Loading...
Attachment 2LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A P P E A R A N C E S: Los Gatos Planning Commissioners: Matthew Hudes, Chair Melanie Hanssen, Vice Chair Mary Badame Kathryn Janoff Town Manager:Laurel Prevetti Community Development Director:Joel Paulson Town Attorney:Robert Schultz Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin (619) 541-3405 ATTACHMENT 2 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P R O C E E D I N G S: CHAIR HUDES: Now we move onto another town wide amendment, which is Item 4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations. Town Code Amendment Application A- 19-003. Consider amendments to Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code regarding demolition regulations. The applicant is the Town, and Ms. Armer, I think you'll be giving us the Staff Report. JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, good evening. Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners. The item in front of you is consideration of changes to the definition of "demolition," as recommended by Town Council Policy Committee and the Historic Preservation Committee and forwarded to you for your recommendation to Town Council. The recommendation from Policy Committee impacts the current definition of demolition in two ways. One, to remove the contiguity requirement from the demolition definition for both non-historic and historic homes; and two, to allow an exception to demolition requirements for repair of non-historic homes that is currently only available for historic homes. These changes are intended to streamline the land use process and reduce costs for remodels of existing homes. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This concludes Staff's presentation, but I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you. Any questions? I have one, and it relates to a comment that was raised, I believe, at the Historic Preservation Committee about the possibility that there would be slivers. I believe Mr. Spaulding raised a possibility that we wanted to avoid owners slicing and dicing small pieces to meet the substantial exterior wall area requirements, and he suggested to stipulate a certain dimension, such as nothing less than 2'. Is that something that you considered, and do you consider this slicing or slivering issue a way that this might be abused as it's currently drafted? JENNIFER ARMER: I would say that it is possible that you would have fragmented elements of buildings in remodel, but I'm not sure that there's a good, clear way to easily set up a definition for that, unless you want to go back to the contiguity which requires that connection between all of the area to be counted towards the 50- percent. CHAIR HUDES: I think his concern was that you could have a sliver that's the size of a 2x4. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JENNIFER ARMER: Yeah, and I think that goes beyond the intent of the changes to the ordinance to envision that level of, as you say, slicing and dicing. JOEL PAULSON: And through the Chair I would just add as with the previous item if we find that folks use that type of scenario to not be required to go Architecture and Site, then again, we would probably ask that both Planning Commission and the Council revisit that issue. CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you. No other questions, then I'll open the public portion of the hearing. I have a card from Bess Wiersema, and then David Zicovich, and Gary Kohlsaat and Jennifer Kretschmer. So, Bess Wiersema, you're first. BESS WIERSEMA: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm sure you probably understand from seeing all of us at different times that the whole demo diagram is a very complex and unique thing we have to deal with on every single project that we address in Los Gatos. I think one thing that we all have in common, regardless of the projects that either come before you or simply stay at a level of Planning discretion, is that the demo diagram and current policy is something that is extremely cumbersome, does not protect the intent of what I think probably it was LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 initially meant to, and creates problems rather than addressing them. The strict policy around how these are policed and monitored, both in drawing form and in the actual built environment creates an extensive amount of problems ranging from things that I think impact design overall, all the way to not being helpful in terms of how we have to build today compared to how houses were built that we are touching. I think we could all probably speak on this for a lot longer than the three minutes we're each allowed to do. I did just bring a few pictures of some examples of items that I just want you to understand are protected according to the current way, and even the proposed way, of looking at this that I think are not in building's best practices, let alone code compliance, structural, etc. For instance, this is a current project. This is a cardboard wall that's currently being encased inside of a home. Yes, a cardboard wall. There it actually is. That's your demo plan at work. Doesn't work structurally, doesn't connect to a foundation, but by God, let's keep it to maintain the integrity of the house in the demo diagram. Here's another house where I have pulled off the skin on the inside of the building only to discover that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it's rotten. Super-duper rotten. If I take the stucco off on the outside, now I'm a technical demo and it's an issue. I think what's important for you guys to see and understand with some of these examples is that the policy does not work, and the current definition, while a great step forward, especially with the loss of the line of contiguity from a definition, we need to also address the skin of the building, what we consider to be 50-percent. Today's building codes don't allow us to build properly by keeping interior and exterior skin, both or individually. CHAIR HUDES: Thank you. Are there questions? BESS WIERSEMA: I have lots of other examples if you want to see things or understand a demo diagram or what a house looks like, but I know I don't have time to show them all, unless you ask. CHAIR HUDES: Thank you. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. What would be your recommended solution? BESS WIERSEMA: We believe the definition of demolition needs to be addressed, period. I think we have to look at it not in terms of skin on a building, whether that's interior or exterior, and we have to understand that project proposals sometimes require us, because of current building code, to affect the structure within that skin and LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the only way for us to get to it properly, whether that's from a waterproofing or a structural or an intent that's just to say hey, I bought this $2 million piece of junk and I'm remodeling it for another $1 million, but you're going to make me keep my whatever it is, rotten old XYZ, in order to meet a diagram I think is the problem. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I understand the issue and had a couple questions myself regarding what happens when you do take off reasonably intact exterior or interior wall board and find floating studs and whatever else. My question to you was do you have specific wording that you have proposed or can recommend? BESS WIERSEMA: I don't believe that skin or whether we keep the inside of a building from a surface perspective should be considered at all at any percentage. If we want to look at a building it should be about potentially its overall mass. I don't know, I think we'd have to look at that further. I think our concern is that this is a giant, great step, but that that definition has not been perfected in terms of what you're seeing here tonight. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Okay, thank you. CHAIR HUDES: I might follow up with another question. I assume you do work in other municipalities as LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 well, and is this draft getting closer to what other folks are doing, or is this pulling us farther away? BESS WIERSEMA: I think it's getting closer. I think it's a step in the right direction for sure. CHAIR HUDES: How would you characterize the ability to deal with a demolition in Los Gatos as compared to other neighboring communities? BESS WIERSEMA: Antiquated and consuming. CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you. David Zicovich. DAVID ZICOVICH: Hi, I'm just here to back up what Bess has said. I have a hundred pictures that look just like that; I didn't bother bringing them. A lot of you have already seen them. Years gone by when we ran into a problem like dry rot in a wall and we had nothing but stucco holding it up we could call the Building Department. They'd come out and they would say go ahead and take it off, fix it, make it right. That is not how things are done now. I brought something into the Planning Department a few months back. We had dry rot from the bottom of the window sill all the way to the bottom of the floor, there is no contiguity over the top, and they said come in for a new house permit. Obviously, no one in their right mind would do that, so we abandoned the dry rot in the wall; LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it's in there still and we're finishing up the house now and it's rotten and needs to be replaced, so I suppose when we're done with the house, we'll go in for a separate permit to repair it. So, above and beyond what's going on with you guys changing the ordinance, how the Building Department and the Planning Department are dealing with this are to the strictest terms of what you guys are putting into the codes, so there has to be a little bit more flexibility between what's codified and what is really, really happening out in the real world. You saw the cardboard walls. I can show you pictures of dry rot. We're entombing walls that are completely junk. We have fireplaces that are falling down but we can't take them down because it will break the contiguity of the building. So, you need to put something in there that will allow for these other conditions. Questions? CHAIR HUDES: Vice Chair Hanssen. VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Like was asked Ms. Wiersema, do you have suggested language that we should be using instead of this? You mentioned the way it used to be was better. DAVID ZICOVICH: If the Building Department and the Planning Department had a little bit more latitude, or LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 were operated with a little more latitude, and a little more common sense. In the past we've pulled the walls off the inside of a house, and old lath and plaster building, the stuff's breaking off the walls already because the house has been neglected for a hundred years, and we tear all the interior off to find out that there's no moisture barrier on the outside of the house. VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Right. I heard the concern. The question I asked was do you have a suggestion about how this should be written versus the way it is? DAVID ZICOVICH: I don't believe the code has changed any, I believe the way that the Building Department and Planning Department are enforcing them are stricter than it once was and they're following the rules completely and not really applying any common sense, or not allowed to apply any common sense. VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. I see. CHAIR HUDES: Any questions? Okay, thank you. Gary Kohlsaat. GARY KOHLSAAT: Good evening. I will use my time wisely, I hope. Number one, I applaud the abandonment of this contiguity requirement. I think that makes it almost LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 impossible to conform. There are plenty of examples to prove that; I'm not going to go into that. I wanted to talk about what my bigger concern has been for the last 20-25 years, that the definition of demolition is removal of either or both the inside and the exterior of the wall in line with each other, so you can see right through the wall, but leaving the framing, but we have to leave one of the two surfaces, right? Everybody knows about that rule. Let me give you four examples, and these are four examples that I have had in my projects. One, we had a house that was all stucco and the guy wanted to put shingles on the house that covered up the stucco. We weren't even going to take the stucco off; we wanted to just add shingles. Technically, that was a demolition. Number two, let's say you have a ranch house that's built in the sixties and typically they did the curbside appeal with siding, and on the other three sides, on the back and the sides, they did it in stucco for cost reasons. Well, let's say we do some remodeling in the back, we want to add siding to match the front. Now we have two sides without siding. We want to add siding on the sides? Nope, that's a demolition. Not going to work. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 These are two instances where the client was penalized for trying to make the house look better, and where is the demolition involved in that? It's not. Two more, really quick. A lot of older garages do not have drywall; they just didn't finish out the garage. But many times, we're using that space for a family room or whatever or adding on through the garage, so now we can't take off the outside surface of the garage, because there's no inside surface. We're actually telling our clients, to be candid, to drywall your garage before we apply, so now we have drywall on the inside, so we can take the outside off. Pretty ridiculous, right? The fourth one is I have a current project where we've demolished the outside of the house, the outside skin, we left the drywall in, and we did the demolition in December. We covered up the walls, we covered up it up in plastic, the contractor took great care in doing all this stuff. They pulled the plastic off in April after we had some sun in March and he's got black mold on the drywall. So, I go to the Planning Department, I ask what do we do about it? Well, you have to take off the drywall, that means it's a demolition, and now you have to go back and get it approved. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HUDES: Thank you. Are there questions? I had a question and I don't know whether it relates to other points you'd like to make, but we've heard now from several folks that there are challenges with the concept of demolition that go beyond what's in the proposed ordinance. So, my question is, is this something that you believe could be addressed by better definitions of demolition, or that the concept of demolition needs to be abandoned completely? GARY KOHLSAAT: I would not want to give up the concept of demolition completely, however I think that the framing should denote what's there, what the wall is. It should be the framing portion, not the finishes. A case in point is Saratoga now accepts that, so there's your local example. There's a new planning director that's come in and they basically have decided that we don't have to keep the interior or the exterior. They realized they want a better product in the end. They want the houses to have all the waterproofing and the insulation, and they want the building officials to be able to inspect in proper sequence, because if you leave your inside on and take the outside off and then you do wiring, it throws off the whole sequence of building inspection, so the Building officials I think would be in favor of this. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HUDES: As a follow up to that, would that suggestion apply equally to a historic structure as a non- historic? GARY KOHLSAAT: I have sympathy for the historic structures and the Preservation Committee that we do, but I've seen plenty of old homes that don't have any water vapor barriers and I think the lead in the paint is the only thing that keeps the moisture out, and there's no more lead in paint. So, it's too bad when I've got a client on Glenridge that's spent $2.5 to $3 million and he doesn't have a vapor barrier on the outside of his house because they had to leave the siding. CHAIR HUDES: So, there might be… GARY KOHLSAAT: My thing with historic structures is, and we've seen it time and time again, where we can recreate exactly what was there with new material, with matching siding profiles, matching stucco, matching stone, we can do it. Dave Flick did it. Dave Zicovich has done it. If Dave Zicovich can do it… (Laughs) No. I think that we get hung up on something that is old just because it's old. Look at the Steinbeck House in Monte Sereno, it caused a huge…because the wood was rotten, and the City made them Bondo it back. So, what are we saving? You could have done a much better job taking it LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 off, put shear plywood on the wall, put the waterproofing on there, waterproof the windows correctly, matching siding on there, or matching stone, or matching materials; it's not that difficult anymore. We do it on purpose; we try to make a home look old and distressed. I mean, we can do it, and it makes just a better product. In today's world they talk about build it green, we have green rules and we have energy compliance and we have everything else, and I think that we need to take another look at this. I mean, if you have an old home, an historic home, I think maybe you replace it in-kind, but you get away from the slivers, and you have siding that's old and siding that's new and you can see that seam. Why would we do that when we have the ability? We do. CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you. GARY KOHLSAAT: Yeah, thank you. CHAIR HUDES: Jennifer Kretschmer. JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: Hello, good evening, I'm Jennifer Kretschmer, AIA. I am a resident and an architectural business owner here in town. I'm also on the AIA Silicon Valley Board of Directors, although I am not speaking on behalf of the AIA, I'm speaking solely on behalf of myself and my clients. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In general, I'm wholly in support of removing the contiguity rule. It does help us become more in line with local communities as well as getting rid of a big issue of the front door/back door demolished house rule. What that means is someone wants to change something to the front of the house, maybe put in a new window or a new front door, they want to do something nice to the back, and as soon as they do that and that's it for the scope of work, through the contiguity rule that's considered a demolished house. So, I'm really glad you're getting rid of that part. My colleagues have said some really good examples and so I'm not going to bring in any of my examples. What I'm going to bring in is that I did write a letter and submitted it on Thursday, May 16th, so hopefully you guys received that. I did have an idea for a way of addressing the repair statement, although I don't think it's wholly fleshed out yet. I'd like to propose that that would say in the non-historic section, "Repair: The removal and replacement of in-kind, non-repairable exterior or interior wall covering resulting in no change to its exterior appearance and/or approved design character if approved by the deciding body." Now, there are a few definitions in there I'd like to go over and clarify. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 By "deciding body," I don't think it should just be the Planning Commission or the Planning Department. I think we definitely need to have the Building Department and the Building official and the Building inspectors be able to chime in so that we do not have any more health and life safety issues, because just like my colleagues, I've had to leave things in walls that I wake up in the middle of the night sweating that this is going to be a health and life safety issue for their family because mold has been left in the walls, creosote in old chimneys have been left in the walls, and those sort of things. In my statement in saying approved design character I'd like to say that what I meant by that definition is that the Planning Department has already approved a design. Whenever someone is remodeling their home, they're really trying to make it better than it was before, and so the approved design character would mean that it would say in conformance with the design character that the Planning Department had already approved in the set of plans, so therefore if you have to remove a section of wall it does go back in-kind as the approved design character. That's about all I'd like to address right now. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HUDES: Thank you. Questions? Yes, Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I thought that the language proposed in your letter is actually very constructive. JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: That's for you guys. But I do have a question, given that we're talking about exterior or interior wall covering and it sounds like it's exterior and/or interior. JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: I think it would be best if we were allowed to have that kind of flexibility, and of course working with the Building Department for those life safety issues, and as well working with the Planning Department as long as we do not have to go back as a tech demo and go back through Planning hearing and Commission, because of course that could stop a project for three to six months. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Okay, thank you. JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: You're welcome. CHAIR HUDES: Vice Chair Hanssen. VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I read your letter and thank you for your comments. If we were to change the repair definition to what you suggested with the understanding LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 behind what you suggested would that address the deficiencies of this building and drywall, or are there more changes that we need to make? JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: I think it's a really good start. I feel very comfortable with that language, but I do also think that we need to include some language about items that are projecting from a wall or items that are not contiguous with the wall, for example, the chimneys, bay windows, a lot of those things are not addressed, and we have policies of how we deal with them but nothing is written down or nothing is very specific, and so I would also want to see that addressed in this policy so that it is very clear what are the guidelines. VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I'm going to paraphrase that although you and others said you applaud the removal of the contiguity that there are at least a couple of different things that need to be relooked at that would make it more streamlined and address these impractical issues of encasing mold into walls, etc. JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: Yes, yes. CHAIR HUDES: I had a question on the deciding body. I seems like you're proposing and/or Planning Department or Building Department, and are you suggesting LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that there are criteria where it only goes to Building instead of Planning? JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: Absolutely, yes. The Planning Department is most concerned with zoning issues, with locations of setbacks. The Building Department is concerned with life safety issues. So, if it is a criteria that has come up that's a life safety issue it really should be addressed by the Building official. If it is something that could disrupt the approved design character, then certainly to go back to the Planning Department. CHAIR HUDES: So that would be something that would be stated on the permit application? Is it a life safety or is it a design? How would that get sorted out in the process? JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: I'm not a policy writer, but I would love to see that if it could just at least say that the Building official has the authority, because right now it basically goes to Planning, and if Planning doesn't like it or Planning can't make it work with the rules the way they're set it doesn't matter what the Building official was. And as some of my colleagues mentioned, when we used to have this in the past with different Staff members at the Town the Building official did tend to take LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 precedent over life safety issues and did sometimes override the Planning Department. CHAIR HUDES: We'll get to questions of Staff later, but to come back to that would it be feasible to say that it goes to the Planning Department and if there is a life safety issue it also goes to Building Department? JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: I'm not sure. You guys need to hash that out. CHAIR HUDES: Okay, so that's part of the discussion. I think it has to be clear, in your opinion? JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: It should be clear though who is the deciding body. CHAIR HUDES: Right. Okay, thank you. So, that's all the cards that I have, and we would now close the public portion of the hearing and ask if Commissioners have questions of Staff or wish to comment on this proposal? Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Would it be possible to make the sort of changes recommended by the architects, in general changing the authority for approving the repair without it triggering a technical demo? Would it be possible to include that in this ordinance, or does that happen someplace else? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JENNIFER ARMER: Based on that concern and that question Staff would recommend that rather than saying the deciding body that it could be changed to the Community Development Director who is the head of both the Planning and Building divisions, and so that decision would be made in consultation both with Planning and with the Building official. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: If I could follow up, would that in effect provide sort of a check and balance as to whether it is a technical demo or it's a repair situation or a health and safety situation? JENNIFER ARMER: Correct. At this point for non- historic homes there is no way to address this type of situation, and so the proposed revision is allowing that flexibility that has been requested here this evening. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: All right, thank you. CHAIR HUDES: So, you said that it could be accomplished that way. It does seem as though we've added some complexity to this process, is that correct? JENNIFER ARMER: There are two parts to what's proposed: The removal of the contiguity, which I think we've heard reduces the complexity of the process, and then codifying an opportunity to address these situations where LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there is some repair needed to allow some flexibility and judgment by Staff. CHAIR HUDES: But I was specifically asking about that second part where there is repair needed, and that decision goes to the Community Development Director. Is that making the process more complex and taking more time? JENNIFER ARMER: No. No, it would be an internal Staff discussion. CHAIR HUDES: Okay. What about the idea of requiring the application to state whether there is a life safety issue involved? JENNIFER ARMER: When somebody comes in stating that this type of repair is needed, we would be asking them to provide an explanation of the situation, and those details would be considered. As I said, if the decision is going to the Community Development Director, he would have consultation both from Building and Planning. JOEL PAULSON: And through the Chair, I would just say that's not something that we would add to an application. We would just take those facts and then make a determination. CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you. Other questions? Vice Chair Hanssen. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: This last issue that was mentioned by Ms. Kretschmer about the items projecting from the wall that would interrupt the contiguity, what could we do about that? JENNIFER ARMER: The question of chimneys in particular was actually discussed, as it was part of the discussion with the Policy Committee, and that actually does not require a change in the code but would just be a change to the details in the demolition affidavit to include chimneys along with the doors and windows that are currently exempt from being part of the existing wall area, and so that's something that could be done without requiring code change. VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: And that's not something we're considering tonight. We're only looking at the code, right? JENNIFER ARMER: Correct. CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you. There was a question that was raised in some of the testimony about perhaps using framing rather than surface or exterior to define demo. Does Staff have an opinion about using framing rather than exterior surface? JENNIFER ARMER: That discussion isn't part of what was proposed by the Policy Committee. The LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recommendations were pretty specific to these two items to try to really move this forward quickly to try to simplify the process, so a larger discussion, if the Town Council wishes to direct that, could a follow up. JOEL PAULSON: And through the Chair, that also could be part of your recommendation. If you believe that if someone just leaves the framing then that should be okay for either historic and/or non-historic, that definitely can be part of any recommendation to the Council. CHAIR HUDES: I understand we could make that change, but before I would support something like that, I'd really be interested in Staff's opinion on making that kind of a change as to whether that would result in abuses. It sounds like it's something that's been accepted in Saratoga, but beyond that evidence I have very little data to try to make a decision on that particular point. JOEL PAULSON: And neither does Staff. Ultimately, I would imagine, and I can't speak for the majority of the Council, but if that was included in the recommendation, I envision that there might be a sending it back to the Policy Committee to have that discussion and then subsequently sending it to HPC if it impacts the exterior coverings of historic buildings, and then we'd be LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 back here before you with all that information and start the loop over again. CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you. Other questions? All right, discussion. How do folks feel about this? Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I'm really sympathetic to the public testimony, having gone through the nuances of Santa Cruz County's regulations in terms of demolition, and so I'm very much in favor of the changes that have been initiated already, and I'm also in favor of augmenting the changes with the following. I think that the definition of repair that Ms. Kretschmer offered is a very constructive one, but I would also include exterior and/or interior walls so that it allows you to take off both surfaces if you do need to make a repair, and I can't think of why the definition for repair would be different in historic and non-historic, so my thinking is it would be the same. I also am strongly in favor of letting the Building official determine whether or not you've got a repair that needs to be made, whether it's health and safety. I appreciated how Ms. Wiersema said that how houses are required to be built today versus how they've been built in the past and having it touch old and new and LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 trying to make that work it would be very challenging, so I think we need to be sensitive to that and letting the Building inspector or the Building official make a determination to help the process move along in a way that allows the integrity of the structure to be maintained or recreated at the highest level and absolutely avoiding situations where we're just working around existing mold or unsafe construction; that makes absolutely no sense to me. So, I think those changes do go in a positive direction, and I think also looking at what Saratoga has done to modify their ordinance will be very constructive, so I would recommend that this go back with those changes and looking at what Saratoga has done and see if we can learn from that. CHAIR HUDES: Question for Staff as a follow up to that, which generally makes sense to me. Is there the need for language about historic properties to talk about matching or in-kind materials? JENNIFER ARMER: Changes to the repair section for historic structures is not part of what's being discussed tonight. What's in front of you is the addition of this repair section to the non-historic structures as well as the removal of the contiguity from both the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 historic and non-historic, so that would be opening up a different part of the definition. CHAIR HUDES: Okay. The reason I asked, I think Commissioner Janoff mentioned historic as well. SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Yeah, and I think as the Chair is aware, in historic the HPC has the ability now to review the condition of the exterior siding and make a determination that it needs to be replaced in-kind, and so that would stay the same; they have that ability. CHAIR HUDES: Okay, so that would not be needed, in your opinion, to include historic in the scope of this change? SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Right. CHAIR HUDES: Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: If historic isn't included in the scope of changes that we're talking about, in Staff's opinion will the problems that the architects have described, having to button up poor construction and other problems, will that be solved by the latitude HPC has, or not? SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Well, a couple things maybe I should clarify. Of course, the contiguity would change with the historic, and that's what the HPC looked at and discussed as well. You're talking about the issues with the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 framing itself, the dry rot of the framing itself? Which I believe the HPC can look at that. JOEL PAULSON: I would just add, current process for a historic house, you find dry rot or something that is irreparable that you think needs to be replaced in-kind, you can go to HPC. Depending on what it is you sometimes don't even have to go to HPC, you come to Community Development, we talk to the Building official, he makes a determination. All we're doing in addition to the repair to the non-historic is allowing that opportunity for non- historic buildings, so that doesn't really change. We already have that process and that's the process we use for historic currently. Sometimes they do have to go to HPC, it just depends on the circumstance, but this is offering that same opportunity as a work-around for those types of situations when they come up. JENNIFER ARMER: And I would add that for non- historic homes of course we're not going to HPC, so it's actually an even simpler process. CHAIR HUDES: Okay, other questions? Are we closing in on a motion? Commissioner Badame. COMMISSIONER BADAME: I'm just going to comment that I'd like to see Commissioner Janoff go ahead with a motion; I think she'd get our support. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I move that the Town Code Amendment Application A-19-003 be forwarded to the Town Council. I can make the required findings for CEQA and I can make the required findings for the General Plan, specifically to Chapter 29 of Town Code regarding demolition, and that with that recommendation that it go to Council the changes that I previously summarized are noted or incorporated, however that process happens. CHAIR HUDES: Commissioner Badame. COMMISSIONER BADAME: Second. CHAIR HUDES: Question for the Maker of the Motion. With regard to the decision process it's been suggested by Staff that a way to involve the Building Department in the decision was to have the deciding body be the Director of Community Development. Is that what you intended, or is that what you'd like to include? COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes. CHAIR HUDES: Okay. Seconder? COMMISSIONER BADAME: So accepted. CHAIR HUDES: Okay. Sounds good. I will make one more comment and then I'll call the question. I will be supporting the motion and I wanted to thank, very much, the professionals who have submitted information and showed up for the hearing and provided in a LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 somewhat constrained setting the ability for us to take input and to have some dialogue, and I think it's one of the things that makes the Town great and I really appreciate the involvement. It would be very difficult for us to come up with something good without the involvement of the professionals who really know the issues that we're facing, so thank you for that. I will call the question. All in favor? Opposed? Passes unanimously. And this one, I believe, is no appeal since it's a recommendation, correct? JENNIFER ARMER: That's correct. CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you.