Larkspur planning panel approves variances to legalize 15 Hazel Avenue as single‑family home

The Larkspur Planning Commission on Jan. 28 approved an application to legalize an existing accessory structure at 15 Hazel Avenue as a single‑family residence, granting design review, a parking variance to allow no on‑site parking, a front‑setback variance for a new 277‑square‑foot front deck, and a natural‑state variance.

The approval matters because the property has been used intermittently as a home and was developed without permits at points in its history; the commission’s decision lets the current owner pursue building permits to bring the structure into compliance while preserving limits on future expansion. Staff had recommended approval with conditions, including removal of identified fire‑hazard plants near the street if required by the fire department and a condition that the parking variance be limited to the current three‑bedroom scope.

Staff planner Elise (staff) told commissioners the lot is a separate legal parcel and that the structure at 15 Hazel began life as an accessory art studio for the adjacent lot at 24 Laurel. She said the current owner seeks to legalize interior work done without permits, add a small front deck and relocate the main entrance, and that the steep site and an exclusive easement held by 24 Laurel effectively prevent construction of an on‑site driveway or garage. In explaining the parking variance request, staff noted the unusually wide public right‑of‑way and plentiful on‑street parking at the site.

Owner Jeff Greenberg told the commission he bought the property from the bank after a period of rental and intends to repair work and bring utilities and electrical work up to code. "My goal is to bring the house to code and remove all the existing issues," Greenberg said, and he described the difficulty and expense of trying to create a workable on‑site garage because of grade and the intervening strip of privately owned land between the house and the roadway.

Commission discussion focused on the practicality of on‑site parking versus available street parking and on precedent. Commissioners said the steep grade and ownership of the strip between the house and street make on‑site parking impracticable. Commissioner Hult noted that the approval should include staff’s condition limiting the variance to a three‑bedroom residence and that any future demolition or major addition would require re‑examination of parking.

A motion to approve PLN 24‑062 carried unanimously in roll call. Conditions of approval include changes to condition 29 to allow removal of specified bay trees and acacias if required by the fire department, and a requirement that fines and any unpaid penalties recorded against the property be addressed before building permits are issued or be considered by the city council if the owner seeks a waiver. The commission also noted a 10‑day appeal period.

The approval permits the owner to proceed with formal building permits to legalize the interior remodel and limited exterior work; any future demolition or substantial addition would require return to the Planning Commission and reevaluation of parking requirements.

Votes and next steps: the motion passed unanimously; the decision is subject to the city’s standard 10‑day appeal period and the owner must obtain the necessary building permits and comply with conditions before final permits are issued.