Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues Magnolia Avenue design review; parking variance to be noticed and heritage-tree removal debated
Summary
The Planning Commission praised the design for 223 Magnolia Avenue but continued the item to July 22 so staff can notice a required parking variance; the application includes conversion of a garage to an ADU, a setback variance, and proposed removal of two heritage trees (one cedar the arborist flagged as high-risk and one grapefruit the applicant and some neighbors contested).
The Planning Commission on July 8 reviewed a design‑review and variance application for 223 Magnolia Avenue (PLN25‑006) and continued the matter to the commission's July 22 meeting so staff can properly notice a required parking variance.
Staff said the project proposes rear additions, conversion of a garage to an ADU, a front-yard setback variance and the removal of two large trees: a 66‑inch circumference cedar the arborist identified as a high risk of failure and a healthy but unmaintained 50‑inch grapefruit tree the arborist described as a nuisance that impinges on a retaining wall. The property is on the historic-resources inventory; the Heritage Preservation Board forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval subject to several conditions.
An un‑noticed parking variance was discovered during the staff presentation: converting the garage to an ADU would leave the property one guest space short of Larkspur’s parking standard. Staff recommended continuing the application to allow proper public notice and to return with findings for the parking variance.
Applicant representatives (architect Nolan and the owner) described neighbor outreach, said the ADU would be used for family visitors, and asked for flexibility on the trellis and access given site conditions. The owner confirmed the existing front fence sits partially on city property and said an encroachment permit would be sought.
Zoom commenter James Holmes argued against removing the grapefruit tree, saying, "There is no legal or rational basis to remove the grapefruit tree under the heritage tree ordinance," and urged retention. Some commissioners said the cedar posed a valid safety concern and supported removal; others expressed sympathy for saving the grapefruit, citing its prominence in the street view.
Because the parking variance had not been noticed, the commission unanimously voted to continue the project to July 22 so staff could notice the parking variance, return with required findings, and provide any further documentation on tree removal and encroachment permits.
Next steps: staff will prepare notice for the parking variance, compile any additional letters and arborist documentation for the July 22 hearing, and the commission will re-open the hearing on that date.
