Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Character topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After heavy neighborhood opposition, Tiburon board continues 68 Mercury Avenue application to allow redesign
Summary
Neighbors raised views, privacy and character concerns about a proposed partial second story at 68 Mercury Avenue. The applicant presented options including a partial second story and retaining more than 50% of existing exterior walls; the board requested a second design iteration and continued the item to a date uncertain.
The Tiburon Design Review Board continued consideration of a proposed partial second‑story remodel at 68 Mercury Avenue after extensive public comment and board deliberation on Jan. 29.
An applicant representative opened the hearing saying staff had concluded the project was categorically exempt from CEQA (the application cited "section 15.301") and that the proposal met applicable zoning standards without variances. Architect Heather of Wright Architecture described the lot as a challenging corner property with an existing nonconforming footprint. The design team proposed a partial second story stepped back from the front, and said they planned to retain more than 50% of existing exterior wall framing to qualify the work as a substantial remodel rather than new construction.
Multiple neighbors who live adjacent to or near 68 Mercury spoke at the public hearing. Speakers cited loss of views, increased shading and reduced privacy as primary concerns. Neighbors who live on inner‑circle streets—where the community has historically discouraged tall additions—urged the board to require one‑story alternatives. Commenters included Mike Hellens (38 Mercury), Melissa Hopps (11 Juno Road), Paul Stanley (50 Mercury), Christopher Secor (72 Mercury), Anne Hunt (33 Juno Road), and others who said the proposed second story felt imposing and out of character.
Board members and staff discussed several technical and policy points: planning staff clarified that the municipal code allows primary structure heights up to 30 feet and that the second‑story guidance handout on the department website is informal and was not adopted by the Planning Commission or Town Council. Staff also explained ADU ministerial review thresholds and how ADU standards can affect allowed heights for accessory units.
Board members split on the issue. Several members said the second‑story massing appeared out of scale given the lot’s diagonal siting and the proximity to neighbors’ backyards, and indicated they could not make required design findings for approval as submitted. Other members acknowledged the environmental benefit of reusing existing structure and said a revised, more integrated massing (for example, pulling the second story inward, shifting window placement or considering a flat roof) could be acceptable.
The board voted unanimously to continue the application to a date uncertain so the design team can provide a revised proposal (one‑story alternative or revised massing and window placement). Staff noted the next regular meetings (March 5 and March 19) as potential return dates.
The continuation leaves the application open; the applicant may return with a revised one‑story design, a second‑story revision that better integrates with the first floor, or a formal variance application if they choose.
