Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Min 2019-02-06 TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETINGS MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING — 6:00 P.M. Mayor Kulik called the special meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 6, 2019, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik, Thier,Welner (at 6:15pm) ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chains, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Community Development Kwon, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes, Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Management Analyst Creekmore, Accounting/Finance Manager Kurakina, Associate Planner O'Malley, Town Clerk Stefani ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOWN STAFF • Elena Kurakina, Accounting and Finance Manager Management Analyst Creekmore introduced new Town employee Elena Kurakina, who will serve as Accounting and Finance Manager. Ms. Kurakina said she was happy to be on the team. PRESENTATIONS Greenhouse Gas Reduction — Christine O'Rourke, Marin Climate and Energy Partnership Christine O'Rourke presented on Tiburon's community-wide emissions report and Tiburon's government emissions report. She reported a positive reduction in cmissions, and said Tiburon has met its 2020 emissions reduction goals, but still has a way to go to meet the 2030 and 2050 goals. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-1. Town Council Minutes —Adopt minutes of January 16, 2019 regular meeting (Town Clerk Stefani) Page 1 (?f 15 Toivn Council NliMiles 402-2019 February 6, 2019 CC-2. Investment Summary —Adopt investment summary for month ending November 30, 2018 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) CC-3. Investment Summary —Adopt investment summary for month ending December 31, 2018 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) CC-4. Mayor's Proclamation —Adopt Mayor's Proclamation in honor of Cathleen Andreucci (Department of Administrative Services) Councilmember Thier requested Consent Calendar Item No. 1 be removed for amendments. MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Items Nos. 2-4, as written. Moved: Thier, seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES: Unanimous CC-I. Town Council Minutes —Adopt minutes of January 16, 2019 regular meeting(Town Clerk Stefani) Councilmember Thier made a change to Item No. CC-1 and corrected the vote. She said she voted in favor of the item, and was not absent. MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item No. 1, as amended. Moved: Thier, seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES: Unanimous ACTION ITEMS AI-1. Town Council Board and Committee Assignments — Consider revisions to the Town Council Committee List for 2019 (Department of Administrative Services) Town Clerk Stefani said it is regular practice for the Council to review their annual list of appointments to state, regional and local boards and commissions. and to Town ad hoc subcommittees. She recommended the Council review the list for any changes, and particularly consider making appointments to the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers ad hoc subcommittee on homelessness and the Tiburon Peninsula Traffic Relief JPA. Of the Town's ad hoc subcommittees, she recommended the Council review the list for changes, and particularly appoint membership to the 2019 Budget/Finance Committee and dissolve the 2017-18 Shared Services, McKegney Green Renovation and Litigation ad hoc subcommittees. She added it would now be appropriate for the Council to consider converting the remaining ad hoc subcommittees to standing committees, or dissolve them if they are no longer necessary. Mayor Kulik opened the floor for public comment. There was none. Councilmember Fraser nominated Councilmember Fredericks to serve as Alternate Director to the Tiburon Peninsula Traffic Relief JPA. Councilmember Thier volunteered to serve on the homelessness ad hoc subcommittee. Page 2 gf'15 Totivn Connc°il Minilles #02-2019 Fehrualy 6, 2019 For the 2019 Budget/Finance ad hoc subcommittee, Mayor Kulik said he would like to serve with Councilmember Fraser. Councilmember Weiner requested a discussion at a future meeting about another committee on energy conservation and climate change issues. The Council thought the annual Council/Staff retreat would be a good opportunity to discuss the matter. MOTION: To appoint Alice Fredericks as Alternate Director to the Tiburon Peninsula Traffic Relief JPA; to appoint Holli Thier to the MCCMC ad hoc subcommittee on homelessness; to appoint David Kulik and Jim Fraser to the 2019 Budget/Finance ad hoc subcommittee; to dissolve the Litigation, McKegney Green Renovation and 2017-18 Shared Services ad hoc subcommittee; to change the status of the remaining ad hoc subcommittees to standing committees. Moved: Weiner, seconded by Thier VOTE: AYES: Unanimous AI-2. Virginia Drive Undergrounding District—Consider minimum required construction contingency for the Virginia Drive Undergrounding project (Department of Public Works) Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes said staff is recommending a construction contingency for the Virginia Drive undergrounding project of 20%. He said the estimated cost of the project had increased between the preliminary engineer's report and the completion of the complete design. Barnes said costs are expected to continue increasing. Barnes explained the history of the project, and said that if the approved assessment funds are insufficient to cover the cost of the project, based on the construction bids submitted, the Town would need to authorize another vote on a supplemental assessment. He further explained that if the project goes over budget during construction, and there are insufficient funds in the assessment to complete the project, the Town would likely need to fund the remainder. Barnes said that while applying this construction contingency to the bids may actually push the project over the threshold and thus require a supplemental assessment, any unused funds will be returned to the property owners. The Council asked staff to expand on the need for the Town to pay any over-budget costs of the project. Town Manager Chains explained that whether or not the district requires a supplemental assessment. the Town will be obligated to complete and fund any project that begins. He said an appropriate contingency is necessary to cover any unforeseen expenses or change orders that arise during construction. He said if the assessment fund pool and contingency is not enough to cover the extra expenses, the Town is still committed to paying for the total cost. Councilmember Thier asked if the increase in construction costs while waiting for a supplemental assessment had been considered, and how staff decided between reconnmending a 20 and 25% contingency. Page 3 o f 1 S Town Council NlinaNes 902-2019 February 6, 2019 Barnes confirmed this point, and said the staff recommended 20% over 25% because it seems to be a straightforward project, but it is impossible to know until construction begins. He expressed concern that the Town covering a portion of an undergrounding district is against Town policy. Vice Mayor Fredericks asked if there was a downside to a higher contingency. Chanis said the only downside is asking the property owners to vote for a higher assessment amount, but confirmed that any unused funds would be returned to the property owners. Mayor Kulik opened the floor for public cornment. Henry Ho, Virginia Drive, said he was a property owner in the district. He spoke in favor of a contingency, but spoke against the differing assessment amounts in the district. He thought the total cost should be split equally among all property owners in the district. Paras Fancy, Virginia Drive, spoke about the safety benefits of undergrounding. He asked the Council to consider waiting until the bids come in to set the contingency to get a better idea of costs so as to avoid the need for a supplemental vote with unknown information. Mayor Kulik closed the floor. Vice Mayor Fredericks commented that the project bid numbers may not be the final cost of the project, and change orders arise that increase costs during construction. Chanis said the bid numbers should not dictate the contingency percentage; it should be what the Council deems appropriate. Councilmember Thier asked "hat costs the contingency will be applied to. Chanis said the contingency will be applied to the bid. Councilmember Welner said he was in favor of applying a higher contingency, like 25%, to the project, out of an abundance of caution, considering the unused funds will be returned to the property owners. Mayor Kuhk agreed that appl}ing a higher contingency would put the Town at the least risk as possible. "The Council agreed. MOTION: To set the minimum required construction contingency for the Virginia Drive Undergrounding project at 25%. Moved: Fredericks. seconded by Welner VOTE: AYES: Unanimous CLOSED SESSION 1) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property:500 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California; APN's 055-093-06, 07. 08. 08 Agency Negotiators: Greg Chanis, Benjamin Stock Page 4 of 15 7-01,1179 Council Min les 402-2019 February 6, 2019 Negotiating Parties: Town of Tiburon and Richardson Bay Sanitation District Under Negotiation: Price and terms for possible property acquisition. 2) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) Name of Case: People of the State of California v. Rosna Tjuatja, Marin County Superior Court Case No. CIV 1801979 3) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: 7 Marsh Road, Tiburon, California; APN 058-440-27 Agency Negotiators: Benjamin Stock, Heidi Bigall Negotiating Parties: Town of Tiburon and Joseph Condy Under Negotiation: Price and terms for possible property acquisition. ADJOURNMENT—to re,-ular meeting REGULAR MEETING —7:30 P.M. Mayor Kulik called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:45 p.m. on Wednesday, February 6, 2019, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik, Thier, Welner ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock.. Director of Community Development Kwon, Town Clerk Stefani ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Steve Weisenbaker, Beach Road, spoke on behalf of several Peninsula residents in support of the appeal recently filed relating to the proposal amplified music at Sam's Anchor Cafe downtown. He said the group did not believe the proposal was in line with the General Plan. Hank McWhinney. Paradise Drive, spoke against the Sam's Anchor Cafe proposal and thought Tiburon needed a noise ordinance. Page 5 of'15 T otinn Council Mimiles 1102-2019 Fe hruary 6, 2019 Another resident from Beach Road said sound travels across water, and the noise from the Sam's Anchor Caf6 proposal will dissipate natural wildlife sounds and decrease property value for those that live on the water. PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. 8 Rolling Hills Road — Consider appeal of Design Review Board approval of a request for a new house and Variance for front setback (Community Development Department) Owners/Applicant: Ana & Joseph Lepera Appellant(s): James & JoAnn To, Renata& George Lee, Matt & Sam Chatham Address: 8 Rolling Hills Road Assessor Parcel No.: 058-111-24 Director of Community Development Kwon summarized the proposed project, and history of actions taken by staff, the Planning Commission, Town Council and Design Review Board. He said the applicant has gone to the Design Review Board three times and made varying changes to their proposal based on comments from the Board. He said the project was approved with a front setback Variance on 11/15/18, and the appellants filed a timely appeal of the DRB approval. He noted that several of the original applicants had requested to be removed from the appeal as appellants to allow them the opportunity to speak during public comment. Vice Mayor Fredericks inquired about how the front setback is measured. Kwon explained the setback is measured from the property line within the roadway easement. Mayor Kulik commented that there is a lot of history with this project, and asked the Town Attorney to comment on what should be reviewed. Town Attorney Stock said the Town Council adopted a Resolution directing the Design Review Board to take certain things into consideration when reviewing the design. He said the Council should determine if the Design Review Board followed the Town Council direction set forth in the Resolution. Kulik and Fredericks asked for additional details on the Variance requirements. Kwon explained the applicants did not request a side yard Variance. Appellant Presentation James To, appellant and owner of 88 Rolling Hills Road, said this property was previously governed by a building envelope. He presented a rendering of what the neighborhood would have expected to be built in the lot_ had the envelope been retained, and then a comparative rendering of the proposed home. Mr. To argued that the proposal is a large departure from what the neighborhood expected based on the removal of the building envelope. He said he and his neighbors believe it to be too large and out of character with the neighborhood. Mr. To reviewed four specific recornmendations for modifications including the removal of the lower level, increase the space between the property and neighboring 6 Rolling Hills, lower the height of the third level and to assist in preservation of natural screening at 88 Rolling Hills Road. He said these specific requests were meant to protect the neighborhood from the impacts of the proposal. Page 6 of 15 Town Council Minules 902-2019 Fehrit ary 6, 2019 Mr. To expressed disappointment that the Town Council's original directive to consider the rationale for the original building envelope when reviewing the proposed design was ignored. Bob Haroche, attorney for the appellants, said this project does not fit in to the neighborhood. He argued that the Council removed the building envelope with the directive that the Design Review Board still keep the same objectives and tools that the envelope provided. Mr. Haroche presented comparable home data from other homes in the area, and said the data on shows how this home is significantly larger than others in the neighborhood. Applicant Presentation Joseph Lepera, applicant and owner of 8 Rolling Hills Road, said the Council is asked tonight to determine if the Design Review Board followed the directives and feedback of the Town Council in their review of the proposal. Mr. Lepera argued that the Design Review Board did consider the Hillside Design Guidelines, the Municipal Code and feedback from neighbors about the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Lepera reviewed the detailed changes that had been made after all three Design Review Board hearings. He specifically noted that he had heard the neighbors' feedback about landscape screening, and revised his proposal to retain all existing oak trees. He said all 35 changes were made in response to feedback from the Board and the neighbors. Mr. Lepera said the Council's directive to maintain the 10-foot height restriction from the street had been retained to protect the neighbors, and noted that 43% of the home is now underground in response to the Design Review Board's comments about cutting the home into the hillside. Mr. Lepera also showed several comparative photographs exhibiting the view impacts on several neighbors as the designs were revised. Mr. Lepera argued that he had done everything the Town had asked him to do, and the Design Review Board followed the appropriate principles, the Municipal Code and the Town Council's recommendation in their decision. Mayor Kulik and the Council allowed the former appellants to speak for three minutes each. Public Comment David Readerman, Rolling Hills Road, spoke against the proposal and in favor of the appeal. He said he has different home data than Mr. Lepera presented, and expressed disappointment over the suggestion to increase the size of the home again. He said the process was not handled well. Scott Peters, Rolling Hills Road, opposed the project in its current form, and said it was out of character with the neighborhood. He expressed disappointment that the size of the home had increased again, and asked the Council to intervene. Page 7 q/1 S Tmi)n Council Mimaes 902-2019 Februaly 6, 2019 Rita Burgess, Rolling Hills Road, said there had been a lot of opportunities for significant changes to the proposal during the process and none were done. She said the home was out of character with the neighborhood, and made several suggestions for changes. Alan Rappaport, Rolling Hills Road, spoke in support of the appeal and said there was an expectation of the preservation of views with the removal of the envelope. He said the neighbors do not object to a development on the lot, but they do object to this proposal. Another Rolling Hills Road resident said the neighbors have a fair expectation to retain the character of the neighborhood. He said this proposal is an improvement, but is still not acceptable. He said when the envelope was removed, there was an expectation that this would be a very different project. Rebecca Bunya resident said information needs to be consistently applied during the hearing, and the process should be fairer. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. To pointed out that while Mr. Lepera suggested the ]ionic would be a visible 2600 square foot home, the visible mass of the home appears to be two to three times larger. Mr. Haroche found it unusual that Mr. Lepera is suggesting the Council consider his original proposal, and said many of the points he made about changes in his presentation were irrelevant because they do not address the major problem of the project: the bulk and scale of the home. He argued that if the home were scaled back to the original intent of the building envelope, a much smaller home would be proposed. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Lepera believed he had followed all of the Council's directives, including the standard procedure for building a new home. He said the Design Review Board addressed the Council's comments at length, and noted that the 10-foot height restriction imposed by the Council was still in place. Mr. Lepera said their proposal builds down the hill, and does not violate the side setbacks. He said the close proximity to the neighboring property is because that property exists within its own setback, and argued that his home should not be penalized for that. He said he built within his allowable parameters. Council Deliberation Mayor Kulik invited Gordon Cousins of the Design Review Board to speak. Board member Cousins said the Design Review Board considered their directive from the Town Council Resolution relating to the bulk of the home and the 10-foot height restriction, and did not necessarily review the prior building envelope. He said the home has minimal impact on the character of the Rolling Hills neighborhood, because only 10 feet is visible from the street. He noted that it is normal to have a garage like the proposed on a sloped lot. Page 8 of 15 T011117 C0707Cil Minutes 402-2019 Fehruary 6, 2019 Cousins believed the bulk of the building was within the envelope, and the lower two stories are not largely visible. He noted that this home has a lot of excavation, and much of the usable rooms are underground. He said it is the policy of the Design Review Board to exclude the square footage that is underground and not visible as part of the building mass. Councilmember Thier asked to re-open the Public Hearing to hear thoughts on Board member Cousins' statements. Renata Lee, appellant, disagreed with Board member Cousins and said the Design Review Board did not appear to address the visual bulk and mass of the building. Town Attorney Stock advised the Council that the action of the Design Review Board is part of the official record, and the Council's deliberation should be based on the official record, not differing interpretations of the action. Joseph Lepera, applicant, said every time the Board asked for changes, the applicants complied. He said much of the home is built into the hillside and underground, and only some is visible above ground. Councilmember Welner first said he is not intending to review any prior version of the plans, other than the final version approved by the DRB. Welner said the architectural drawings showing how the home is built into the hillside and Cousins' statements about what a taller home built within the envelope could have looked like at this site were convincing. He felt that building the home down the hill was a more thoughtful design. He said the biggest impact seemed to be on the neighbor at 6 Rolling Hills, who is not objecting to the project. He said he was inclined to approve the project the DRB approved. Councilmember Thier believed the proposed home to still be too big, and not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. She noted that all of the neighbors were present, except one. She felt compelled by the appellants' analysis of other home sizes and data in the neighborhood, and said more work could be done to scale the size back. She said she would be in favor of granting the appeal with the condition of increasing the space between 6/8 Rolling Hills. reducing the height of level 4, and scaling back level 3. Vice Mayor Fredericks agreed with Thier. She agreed that the comparable home data was compelling. She said part of the design creates impacts and while things hav e been reduced, more needs to be done to have a meaningful impact on the neighbors. She noted she would also like to add a condition that the applicant take responsibility to provide adequate landscape screening. Councilmember Fraser said he found it difficult to find significant impact to Mr. To's home. Fraser also believed it would be unfair to penalize the applicant for building within the parameters of his lot because the neighbor built within their setback. Ile said the evidence on both sides was compelling, and he wanted to find a compromise. He thought a good compromise might be to scale back level 3. He recommended including a condition for landscaping. Page 9 of 15 Tbivii Council Mrntrles i#02-2019 Februrn•i%6. 2019 Mayor Kulik agreed that he has no desire to revisit any prior version of this project, other than what was presented to the DRB. He said his initial concern was the impact of a Variance on the neighbors, but said in this situation, the Variance seems to mitigate some of the concerns. Kulik said he could support the DRB's findings for the front setback Variance. He thought the main issue was level 3, and felt it could be further minimized. He acknowledged the neighborhood's concern of the close proximity between 6/8 Rolling Hill, but said he did not feel comfortable imposing a restriction on a property that is in compliance with its own zoning. He agreed on a landscaping condition. The Council discussed what directive to give the applicant prior to coming back to the Council. Welner said the Council could ask the parties to work together and come back to the Council with their determined compromise. He said he did not see any of the single issues the appellants raised as enough to overturn the DRB decision, but agreed that scaling back level 3 could be appropriate. "Thier believed what is being proposed is too large, despite a lot having been done since the first design. She agreed that reducing the level 3 will lessen impacts, but said she would like to see the parties work together on a compromise. Fredericks agreed that scaling back level 3 would lessen the impact. Kulik said there appeared to be consensus on requiring conditions for landscape screening and the lateral reduction of level 3. Thier and Fraser agreed. MOTION: To continue the item to the March 20, 2019 Town Council meeting and direct the applicant to meet with the appellants and consider pulling back Level 3 laterally and looking to reach an agreement with 88 Rolling Hills regarding the landscaping screen; if an agreement cannot be reached, the Town Attorney will bring forward a condition of approval for consideration on March 20, 2019. Moved: Thier, seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES:Unanimous At 10:35 P.M., Mayor Kulik called for a recess. The Council resumed at 10:45 P.M. PH-2. 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 Page 10 of 15 Towii Council Minutes 402-2019 Feb7•uuiy 6, 2019 Director of Community Development Kwon said the Council had continued this item to tonight with a request for the applicant to provide visuals to better determine view impacts on the appellants, additional analysis on a primary vs. side view, and clarifying information about what interior restaurant seating might be affected by a lower ceiling. Kwon said the applicants had provided this information, and clarified the uses of some of the areas under 8 feet in ceiling height inside the restaurant: the dining area, seating area and exit hallway. For the additional view analysis, Kwon directed the Council to several points in the Hillside Design Guidelines. He said the guidelines state views from primary living areas are more important for view protection than areas less actively used in the home, and a wide panoramic view can accept more view blockage than a small slotted view. Kwon concluded his report by reviewing a new letter submitted by the appellants, and providing a brief staff analysis. Appellant Presentation Riley Hurd, attorney for the appellants, said the Council is being presented with new and critical information tonight about the impacts of this project, and therefore, the Design Review Board was not fully aware of the impacts of the project when they reviewed it. He said now, the view, sound and odor impacts are bigger than previously thought. Mr. Hurd questioned the Council's ability to make the required findings from the Zoning Ordinance to be able to approve this project, and expressed disappointment at the lack of data made available to the appellants, staff, the Design Review Board and the Council. He said all the required information should be provided at the beginning. Mr. Hurd showed comparative photographs exhibiting the view impacts of the proposal, and argued that the mechanical equipment placement and screen is problematic. He argued that information or a spec sheet of the equipment should be provided for analysis prior to approval. He said the project is not complete, and not ready for a final decision. fle recommended sending the project back to the Design Review Board with the new renderings, or asked the Council consider alternate methods to minimize impact. Mr. Hurd introduced John Drake, architect, who was asked if lie can meet the goals of this project without lowering the interior height. Mr. Drake showed an alternative solution and showed a model of how their proposal could fit within the roof ridge without raising the height. Heidi Barnes, appellant, said the Council could now see the impacts of this project on her property. She said they had engaged a qualified professional to come up with a solution, but had been ignored by the applicants. She expressed disappointment that the applicants are taking away their view because they did not want to spend more time to get it right. She asked the Council to help them find the right balance. Applicant Presentation Jennifer Dal Bozzo, applicant and co-owner of the restaurant. showed several aerial photographs, exhibiting the location and orientation of the two neighboring properties and the proposed Page 11 (?f15 Town Council Minules 902-2019 February 6, 2019 outcome of their project. She showed the appellants' property extending further out into the water, and the location of the discussed atrium, which she noted was not a primary living space. She highlighted and reviewed nine roof items, and explained which ones will consolidated, and which ones will be removed entirely, including conduit piping and other debris. She said the new equipment is all in accordance with current regulatory requirements, and is required for normal operation of the restaurant. Ms. Dal Bozzo showed a photograph taken from the appellant's atrium, and reviewed the renderings of several different options for the equipment screening. She said the applicants are flexible to work with the appellants to find a screen option that would be acceptable to them. Ms. Dal Bozzo said there are many other code requirements that will need to be addressed in the update of the building that require substantial investment. She said their team did research on the property to understand what would be necessary to update it, and would not have purchased it if a Variance had been required. She said the applicants are seeking equal opportunity to improve their property based on existing guidelines. Vice Mayor Fredericks asked what portions of the project were approved by the appellants. Ms. Dal Bozzo said no portion had been approved by the appellants. Mayor Kulik asked if any of the new equipment was there to support a new feature beyond what currently exists. Ms. Dal Bozzo said no. Councilmember Fraser asked Ms. Dal Bozzo to review the several different options for equipment screening again. Councilmember Thier asked about the insulation option presented by the appellants, and if it was an option they could consider. Ms. Dal Bozzo said utilizing this option would not necessarily alleviate the height issue. She explained that they want to keep the roof as low as possible, but may need up to 12 inches due to unforeseen circumstances while building. Public Comment A Main Street resident said he currently lives adjacent to two restaurants. He said it is difficult to live next to a restaurant because of the sound and odor associated with the various equipment needed to run the restaurant. He believed the noise issues were important to consider. Pat Walsh, Beach Road, believed if the applicants could find a way to do their proposal without blocking their neighbor's view, they should explore it, and that the Design Review Board should have been given this information to make a decision long before now. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Hurd argued that the items that will be removed or consolidated from the roof is not relevant. as the issue is the mass and location of the new equipment. He said the Council should be asking detailed questions about the equipment, and if the applicants cannot answer those Page 12 cif 15 Town C0111ICi1%19inutes 1102-2019 February 6, 2019 questions. it is not time for a decision yet. He believed the second appeal hearing was far too late to be receiving the information, and asked the Council to consider the impacts on the appellants. He also said the appellants have designed an alternative option for the roof that would be acceptable, and questioned why the applicants have not pursued it. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Dal Bozzo believed the applicants had been communicative with requested information, and said there had been a lot of otherwise positive feedback from the rest of the Tiburon community. She argued that the restaurant will be developed at one point, and a large component of success is the food service and design. She said the applicants have tried to be transparent. Council Deliberation Councilmember Weiner asked about the maximum heights allowable for the properties. Director Kwon said the maximum height is 30 feet, but rooftop equipment would not necessarily need to fall within that. He noted the appellants' property exceeds the current height limit. Vice Mayor Fredericks asked if there were nuisance constraints on pollution elements from a restaurant. Kwon said they are permitted to run a restaurant, and there will be some odors associated. Town Attorney Stock added that there are nuisance and sound limitations, but the building code requirements for equipment are meant to address some of those issues Councilmember Thier asked about the review process for the mechanical equipment. Kwon explained that the DRB did not request renderings of the equipment for their review. Mayor Kulik asked if the perception of complete information would change anything. Kwon said the Town requires compliance with existing noise standards, and prior to any final inspection, the existing standards will need to be met. Fredericks commented that the atrium in question is likely not a primary or protected view., even though it does eliminate some of the water view. She also expressed concern about the loss of light. She thought only raising the edge of the roof, rather than the ridge, or moving the mechanical equipment to another location on the roof, would be an improvement. Councilmember Fraser did not believe the request to raise the roof 12 inches would impact the appellants' primary view. He said the location of the mechanical equipment was still a concern. however, and asked if there was a way to relocate the equipment to be less impactful. Thier felt compelled by the alternate proposal for the roof shown by the appellants. She agreed that the 12-inch height increase could eliminate the water view, and expressed similar concern about the location of the equipment. She said if there was a way to preserve the view without impacting the restaurant, it should be considered. She believed the building permit process would require compliance with noise standards. She suggested sending the project back to the Design Review Board with specific direction about view preservation and determining the best location for the rooftop equipment. Page 13 of 15 Toi,i rn C01117eil Mil71tles 402-2019 February 6, 2019 Councilmember Welner recommended denial of the appeal. He did not believe it was fair to not permit the restaurant to increase one foot to accommodate required mechanical equipment, when the property next door exceeds their maximum height. Welner noted the panoramic bay views from the appellants' primary living spaces, and did not believe this proposal would be so impactful. He believed the proposal consolidates and cleans up a cluttered roof and attempts to preserve the view. He also noted that the applicants may not need to raise the roof a full 12 inches. He said the only apparent issue is the location of the equipment—if it is possible to move It, it may be less impactful to move it as far to the right as possible. Kulik agreed that noise concerns will comply with zoning requirements prior to completion, and agreed that there would likely be a net improvement to the view with the consolidation of rooftop equipment. Of the height increase, Kulik said he might feel differently if a Variance were required. He noted that if this were a residence, the Council would likely be reviewing a much more dramatic request for a second story. He said one thing that could be examined is if the equipment could be moved further to the right, if it was possible. He agreed that this could move the bulk away from the appellants' property. Fredericks said she did not feel she had enough information to make a determination about the actual feasibility of some of the alternative options presented. Kwon noted that part of the mechanical equipment is a health requirement directly tied to the interior location of the kitchen. Fraser agreed that a better compromise for consolidating and moving the equipment as far to the right as practical would be ideal. Thier reconnnended the project go back to the Design Review Board to review the two main issues of preserving the water view and finding a better location for the rooftop equipment. She was in favor of Director Kwon addressing the issues. Kulik asked the Council to make a decision tonight. He believed there was potential to craft a motion for a partial granting of the appeal by adding conditions about moving the rooftop equipment as far to the right as practical and allow the appellants to have input on the screen. Thier requested the conditions also include the sentiment that the roof height increase should not exceed 12 inches.. but the applicants will minimize it as much as practical. MOTION: To direct staff to bring back a resolution that would partially grant appeal by adding conditions to the Design Review Board's approval as follows: 1) a maximum roof height, as reasonably practical, as determined by the Director of Community Development, to remain as small as possible but not exceed 12 inches; '_') the HVAC to be moved to the farthest to the right and away from the appellants' property, as reasonably practical, as determined by the Director of Community Development; 3) appellants have the right to provide input on any rooftop screening; and 4) to eliminate fascia requirements except for on the north and west sides of the building. Moved: Thier_ seconded by Fraser Page 14gf15 Towl 7Council Miniaes 41I2-2019 February 6, 2019 VOTE: AYES: Fraser, Kulik, Thier, Welner NAYS: Fredericks 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 12:45 a.m. a r DAVID KULIK, MAYOR ATTEST: z � y LEA STE ANI, TOWN CLERK Page IS(?1'15 Toivu Coamcil 1111iMaes 1,102-2019 Februa ); 6, 2019