CC Min 1997-05-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . - - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AT THIS TIME - A. PUBLIC HEARING - Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Decision NOT to Revoke a Non-Discretionary Permit for Large Family Day Care Home at 743 Canyon Road, Redwood City, Appellants David H. Wolfskill and Lynette M. Dowling (603) LOCA nON: 743 Canyon Road, Redwood City, California. Affidavits of Notice of Publication and Mailing are on file in the City Clerk Department. 1. Staff Report: REPORT: Senior Planner Passanisi, May 19, 1997 Senior Planner Passanisi presented the staff report. He said that in March 1996 staff approved a non-discretionary permit for a large family day care home serving up to twelve children at 743 Canyon Road. Passanisi used slides to show the property at 743 Canyon Road and 751 Canyon Road the neighboring property and home of the appellants. He said that a non-discretionary permit was issued over the counter and did not need a public hearing nor notices. In August 1996, the appellants, David Wolfskill and Lynette Dowling asked staff to revoke the permit and if possible remove the easement which crossed their front yard. He said the appellants claimed the cars using - the easement to access the day care home at 743 Canyon Road caused traffic and safety problems, rnade it difficult to get homeowners insurance and created other nuisances. The appellants claimed the day care operation was detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. Passanisi showed slides and described how steep the driveway of 743 Canyon Road really was and why people used the easement in front of75l Canyon Road to reach the day care home. Senior Planner Passanisi said staff referred this matter to the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center. Mediation attempts proved unsuccessful. When staff tried to mediate, the appellants offered to pay for some engineering costs, widening the driveway to make it easier for cars to angle into the day care driveway, but the owners of the day care did not want to pay for any of the mitigations. Those mediation attempts were also unsuccessful. Senior Planner Passanisi said staff believed this was a private matter, as the easement is a private easement, and both parties should work it out between them. He said staff believed the non-discretionary permit should not be revoked, and the appeal should be denied. Passanisi said if the Council revoked the permit, the easement would stay because it is a private easement, and the day care could continue to operate, because under state law a family day care home up to eight children can operate in a neighborhood without local control. - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 MAY 19, 1997 MINUTES Page No. 347 PAGE 19