 |
|
|
|
|
Increase in legal, illegal demos leads to changes
By Nathan R. Huff
With the number of housing demolitions--both legal and illegal--sharply increasing, the town is attempting to iron out the wrinkles in its existing demolition policy to provide clearer directions and stiffer penalties.
The planning commission recommended the approval of amendments to its zoning code, regarding demolitions of historic and nonhistoric homes on Dec. 6, the same night two other demolition-related issues appeared on the agenda.
With the real estate boom still in full swing despite a slowing economy, the town has seen a sharp increase in both requests for demolition permits and remodel permits that--because of a contractor's mistake--turn into demolitions without permits.
"We're catching a lot more," Community Development Director Paul Curtis said of unlawful demolitions. "I don't know if it's because so much building is going on and contractors are busy and shortcuts are being taken, or if out-of-town contractors might just not understand [Los Gatos' rules.]"
These applications have raised a number of individual issues, as well as run into conflict with the town's existing demolition policy. The town typically discourages demolitions for three major reasons: reducing the amount of construction waste going into landfills, keeping house prices more affordable, and maintaining the character of neighborhoods. However, because of the large scope of many recent remodels, these goals aren't being met.
Applicants, in general, also prefer to avoid demolitions when possible, since remodels can usually be approved at a staff level while new construction requires builders to go through a more complicated, expensive process. However, in their attempts to maximize the size of remodels, contractors sometimes destroy too much of the existing house, which roughly translates to 50 percent of the walls. The project then becomes an unlawful demolition and the applicant is forced to file for new construction approval. The results can be costly and painful.
Such was the case recently on Belmont Avenue, where property owners Don and Dana Langley found themselves experiencing an extensive public hearing process all because a contractor knocked down too many walls. Their remodel-turned-new construction was finally approved by the council, but not until after a prolonged dispute with a neighbor and numerous appeals.
The new demolition ordinance includes numerous clauses intended to prevent such situations as the Langleys.' It more clearly defines what walls must remain for a project to be considered a remodel, clarifies when wall coverings can be removed, and details exemptions to the policy.
According to Curtis, the new codes also include language providing for a more proactive approach by the planning department. After planning approval, but before the issuance of any remodel building permits where more than 40 percent of the exterior walls are to be removed, the developer and town will review engineering plans to ensure that remaining walls are structurally sound and won't have to be removed mid-construction.
"I don't think we'll have this same problem by next summer," Curtis said, explaining that since town began administering the "40 percent policy" this past summer, the number of illegal demolitions has dropped. As another preventative measure, the new code has language requiring that a notice be posted at the job site informing workers that the property is on the Historic Resources Inventory and no deviations from the approved plans are allowed without prior approval.
The new codes also allow for stricter punishments for unlawful demolitions, something the town council had requested. Any unlawful demolition requires applicants to pay to file a new construction application and any work completed without a permit. But applicants who demolish a historic house face even stronger consequences. If the house has a Landmark Historic Preservation designation, a fine equaling 10 percent of the property's assessed value is levied; if the structure is historical, but is not within the historic preservation zone, the fine is 5 percent of the assessed value.
Other Demolition Issues
The planning commission looked at two other demolition issues at its Dec. 6 meeting, both put on the agenda by Curtis. The first regarded an interpretation of the General Plan's intent, while the second had to do with demolitions in the hillsides.
Curtis asked the commission for clarification regarding how the town's planners should advise applicants on replacement homes for demolished buildings. The General Plan states that replacement houses "should be of similar size and scale as the original and shall maintain the neighborhood character."
However, as Curtis explained, the two goals are often exclusive of one another, since many small, older homes are surrounded by newer houses double the size. Staff asked the commission to clarify whether the size of other homes in the neighborhood should be considered, as well as the size of the lot.
Los Gatan Lisa Cesari addressed the commission on the issue, speaking emotionally about her and her husband's current demolition and remodel. The Cesaris are proposing to demolish an existing 1,200-square-foot home on Englewood Avenue and replace it with a 4,300-square-foot home. The Cesaris' home would be the third or fourth largest in the neighborhood, but is on the biggest lot and would be set far back from the street. If the Cesaris' plan were deemed to be out of sync with the General Plan, the couple would have to appeal to the planning commission, costing them considerable time and money.
Cesari said it would cost the couple $70,000 in mortgage interest fees if they had to wait for planning commission--as opposed to staff--approval. The two paid $1.6 million for the property, and would have to sell it at a greatly reduced rate if the town ruled that a replacement structure would have to be the same size, she added.
Cesari found sympathy in the commission, which said that the intent of the ordinance was to prohibit monster homes and maintain neighborhood character. Commissioner Suzanne Müller, who worked on the General Plan committee, said the language had always been problematic. "When this was first put forth we had extensive conversations on it," Müller said. "I've always had trouble with it."
Commission chairman Paul Bruno, in his last meeting, said that maintaining character didn't necessarily entail keeping the replacement house the same size. He said the current wording,--which says "should" in front of the same size clause and "shall" in front of maintaining neighborhood character shows that the emphasis is on the latter. Commissioners said Cesari, based on her current plans, probably shouldn't have to come before the commission.
The commission was less giving with remodels-turned-demolitions in the hillsides. Curtis brought the issue to the council because of a specific application on Las Flores Lane. The applicant received staff approval for a remodel in February, and had several conversations with the planning department, regarding the 50 percent wall retention requirement. In November, a site inspection showed that more than 50 percent of the walls had been removed, constituting a demolition.
The applicant was forced to file for new construction, and did so, though no changes were made to the approved remodel plans. The commission has formally requested to review all new homes in the hillsides, but has not dealt with any unlawful demolition/new residence cases.
Commissioners, while acknowledging it would inconvenience the applicant, said the project should come before them.
|
|
|
|
Los Gatos, California Since 1881
