Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the New Residence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board approves new house at 21 Maravista Court after appeal issues addressed
Summary
The board voted 3–0 to approve construction of a new single-family residence at 21 Maravista Court and granted a variance for a bay window articulation; the applicant said neighbor concerns were addressed by moving an above-garage deck and enhancing landscape screening.
The Tiburon Town Design Review Board approved a new single-family home at 21 Maravista Court on July 17, granting a variance for a bay window articulation that the planning department said required review.
Architect Mohammed Sadria said the project had previously been approved but was appealed and returned to the board. To address the neighboring Fazil family's concerns about a deck above the garage, the applicant removed that deck and moved the outdoor patio to the opposite side of the property; interior spaces were reconfigured so the family room now opens to the relocated patio. "We had reviewed this project before, with the DRB, and it was approved. And later on, it was appealed and sent back to the DRB," Sadria said.
Sadria said the team had provided correspondence showing negotiations with the adjacent neighbors and described the most recent letter as final correspondence indicating concerns were resolved. He noted the planning department identified a variance as necessary for a bay window on the left/front elevation; the applicant said the bay is needed for articulation of a two-story wall and was present in the previously approved submittal.
Board members who reviewed the earlier approval and members new to the item praised the design changes that moved outdoor space away from the adjacent house. One board member said staff could make the findings required for the variance given the lot conditions and preexisting structures. The board then voted to adopt the draft resolution approving the project and the single variance on a voice vote, 3–0, with two members absent.
No public commenters spoke at the hearing and the applicant indicated there were no outstanding letters of concern in the project record at the time of the meeting.
