Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board continues review of 1 Burrell Court addition, requests more sections and reduced massing
Summary
The Tiburon Design Review Board continued at least two variance requests and a floor-area exception for a proposed addition at 1 Burrell Court, asking the applicant for additional cross sections and reductions in height and massing before returning the item.
The Tiburon Design Review Board voted 3-0, with two members absent, to continue consideration of an application for an addition at 1 Burrell Court and requested more detailed drawings and design changes before taking final action.
Applicant Daniel Vargas of AKD Homes presented the design-builder’s proposal, which would enlarge the main house and required two variances — a front-yard setback variance and a lot-coverage variance — plus a floor-area-ratio (FAR) exception. Designer Janelle (surname not provided) clarified plan details during the hearing and described the pink and yellow areas on the plans as the proposed additions extending into the front setback area. Vargas said the homeowners are modernizing the property and seeking more gathering space for family use.
Board members questioned the project’s bulk, height and visual impact from the rear and corner exposures. Several members said the structure’s massing and ceiling heights felt “too tall” and that they could not yet make the factual findings needed for the lot-coverage variance and the FAR exception. One board member said the front-yard setback variance relates to an existing nonconforming condition and that they could likely make the findings for that variance, but not yet for lot coverage or the FAR exception.
Specific information the board requested before further consideration included: - Cross sections through the house showing existing and proposed grades and the back elevation relative to natural grade; the board said topography data and sections are required to assess whether the structure’s rear elevation exceeds height limits when compared with existing grade. - Plans that demonstrate options to reduce overall massing and roof/ceiling heights (board members suggested lowering ceiling heights and trimming roof forms to reduce perceived bulk). - A stronger factual argument and neighborhood comparisons supporting the lot-coverage variance and FAR exception; several board members requested more objective evidence that the lot’s configuration or topography justifies the exceptions rather than aesthetic preference.
After discussion, a member moved to continue the item to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to respond. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously by the three members present (3-0, two absent).
