Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout100 California Drive - Staff Report� �� a15��� ���_i�,ti-°\ �\l�I�=) �,�'�c-� •. � 7 � up existing was not put/in defiance of the Planning Commission. He had intended to make application, and had removed a previous 47' x 3' wall sign that identified the previous business. He had engaged a sign company to produce the new wall sign, and when they had completed it, he was eager to see the effect. He had put it on the wall, and had intended to cover it with paper, but because of wind the paper would not stay on the wall. Mr. Douglas showed slides of signage now on the building and that which had previously existed, including the large 47' sheet metal company sign, and the large roof sign. He pointed out the decrease in signage area with his present program and the more pleasing effect, which enhances the appearance of the building.. Chairman Sine questioned if Mr. Douglas had intended the wide painted stripes at the bottom of the wall to be part of the signage program. The applicant replied he had considered th.em a part of the paint job itself for the puapose of brightening up the building. The Chairman then questioned if he had been informed at the time of the awning permit that any additional signage would require a sign permit. Mr. Douglas stated the per•mit had been handled by the sign company, and they might have been so informed. Assistant City Planner Yost commented th�t striping might be considered a part of signage under the proposed sign ordinance, but would hardly apply under the present. He confirmed that at the time of the awning permit the Building Department had informed the sign company that any additional signage would require a permit. � Chairman Sine questioned the loss of 4 parking spaces by the painted yellow loading zone on the curb. Mr. Douglas stated that had been repainted by the City and he had had no objections. In reply to a question from Commi�sioner Francard, Mr. Douglas stated the only addition to the Myrtle Road signage was the projecting sign on Howard and a small inspection sign required by the State of California. Commissioner Iiindig questioned the necessity for the illumination of projecting Sign B. Mr. Douglas indicated he had no positive feelings about it, and would not illuminate if there were objections. Commissioner Jacobs approved of the appearance However, she considered that color designs were giving the example of Bob's on Broadway. Commissioner Kindig received confirmation that had already been approved. He then moved that approve permit for the 90 SF wall sign and the with the understanding that the projecting sign Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it roll call vote. of the building. a part of signage, the signage on the awnings the Planning Commission 8 SF projecting sign, is not to be lighted. carried on unanimous Commissioner Kindig commented that the building owner should be present on all sign hearings so that he would be aware of conditions. t/ SB. PETITION TO PERMIT A FENCE MORE THAN 6 FT. IN HEIGHT AT 100 C.ALIFORNIA DRIVE FOR DICK BULLIS CHEVROLET. At the onset of this hearing, Chairman Sine announced he did not choose � to participate for personal reasons and would abstain from voting. For this application he turned over the Chairnianship to Vice-Chairman Taylor. Before leaving the �hair he suggested that the Commiss�on give special consideration to the high amperage of lighting for this project; and the possible necessity for a parcel map. Chairman Taylor introduced this application for hearing and requested report from Assistant City Planner Yost. The Assistant City Planner explained plans for this proposed development at California and i-ioward. For this large area Mr. Bullis proposes two new units. The front portion of the site facing California Drive, for a depth of 55', woul'd be devoted to new and used car sales. The rear portion is to be a storage area for more than 120 new cars. Hence there is a real concern for security. A security fence is proposed which would be 8'8" high and would divide the two areas. (Ed. This fence would be 295' in length extending from new sales office to existing buildings, and including a 20' gate.) This fence incorporates alternate sections of concrete block and wood. The Assistant City Planner then read letter of application dated October 23, 1975 from Richard S. Bulli�s which points out the necessi.ty for protection of inventory and that a 6' high wall would not offer sufficient security. Assistant City Planner Yost noted tY�e point raised on the lighting of the project and verified that a very high level of illumination was proposed. However, he commented that does not pertain to the present application. In reply to ques�ion from Commissioner Kindig, he affirmed there would be.nothing on i:op of the security wall and total height is to be 8'6". Commissioner Jacobs questioned the need ior high illumination if such a high wall were used for security. Mr. Cliff Harding, architect for Mr. Richard Bullis, was given per- mission to address the Commission. He explained that a 6'-7' fence is not high enough to prevent people from scaling .it. He pointed out the attractiv� design of the wall was intended to lessen its impact along its 250' length along California Drive. He added that in place of the wall a flat roof structure could have been erected and no permit would have been necessary. He noted that the wall is to protect a $1,000,000 inventory, and added there will be a fence on the SP property line. In reply to questions from Commissioner Taylor he affirmed that this fence will not abut any street and that there is a 40' setback on Howard. The surface of the sales area along California Drive will be concrete. Commissioner Mink questioned the fence on the SP property line. Mr. Harding stated this will be an 8' chain link fence with 1' of barbed wire on top of it for total security. This fence cannot be seen from California Drive. It was his understanding that an 8' fence was permitted in industrial areas and the Bullis property is related to the industrial property behind it. Commissioner Jacobs suggested the view of this project from California Drive would not be pleasing. Mr. Harding cited the extra space created by Mr. Bullis' razing the buildings previously there and the lesser coverage of his proposed development. Commissioner Jacobs questioned how many lots were involved. The City Planner reported no plot map had been submitted. Mr. Harding reported that � �� in ef�ect this was one piece of property, since Mr. Bullis owned the prOperty on $�yswater and California, owne� the property on the north of the site and had an eight-year lease �n the property in th� middle of the site. Mr. Harding stated the owner of this middle portion could not sell for seven years because of a tax problem. Commissianer Kindig questioned security on the front sales lot. Mr. Harding explained that the concrete slopes back about Z' from the front and there is a 6" curb. Tf a thief attempted to drive a car over it, the front wheels would hang up on i�. In reply to a question from �ommissioner Taylor, Mr. Harding suggested �he wall was attractive enou�h not to need screening. Mr. Harding then detailed justi�ication of the lighting load of 600 amperes, which includes lighting for future si_gns and for security purposes. He noted that the sign program v:ould be brought before the Planning Commission at a later date, �nd there was Commission comment that the lighting would be considered at that time. Commissioner Jacobs questioned security on the back of the lot, and Mr. Harding pointed out vis�bility of �the lot through the chain link fence. Commissioner Mink commended Mr. Bullis and Mr. Harding for a well- organized plan which appeared to be sensitive to the amenities of the area. However, he stated he was concerneG with the future lighting � and suggested Mr. Harding present profiles for this. Mr. Harding agreed. � Mr, Richard Bullis told Commissioners he approved Mr. Harding's woxk and considered the result would be an attractive si�eM He stated he would repaint his old building. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink stated he considered this met the variance requirements of exceptional circumstances, no public hazard, no damage to neighbor- ing properties such as the SP and hardship requirements as to wall height. He moved that the petition for a f�nce constructed in general conformity with the blue line plans submitted in their entirety be approved. Commissioner Francard questioned if this motion covered the fence only, and was informed it would. Commissioner Norberg seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRAI�ARD, ,KINDIG,MINK,NORBERG,TAYLOR NAYE S: COMMISSIONE RS: JACOBS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: SINE RECONVENE After a short recess at 9:30 P. M. the meeting reconvened. , ` ' < , � /o/a�/�s �,� '�' � � S' l3 . . �� , ��.;,�,�.,� � � I � ; `/ ; � �� � � � � i' .:--=-=--_�_ _r- .. - _ � _...._.. . . __ __ _ � �p�gytI.L7i����1Ei— -- ... �;w �� , � � � � ` PHONE 344-7611 � -- �I ; �I������ "��'���I:ll��l��n' 100 CALIFORNIA DRIVE • BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 94010 (�ctol�er 2�, 1975 : .--- - -:.� � �� � � n �'� � �' ,.x t::w GC i ;. w i;��� f3urlin�;ar.�e Plannin� Comr:�ission Citv Flall l�urlingame, California ci�r c- c�.,r�!..;;;��,��M FUt:,�r��NG Ul.F''P. Gentlemen: i`Je request a modification on the height related to our security wall. iiy necessity to eliminate pilferaRc ancl theft this �rall neecls to be o feet hi�h plus a minor construction deta.il. 'I'he wall �oill appear to l�e 8ft �in in heifiht includir�g the architectural cletail. This wall is constructecl in ttie r�idcile of otir property aiid defines separation of autor�otive services. Tliis detail has previously been ��resented to staff and is currentl�- sulimitted for building permit. T3iis is a peculiar condition as a re�uirement of the atitonotivc inclustry il� orcler to maintain security anci control �aliich is not ��ossible t�ith � 6ft ��rotection. This is an architectural c�t'S1L71 �aall and not fencc as clefinition. I,es f�ectful ly, rsb•jfl � .,. �1' ��. � ;J.�} :� �; < f �/F, � UIC}: i3LiLLIS CIiF.VP(1LF:T � G',� /i /� sL� �Di P.i hard �. L'ullis, President MORE PEOPLE BUY �F � n n OF t� THAN ANY OTHER CAR!