CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to Deny Design Study Application for Vinyl Windoew on a Residence

Meeting Date: August 2, 2011
Prepared by: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a Design Study application for vinyl windows on a residence located at 3013 Lasuen Drive. The appellant is the property owner Nils Bengtsson.
Description: The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the denial of a Design Study application to replace existing aluminum windows with vinyl windows.

Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous denial.

Important Considerations: Regarding window materials, Design Guideline 9.11 states that “materials other than authentic, unclad wood are appropriate only when it can be demonstrated that the proposed material is more appropriate to the architecture.”

Decision Record: On June 16, 2011 the Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny the application.

Attachments:
• Attachment “A” Appeal Application/Appellant Letter.
• Attachment “B” Photos of the residence.

Reviewed by:


_________________________________ _____________________
John Goss, Interim City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: JOHN GOSS, INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: MARC WIENER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: AUGUST 2, 2011
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY A DESIGN STUDY APPLICATION FOR VINYL WINDOWS ON A RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 3013 LASUEN DRIVE. THE APPELLANT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER NILS BENGTSSON

BACKGROUND
The project site is located at 3013 Lasuen Drive and is developed with a stucco clad split level residence. On June 16, 2011 the Planning Commission unanimously denied an application to replace existing aluminum framed windows with double pane vinyl windows. The property owner is appealing the Planning Commission’s decision.

EVALUATION
Basis for Appeal: The appellant is appealing the Planning Commission’s decision for the following reasons:
• The deliberation by the Planning Commission was too short and the property owner did not get a chance to present his case.
• The current windows are not energy efficient and transmit noise from the street.
• The property owner cannot afford unclad wood windows, but would like to
improve the windows and comfort of his home.

Staff Response: Staff notes that the property owner (appellant) was represented by his architect at the Planning Commission meeting. The architect took the full 10 minutes to describe the proposed windows and explain the property owner’s reasons for wanting to replace the existing windows.

The Planning Commission was sympathetic to the property owner’s request to upgrade the windows; however, Carmel has strict design standards that help maintain the character of the community. The Planning Commission determined that the proposed windows did not meet Carmel’s design standards. Generally, the Planning Commission does not consider cost when considering Design Review applications.

Windows: Regarding window materials, Design Guideline 9.11 states that “materials other than authentic, unclad wood are appropriate only when it can be demonstrated that the proposed material is more appropriate to the architecture.” Guideline 9.6 discourages the use of synthetic materials on homes and states that “some new materials may be considered only if they convey a scale and texture similar to that of traditional materials.”

Windows play an important role in maintaining the integrity of architectural design in the City. For most architectural styles in the City, unclad wood windows are the most appropriate. In some instances, such as with old Spanish or Mediterranean style buildings, an alternative material such as steel, would be more appropriate than wood.

The Planning Commission reviewed a sample of the proposed windows and determined that the use of vinyl was inconsistent with the Guidelines and inappropriate for the architectural style of the residence.

Another issue with the windows, which was not addressed at the first meeting, is that the muntin bars (grids) are located between the two panes of glass. Guideline 9.11 states that “divided light windows should appear to be true divided light…removable or internalonly mullion and muntin bars are unacceptable.” A sample of the window will be available at the hearing. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission’s decision.

RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous denial.