Resolution 3280 - Laserfiche WebLink

RECEIVED CEIVE DEC 11 1989 5` I City Clerk's Office UEC 989J0-21-21 CITY CI FR ( City Hall / -P r December 8, 1989 3002 Wetmore Ave -CI'T'Y CLERK , Everett, WA 98201 ; • IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF 'i 1 89 PATRICIA AND DAVID MUMM AND TERESA R NELSON FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL ®r F PROPERTY USE PERMIT p{ nn;nT SPUP. #73-89 This correspondence is to lodge a written appeal to the Everett City Council for the City of Everett's Hearing Examiner's decision regarding condition # 3 of the above issue in his decision dated November 2, 1989, and the follow-up document titled "Amended Findings of Facts" dated November 30, 1989. Attached are these two documents plus my motion for reconsideration dated November 8, 1989. My position, and that of the other parents whose children attend this day care, is that the Hearing Examiners ruling that parents may not use the day care facilities driveway puts these children at unnecessary risk. His position is that we must use on street parking to load and unload children. In studying the two documents issued by the Hearing Examiner, one cannot find any facts to substantiate this position. What is really comes down to is that condition #3 is based only on the Hearing Examiners opinion. He states that the children are more at risk while in their parents car and backing out of the driveway onto Beverly Lane. He does not give credit to the parents opinion that just the opposite is true, that the children are in more danger when parents are forced to get them and their daily supplies out of the car while it is parked on the side of a busy street. Realistically, who is in a better position to judge the safety of this issue, the parents who use this day care on a daily basis, or the Examiner's Office whose decision is based only on limited site observation and opinion. The other component of the driveway issue is the testimony supplied by a neighbor, Gloria Shapley, who owns an adjacent parcel of land and states the use of the driveway is disruptive to her. First of all, Ms Shapley's property borders the back yard of the day care, not the driveway. In fact there is a garage between the driveway and the Shapley property. Secondly, parents using the driveway do not make any more noise than other traffic would from other neighbors or the street in front of her house. (I rather doubt the Examiner would close traffic on the street in front of Ms. Shapley's house if she complained about that noise.) Lastly, none of the other neighbors with adjacent 85