CC Min 1997-05-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. ' . . -, could be forced to pay the bulk of any judgment. He described the signage he has had to display to discourage parking on his property, and advised it had not worked. He said that being blocked from his garage qualified as an "adverse effect on adjoining property." - Mr. Wolfskill described his efforts over the last seventeen months to achieve a workable solution to allow the day care home to continue to operate without creating such hazards on his property. He said he and his wife were not now nor have they ever asked the City to remove the easement. That is a private matter over which the City has no jurisdiction. Mr. Wolfskill said extinguishment of the easement would remedy the situation, but staff had informed him that holders of the easement were not willing to consider that option unless an estimated $15,000 to $20,000 for modifications to Canyon Road for their private benefit was paid. Mr. Wolfskill said those modifications would create a hazard of a different nature and is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Wolfskill said forfeiture of the permit for a large day care home will not provide absolute relief, so they are asking for mitigations of the hazards, such as seen on the video. He said he hoped such Council action would encourage the operators of the large day care home to consider other alternatives. Mr. Wolfskill referred to the clients of the Woodside Gas Mart who spoke during that appeal, and suggested that similar speakers would support the large day care home at this appeal - those with a vested interest. - Mr. Wolfskill said he believed the large day care home could not operate in a way that "does not effect" his residence as long as the operators of that home insist on using "our property for the benefit of that facility." He said if there was no easement there would be no problem; however, "the easement holder has precluded that approach. Thus we are asking for mitigation of the hazards caused by the existence of the family day care home at 743 Canyon Road by reducing it from a large to a small family day care home. Because the operators of that family day care home have steadfastly refused to limit the traffic caused by the family day care home to their own property." Lynnette Dowling, 751 Canyon Road, appellant, distributed her written remarks. Ms. Dowling expressed her gratitude for Council's attention to her concems. She described her personal experiences dealing with traffic from the day care home when she was returning from work. She said it was a dangerous situation when head lights blinded her and she could not even see her garage. Another time she was trying to back into her garage but a car pulled up behind her on the easement, and then disappeared from sight. Ms. Dowling said revoking the permit would not remove all the adverse effects, but having a small day care home next door would reduce some of that traffic. Ms. Dowling said the permit states operation of a day care home must not "effect the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood." She asked who determines adverse - effects. "Do I have some say in what I think are adverse effects?" She said if there REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 MAY 19, 1997 MINUTES Page No. 349 PAGE 21