In
Lire instant case, .the location of lite proposed day care is such that the Examiner
believes that attracting; outside patrons is not acceptable: The project must
also he conditioned so as to preserve the recreational rights of the apartment
residents.
5. The apartment project within which the day czre ccnLer would be located isbeing.
developed under lite county's FRU-Illi regulations Which ere contained in Chapter
111.51 SCC. The applicant docs have the riche to apply for a conditional dao per
B.51
for a day care center within a PRD since such activities are allowed in the
1J;
:.,one alit! not expressly prohibited by the PRD zone provisions.
6. Every approved Pl1D is required to liave acL•ive recreational facilities: "Traent�
pere.c Co10.2;)OP tkO_l1eL irvelopment ^ccs shall be established as open space and
con:ritnrity recreational %5C' 18.51 .OSD((8)J• The open space and cotamu
t.Ity ri:croaLiunal f.tcilities within a PRD are required to be available at no ex-
Lra charg;c Lo Lhe: resiciaa.ts of Lite MID. In other words, a developer .'::annot .
create a separate recreatiunai cnLity to which otic lias to pay an extra charge to
belong. The abili+y to use Lite recreational facilities must be :' it +:as an
adjunct to the payment of rent to live in Lite a:,arhaent complex 1„y care
-
center, based oil the statements of Lite applicant, will be a sea --a #or -pay
enterprise. Titus, :,11 but 900 square feet of Lite prepoacd rec�+.a::c, sl building
will not be available during day care center hours for the use and enjoyment of
the tenants in the apartment complex. The Examiner recognizes that the davleoper
s providing a small lounge (in the loft) and shower and restroom facilities for
the apartment residents who might use the pool or nearby barboque during the day.
Since the project was orig;inally approved in 1950 with only a children's play
area and informal picnic area on this part of the site, the Examiner concludes
that the recreational facilities which will be available apartment residents 'd
ing the cav are at least equal to those trtrich were originally contemplated
7. Any day care center on the subject property will have to separate its children's
play arca from time rest of the open space areas around the project. It'vnuid be
patently unfair to the residents of the apartment project to have day care chil-
dren wandering all over the project and around the apartment units. Furthermore,
the day care area needs to be fenced separately from the swimming pool. 'The
Examiner frankly has no objection to al2owinL children who are properly super-
vised in the day care pro;, -rata to use the swimtainpool so long as t8eir use` dote
not monopolize Lite pool to the point where ocher residents who could use the pool
during the day time hours are dissuaded from so doing.
8. There is a potential p. kin; conflict be tweet: the clay care center and the apart
resat units in the near vicinity. If tite clay care actually employed 15 people as
was. stated by lite applicant during; the hearing;, all but five of the parkin
stalls that would be located in close pro:;imiLy to the day earn building would be
fully occupied Ly day care staff. ThaL would l.e: vc very few parking stalls for.
Ole. tenants who live along; tite short road v hick leads into the day care center
and a] so t:ould leave virttt:a t 1y nu parki.rg; ccL.:11:a for any residents from distant
r.t en;:a:lr.. wl:o mail ht, for wl,r•tever reason, choose to drive
portions of cite apareru:
tacit vcLiclers Cu t::r �.•�reaCLur cr.a[car duar;m„ l):.: day• Tai c. ii::a:nintr is also
ZA 8604117
--gust 20, 1986
somcarhat ur.:uuvinced that the apartment residents will have left before day care
employees and users arrive and that the residents will not come home again until
after the day ca'e employees and users have left. There could be a strong con-
flict in parking if the apartment dwellers are still in their units when the day
care is operating at fn11 tilt. Of course, the parking conflict would be sub
-
.d reduced if not totally clitttinstc!, if all of the users of the day
care center actually tante from the apartnent complex. itself.. In part for this
reason, and in part for other reasons that will be mentioned in suceeding conclu-
sions, use of the day care center will at least initially be limited to residents
ui the apartment complex. Even so, the PD must follow the administrative proce-
dures ofSCC 15.45.060 and .070 regarding parking adequacy before aay day care
activity can occur.
9. 1 second major reason u.hy the Examiner is inclined to limit use of the day care
center to only on-site npartn:cat residents is the ac,ess situation. In order for
an off-siL-: parent to deliver•a child to the day care center, they would have to
enter the site from 244th Street S4' and drive some 1,300 feet (one-quarter of a
mile) through tho apartment project before they would reach the day care center.
The road network in the ,partment project has not been laid out With an eye tow-
ards havin6 :t heavy, off-site traffic generator located at ':lie far end of the
project. Ilse 170 -trainer believes that substantial traffic conflicts and inconve-
nience to the apartment residents could result from open use of the day care cen-
ter by non -apartment complex residents.
1C. ;'Oise si:oeld not be a si;;t.ificant problem. Ficst, the day care play area is at
last 200 feet from the nearest sil%J a family. residence. Large apartment build
ill.gs separate tilt: two uses. Tile apartment 'uuildingi. will deflect and or block
:,uy noise of children playing outdoors. Second, the day care center is adjacent
to the pli,y ficlds for one of the abutting schools. The neighborhood is presuma
to tite noise of young children playing outdoors.
bly already used
11. SCG 10.72.190 provides tilt- Examiner with the opportunity to "fine tune" the con
ciiLions on each and every conditional use permit which is issued. Any person,
including tite applicant, neighbors and/or county staff, can file a petition with
the Examiner seeking a reopening of the case. Through this means, a permit which
does not live up to expectations can b'e fine tuned in the future based upon
experience,. This provision also provides n permittee with the opportunity to ask
!or more fie%ibility t ;:tcriet:ce rhows that such is warranted
It is usually easier and less, traumatic to relax conditions than it to tighten
condi..tionn. _:t.refore, tLc operational conditions will be initially made rather
strict. If experience warrants, Lhe permittee can petition for a reopening of
t;te case r.nd ash: for relaxation at :t later date. If, on the other hand, the day
care center creates problems which arc greater ill magnitude than those which the'
Examiner can now foresee, the ncibhhors can petition for stricter conditions or
conplete revocation of the -permit.•
12. The day care center will be required to have a fenced outdoor play area which
will have to be physically separated from the swimming pool.
13. The brautini; Of tL•is conditional use permit subject to the terns and conditions
set forth in FACT IV: DISPOSITION, below, will not be materially detrimental to
the surrounding properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property
is located.
14. 'flue orautiug of this conditional use perntit subject to the terms and conditions
set forth in PART IV: DI"POSITION, below, will not adversely affect the compre-
hensive P111;1-
15. SCC 19.72.210 requires Cite recordation of a Land Use Permit Binder (LUPB) in con-
junction with tl:e issuance of any conditional use or special use permit or
variance. The LUPD serves two principal functions: as an acknowledgement by the
permittee that tite teens ::nd conditions of Lite permit have been read, are under-
stood and will be fulfilled; and no a notice to any potential purchaser of the
property that a permit with special conditions docs govern certain uses on the
subject property.
16. The Examiner inteuds,.and has no knowledge or belief to the contrary, that the
requirements, limitations and conditions imposed by the instant decision are only ,.+,
such as are lawful and within the authority of the Examiner to impose pursuant td;;
Title 18 SCC.
PACT IV: DISPOST.TTOII
IThe Examiner hereby CRAHTS tett: rcquestc•d CONDITIMIA-1. 11 SC 3'L'pi•il'1' SUP.JECT TO the fol-
iowiu'� CONDiTIM S:
TK � ,
2A 8604117
A.
August 7.0, 1986
d Usc Permit Binder, enclosed herewith, shall be recorded with the
Snohomish Cooney Auditor and a copy of said recorded document submitted to the
The Lan
Department of Planning and Community Devel,)prient for inclusion within the case
record within 45 days of the date of the instant, decision or prior to the is-
sunuce of any site development permit, whichever comes first. Failure to meet
this condition shall automatically nullify this permit.
�Lia<n bi. l b t'lieu~oirf,ici3hxu_"eapl'an.(s)3 any discrepancy between the con-
tent of -tile official site Plan(s) and the performance atandarde of Title 18 SCC
shall be,resolvell in favor of the standards contained within Title 18 SCC.
Thum
Tile nircctor of the Department of Planning and Community Development or his
designee may auLhurize minor modifications to the approved plans so long as such
modifications du not affect the impact of the development on surrounding proper
Lies or upon public right-of-way. Any such modification shall be.appropriately
documented it, writing and included with the appropriate case record.
There shall be no signs advertising or indicating the existent,: of a day care
center visible to any motorist passing the site oil 244th Street Sla.
There shall be no advertising of Lhe existence of a day care center on the sub-
jecL property ill any medium separate from advertisements indicating ttat apart-
nx:uts are available for rent/ lease/purcliase (as appropriate).
F. All customers of the day care center shall be residents of the on-site apartment
complex.
ren cared for at any one time shall not exceed 100.
G. T1rc maxirowu r:wiber of child
11. lire applicant must receive+ and maintain a current state license for, the day care
cenLcr..
I, anti outside play area shall be provided and shall be fenced. The fenced play area
shall be separat from ti.. swinminb pool enclosure.
J. The maximum liours of operation for the day care center -shall
cbe 6p000 a.m. to 6:00
he
Monday tha
gh Friday. There shall be no evening y
structure within which the day care center is located may be made available to
Lite residents of the apartment complex for appropriate group community, activities
.3L any hour uheu Lite day care is not in operation.
F. On-site apartmauL residents shr,11 have the right at all reasonable and customary
Lin;CS to use the swimming pool, �arbeque, lounge, etc., regardlessofthe pre-
sence of day care children on-site.
L. Ito occupancy for day care purposes Shall occur until the Planning Division has
determined Cas it is required to do pursuant to Chapter 18.45 SCC) that,on site;'
g code requirements. If more parking is found necessary
parking fully meets zonin
in order to comply with Chapter 18.45 SCC, such parking shall not reduce the com-
munity open space areas on the Site.
It. ttothing in this permit/approval 'shall excuse Lhe applicant, owners. lessee, agent,
successor or assigns from full compliance with any other federal, state or local
statutes, ordinances or regulations applicable to chis project- ;;Inpatticulat,_
, filing, construction or other physical alteration of the,
no clearing, grading
site may be undertaken prior to the issuance of the necessary permits for such
activities by the county.
-c-�
_ _...._t„ m-v� iilAllllilllFRB ..,; ..•... I
August 20, 19
AZA 3604117 1986:
Decision issued this 20Lh day of August, 1936.
t ng xaminer
701in r I'i
Calt, car
NOTICE to PAPTIES.of RECORD
The L-bove decision of the Hearing Examiner is final and conclusive with right of a P—
Pell to the County Council. The grounds for filing an appeal of an Examiner decision
shall be limited to the following: a) newly discovered evidence which is material'
have been produc
to the Exu cd at,tbe
winer's decision and which could not reasonably
Examiner's hearing; 1)) the Examiner cxcceded.his jurisdiction; 0 the Examiner
fallel to follow tile applicable procedure in reaching his decision; ..d), the Examine -
committed an error of law or misinterpreted the applicable comprehensive plani prov%— -
cions of the Snohomish County Code, or other county or state law or regulation;, or
e) the Examiner's findings and conclusionsare not supported by the record.
such appeal shall be filed by the applicant, a department of the county, - or other "g-
-rieved person or agency with tile DeparUill.-Ilt of Planning and Community Development
4th floor, County Auministration Building, rvcrett, 'Unshington 98201, within .t:en..-.,
(10) calendar clays follo-.ing- the rendering of the E-naminer's decision. All appeals.,
shall be in wriLin,,,, shall contain a detailed statement of the grounds for appeal'and r
the facts upoA which the f
appeal it; based, and shall be accompanied by a fee 0*
he foe will not be charged to a department of the t
$5040: Provided, that t. county or
to other than the first appellant. MCCGO Use the county file number on all future
correspondence W.I.th the county rcgardin6, this case. [SCC 2.02.170] xi
Hailed on August 21, 1986, L(j:
APPLICANT:
Firdale Development Ltd,. Partnership
OTIIIT% PARTIES OF RECO111):
Cathy A. Bililer
OTHER PARTIES:
Plonning Division Community Development Division
City of Edmonds
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
FFJ
12 Dec, 2002
9
Kathleen Taylor, Associate Planner
7 ��2
Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Program Manager A 5,01,
Childtime Children's Center at 9329 244' St SW (CU -2002-162)
In order to analyize the traffic impact analysis better, the applicant needs to submit a site plan
that includes the entire parking lot area, access points and location of City streets. Once the site
plan has been submitted, the Traffic Engineer will be able to analyize the study.
City of Edmonds
VAdvrMcW02-162 childtime children's center.DOC
RECEIVE
DEC 12 2002
PLAINNING DEPT.
Attachment
ca
L
.E
X
WM
0O
O
N
.E ca O
0 N
co
06N
CD
O1W' L.L
f L
Ca
U
ip
U v �
� O �
Q
� Q
Q
Q
U
O
Z
a�
b
+J
Cd
Eo
N
N
o
L
w
a
U)
U
M
O
Z
A
C '.
ry
O
N
ra
F--
j
Q
cid
oir-
C
Q
.Cj on
to
co
o
O
ry
a�
u
O
U
D
U
Y
c
c
i
i
i
i
i
i
it
[L
Y
o
a�
cu
vi
� O
� p L
O
L
v
b
c)
o
O
'
4cd
p O
a�
L Q
cv
�. U>1U
U
+�
rY
m
O m
w o rY 0
rZ
C)
}
N
r
V/
_0
'p
C
'
°
o
O
4,
cu
75
U)
ru
U a_+
O O
C
Z
a�
L
O
Q 01,-
Ln
--
N N
4mJ,c
(a
-a
L1 Q
N
W
+,U
>, O
Qo
O
O
N
O
�
0
U
E ry w-0 4mJ
�—
U)tY
M
.-.
0)
N
N %«0
ru
`_�
cu
C
a ra a)
ra
U
E
C
L
N
C)
�+
n O Cp
V LL
U) 4mJ
N
Z) O
O
'CND
NoO
J
O N
4mJO
+J
N
M
L
ra �
C
C 4-
N
ruO
O L
O
w
-1--�
C
N
N
O
cu
0-0
O u).d
b
C..)
s
D
Q)
M
O 0 N
C4-1
O
(
o
U
Q
Cn
U 4 L
N O
UO �
M
Q
i
0
0
i
i
N
oW
0
3
U
(B
L
•
Q
U
O
O
(�
CC
O U
O
Q Q
O
O U
O
O
-
N
Z
Q
0
0 0
d
d 0
Q
Emannal Franz Lowell Kaufman
9214 242Nd St SW 24212 9,2Nd Aw W
Edmoods, WA 98,02.0 Edmonds, WA 98020
Gre,g,ory Mathers
92�28 242N'tt Sit SW
Edmonds, WA MOM
Stephen & Lindz Gibler
24314 92Nd Ave W
Edmoods, WA 990,20,
Stevc Pasdor
9202, 240 f
Edionds, WA 198020
Helga Byhre
241.114 92.Nd Ave, W
Edmonds, WA 98020
.y W'
'o
C' igj"C# r 'Iiltinsam
13 8
S18L, W 98,292
Helga, B I r
I IT
2.4104 9��Ydhve W
fid. ads, WA. 990,20
Scott & Mary Schweiki
9213 242Nd St SW
Edmonds,'WA 93020
Panild Mcduffle
24226 92Nd Ave W
Edmonds, WA 93020
Paul Schroeder
PO Box,33941
Scat0c, WA 9,8133
qyseift Flatino
24224 92Nd Ave W
'Edmonds, WA, 98 20
Floiydreima,
F
F
Ed
I
T
V
isi. W, =981020,
Lind irk &'Wiffiasn Allbright
24020 92Nd Ave W
Edmonds,'WA 98020
GcorIF Nicklc
1615 14311d PI SE
Mill Crab, WA 98012
Gregg,SWosAi
24216 92,Nd, MeW
Edmonds, WA 99020
Glenn Nestlerode & Wanda Griffiths
9221 242Nd St SW
Edmonds, W'Ar 980210
L,= L'Iliott
9210 240"r it sw
RdInno, ,W'A 98026
Bill & LuchWaAmflijort Jr
92�,20 2# 't
Ed h ds,, WA 98020
Ray Flanagan
24304 92Nd A�ve'W
Untunds, WA 98020
William Weyrick
921 244Th St SW
C-damuls, WA 98020
Girestart & Debom, h Veillmix
9229 2,421'4d St SW'
Edmomb,'WA 98020
mIr
Jack & Layne dOnart
IM 244 'h St SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
James Wildey
92,05 242Nd StSW
Edinouds, WA 9801
Eric Magelssen, & J B Brenda
24221 2Nd Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98020,
Lm Eli Wift
921,6 240TIs St SW'
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jarodi&O(Girp, *11, Catherine LoMr Valentina Shareiva
9
Ott ;44 ' . ' 9 9226 240Th St, SW 9224 240Th'St-S'W
I " WY98C
Ed, s wy'99020 Edmonds, WA 981120 Edmonds,WA 98020
Don,ald Kreitnan Sbras Bobroskie Omeel & Virghtia Uft, n
24006 95Th PFW 24,014 95Th P1 W 24024 95Th PI W
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WX 9902,0
Knrt &'Narm q Johnson, "salt & Patricia rnay Ulita Hat clieWer
24032 95Th A W 1326 NW lffrjjt 24114-95'rh P1 W
Edmonds, WA 980 0 Shoreline, WA 98177 Edmonds, WA 98020
Jerrold & Phyllis Sproax youlian, & Yovka miladinvy Mattrita Kane
24122 95Th P1 W 241,30 95Th, PI W 89,03 228Th St SW
Edmonds, WA 96020 Edmonds, WA 9802,0 Edmonds, WA 9lW26
williall'i Jarvis Larry & Emily Muir Jefficy & Heather Tomlinson,
24123 95Th P1 W 17605 SE 144Th St 24105 95Th, PFW
Ed-monds, WA 98020 Renton, WA 98039 Edmonds, WA 98020
Carol Woldwend Rodney Salts(Mir ftbert Johamon.
240,31 95Th Pl W 24025 95Th PVW 241115 95Tb PI W
Edmonds, WA 98,021.) Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmon", WA 9'8020
Wn,i
,X)P,C, ,nV�St�,nt jr
Jamcs & Pan ny Himon e 11C in Property Investment Inc
Ro e , �ay , F
24007 95Th, P) W 95 9500 Runs It Way NE
-dmonds, WA 98020, Ato �, WA 981 t5
Sr Sculft, WA 9,81,15,
1001
colinry Of' obotnish Wns Pro y Investnicm, Inc, ms's Prope investitiont bw
e
0
NO SVET INANIE or NUMBER 9500 'Velt Way, NE 95'00 R,02�vedll Way NF,
I watt WA 98115 Sea* WA 98115
WY
David & Ruth Allyn Jeffrey &'Hi[hq,D,*4,41s0n Roger & Shirley is
9627 242Nd P1 SW 5917 MI I 242Nd Fq S,W
,rl
EdmS
onds, W'A 99020 4&Jsh,,WA 982910 ndnionds, WA 980,20
"rank flortsinger Craig & Lealt Morgan Allen Carr
9603 242Nd P1 SW 9604 242141 P1 SW 9516 242Nd P1 SW
Edwouds, WA 98020 Edmoflds,'WA 98020 Ed,monds, WA 98020
James & Charlutk Kownwdy Jr, Dvimis Vul 11py snolumnish Cc Proparty' mgmt
9624 242,Nd PI SW' 9626 ,42 Nd PI SW 30010 llurkcWtu Avc #M 40
Edmonds, W'A 98020 tkinionds. WA 98020 Everett, WA 9'316f
Holly Bynum Kline
9629 241St PI SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
i
I
John Moren & Elise Myrold Rita
9605 241St PI SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Tom Sanger & Anadelia Torres
9624 241 St PI SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
i
j . .
Laser 51600
David Wilson
Donald & Nancy Gonsorowski
962124 1 St PI SW
961124 1 St PI SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edward & Aina Creasey
Ervin Rogers
PO Box 1082
PO Box 453
Edmonds, WA 98020
Lake Stevens, WA 98258
Richard Schneider
' 9632 241 St PI SW
Tom Ehdichman Attorney
Edmonds, WA 98020
2717 Rockefeller Ave.
Everett, WA 982()l
Residential Properties
EquitYWendell
Trust 1 Chikftime LearningCenters
® Hill, VP
Tim Davis
16400 Southcenter Parkway
13&45
W 10 Mile Rd., Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
I
Farmington Hills, MI 48335
Laser 51600
1 1") P7
W Darryl & Mary Thompson
P
9222 240Th St SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
KISIRMI=*
21 li I I 12 11 K -al 1111111119111INUM
1, Diane M.Clinningharn, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say:
That on 'the 20th day of February 2003, the attached Notice of Pub is lHearing was,
maled as req&ed to adjacent property owners, the nammes of which were provided
by the applicant.
Signed
day
Subscribed and, sworn to before mie this o�f
C,'
Llfl-15L I . . ............ . . ...... .. ..... ..............
gtC)
Notary Public Gn, and for the State, of Washin n.
Residing at,
111.141IMMIS MUMM1,111,0111IMM l3m,
Kathleen Taylor,, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say:
That on the 20th day of February 20 , the, attached Notice of Public Hearing was
posted as prescribed by Ordinaince, and in any event, in the Civic Center and the
Library,, arid where applicable on or near the subject. property.
Signed 6
a o
Subscribed and sworn to before me this d y, f
. . ... .. ............ ... .......... -,
Notary Public in and for the State of WasNngton,
Riesiding at . ....
81"ATE OF VVIASHIMI'ITON,
COUNTY OF SN0,110MISH,
NOTICE OP, HEAR
EXAMINEft HEARINING
UA
NOTICE OF
DEVEMAMSNI
APP'LKr ATJON
Nrul"Ie M1 CWL
Rua M , 1*. 1
Prcloul KfflmbafV-02 2TM
1,5917 RM
Mku am'
� �,wu4aqn44 r�v� n p"ringil'o jiur(�
itgl&noo ond! 0cmm d0m.
aauM
Speducamy a mair-
0 bu IrWZ 'Flovel
�,Wbaw.k hom 2, 6 �ad to 2
leat, M colocal, Areft Wr-'
191mm M MmIMAN wRMn
Ifm r'llubp dopu buffmv, arm!
CPAL-al Mom Vwqiflo, Car
graft 'MMNA *9 iq'NPaa4'n
uVer ama; and m CiftA
A,l(zas VguimnLek 9igmbwmm-
Wo U'va FAV"p4cill to buld
W41114i khe w0fland, 71�qgjA-
pF[A P'r'gAflr Is IDrWad' is
w0d mpa Famfly Rod
Zug 'a
dent]W(95-211
I 1"MrIl TRAr
NhAr 4' mmiVs Due B'y,;
Wagrh fl, PM,3,,
9'00'ffi'jr'
Ment M Ap tlNCaaA L
PA, �lVo' Wanto" '02-W
Diffitt Lowlam 0320 91,440
P
SW. Edivionds
Prood DvEadjAinn! Cond.
fitwiffil UM Pamm] Applice,
flm P60' Y' AMAIM)FI 01 a d '
0m &II11%im mi widoTNt
z'UnIft. CAIRdliono wvljjw Jskq
tP o4mrld enrVIIImam 1in
chUmn re: &I&mq avWde d
ravIci
USP;
611w 9:30 Ei'm.
k',jjft,, 01Z, P,001,, aW Flow
m4g, 91, AM 51t,
304. I
Ave. N., Fdmvml�t
'uhhAvd: FOITUMCIr 20,
009.
I1; ' I'll I
3
m
The, UmJgrs�igfwd, being, rum My swum, on mvh depofcs arm J saps flial she is hinvipW Cler'k
til"TIM' I IERAIII, admilly newspalx,,i Ivrhawd awl published pjn flic City oltvemu, cpunuy of
St' 01,1faMiSh, drub SMAC Df WadflflgIUIL tihat ni,j tKv&pqxr is a
corcaulwti mua m said Cuunty ontl stalui ['11W aakl amspopur lawns buan upplu'vV4 as a legal
newm5paWr by ardeir oftht Siipc6or Coma a(SnActmiSh ('V110Y and thm the juYtIce
Nu 0re of 11cartag Exantliver Ilem6tig,
Nolke of DewlOpmeta Application
Wb MW0cl;, V-02-222, 223, 224, 225
v pHtud copy of which iq hereunto aunch,ed, was Ipubliglued bj mod newsimper prnXrond not
In Supplemerm forma„ in the reguhar and cwhe edition of said papLron the reltowing days, and
fl mc±i. namnel y:
P60°10ACY Za„r 2003
and 11[uM soidpewpofwr ww" leguludy to its mib,oribcrs, doHng all of said period,
Subwribed sind swom 1<u before, mc Phis M
w w], MWO&A Nl"h,wf' M =660642202003
AccomMsNLOCNEIVE-D AccounlNumher: 101dIG CIVI'loy Narnbc rmmm
r r- n 2 7 7 ne.1,
EOMONDS CWY CLERK
lnc.1sov
February 13, 2003
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
Tom Ehrlichman, Attorney
2717 Rockefeller Ave
Everett, WA 98201
Subject: HEARING DATE RESCHEDULED
Childtime Learning Center File Number CUP -2002-162
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Dear Mr. Ehrlichman,
Per your request, the hearing for Childtime Learning Centers has been rescheduled to accommodate
additional -information you submitted February 12`h. The hearing has been rescheduled as follows:
Action: Hearing Examiner Review of conditional use permit for Childtime Learning_
Center located at 9329 244d` St SW
File No. Assigned: CUP -2002-162
Date of Hearing: Thursday, March 6, 2003
Time: 9:30 A.M., or as soon thereafter as possible
Place: City Hall, 3`d Floor Meeting Room
121—5`hAve N
Decision Maker Hearing Body: Hearing Examiner
Please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly advisable. If an applicant or his representative
is not present, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda. Items not reached by the end of the
hearing may be continued to the following agenda.
As the planner assigned to the application, I will draft a staff recommendation to the Hearing Examiner,
and it will be mailed to you approximately one week prior to the hearing. Following the close of the
hearing, the Hearing Examiner's decision will be sent to you within two weeks, and a two-week appeal
period will follow.
Since the hearing was rescheduled per your request, you will be responsible for re -noticing fees. An
invoice will be sent to you. If you have any questions, please call me at 425.771.0220.
Sincerely,
Kathleen T r
Associate Planner
cc: CUP -2002-162
CUP-02-162HRGDAT2. DOC
2/ 13 /2003. CORRES\HRNOTI C E
0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0
!hc•1S9v
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.dedmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
December 13, 2002
Tom Ehrlichman, Attorney
2717 Rockefeller Ave
Everett, WA 98201
Subject: ASSIGNMENT OF HEARING DATE
Childtime Learning Center File Number CUP -2002-162
Dear Mr. Ehrlichman,
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Thank you for submitting additional -information in regards to Childtime Learning Center's conditional
use permit application. The hearing date has been set as follows:
Action: Hearing Examiner Review of conditional use permit for Childtime Learning_._
Center located at 9329 244" St SW
File No. Assigned: CUP -2002-162 _
Date of Hearing: Thursday, January 16, 2003
Time: 9:30 A.M., or as soon thereafter as possible
Place: City Hall, 3rd Floor Meeting Room
121-5d'Ave N
Decision Maker Hearing Body: Hearing Examiner
Please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly advisable. If an applicant or his representative
is not present, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda. Items not reached by the end of the
hearing will be continued to the following agenda.
As the planner assigned to the application, I will draft a staff recommendation to the Hearing Examiner,
and it will be mailed to you approximately one week prior to the hearing. Following the close of the
hearing, the Hearing Examiner's decision will be sent to you within two weeks, and a two-week appeal
period will follow. If you have any questions, please call me. I can be reached at 425.771.0220.
Sincerely,
�isl"
Kathleen aylor
Associate Planner
cc: CUP -2002-162
CUP-02-162HRGDAT. DOC
12/ 13/2002.CORRESUMNOTICE
Incorporated August 11, 1890