The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About970 Davis Road - Staff Report� V■ - � GT7 � � BURLINGJIME �r. � ; we�• STAFF REPORT TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: APRIL 10. 1998 AGENDA ITEM # Sb MTG. DATE o4.2o.9s SUBMITTED j(\� _- BY (�irL'f � t UI.M� Y�t.1 Q APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY suBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE AT 970 DAVID ROAD, ZONED M-1. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action on the revocation should include iindings citing each of the specific grounds for the revocation (see findings section below). If Council upholds the Planning Commissions recommendation for revocation all use of this site should cease and all structural improvements including storage containers and sheds, shall be removed within 15 days of the Council's action. Findings for Revocatioa of a Conditional Use Permit: A previously granted conditional use permit may be revoked, suspended or modified or any one or more of the following grounds (CS 25.16.140): 1. that the approval was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation; 2. that the use for which such approval was granted is not being exercised; 3. that the use for which such approval was granted has ceased to exist or has been suspended for one year or more; 4. that the conditional use permit or variance is being, or has been, exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or other regulation; 5. that the use for which approval was granted was so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or so as to constitute a nuisance. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission heard the appeal of the City Planner's decision that conditional use permit for outdoor storage use at 970 David Road be revoked on March 23, 1998. At that meeting the Commission held a public hearing and voted 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent) for revocation of the conditional use permit and required that the site be cleared of all structures, storage structures and containers. In their action the commissioners found that the conditional use permit has been exercised contrary to the conditions of such approval and in violation of any statute, ordinance law or other regulation because the 0 C 04.20.98 Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to revoke the conditionai use pertnit for outdoor storage at 970 David Road, wned M-1. page -2- permit says nothing about storage facilities, plywood structure, washing trucks on the street, and truck repair all presently occurring on or at the site and the presence of all kinds of violations of city codes (of which the applicant was informed). Despite repeated notice the applicant has done nothing to correct situation or apply for an amendment to this permit. Visual inspection showed site was not being used for storage, but active work was occurring on the site; notice from code enforcement officer and Chief Building Inspector should have been sufficient. Finding 5 relating to detrimental use, a health hazaxd and a nuisance also apply because the plywood building is unsafe for workers to be in, the equipment looks unsafe and both jeopardize the health of those who work there. BACKGROUND: On August 22, 1994, the city approved a conditional use permit by Planning Commission action to BK Bobcat/Joel Beck to allow outdoor truck storage at 970 David Road, zoned M-l. The applicarion for this use permit was the result of code enforcement by the City Attorney (Coleman letter May 2, 1994) sent because the site was being used for truck storage without a permit. As a part of the permit granted in August 1994 Mr. Beck indicated that he would complete fencing the site and add a gate at the front of the lot. In addition, the 1994 use permit included conditions that the facility would be open from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday with a maximum of four employees on site at any one time, that a new curb cut poured to city standards would be installed, and that the project would meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The physical improvements, fencing, gate and curb cut) required by this permit were installed. Subsequent to August 1994 Mr. Beck added two storage structures (a metal shed and shipping container) to the site as weli as a large plywood structures in which he stores and works on large equipment. A number of months ago the applicant requested electrical .service to the site. It was installed and he commenced using it to enlarge his capabilities to work on equipment on the site. The city ordered the electrical service removed because the buildings on site were not permitted nor had electrical work on site been inspected. Further, the electrical work had been performed in an unlawful structure. Since the removal of � the electrical service, Mr. Beck has apparently added, on occasion, a large electric generator so that he can operate a compressor used for equipment repairs. It is not possible for the applicant to apply for a use permit to repair trucks and equipment at this location because a recent amendment to the zoning code prohibits such repair business in the M-1 district north of Easton Creek (CS 25.44.010 (4)). The original permit did not allow any structures on the site only outdoor storage of trucks. Staff have followed all requirements of due notice to the applicant informing him of his violation of the city's zoning ordinance and of the need for him to remove the illegal structures citing the following reasons: 1. that the conditional use permit is being and has been exercised contrary to the conditions of the such approval or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or other regulation: a. the approval was for onty fencing, installing a curb cut, outdoor storage of trucks; there was no approval for repair work, addition of structures or provision of storage structures o€ any kind; b. the placement of the large plywood structures does not meet any setback and other development requirements for the zone; 04.20.98 Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to revoke the conditional use pemvt for outdoor storage at 970 David Road, zoned M-1. page -3- c. no building permits were applied for or issued for the construction of any of the structures presently on the site, particularly the large plywood structure which provides shelter for large equiprnent being stored and/or prepared on the site, and this is a violation of the conditions of approvaL d. the property owner's action is also in violation of Burlingame ordinances as a public nuisance (CS 1.12.040) and of the State Business and Professions code (item # 7110-Disregazd or Violation of Statutes). According to Mr. Beck he holds a General Engineering and Contractors License A qualifying him to construct freeway bridges and do demolition work (Phone conversation with City Planner, February 4, 1998). 2. that the use for which approval was granted was so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or so as to constitute a nuisance: a. building department inspection documents that the large plywood structure on the site is structurally unsound and unsafe, was installed without permits and is a public safety violation. (See Code Enforcement Officer's Memo, January 26, 1998, Exhibit 1, Chief Building Inspector's Memo) b. on occasion equipment stored at this location has been parked in the public street and even washed there in violation of NPDES and Public Works Department requirements and city ordinance. The attached Planning Commission packet (March 23, 1998) includes the considerable file of complaints, follow up, site investigation and communication with the applicant. In addition, letters supporting the revocation from neighbors in the area, more recent photographs, and minutes from the Planning Commission meetings on this item are included. Both the City Planner and the Planning Commission recommend revocation. /M 970DAVID.209 ATTACHMENTS: Monroe letter to Joel Beck, April 7, 1998, setting Council appeal hearing Richard Viczorek, Attorney, letter April 2, 1998, to City Clerk requesting a Council appeal hearing. Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes, February 23, 1998 Planning Commission Staff Report, February 23, 1998 with attachments. Conespondence: Margaret Monroe letter to Joel Beck, February 4, 1998, with attachments Richard Viczorek letter to Margaret Monroe, February 20, 1998, requesting continuance. Robert Edwards letter to Planning Commission, March 18, 1998, supporting the revocation. Andrew Yen letter to Planning Departrnent, February 20, 1998, supporting the revocation. Photos of the site taken by Code Enforcement Officer, March 30, 1998. Public Notice of Appeal Hearing, April 10, 1998 Resolution