Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Min 2019-01-16 TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Mayor Kulik called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 16, 2019, in Town Council Chambers. 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik, Thier (by teleconference), Welner ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Community Development Kwon, Management Analyst Creekmore, Town Clerk Stefani ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-I. Town Council Minutes—Adopt minutes of November 29, 2018 special meeting (Town Clerk Stefani) CC-2. Town Council Minutes —Adopt minutes of December 5, 2018 regular meeting (Town Clerk Stefani) CC-3. Vacancies on Town Boards, Commissions and Committees) —Announce pending vacancies for 2019 (Town Clerk Stefani) CC-4. Special Vacancy Notice —Announce special vacancy on the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission (Town Clerk Stefan]) CC-5. Annual Development Fee Report— Receive annual report on the status of the Town's Development Impact Fees pursuant to the California Government Code (Community Development Department) CC-6. Town Signature Authority —Adopt Resolution authorizing check signing authority to reflect changes in the composition of the Town Council and staff(Director of Administrative Services Bigall) Pare 1 of'7 Town Coui7cil Minutes 901-2019 January 16. 2019 CC-7. Council Ad-Hoc Committee—Appoint two councilmembers to Town Manager Performance Review ad hoc subcommittee (Office of the Town Manager) Councilmember Thier requested Consent Calendar Item No. I be removed for amendments. MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Items Nos. 2-7, as written. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Fraser VOTE: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik, Thier, Welner CC-1. Town Council Minutes —Adopt minutes of November 29, 2018 special meeting (Town Clerk Stefani) Councilmember Thier made a change to Page 2, Paragraph 6, Sentence 2 to read as "She agreed to work with the Council on several points of the Resolution to adjust the language." MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item No. 1, as amended. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Kulik VOTE: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik, Thier, Welner PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. 2000 Paradise Drive (Caprice Restaurant) — Consider appeal of Design Review Board approval of a 37 square foot addition. Exterior changes also include raising the roof by 1 foot, a new awning, window changes on the west elevation, and change in color (Community Development Department) Owners/Applicant: Jerry Dal Bozzo/Audrey Hitchcock Appellant(s): John Davis & Heidi Barnes Address: 2000 Paradise Drive Assessor Parcel No.: 059-172-46 Director of Community Development Kwon summarized the proposed project, and the history of actions taken by staff, the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board. He said the appellants filed a timely appeal of the Design Review Board approval based on 17 grounds. Kwon said the grounds for the appeal were analyzed in the staff report and addressed several points raised in the "Late Mail" correspondence; mainly clarifying points about the principles of the Design Guideline for Hillside Dwellings ("Hillside Design Guidelines"). Vice Mayor Fredericks asked about the applicability of the Hillside Design Guidelines to commercial buildings. Kwon said the guidelines are for hillside dwellings, but can apply to commercial buildings. Councilmember Fraser asked about the accuracy of the plans and story poles presented to the Design Review Board. Kwon explained the Design Review process requires drawings with a design detailed enough to clearly express what the project will be, and added the story poles Page 2gf7 Toivn Council Minzrles 901-2019 January 16, 2019 were accurate. He said the drawings presented to the Council tonight are only different than the plans reviewed by the Design Review Board in that they are more detailed. Mayor Kulik asked for clarification on the zoning and Variance requirements of the project. Kwon said the project did not require a Variance. Fredericks asked if the applicant's request to maintain the interior ceiling height was a legal requirement. Kwon explained the applicants are legally required to meet certain building code requirements, and would like to do so while maintaining the interior ceiling height. Kwon added that compliance with the approved height is a condition of approval of the project during ongoing inspections and prior to final inspection. Fredericks also asked Director Kwon to comment on the sound standards. Kwon said the Town does not regulate interior sound, but applies a standard condition to all projects that the equipment needs to not exceed a certain decibel level. Appellant Presentation John Davis and Heidi Barnes, appellants, showed photos of their property and said their views of the Corinthian Yacht Club, the southern tip of Belvedere and water views will be jeopardized by this project. He showed photos from the interior atrium, where views would be affected, and said the project would also decrease light in the lower unit of the building. Dr. Davis showed comparable photos exhibiting the loss of their views by the proposed increase in height of the roof. He also expressed concern about the mechanical equipment placed on top of the roof and the associated sound. He said the project was unacceptable to them, and would decrease their rental revenue. Dr. Davis questioned the application of the Hillside Design Guidelines and argued that their view could not be considered `borrowed' because it was not across a vacant lot. He also questioned the environmental and public safety impacts of the project, and believed the height requirements in the Zoning Ordinance had been ignored throughout review. Dr. Davis also expressed discomfort at the inconsistencies in the proposed drawings. He said the building code does not require an increase in the roof elevation, sound studies had not been completed, and believed a Variance had been granted without justification. John Drake, architect, said he was retained to do an assessment of the renovation plan to determine if the roof and ceiling height had to be increased while complying with building code requirements. Mr. Drake concluded there were alternate assemblies available to the applicants and showed photos of examples in other restaurants around the San Francisco area. Jonathan Kathrein, attorney for the appellants, questioned the applicant's proposal to raise the roof line when it was unnecessary to do so. He said the applicants cannot use the building code as an explanation for raising the roof line or adding mechanical equipment on top of the roof. Page 3 (Y'7 Toiiw CoUncil Minutes 901-2019 January 10, 2019 Mr. Kathrein argued that the specifics of the project have not been appropriately disclosed and have changed. He said tonight's presentation has brought new information about view blockage to light that the Design Review Board did not get a chance to consider. Mr. Kathrein said the applicants are requesting approval for a project where the height, equipment, equipment location, and noise will vary. and the neighbors will lose a major view from their property. He requested the Town Council grant the appeal, and deny the application. Applicant Presentation Audrey Hitchcock, representative of the applicants, said The Caprice opened in the 1960s and has gone years with little improvements. She said the restaurant was purchased by new owners last year, who would like to maintain the ambiance of the restaurant with little to no changes. She said she has worked with the owners to bring the structure up to code. Ms. Hitchcock said their proposal includes a 12-inch height increase to accommodate a new roof and to maintain the interior height while complying with building and fire code requirements. She showed photos exhibiting the consolidation of the rooftop mechanical equipment, and believed there would be a net improvement to the appellants' view as three large pieces of equipment will be removed, what remains will be out of view, and the roof will be replaced. Ms. Hitchcock said this request was within the allowable roof height permitted by the Tiburon Municipal Code, and said the height increase was for practical and aesthetic reasons. Vice Mayor Fredericks asked about the relocation of the rooftop equipment. Ms. Hitchcock explained that a significant portion of the rooftop equipment will be either moved or removed, which will be an improvement to the appellant's view over what it is now. Several members of the Council said it would be helpful to see renderings of the view impact with the current rooftop equipment against the new location, including the height of the screen. Public Comment There was none. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Kathrein said there has been an ongoing lack of information provided throughout the project. He argued that the applicant presentation did not discuss the view blockage from the rooftop equipment, the lack of a sound study prior to project approval and reiterated the primary views of the lagoon that will be lost. The appellants expressed disappointment that the application is incomplete, new information is coming forward as late as during the appeal phase, and believed all information should be presented in a fairer manner. Applicant Rebuttal The applicants said the existing structure is important to them, whereas another restaurant operator would likely desire to maximize space to the fullest height limitation in the Zoning Page 4 of 7 Town Council Minutes 1101-2019 Janizary 16. 2019 Ordinance. They believed their proposal to be fair as it retains the ambiance of the restaurant, while remaining compliant with building and fire codes. Vice Mayor Fredericks asked why the alternatives suggested were not feasible. The applicants said a false ceiling will be necessary in some places, and lowering the interior ceiling by one foot will make a large impact on the interior of the building. Ms. Hitchcock said lowering the roof further will dramatically alter the inside of the restaurant. She believed this proposal is the most modest and considerate renovation possible for the restaurant. The applicants clarified that the ceiling is as low as 79" in some places. Council Deliberation Mayor Kulik asked Gordon Cousins of the Design Review Board to speak on the matter. Board member Cousins said the Design Review Board considers the Hillside Design Guidelines alongside the equitable development of all lots. He explained that when sites are side-by-side, homes have a primary view going outward and the Design Review Board would consider the view across the adjacent site a borrowed view. Cousins said the appellant's primary view of San Francisco and the Golden Gate Bridge would not be impacted, and added that the atrium was considered a circulation space, not a primary living space. He added that the Design Review Board considered the consolidation of the roof top equipment to be a net improvement in that it pulled the equipment out of the primary view. Kulik asked for Cousins' interpretation of the need for a Variance. Cousins said this proposal would not require a Variance. Councilmember Welner spoke in support of the Design Review Board's decision and recommended denial of the appeal. He was in favor of the applicant's attempts to maintain the design and ambiance of the original restaurant, and felt the request to increase the roof height was within the allowable height restrictions. He felt the elimination of several large pieces of equipment would ultimately create net improvement to the appellant's view. Councilmember Fraser agreed, but felt troubled by the confusing location of the rooftop equipment. He said he did not feel comfortable taking a position until the location of the equipment was clearer and he could actually review the visual impacts. Fraser also expressed discomfort about the lack of clarity between parties, and said not all the proper questions were answered during the process. He asked the Council to consider sending the project back to the Design Review Board. Vice Mayor Fredericks commented that the maximum height allowable by the Zoning Ordinance was not an entitlement to that height. She did not feel she had enough information to balance the competing interests of maintaining their interior roof height to protect the ambiance and seating accommodation and the view impacts on the appellants' property. Mayor Kulik said the Council's objective is to fairly and without bias review a decision of the Design Review Board's application of land development laws, and he felt the situation Poge S q f 7 Town CozIncil Minules 401-2019 January 16, 2019 particularly hinged on the precision of the plans, the need for expansion of the property and the necessity for a Variance. Kulik felt the consolidation of the equipment away from the most valued view would be a great benefit to the appellants, but a better compromise could be found for the rooftop equipment screen. Kulik also noted the lack of Variance required. He expressed discomfort at imposing a restriction on a zoning-compliant proposal. He said a much more extreme version could have been brought forward. He agreed that there was a lot of ambiguity between parties, but there was potential to minimize impacts while not decreasing the interior height of the restaurant. Fraser said he could support the denial of the appeal if the Council added on appropriate conditions of approval regarding the equipment screening, sound impacts of the rooftop equipment and any other elements necessary. Welner said many of his questions were resolved by staff's analysis of the project. He felt comfortable that the proposal was the best project for the site, but would be satisfied to consider any other conditions of approval. He felt the size and location of the rooftop equipment was the main issue. Fredericks commented that she did not feel she had enough information to fully understand the view impacts of the roof line increase and the view impacts of the location of the roof top equipment. She did not feel she could take a position without better renderings of the impacts. The Council discussed the noise impacts of the rooftop equipment. Director Kwon said a condition of approval already exists relating to the maximum decibel allowance. Councilmember Thier agreed with Fredericks that more information was necessary to make a fair decision. Welner suggested a continuance of the item with a request for the applicants to return with specific information relating to the noise, location and view of the rooftop equipment. He also said it would be helpful to have a better analysis of whether or not the impacted view was considered primary or secondary. Fredericks said she would like to see better renderings of the view impacts of increasing the roof. Fraser agreed, and commented that it would be the wrong direction for the Council to consider lowering the interior roof of the Caprice as an alternative option. Fredericks expressed similar concerns, relating to the possible loss of seating lowering the interior ceiling might create. Mayor Kulik said the Council seemed to be in agreement that additional clarity would be required to make a decision, and a continuance was the solution. He said he was cognizant of the fact that this was a business and the next hearing should not be unnecessarily delayed. The Council discussed the time frame necessary to obtain all the information they needed to make a decision. There was general agreement that as long as the rooftop equipment meets the Page 6 qf'7 Tovt)n Council Nlinules 90.1-2019 Jcnn1cr1y 16, 2019 Town's regulations, it would be satisfactory, so obtaining a sound study would not be necessary. The Council said they would like to see renderings of the visual impact of the roof top equipment —what the view looks like now and what it will look like with the equipment in place. Fredericks said she would like to see information about how a lower interior ceiling would affect restaurant seating, and have the boards supporting the story poles removed so she can review the full impact of the view change. Mayor Kulik said he would like to expedite this process and continue the item to the next regular meeting on February 6. Everyone agreed. MOTION: Continue the hearing to the regular February 6, 2019 Town Council meeting. Moved: Weiner, seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik, Thier, Weiner TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS There were none. TOWN MANAGER REPORT There were none. WEEKLY DIGESTS Received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Kulik adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. D VKULIK MAYOR ATTEST: t I.,EA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Page 7(#'7 Town Council Minwes 901-2019 January 16, 2019