Document Sample
					                     LARKSPUR PLANNING COMMISSION
                   MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009

The Larkspur Planning Commission was convened at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers by
Chair McCluney.

Commissioners Present:      Chair Chris McCluney, Monte Deignan,
                            Helen Heitkamp, Jeff Stahl, Richard Young

Staff Present:              Nancy Kaufman, Planning Director
                            Neal Toft, Senior Planner


There were none.

 The City Council’s November 4th agenda will include a presentation by San Rafael’s
  Community Development Director on BERST’s (Building Energy Retrofit and Solar
  Transformation) recommendations for strengthening Green Building Ordinances.
  Recommendations include requiring higher points and higher efficiency standards.
 She noted the schedule for the Doherty Drive Bridge, Bon Air Bridge, and Alexander Bridge
  was on the white board in the Council Chambers.

Chair McCluney asked if BERST was recommending adoption of countywide standards.
Planning Director Kaufman stated the idea was to develop a basic framework hoping that each
community would adopt the same, but that each community would adopt their own ordinance
and standards.


There were no Consent Calendar items.


1. GP/RZ/DR/CAP/V/HTR/EXC/CUP 07-66: 800 Magnolia Avenue (APN 20-121-15).
   Pacific Design Group, applicants/Dennis Gilardi, property owner. Requested project
   (1) General Plan Amendment (GPA) to amend the General Plan Land Use map to re-
       designate the site from Administrative & Professional Offices (A-P) to Restricted
       Commercial (C-1);

                         LARKSPUR PLANNING COMMISSION
                          MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009
   (2) Rezoning (RZ) to rezone the site from the A-P to the C-1 Zoning District to permit
       conversion of an existing office building to a retail hardware store use, which is a
       permitted use in the C-1 Zoning District;
   (3) Design Review (DR) for site and building alterations, including the addition of 490
       sq. ft. to the existing building, two loading access areas, and new rooftop mechanical
       equipments and enclosures;
   (4) Circulation Assessment Permit (CAP) to increase trip generation by more than 10
       P.M. peak hour trips;
   (5) Variance (V) to LMC Section 18.56 to provide only 32 parking spaces where 38
       parking spaces are required for the proposed hardware store use; and
   (6) Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove one heritage-size pine tree
   (7) Exception Permit (EXC) to modify and enclose a non-conforming carport structure
       located approximately 18 inches within a 20-foot rear setback from the A-P Zone.

The Planning Commission continued this item from the September 22, 2009 meeting to October
27, 2009 to allow staff time to draft findings of approval for the CEQA Alternative No. 3:

A-P Zoning Text Change (Alternative No. 3): No General Plan Amendment and
Rezoning of the site. All other above requested project approvals, plus Amendment to the
Administrative and Professional Office (A-P) Zoning District Regulations (LMC Sections
18.40) to allow retail or service businesses that are primarily neighborhood
serving and determined to be compatible with administrative and professional offices,
subject to approval of a conditional use permit. This would exclude restaurants, retail
food services, grocery stores, and supermarkets and would not be permitted on
properties that abut residentially zoned or developed properties. Where the property is
within 50 feet of a residentially zoned or developed property, open hours of operation
could not begin 8:00 a.m. or end after 6:00 p.m.

Also, the applicant has revised the application to include the following additional request,
contingent upon approval of the above noted zoning text change:

(8) Conditional Use Permit to allow a hardware store within the A-P District consistent
    with and conditioned upon a change to A-P District allowing limited retail or service
    businesses within the District.

Senior Planner Toft presented the staff report. He stated there was two items of late mail.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked if it was possible to amend the language in Alternative #3.
Planning Director Kaufman stated “yes, as long as it did not affect the environmental review”.
Commissioner Heitkamp asked about the findings. Planning Director Kaufman stated there were
certain findings that have to be made but the Commission could amend the wording.

                         LARKSPUR PLANNING COMMISSION
                          MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009
Commissioner Heitkamp referred to the proposed text amendment, the last sentence, and stated
she was not sure whether the reference to the property being located 50’ of a residential zone
meant the property line or the buildings. Planning Director Kaufman stated it refers to the
property line, which in this case is about 40’ from the residential area; the building is further
away. Senior Planner Toft noted the 50’ distance affects only the hours of operation. No
commercial uses would be permitted for sites that abut residential properties.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked if there were other retail commercial uses in the immediate
neighborhood, noting there was there was a drug store in one of the buildings. Senior Planner
Toft believed there is a pharmacy at 2 Bon Air Road, accessory to the other medical offices in
that building. Commissioner Heitkamp asked if approval of the amendment would also apply to
the north end of Hillview as the parcel to the north is also zoned A-P. Planning Director
Kaufman stated that she thought the area was zoned C-1, but if it were A-P it would not be
changed with the text amendment if it abuts the residential district.

Commissioner Stahl asked why the applicant did not submit a proposal for signage. Senior
Planner Toft stated the applicant would return with a plan for signage at a later date. Planning
Director Kaufman stated the signage plan would be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator if it
conformed to code.

Chair McCluney asked if the landscape plan included the removal of all the Magnolia trees.
Senior Planner Toft stated the applicant could better respond to that question but he thought
some were to be preserved.

Chair McCluney opened the Public Hearing.

Mr. Ed Blankenship, Pacific Design Group, made the following comments:
 He thanked the Planning staff for being so accommodating with the late submittal of the
   revised landscape plans.
 He thanked the neighborhood for sending representatives to a recent meeting. It was
   extremely productive.
 The Hillview representatives brought up a lot of great points and they have made a lot of
 He referred to the fencing plan and noted the hardware store has a need for security. There is
   also a need to shield the property in terms of light, noise, and privacy.
 He pointed to the screening fence in the back- a 6’ solid fence with a 2’ lattice on the top.
   This same approach is taken with the two enclosed areas.
 He referred to the issue of light spillage and stated the lights would be shielded and
   controlled with a timer.
 The areas of activity (loading, etc.) would be shielded with landscaping as much as possible.
 They would be submitting a signage plan in the near future, but just hadn’t got to that point.

                          LARKSPUR PLANNING COMMISSION
                           MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009
   They have been able to address almost all of the neighbors’ concerns except the idea of
    having a U-turn on Magnolia Avenue in order to access the driveway. This is something that
    would need to be addressed by the Public Works Department.
   Many of the residents are concerned about traffic circulation on the weekends and they have
    tried to address this issue. The neighbors would like bollards placed to prevent traffic
    circulating around 5 Bon Air on the weekends. He noted the lanes needed to be open for
    emergency vehicle access, and it is not on their property.

Commissioner Stahl asked if the public would be going into the fenced-in enclosed area in the
back. Mr. Blankenship pointed out the loading area in the back that would be closed to the
public. He pointed out enclosed areas to the west and northwest that would be open to the public
and would include certain outdoor products such as PVC pipes, etc. He pointed out an area
where they have proposed a rolling gate rather than swinging gates to not interfere with the
parking space.

Commissioner Stahl referred to the driveway light standard section and elevation and asked how
they would coordinate the light pole that was on the 5 Bon Air property. Mr. Blankenship
pointed to the two light standards that were most concerning to the neighbors and stated the
controller for these lights is in their building. The owner of 5 Bon Air has no problem with them
adjusting those lights. Commissioner Stahl asked if they could add a shroud to shield light from
the residential area. Mr. Blankenship stated “yes”.

Commissioner Stahl asked about the proposed sustainable design strategies for the hardware
store. Mr. Blankenship stated that the building already had solar panels and they would attempt
to bring the lighting up to a more efficient level. They plan to update the extremely outdated
mechanical/electrical system.. They would not be changing any of the insulation or the roofing.
Commissioner Stahl noted the glazing was darkly tinted. Mr. Blankenship agreed but stated
there have not been any plans to change it.

Mr. Peter Peterson, landscape architect, made the following comments:
 The approach to the project has been one of context. They have borrowed some of the design
   elements from the Bon Air median, the inside plaza of 5 Bon Air, and the perimeter of the
 There are four reasonably health Magnolia trees and they plan to interplant those with a
   similar species.
 They are installing a drip irrigation system.
 The palette is grasses, perennials, and low water usage shrubs.
 They are planning an organized grouping of plants to achieve a tidy appearance.
 He pointed out the location of the proposed Crepe Myrtles and the existing Olive tree.
 The backside of the fencing facing the Hillview neighbors will include an espaliered of
   lavender starflower that can be maintained against the vertical Redwood fence.

                         LARKSPUR PLANNING COMMISSION
                          MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009
   They submitted plans for the bike paths and light fixtures.

Ms. Kristin Heathwood, Harvard Drive, made the following comments
 She thanked the applicants for the meeting- it was long overdue.
 There are several issues that still need to be addressed- public safety and traffic.
 The site is “in her backyard” and they live and breathe the site.
 This is a chaotic site both on and off site.
 The EIR stated the project would result in an increase of 280 daily car trips.
 She was concerned that cars could not make a U-turn on Magnolia and would make a left
   onto Bon Air. Access to the site is problematic from Bon Air and cars tend to park illegally
   on the adjacent property.
 They bought their homes aware of the weekday traffic but not weekend traffic.
 Kids from the neighborhood use the property as a thoroughfare on their bikes.

Mr. Erik Lundberg, Harvard Drive, made the following comments:
 He displayed some photographs of the site.
 At the prior meeting there were 18 findings cited by the Planning Department showing how
   the project goes against the General Plan in terms of safety, noise, etc.
 The small slice of property in the back that is owned by the adjacent property owner seems
   like a “loophole”.
 He questioned whether or not this could be considered “spot zoning”.
 All the commercial businesses in the area have failed.
 This is a very difficult intersection.
 The EIR and traffic study incorrectly assumed that the traffic would enter and exit from
   Magnolia Avenue.
 He pointed to the photographs and noted there was a lot of illegal parking on the site and 5
   Bon Air, which impedes the flow of traffic.
 Car headlights would shine into his kitchen and living room.
 To approve this project the Commission has to find that it complies with Larkspur Municipal
   Code Section 18.76.050 and that it would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare
   of persons or property in the neighborhood.
 He would like to see some revisions to the conditional use permit including a condition that
   would allow only one large delivery truck per week.
 He was opposed to the condition that would allow outdoor activities between 7:00 a.m. to
   10:00 p.m., seven days a week.
 They are currently woken up on Saturday mornings by garbage pickups. He would be
   opposed to any garbage pickups on Sunday.
 He was opposed to the proposed hours of operation, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., for Sundays. He
   would prefer the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Ms. Karen Leslie, Tulane Avenue, made the following comments:
                        LARKSPUR PLANNING COMMISSION
                          MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009
    Her property abuts the backside of the project.
   She asked for clarification about the extension of the building and any external outdoor
    spaces. Mr. Blankenship stated the building would be extended to enclose the drive thru
    area. She was concerned that there would be more commercial activities closer to her home.
   She agreed with the comments and concerns expressed by her neighbors.

Mr. James Holmes, Madrone Avenue, made the following comments:
 He referred to page 3 of the staff report, and suggested the following change under
   “Discussion on text amendment”; “G. Retail or service businesses….. and grocery stores….”.
 He stated the following should be added to these exemptions: “Saloons, dance halls, theaters,
   and establishments offering amplified music of any type”. They should also exempt any
   alcohol serving businesses.
 He referred to the heritage tree removal permit and stated every effort should be made to save
   the pine tree, which the applicant had indicated had only needed to be trimmed.

Planning Director Kaufman noted that the letter from the truck driver stated the pine had to be
removed, so there was a conflict in the record in regard to the presentation. Perhaps the applicant
to clarify the issue related to the tree.

Mr. Blankenship made the following comments:
 The proposed hours of operation, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. were acceptable.
 One delivery truck per week was acceptable.
 The truck driver originally thought he could make his delivery if the pine tree were pruned.
   However, an arborist states that the necessary amount of pruning would probably kill the
   tree. Removal of the pine allows them to rethink the entire staircase and lower area. They
   could provide better access to the east parking area and a single crosswalk to the intersection.
   The removal would open up a lot of light to the storefront.
 There would not be any garbage pick up on Sunday.
 They would be willing to reduce the outdoor activity hours of operation.

Mr. Peterson made the following comment:
 Where they are fencing, they are not enlarging the building.

Commissioner Stahl asked if they would need to conform to Title 24. Mr. Peterson stated “yes”,
along with ADA and all other current codes.

Chair McCluney had questions about the locations of the parking on 5 Bon Air as shown
photographs. Mr. Blankenship said that they would paint their outside curb red to avoid
obstruction of the driveway as was happening at 5 Bon Air.

                          LARKSPUR PLANNING COMMISSION
                           MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009
Commissioner Stahl referred to the materials that would be stored in the exterior fenced-in area
and if there would be any security lighting. Mr. Blankenship pointed out the locations of the
security lights. Commissioner Stahl asked if they would be motion activated. Mr. Blankenship
stated they would be on a timer.

Mr. Lundgren made the following comment:
 The Bon Air Bridge project would start soon and would affect traffic and circulation on the
 There is a lot of traffic at messy intersection between the 5 Bon Air and 32 Bon Air

Ms. Leslie made the following comment:
 She asked about the activities that would occur in the exterior areas. Mr. Blankenship stated
   this outdoor area would include the sale of PVC and drain pipes, soil, chicken wire, garden
   supplies, etc. The area would be fenced. Planning Director Kaufman stated there seemed to
   be three outdoor areas. It was unclear how much of these areas would be taken up by these
   materials. From a staff perspective it would be very difficult to dictate what can be stored,
   etc. Mr. Blankenship stated these were not high activity areas.

Senior Planner Toft referred to the request for a U-turn on Magnolia Avenue and stated the EIR
is based on maintaining the existing circulation patterns and assumes that customers would come
from different directions. Early on he had inquired in the process about the U-turn and did not
get a positive response. This was looked at again more carefully with the traffic consultant and
City Engineer and they are of the opinion that it could be converted to a U-turn, with the
adjustment of some signage.

Chair McCluney closed the Public Hearing.

Commissioner Heitkamp provided the following comments:
 She has been struggling with this project.
 The Commission does not have the flexibility to make decisions on what they would prefer-
  they have to refer to the findings in the ordinances and the General Plan.
 She stated there were legal, physical, and safety problems.
 The EIR cited land use, traffic circulation, and noise as the main unavoidable impacts.
 She had hoped that Alternative #3 would have solved these impacts.
 She stated she had a problem with the following language in Alternative #3: “. that are
  primarily neighborhood serving (i.e. generally accessed by bicycle or foot…”. She noted that
  Ace Hardware was a regional store and customers come from a wider range than two miles.
 Contractor pickup trucks would be coming to the store along with the large delivery vehicle.
 Corbet’s Hardware does not meet the language in Alternative #3.
 The use of this building is too large for the site.

                         LARKSPUR PLANNING COMMISSION
                          MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009
   She has a problem with the parking variance and thinks it is a self-created hardship.
   The circulation and profile of the customer base is very different from those of the adjacent
    medical building. There is a definite conflict.
   The ingress and egress to the property if very difficult. She has concerns about safety and
    negotiating access to the property.
   She would like to see some amendments to Alternative #3.

Commissioner Young provided the following comments:
 He was initially concerned about the truck access but thinks it has been demonstrated that the
  large truck movement would work.
 He referred to the parking and noted there were fewer spaces at the existing Corbet’s site.
 The building is a bit smaller than the existing one and he does not have a problem with the
  proposed size.
 He agreed with Commissioner Heitkamp’s comments about the language in Alternative #3.
 He is satisfied with the effort the applicant has made with regard to the mechanical solution.
  It would provide some noise mitigation and remove the unsightly “bump” on the roof.
 He is pleased with the proposed screening.
 He is pleased with the proposal to add twenty-four additional trees.
 The lighting plan and shielding adjacent to the Hillview neighborhood was a good solution.
 The proposed modification of the curb seemed workable.
 He is happy that they would be adhering to Title 24 and ADA requirements

Commissioner Deignan provided the following comments:
 He is pleased with the progress that has been made.
 Alternative #3 seems to be appropriate given the particular use and application. He pointed
  out the customer base, the amount of traffic, and the restricted parking at the current location.
 The applicant should not be penalized for the parking and circulation problems that occur on
  the adjacent property.
 This is as close as it can get to addressing the neighbor’s concerns.
 He could approve the project.

Commissioner Stahl provided the following comments:
 He was absent at the September 22nd Commission meeting but he read the minutes and
  listened to the recording of the meeting.
 He stated the Commission is being asked, among other things, to recommend approval of the
  EIR to the Council. He was of the opinion that the EIR was prepared adequately.
 The EIR did raise some issues in terms of significant and unavoidable impacts.
 The issue regarding land use is important. This situation is analogous to the zoning overlay
  created a few years ago to allow retail over commercial.
 There is a benefit, from a land use standpoint, in creating mixed-use environments and
  supporting thriving communities and downtown areas. Retail is a part of that.
                         LARKSPUR PLANNING COMMISSION
                           MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009
   This is not “spot zoning” because it is an “overlay” to all A-P parcels in town.
   He is supportive of the change from a land use standpoint.
   Traffic is a concern, but any amount of traffic would be greater than what currently exists
    since this is a “dead use”.
   He is not sure the proposed use is the worse traffic generator in terms of impacts to the
    community and residential neighborhood.
   He supports the idea of a U-turn at Magnolia Avenue. This would be a good use of the CAP
    fees for the project.
   He takes the traffic issues to heart and stated anything that could be done to improve safety
    would be a plus.
   He is satisfied that the large truck issue would not be a concern. This has been thoughtfully
    and carefully addressed by the applicant.
   The language in the proposed text amendment was concerning and Mr. Holmes raised a good
    point about being more specific about beverage service or similar types of uses.
   He discussed different wording regarding whether or not the property could abut residentially
    zoned property.
   He could make the findings for the CAP, the variance, the exception permit, and the heritage
    tree permit.
   This comes down to design review.
   He is troubled by the dark glass in what is supposed to be a more animated retail
   They should replace a significant portion, if not all, of the glazing with clear, high
    performance glass.

Chair McCluney provided the following comments:
 He appreciates the landscape plan, the proposed tree replacement plan, and the lighting plan.
 He had hoped they could save the pine tree but felt the argument for its removal made sense.
 The experts have addressed the issue regarding traffic safety and the EIR indicated that the
   only issue that could be brought to a less than significant level was the drift of the truck
   across the lanes. This happens everywhere. He is satisfied with this piece of the component.
 He referred to the parking issue and agreed with Commissioner Young that there is less
   parking at the existing Corbet’s site.
 The change to the mechanical structure is good.
 He thought the idea of a U-turn was a good one.
 He agreed that this was not “spot zoning”.
 The applicants have said that there would only be one big truck per week. This should be
   included in the conditions.
 Any use allowed under Alternative #3 would be subject to a conditional use permit so he is
   not worried about dance halls, etc.
 He could approve the heritage tree permit and make the findings for the other applications.
 He would like to tighten the wording on the text amendment language.
                          LARKSPUR PLANNING COMMISSION
                            MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009
   He asked staff to explain the sequencing issues for this project.

Planning Director Kaufman stated the first thing the Commission needs to do is state they have
reviewed and considered the CEQA findings and that the EIR is adequate under CEQA. The
Commission would need to recommend it to the City Council. Then they should discuss the
zoning text change that they are proposing as an alternative to the requested General Plan
amendment and rezoning. They are also providing findings for that alternative in lieu of the
General Plan amendment and the rezoning. The Commission should then discuss some of the
design issues and go through the use permit and the conditions of approval as recommended by
the neighborhood and the representative of Warham Properties.

M/s, Stahl/Deignan motioned and the Commission voted 5-0 to recommend to the City Council
that the EIR is adequate pursuant to State and local regulations.

Planning Director Kaufman referred to Alternative #3 and clarified that the wording states that
the property cannot “abut” residential land; it does not say the property has to be 50 feet away,
but adds operating conditions if the property is within 50’ of residential lands. Staff prefers that
this be based on property lines and not buildings. It was written for uses that are primarily
neighborhood serving but it does not say that it has to be entirely neighborhood serving. The
word “neighborhood” could be changed to “community”. The intention was to limit uses but she
would not like to be too inclusive in the list or exemptions.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked whether this would set a precedent for the A-P zone north of
Hillview as well. Staff clarified that the area north of Hillview was zoned C-1.

Chair McCluney stated staff seems to think that the wording in Alternative #3 is adequate and
flexible. He agrees.

M/s, Deignan/Young motioned and the Commission voted 5-0 to accept Alternative #3, in lieu of
the requested General Plan amendment and rezoning, subject to the findings in the staff report
and with the following amendments: “Retail or service businesses… grocery stores or
supermarkets that are primarily community serving… The property on which………. abut
residentially zoned or developed properties. Where the property……”.

Chair McCluney asked about the purpose of the sliding gate at the back of the property. Mr.
Blankenship stated it provided flexibility. Commissioner Deignan stated the sliding gate was
reasonable. Planning Director Kaufman referring to the figures in the Draft EIR stated this was
never shown as a gate and she was concerned that it could be used for loading or unloading. The
idea has been to control the impacts to the neighborhood as much as possible. Commissioner
Stahl stated he would prefer a fixed fence and not sliding doors. Loading and unloading was not
supposed to happen on that side of the property. The other Commissioners concurred.

                          LARKSPUR PLANNING COMMISSION
                           MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009
Chair McCluney asked for comments about the dark vs. clear glass. Commissioner Young asked
if the storefront had glass and he thought it was solid walls. Commissioner Heitkamp stated half
of the front is covered in glass. Commissioner Young stated most home improvement stores
(Home Depot, etc.) do not have windows. Commissioner Stahl stated this was a 1970’s era
building that is being updated and clear glass is more consistent with a retail use. Mr.
Blankenship stated some of the panels have been changed to clear. This is a dark building. The
issue might disappear when they get activity in the building. Mr. Dennis Gilardi, property
owner, stated the entire front of the building was a solid wall and a number of years ago they cut
in rectangle windows on the bottom and triangle shaped windows on the top. They are all clear
glass. Planning Director Kaufman noted there was a large overhang in the front of the building.
Chair McCluney stated he was not too concerned about this issue. Commissioner Deignan

Chair McCluney asked for comments about Mr. Barlow’s letter. He noted most of the items
have been addressed.

Senior Planner Toft stated the applicants have control over the timers for the lights and he asked
if they would be on all night for security. Mr. Blankenship stated the tall lights are on a timer
and would be on during the time of operations and go off about an hour after closing, no later
than 8 p.m. Mr. Blankenship noted that the downlights on the building would stay on for
security. Senior Planner Toft asked if this should be a condition of approval. Chair McCluney
stated “yes”.

Mr. Lundgren made the following comment:
 He was concerned that the delivery truck route was tricky and he wanted to make sure it
   would not block traffic.
 He stated there was a flag person issue, two vs. three, etc.

Chair McCluney stated the conditions of approval address these issues. Senior Planner Toft
stated they tried to identify measures that would reduce obstruction of that turning lane during
the delivery. Mr. Blankenship stated they plan to have people that could supervise the parking
lot activities during the delivery. Commissioner Stahl referred to Attachment #2, Corbet’s
Hardware Conditions of Approval, condition #40 regarding the delay of a delivery and stated it
was an enforcement problem. Planning Director Kaufman stated the intent is to discourage
deliveries in locations other than the designated area; if the truck comes after cars are parked in
the spaces there is no where else for the truck to unload except on the other property or from the
street. Chair McCluney stated there should be some room for flexibility. Commissioner Young
stated there is a condition for signage and a flagman and this should be sufficient. Planning
Director Kaufman suggested the following language for condition #40: “There shall be no large
truck deliveries in any location except for that approved in the plans”. The Commission
supported this change.

                          LARKSPUR PLANNING COMMISSION
                           MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009
Planning Director Kaufman summarized the changes to the conditions: 1) condition #32, the
second bullet, a phrase shall be added that there would be only one large truck delivery permitted
per week; 2) condition #32, the third bullet, the hours shall be changed to 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.;
3) condition #36, a phrase shall be added that no garbage or recycling pick ups shall occur on
Sunday; 4) condition #40, shall be modified to read that no large truck deliveries shall occur in
any location except that shown on the approved plans; 5) the addition of condition #42:
“Operating hours shall be limited, including outside activities, to 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on

Mr. Gary Ragghianti, attorney for the property owner, made the following comments:
 He referred to the condition #32, third bullet, and stated that it seemed to be identical to
   condition #37. He opposed the idea of it being a deed restriction.

Planning Director Kaufman stated conditions #36 and #37 are deed restrictions and reflect the
essence of some of the issues of whether or not to allow the use. All future uses would need to
abide by these conditions. Senior Planner Toft stated the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Noise
1A, of the EIR, indicated a limitation on the hours for outdoor activities from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m. In addition there shall be no loading or unloading of trucks on the west side of the property.
Planning Director Kaufman stated they might want to add wording to the deed restrictions that
they apply to uses that would fall under the new zoning text change and not restrict anything that
is allowed under the A-P Zoning. The deed restricted conditions listed are intended to be generic
and not just for the Corbet’s Hardware. Commissioner Stahl stated this was intended to “kick it
up a notch”. Planning Director Kaufman stated these conditions run with the land even if the use
changed from a hardware store to some other kind of retail use. Commissioner Stahl stated the
restrictions would not apply if the use changed to a bank. Planning Director Kaufman agreed.

Commissioner Stahl suggested deleting condition #37 since it duplicates condition #32. The
Commission agreed.

Planning Director Kaufman stated she would discuss the issue about a U-turn on Magnolia
Avenue with the Public Works Department.

M/s, Stahl/Young motioned and the Commission voted 4-1 (Heitkamp voted no) to recommend
approval of Attachment #1, Findings for Corbet’s Hardware Project for the requested permits

Commissioner Heitkamp stated the scale of the building and the circulation would be detrimental
to the adjacent neighborhood and the proposal did not conform to the General Plan.

M/s, Stahl/Young motioned and the Commission voted 4-1 (Heitkamp voted no) to recommend
that the draft Zoning Ordinance text amendment be sent to the Council with the amended
                          LARKSPUR PLANNING COMMISSION
                           MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009
M/s, Stahl/Deignan motioned and the Commission voted 4-1 (Heitkamp voted no) to recommend
that the Conditional Use Permit for Corbet’s Hardware be approved subject to the amended

Planning Director Kaufman stated the application is tentatively scheduled for the November 18th
City Council meeting.


1. Commissioner’s Reports

There were no reports.

2. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of September 8, 2009

M/s, Heitkamp/Young motioned and the Commission voted 4-0 (Deignan abstained) to approve
the minutes of the October 13, 2009 meeting as corrected.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Toni DeFrancis
Recording Secretary

                          LARKSPUR PLANNING COMMISSION
                           MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009

Shared By: