HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 10.A 02/03/2003CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA "
AGENDA BILL
FED`
Agenda Title: Appeal by Cobblestone Homes, Inc. of the Decision Meeting Dater February 3, 2003
by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee to include
Condition of Approval #6 prohibiting, the use of vinyl. windows in
the Washington Creek subdivision located at East 'Washington
Street southwest of Prince Park.
Director: 1 Contact Person: Phone Number: 778-4318
Department: j , :;.3 ,.
Community Mike Moor Tiffany Robbe,
Development Planner -T-'ziL
Cost -of Proposal: N/A Account Number: N/A
Amount`Budteted: N/A Name of Fund: N/A
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item,:
1. Location Map
2. Letter- of appeal: dated July 13, 2002
3. Minutes from. the July 25, 2002 Site Plan and Architectural Committee meeting
4. Minutes from the July 11, 2002 Site Plan and Architectural Committee meeting
5. Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal, and Upholding SPARC''s application of Condition of Approval #6
Regarding the Prohibition of Vinyl Windows in the Washington Creek subdivision
6. Letter from SPARC members
7. Letter and periodical photocopies from George Allen, 1444 Liverpool Way
Summary Statement: The applicant, Cobblestone Homes, has appealed the Site Plan and Architectural
Review Committee's (SPARC) Condition ' of Approval #6, which` prohibits the use of vinyl windows in
their Washington Creek Village subdivision.
Council Priority: THIS AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERED TO 'BE PART OF, OR NECESSARY TO, ONE OR
MORE OF THE 2001 PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JULY 21, 2001.
Priority(s): N/A
Recommended .City Council. Action/Suggested Motion: Uphold the SPARC decision and deny the
appeal subject to the findings in the attached.draft resolution.
Reviewed by Finance.:Director:
Today's Date:. °.
January,14, 2003
Reviewed by City Attorney,:
Date:
Revision # and Date Revised:
Approved k v City Manager:
!/ Date:.
File Code:
CITY OF.PETALUMA9 CALIFORNIA
F+EBRUARY 3,.2:003
AGENDA REPORT
FOR.-
COBBLESTONE'S APPEAL OF SPARC'S CONDITION PROHIBITING
VINYL WINDOWS AT WASHINGTON CREEK SUBDIVISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The; applicant, Cobblestone Homes, has appealed the Site Plan and
Architectural Review Committee's (SPARC) application of Condition of Approval #6,
which prohibits the use of vinyl windows in their Washington Creek subdivision.
2. BACKGROUND: Washington. Creek is an approved 37-lot, subdivision on East Washington
Street southwest of Prince Pak. :The subdivision and associated Unit Development Plan
obtained a positive Planning Commission recommendation on November 27, 2001, City
Council approval on February 25, 2002, and Site Plan and Architectural Review approval
on July 25, 2002. The Site Plan -and Architectural Review Committee's approval included
Condition of Approval #6, which reads as follows:
"Prior to Building Permit Issuance, all residences shall be modified so that no vinyl
windows are proposed."
The developer appealed this, Condition of Approval on August 1, 2002. Subsequently, the
appellant requested a delay in the hearing schedule until, after the New Year.
The Zoning Ordinance Section 26-406 describes that it is the role of SPARC to exercise:
"Any controls to achieve
® A satisfactory quality of design in the individual building and its site,
a Appropriateness of the building to its .intended use, and
® Harmony of the development with its ,surroundings.
Satisfactory design quality and harmony will involve among other things:
1. The appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of
the overall design."[bold added]
It is clear from this statement that SPARC has been charged with ensuring that new
developments utilize the highest quality materials. At the July 11, 2002 hearing, the
meeting minutes (Attachment 4) reflect that Comrnittee.Mernber Lynch stated that it is the
job of the committee is to ensure quality materials and that he would rather see wood
windows in the proposed Washington Creek homes. Committee Member Mathies also
stated that she would like the windows improved from the vinyl proposed. Committee
Member Barrett agreed that upgrading to wood windows would be a benefit to the project.
Therefore, the recordshows that the Committee was concerned with the "appropriate use
of quality materials" when they voted to include Condition of Approval #6.
The applicant, in his appeal letter dated August 1, 2002 (attachment .2), believes that
"unless close enough to reach out and touch it, one cannot distinguish between a wood and
vinyl window of identical design". The applicant felt that SPARC adopted the condition
"not to establish an aesthetic or 'design standard, but instead to prohibit use of -poly vinyl
chloride (PVC)-, based on the opinion of one'or'more of its members tfiat-the manufacture` -'"'
of PVC is more polluting than the manufacture of other materials used to produce
windows".
While' individual members of the SPARC committee had discussed the possible
environmental affects of PVC at previous Bearings, the rationale in applying condition 46
to the Washington Creek Village project clearly was related to the desire for the new
residences to'be detailed with high quality building materials.
This appeal, as well as the associated appeal by Bill Dick of Summertree Hbmes: regarding
a similar condition imposed by SPARC on the Baker Ranch project, raises serious issues
regarding the mission of SPARC and their ,ability to have continued discretion over the
architectural review process in Petaluma.
If the Council is sympathetic to the appellant in their effort to gain relief from the this
limitation on. window materials, one could argue that SPARC would .be limited in their
discretion over any building material, including siding, roofing and paint: If the Council
supports this appeal staff would seek direction from the Council on exactly what
limitations would be placed on the architectural review process. Staff would also request
that Council consider this a formal policy on window materials that would be applicable to
all project that have already been similarly conditioned and to any future project subject to
SPARC review and approval.
3. ALTERNATIVES:
a. Deny the appeal and uphold SPARC's Condition of Approval #6 regarding .the
prohibition of vinyl -windows.
b. Grant the appeal and eliminate SPARC's Condition of Approval #6. If this option is
chosen, staff seeks direction from the City Council on
• The limits of'the SPARC committee regarding building material issues and
• A policy regarding the applicability .of similar window conditions of approval on
previously approved and future projects.
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No' negative financial impacts to the City would result from
denying or granting the appeal. 'The City collected the .standard appeal fee of $170.00.
This money is used .for mailing copies of the notice to interested parties regarding the
proposed project. This money does not cover staff time to prepare .and review the staff
report. Approximately 15 hours .of staff time at a cost. of $700.00 has been expended to
date on this appeal.
5. CONCLUSION: The application of Condition of Approval #6 appears to be consistent with
the role of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee as lay out .by the Zoning
Ordinance Section 26-406, which requires that .the Committee ensure the appropriate use
- of quality matena "s. - s...�._-....__.._...__.__
6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR
COMPLETION: N/A
7. RECOMMENDATION: The, Community Development Department recommends the City
Council uphold SPARC's decision and deny the appeal based on the findings in the
attached resolution.
S:\CC-City Council\Reports\Washington Creek Window appeal.doc
Frank Denny
Cobblestone Homes, Inc.
1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Ira Bennett
5802' Monte Verde Drive
Santa Rosa, CA 95409
Bruce Aspinall
703 2nd Street, Suite 200
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
COBBLESTONE
HOIYIES, INC.
July, 31,-2002 '
Honorable Clark Thompson, Mayor
And Members of the City Council
City of Petaluma
1 I English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
1400 N. DUTTON AVE. SUITE .l~
SANTA ROSA
CALIFORNIA 95401-4643
TEL: 707 528-8703
Fax: 707 528-6125
RE: Washington Creek Village: Appeal of SPARC Condition of Approval
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members,
As a representative of Cobblestone Homes, Inc., the applicant for the Washington Creek
Village subdivision, I have been asked to appeal a condition of approval from SPARC that prohibits
the use of vinyl windows in the new homes to be constructed within the project.
Section 26-401 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the purpose of site plan and.architectural
approval is to secure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, and to promote the orderly and
harmonious development of the City of Petaluma: Section 26-4.06 sets forth the standards for review
of SPARC applications and emphasizes that "any controls be exercised to achieve a satisfactory
quality of design in the individual building and its site, appropriateness of the building to its intended
use, and harmony of the development -with its surroundings." Each of the specific standards set forth
in Section 26-406 relate to aesthetic considerations.
SPARC's preclusion of the use of vinyl windows furthers neither the purpose of the Zoning
Ordinance nor the aesthetic standards set forth in Section 26-406. The use of vinyl windows is
visually indistinguishable from wood windows and vinyl clad wood windows. Vinyl windows are
designed to appear identical to wood windows in terms of size, shape, massing and detail. Moreover,
most wood windows used in new homes are clad in either aluminum or vinyl in order to reduce the
maintenance problems associated' with painted wood surfaces that are exposed to the elements,
thereby further reducing or eliminating any visible distinction between the window types..
Unless close enough to reach out and touch it, one cannot distinguish between a wood and
vinyl window of.identical design; in the case of a.vinyl.or aluminum clad wood window, one would
have to poke through the cladding in order to establish the underlying material. I cannot tell.the
difference, and neither can the members of SPARC. At the July 25 ;SPARC meeting, committee
members were presented with -a large scale photo montage of new homes utilizing both wood and
vinyl windows, were asked to identify which were wood or vinyl, and to explain how the differences
between the materials related to the appearance of the windows, and to the proposed condition. They
were unable to distinguish between window types, and offered no explanation, comment or
preference with regard to any aspects of design or appearance, other than to restate their objection to
vinyl.
Attachment 2
SPARC's, intent in forming this condition was not to establish an aesthetic or design standard,
but instead to prohibit use of poly vinyl chloride (PVC), based on the opinion of one or more -of its
members that the manufacture of PVC is more polluting than the manufacture of other materials used
to produce windows. After being presented with this issue when it appeared before SPARC in April,
the applicant successfully argued that this sort of environmental regulation was outside of SPARC's
authority. In response, SPARC, at its July 11 meeting, attempted to re -frame the issue as one of.
y = - 'aesthetic judgment; in -an attempt to keep the matter within its purview. That this -attempt -was-
disingenuous is underscored by the fact that the condition merely prohibits vinyl, while allowing the
use of any other window material. The applicant could, if it chooses, and without further review by
the City of Petaluma, install inexpensive extruded aluminum sliding windows without a finish, such
as those typically used in mobile homes. Clearly then, the condition is not about design or quality of
materials.
Unless this condition is eliminated, SPARC will be implicitly empowered to preclude the use
of materials otherwise deemed acceptable by adopted City building regulations, regardless of
whether such materials may be seen or aesthetically differentiated in any manner. Taking this -step
would improperly impinge upon the City's adopted Uniform Building Code, circumscribe the
authority of the City's chief building official, and provide SPARC with veto authority over a variety
of otherwise acceptable building materials such as pipes, insulation and framing material, regardless
of exterior visual impact. This is not, and cannot, be the intent of the site plan and architectural
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Where no visual impact is implicated, the suitability of building
materials must be judged by the adopted standards contained in the City's Uniform Building.
Regulations.
Vinyl windows are used more than any other type in new home construction in Petaluma,
throughout Sonoma County, and the entire State of California. They are more -energy efficient than
aluminum; last.longer, with considerably less maintenance than required for painted or..enameled
wood; and are designed to appear identical to wood windows. I believe we would all agree that they
look better than;aluminum windows. Whatever visual distinction may be claimed between wood and
vinyl is so minute as to fall well below the threshold required for SPARC to impose this condition.
And, of course, as the record indicates, this condition was not formed with any regard to design or
quality, but -was merely a back -door attempt at environmental regulation, a serious over -reaching of
SPARC's authority, and a dramatic departure from its mission.
The applicant requests your unqualified support of this appeal. In addition, we would
appreciate if the City, Council would consider taking this opportunity to reaffirm the mission of
'SPARC, and to send a clear message to its imembem that the process must be respected: It would be
unfortunate, and.most'inappropriate,'if appeals such as this.need to be filed in the future, in response
to similar conditions emanating from SPARC.
7Bennei
lly submitted,
SPARC Minutes July 25, 2002
a��LU City of Petaluma, CA
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
I85$
1
2 Minutes,,,..--
3 Excerpt
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33.
34
35
36
37
38
39
Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 11 English Street
Telephone: 707-778-4301
FAX: 707-778-4498
July 25, 2002
3:00 p.m.
Petaluma, CA
E-Mail: plannini4(a)ci.t)etaluma.ca.us
Web Page: http:/` wwW.ci.petaluma.ca.us
The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee encourages applicants or their
representatives to be available -at the meeting to answer questions so that no agenda item
need be deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information.
Roll Call: Present: Teresa Barrett, Janet Gracyk, Linda Mathies, Jack Rittenhouse
Absent: Chris Lynch
Historic: Hoppy Hopkins, Marianne Hurley
Staff: - George White, Planning Manager
Jane Thomson,, Code Enforcement Officer
Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
*Chairperson
.Approval of Minutes: Minutes of July 11, 2002 were approved as amended.
Committee Members' Report: Tree Advisory — updated walking tours brochure — now
available at the Museum and City Hall.
Correspondence: Letter from a neighbor in support of the Casad demolition.
Public Comment:: None
Appeal Statement: Was noted on the agenda
III. WAS14INGTON CREEK'VILLAGE, East Washington Street.
AP No: M9480-015 & 016
File: SPCO1002
Project Planner: Tiffany Robbe
Applicant is requesting .approval for site plan, architectural and landscaping plans
1 Attachment 3
SPARC Minutes July 25, 2002
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
to construct 37, single-family residences on 9.23 acres.
Note: This item is continued from July 11, 2002.
The applicant, Cobblestone Homes, presented the changes to the site plan since the
meeting of July 11, 2002.
Committee Member Barrett left the meeting.
Justin.Hansen, Dalin Group: Presented the architectural changes to the homes; the sound
wall; the benches and the lighting for the houses as well as the landscape lighting.
Phil Manoukian, Landscape Architect:. Limited number of vines that would work well
with masonry. Suggested deciduous vine.
Ira Bennett, Cobblestone Homes: Gave Coblestone's reasoning for using, vinyl windows
and presented examples. Thinks it's overreaching to condition the type of window.
Public hearing opened:
Patricia Tuttle Brown: The light on the houses seems to shine up and down rather than
just down. Think the bollard lights shine downward.
Committee Member Mathies: Glad to see the changes. on the streetscape and addressing
the neighbors concerns. One garage did not seem to have the same detail as- others.
Think the .sound wall is ok, bench is definitely an improvement. Think the light is ok
functionally — would like a little variety.
Committee Member Gracyk: Think the sound wall is a good choice except for the
column and the cap; think the light is very attractive and will be effective. Thanked the
applicant for the examples of color board, windows, and lights — is very helpful. Think
the Boston ivy is a very good choice for the sound wall. Do not agree with ivy around
the trunks of the trees. PUD modified no ray wood ash. Plant palate on the front of the
homes seems more commercial - a little more variety, some perennials would be
appropriate. Addition of a few native riparian shrubs on the creek is appropriate— need
that middle layer. No ivy adjacent, to the'creek.
Committee Member Rittenhouse: Thanked the applicant forthe amount of time and
effort. Like the color board; am notshrilled with sound wall — better cap; consider a
additional light fixtures thatwill accomplish the same -thing. Windows have been highly
debated on this committee. Do not agree with vinyl windows.
Revised conditions: More than one type of light fixture on houses; sound wall precast
cap, no vinyl windows; landscaping changes as noted above.
M/S Mathies/Gracyk to approve project as conditioned.
2
SPARC Minutes
July25, 2002
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
All in favor:
Committee Gracyk: Yes
Committee Member Rittenhouse: Yes
Committee Member Mathies: Yes
Committee Member Lynch: Absent
SITE ?LAN-AND-ARCHI-TECTURAL REVIEW
DRAFT FINDINGS
Washington Creek Village Subdivision
East Washington Road Southwesterly of Prince Park
1. The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee authorizes the proposed
construction of a 37 'unit detached single family residential subdivision with the
associated roadways, paths, utilities and 1.8 acres dedicated to the City for open
space purposes.
2. The project as conditioned, will conform'to the intent; goals, and policies of the
Petaluma General Plan. The General Plan contains objectives and policies which
encourages the .orderly and harmonious' development of Petaluma to insure a
choice of housing types and locations to all persons regardless of sex, cultural
origin, age, marital status, or physical handicaps.
3. The project as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the
public welfare of the community because it will be operated in conformance with
Performance Standards, specified in the Uniform Building Code, the Petaluma
Zoning Ordinance and the 1=987 City of Petaluma General Plan.
4. The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration at its meeting of
February 25, 2002 and all mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study are
herein incorporated.
5. That the plan for the proposed development is, compatible with the area and the
Development Guidelines will ensure that the proposed development and uses are
compatible.
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
DRAFT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Washington Creek Village Subdivision
East Washington Road Southwesterly of Prince Park
Planning Department
3
SPARC Minutes
July 25, 2002
1 1. All mitigationmeasures and findings adopted in conjunction with approval of the
2
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Resolution 2002-023 N.C.S.) for the Washington
3
Creek Village subdivision project are herein incorporated by reference as
4
conditions of project approval.
5
6
2.
All conditions/findings adopted in conjunction with Resolution 2002-024 N.C.S.
7
adopting a 37-lot Tentative Subdivision Map are herein incorporated by reference
8
as conditions -of projedt approval. "
9
10
3.
All conditions/findings adopted in conjunction with Resolution 2002-025 N.C.S.
11
approving the Planned Unit District Development Guidelines for the Washington
12
Creek Village subdivision project are herein. incorporated by reference.
13
14
4.
The plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial
15
conformance with the PUD Development Plan Guidelines dated June. 20, 2002,
16
PUD Development Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations dated July 17, 2002, with
17
the Landscape Plan dated May 28, 2002, and with the Colors Board submitted
18
July 25, 2002 (all of which are on file in the Petaluma Planning Division) except.
19
as modified by the following conditions.
20
21
5.
Prior to Building Permit Issuance, some of the residences .shall be shown with a
22
downward cast porch light fixture .other .than the one approved by SPARC. This
23
alternative porch light fixture(s) shall be subject to staff review.
24
25
6.
Prior to Building- Permit Issuance, all residences- shall be modified so that no
26
vinyl windows are proposed.
27
28
7.
4-. Prior to issuance of 80% of the Certificates of Occupancy for the residential
29
units the work approved/required within the creek setback shall be completed and
30
approved, by the Community Development Department and the Department of
31
Parks and Recreation.
32
33
8.
Prior to approval of the Final Map, thefollowing modifications shall be made to
34
the landscaping and irrigation plans:
35
a. The ivy shall be eliminated from under the Zelkova trees along East
36
Washington Street and replaced with another type of groundcover, subject
37
to staff review.
38
b. A few native riparian shrubs shall be added along the creek.
39
C. Any ivy adjacent to the creek shall be eliminated..
40
41
And the following modifications shall be made to the PUD Guidelines:
42
a. Ray wood ash shall be eliminated.
43
b. At the front yards, ;more variety including perennials shall be added and
44
the plant palette shall be made to feel less commercial.
45
46
9.
& Prior to approval of the Final Map, the Plan Unit Development "Map shall be
47
;revised and resubmitted to include:
4
SPARC Minutes
July 25, 2002
1 a. The following language "No building additions that result in new floor
2 area shall be allowed except for the minor building additions allowed in
3 Section 3f "Development Standards -Minor Building Additions" and
4 b. A means of showing that Lots 12, 17, 18; and 19 will have photovoltaic
5 electric generating systems
6
7 10. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the: PUD Development Guidelines shall be
8... revised to state that Lots 12, --17; 18, and -19-will-`:have`-photovoltaic -electric -
9 generating systems and to show any other modification approved by SPARC.
10
11 11. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, language shall be drafted and
12 submitted to the Community Development Department staff that will be recorded
13 on the deed of each new parcel indicating that the property is subject to the
14 restrictions and limitations of the approved Planned Unit District (PUD) as well as
15 the associated Design Guidelines and Unit Development Plan.
16
17 12. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the Sound Wall and, Fence Details Sheet L314
18 shall be modified to be consistent with the PUD Guidelines and with the
19 placement of the homes on each lot (Lots 17, 29, and 36 are inaccurate).
20
21 13. Prior to the approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall provide the Planning
22 Division with documentation that the proposed sound wall complies with the
23 specifications of Illingworth & Rodkin's Noise Assessment (May 1, 2001)
24 Mitigation Measure #L
25
26 14. Prior to the approval of the Final Map, the sound wall shall.be depicted with an
27 improved cap and may be depicted with improved columns, subject to staff
28 review.
29
30 15. Prior to the approval of the Final Map, bollard lighting shall be added to the
31 south side of the creek at the two ends of the path, where there is not ambient
32 streetlighting.
33
34 16. The LLAD language shall also include maintenance responsibilities within the
35 Washington Creek area of the bike path, benches, trees, and irrigation system and
36 mowing of the grass area. The LLAD language and map landscaping and
37 amenities shall be submitted to the Planning Division and Parks and Recreation
38 Departments for their review and acceptance.,prior to Final Map approval.
39
40 Standard SPARC' Conditions OfApproval:
41 .
42 17. � The site shall be kept cleared at all times of all garbage and debris. No outdoor
43 storage shall be permitted.
44
45 18.8: Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and
46 Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.).
47
5
SPARC Minutes July 25, 2002
1 19.9- At no time shall future business activities exceed Performance Standards
2 specified in the Uniform Building Code, Section 22-301 of the Petaluma Zoning
3 Ordinance, and the 1987 City of Petaluma General Plan.
4
5 20. 4-0-. External downspouts shall be painted to match background -building colors.
6 Scuppers without drainage pipes may not be installed because of probable
7 staining of walls (overflow scuppers are excepted).
9 21. -lam Should any archeological/historical remains be encountered during grading,
10 work shall. be halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to
11 evaluate the artifacts and to* recommend further action. The local Indian
12 community shall also be notified and consulted in the event any archaeological
13 remains are uncovered.
14
15 22. 4- All exterior light fixtures shall be shown on plans subject to staff review and
16, approval. All fights attached to buildings shall provide a soft ""wash" of light
17 against the wall. All lights shall conform to City Performance Standards (e.g., no:
18 direct glare, no poles in excess of 20 feet height, etc.) . and shall compliment
19 building architecture.
20
21 23. 43-. All trees shall be a minimum fifteen -gallon size (i.e., trunk diameter of at least
22 1/4 inch measured one foot above the ground) unless otherwise specified (e.g.: 24"
23 box or specimen size) and double staked; all shrubs shall be five -gallon size. All
24 landscaped areas not improved with lawn shall be protected with two-inch deep
25 bark mulch as a temporary measure until the ground cover is established.
26 24. 44 All plant material shall be served by a City approved automatic underground
27 irrigation system.
28
29 25. 4-5-. A master landscape plan of the street frontage areas shall be provided, to staff
30 approval, prior -to issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan shall include
31 street trees with planting design and species to staff approval. Landscape shall be
32 installed to City standards prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
33
34 26. 4-6-. Linear root barrier systems shall be utilized for trees near public streets or
35 walkways as needed, subject to staff review and approval.
36
37 27. 4-7-. All street trees and other plant materials, within the public right-of-way shall
38 be subject to inspection by the project landscape architect or designer prior to
39 installation and by City staff prior to acceptance by the City, for conformance
40 . with the approved quality specifications.
41
42 28. 4-8: All tree stakes and ties shall be "removed within one year following installation
43 or as soon as trees are able to stand erect without support.
44
45 29. k9- All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such
46 maintenance shall include; where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding,
6
SPARC Minutes
July 25, 2002
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
cleaning of debris and trash, fertilizing -and regular watering. Whenever
necessary, planting shall be replaced with other plant materials to insure
continued compliance with -applicable landscaping requirements. Required
irrigation .systems shall be fully maintained in sound operating condition with
heads periodically cleaned and replaced when missing to insure continued regular
watering of landscape areas, and health and vitality of landscape materials.
30. 29-. All 'improvernents and grading shall comply with the -Sonoma County Water
Agency's Design .Criteria.
31. 24-. All work within the public right=of--way requires an excavation permit from
the Community Development Department.
32. �? Public utility access and easement locations and widths ,shall be subject to
approval by PG&E, Pacific Bell, SCWA, all other applicable utility and service
companies and the City Engineer and shall be shown on the plans.
33. 273,7 Underground utilities such as water meters and sewer laterals shall be placed
under paving or as close as possible to private driveways; to avoid conflict with
street tree planting locations within the street right-of-way. Transformer vaults,
fire hydrants and 'light standards shall be located .in a manner which allows
reasonable implementation of the approved street tree planting plan for the project
without compromising public safety.
34. 24 A reproducible copy of the'finalized PUD Development Plan and written PUD
Standards incorporating all project conditions, of approval shall be submitted to
the Planning Department prior to issuance of development,permits.
35. � A reproducible copy of the Tentative Subdivision Map, reflecting all
applicable adopted conditions of approval, shall be submitted to the Planning
Department within 30 days of SPARC approval of the project.
36. 2-6-, The applicant shall, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its
boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when
such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants of any
such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense.
Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a
defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's
fees and costs; and the City defends the action in good faith.
7
SPARC Minutes
July 11, 2002
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
a�ALU City of Petaluma, CA
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 11 English Street
Telephone: 707-778-4301
FAX: 707-778-4498
Minutes
EXCERPT
July 11, 2002
3:00 p.m.
Petaluma, CA
E-Mail: planninR(a�ei.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page: http://www,.ci.petaluma.ca.us
The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee encourages applicants or their
representatives to be available at the meeting to answer questions, so that no agenda item
need be deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information.
Roll Call: Present Jack Rittenhouse, Teresa Barrett, Chris, Lynch, Linda Mathies
Ross Parkerson*
Staff: George White,. Planning Manager
Tiffany Robbe, Assistant Planner
Phil Boyle, Assistant Planner
Anne Windsor; Secretary
*Chairperson
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE BUSINESS:
OLD BUSINESS;
PUBLIC HEARING:
III. WAS'HINGTON CREEK VILLAGE, East Washington Street.
AP -No: 149480-01`5 & 016.
File: S`PC01002
Project Planner: Tiffany Robbe
Applicant is requesting approval for site plan, architectural and landscaping plans
to construct 37, single-family residences on 9.23 acres.
Note: This item is continued from April 25, 2002 and June 13, 2002.
1 Attachment 4
SPARC Minutes
July 11, 2002
1
2 Tiffany Robbe presented the staff report: Ms. Robbe presented the following
3 correspondence. that was, received after -the packet had gone out. 1) a memo from Ed
4 Anchordoguy; 2.) a letter from Cobblestone Homes regarding the lots that have
5 photovoltaics; 3) letter from homeowners of the Alderwood subdivision
6
.7 John Thatch, Architect: Addressed the concerns. of the committee and gave a history of
8" " the project acid the"cl tinges `to the-p"roj ecf' since"the 1'asf SPARC meeting.
9
10 Frank Denny, Cobblestone Homes: Presented the bollard path lighting, showed the
11 proposed benches for the path on the creek, showed the lots proposed for the
12 photovoltaics, asked the committee to use the same street lights as Turtle Creek, and
13 showed craftsman type light for porches.
14
15 Public hearing opened:
16
17 Dina Aguilar, 281.Redwood Circle: Major concern is flooding of the creek. Bike path
18 stops at 277 Redwood Circle.
19
20 George White: City will continue bike path to Sonoma Mountain Parkway within two
21 years.
22
23 Jerilynn Johnson, 277 Redwood Circle: Asked if creek will be maintained
24
25 Bob Spieldenner, 28,5 Redwood Circle: Also have concerns about water and flooding.
26 Have had to sand bag twice. Will now get runoff since Turtle Creek was built. Hope for
27 a solution without harming our property.
28
29 John Ruzsicska, 297 Redwood Circle: Was under the impression that all of the homes
30 across from us would be 1-story homes instead of just one home.
31
32 Frank Denny: Will be, dedicating the creek.to the city. Will be filing the depression and
33 not the creek. Think the historic flooding problems will be going away.
34
35 Bonnie Diefendorf Raising the pad for lot 15 a foot and a half. .
36
37 Jerilynn Johnson: Responded to the questions regarding the grade levels of her home at
38 Alderwood.
39
40 Patricia Tuttle Brown: Asked the committee about the house lighting — .would like
41 hooded light on the houses and on the path.
42
43 Jerilynn Johnson: Clarified that the issue for them.is the.creek.
44
45 Public hearing closed.
46
2
SPARC Minutes July 11, 2002
1
Committee Member Parkserson: All the flooding issues were discussed at the Council
2
level. SPAR. C's-purview is strictly architecture, landscaping and the relationship of the
3
subdivision to other subdivisions. SPARC is not able to overturn decisions already made
4
by the Council.
5
6
Committee Comments:
7
Committee Member Lynch:- Applaud the work that,has gone into the�changes:=Think the---.
9
colors are too much — make it a more uniform color palette, less gray and beige. Quality
10
of line drawing on details looks good. Want the buildings to turn out like the drawings.
11
Wanted to respond regarding the windows. The job of the committee is to ensure quality
12
materials. Would rather see wood windows (shows Pella aluminum exterior clad wood
13
window). Argument about Title 24 does not hold true.
14
Do not like the sound wall material — looks like plastic. Do not like any of the options
15
presented for sound wall. Any -planting on south,facing wall will get fried. Think lots 12,
16
13, & 14 should be 1-story for the view corridor. Agree - something simpler with no
17
glare for porch lights and study bollards to ensure completely downward cast.
18
19
Committee Member Mathies: A lot of improvement in the elevations. Like the simple
20
mix of materials. Would like the windows improved. May benefit you to have more 1-
21
story homes. Think the fauk wood is the best choice,'shown for the sound wall, but see
22
what other options exist. Would be best if you are planting. Would like to see a nicer
23
bench and better lighting — porch light should be less Craftsman.
24
25
Committee Member Barrett: Agree about the windows —upgrading to wood would be
26
beneficial. Would like to see an example of wire gates. Do not like the sound walls
27
either — do not know what you can cover it with. Agree that bollards and house lights
28
should be revised. Sympathetic to the neighbors regarding -flooding.
29
1
30
Committee Member Rittenhouse: Detailing, seen in elevations is critical to the success of
31
the subdivision — don't lose this quality when it is built. Color scheme needs to be pulled
32
back a bit. Issue of view corridor is critical — think it should be taken advantage of - lots
33
12, 13 and 14 would like those to be 1-story. More porch light variety and downcast.
34
Look at some of the sound walls on Sonoma Mountain Parkway. Propose better bench.
35
If built the way it is depicted it will be successful.
36
37
Committee Member Parkerson: Changes presented make it a more interesting place to
38
live. Think you could have a different house on lot 15. Agree ;the lighting needs to be
39
different and low glare. OK with colors. Encouraged residents to follow through
40
regarding the maintenance of the creek with SCWA.
41
42
Committee Member Lynch: Light stucco house sticks out too much. Do not want to see
43
all the 1-stony houses being the same plan all in a row. Would like a new 1-story to be
44
2,400 square feet.
45
46
John Thatch, Architect: Proposed plan 5 on lots 11, 13, and 15.
3
SPARC Minutes
July 11, 2002
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Committee. Member Parkerson: Like the idea ,of single story on the corner and 13 & 15.
Committee Member Lynch: Need a different design 1-story plan. Plan 5 at lot 15, new
plan at lot 11 keeping property line about where it is.
Committee Member Barrett: Bringing lots 11 and 15 down to 1-story will help the
neighb6"r`s Bring your l`and'scape'architect-'to the next -hearing. -
Frank Denny: Went over changes committee requested:
• Change colors
• Change lighting on houses and path
• Sound wall
• Different bench on path
• Reduce lots 11 and 15 to 1-story
M/S Barrett/Lynch to continue to July 25, 2002. _
All in favor:
Committee Member Rittenhouse: Yes
Committee Member Barrett: Yes
Committee Member Parkerson: Yes
Committee Member Lynch: Yes
Committee Member Mathies: Yes
Adjournment: 6:55 p.m.
S :\Sparc\Min utes\071101 doc
4
11RAWN
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PETALUMA
DENYING THE APPEAL BY COBBLESTONE HOMES OF THE SITE PLAN AND
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C.OMMITTEE'S CONDITION OF APPROVAL #6
PROHIBITING VINYL WINDOWS
IN THE WASHI'NGTON CREEK SUBDIVISION,
EAST WASHINGTON STREET SOUTHWEST OF PRINCE PARK,
APN I49- '94" 15 AND 016:+
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2002, the Site. Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) held a
public hearing, heard testimony and conditionally approved the site, architectural and landscape
plan for the 37-lot Washington ;Creek subdivision off .East Washington Street southwest of Prince
Park, APN 149-180-015 and 016; and
WHEREAS, Condition of Approval #6 prohibited the use of vinyl windows for the project; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2002, the Community Development Department received a letter from
the applicant appealing SPARC's Condition of Approval #6; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council to consider the appeal
on February 3, 2003.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council, based on the evidence and
testimony_ presented for the record 4 the public hearing, hereby denies the appeal and upholds the
decision of SPARC based on the following finding:
e The prohibition of vinyl windows in condition 46 is consistent with the role of SPARC as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 26-406 which charges the Committee with ensuring
that new development utilize quality building materials.
Attachment 5
j, ; ,, ll
v�
0��1�
il
December 8, 2002
Mr. Mike Moore
Community Dev. Director, City of Petaluma,
P. O. Box 61
Petaluma, California 94953.
Dear Mr. Moore,
I wish to voice my opposition to certain actions of the "SPA'RC"
committee regarding the plan review process, specifically their practice of
disallowing Vinyl Windows on new residential projects. It is not my
objective to single out any individual(s) on the Committee, but simply to
offer them some alternative reasons to consider for recommending Vinyl
Windows.
My research and comments are as follows:
General Use of Vinyl materials
Vinyl has been used effectively for a. great many years enhancing many
aspects of our every day lives. Automobiles; solar applications, household
and business use just to, name a few. Vinyl serves us as an excellent energy
conservation material and is usually recycled; further conserving our
natural resources.
Vinyl use in Windows
Vinyl window frames serve us as an "Energy conservation tool, "
promoted by the state energy regulators under Title .24 of the "Energy
Code. " During the 1980's many window manufacturers closed their
doors, unable to afford to retool manufacturing plants in order to meet the
energy mandate. These changes have saved countless energy dollars for
consumers and their many varied designs and styles. will enhance the
appearance (Architecture) of almost any installation.,
Attachment 7
Wood as an alternative
Wood window frames have a long history of use in housing. However,
wood does' have a high level of maintenance and has prompted many
manz facturers to use some form, of "glcrdd._!,7 on the:exterior to protect. ---•,
the wood from the elements. (Usually Vinyl) The cost for these is
astronomical (in comparison to other alternatives) placing a further
unnecessary burden on the end user. This window choice is usually made
for the high -end market.and the owner/end user often makes it..Please be,
advised that Earth First has taken to climbing 2" growth redwood trees in
the recent past, objecting to their harvest and use.
Aluminum as an alternative
Aluminum Window frames are durable and ,withstand the elements very
well, are cost effective and come in a wide range of styles. However there
is excessive energy loss through the frames in heat and cold transfer rates,
and they encourage mold growth around the inside frames that must be
dealt with periodically. We must also make other energy considerations
when using this alternative and use other resources excessively in order to
compensate the energy loss.
Thank'you in advance for your considerations and in the. hope that the
SPARC members will come to their senses and discontinue this wasteful
exclusionary practice.
Yours very truly, �J
George Allen
CC:
E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
Tiffany Rohhe, Planner
1980s. Recently, vinyl overtook wood
as the most common window*mater-
ial in the U.S. Vinyl windows now
account for about 40% of total. win-
dow sales and around 60% of the
replacement market.
Some products combine wood and
vinyl, but all -vinyl windows have sash
and frames made from hollow pieces
of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Glazing,
and hardware vary, by brand and
model but are comparable to what
you'll find on -Wood and metal units.
The. main .selling points for vinyl
windows are price and durability. All
things being equal,, vinyl windows
cost about a third less than compara-
ble wood or clad -wood units. The
installed cost is even lower because
there's no need to paint the. window
after it's nailed to the building.
Eliminating painting can also reduce
overhead by allowing you to finish
the job sooner.
Besides never needing paint, vinyl
windows won't rot, and vinyl doesn't
.swell or warp when it gets wet. As
AUGUST JLC 2002
L:;,
nl r 7 _Uu
�1
i
with any product, quality varies by
brand and model, however. To under-
stand the differences, it helps to know
how vinyl windows are made.
Making -Vinyl Windows
Vinyl window parts start out as
powdered PVC resin. The resin is
mixed with additives to form a vinyl
compound, which is melted and
forced through dies. What comes out
is .a hollow extrusion that's divided
into separate chambers by a series of
internal walls.
The extrusions are then .cut into
16- or 20-foot lengths and shipped to,
the fabricator. In most cases, fabrica-
tors outsource extrusions, but a few
of the larger manufacturers, produce
their own.
At the fabrication plant, extrusions
for sash and frames are cut. to length,
mitered., and joined at the corners. The
frames on low -end, windows are some-
times joined with screws. But on most
windows, frames and sash are joined'
by "fusion welding, , which involves
melting the ends and pressing them
together. This produces strong corners
that, are. airtight and watertight.
Assembly is completed by installing
glass, weatherstripping, and hardware.
Additives Make the. Difference
Most vinyl compounds are 80 /o
PVC resin and 20% additives. But it's
the additives that determine the
physical properties of the material. -
The compounds used in early win-
dows weathered poorly, which led to
problems like .brittleness, yellowing,
and surface pitting. As compounds
improved, those problems became
less .common:. Today's windows con-
tain UV -stabilizers to resist the sun
and modifiers to enhance toughness
and flexibility.
Dimensional stability. Excessive
thermal expansion was a problem .
with earlier windows. As the tempera-
ture changed, vinyl parts expanded
and contracted more than surround-
ing imaterials. This differential move-
ment led to broken glass seals, poorly
fitting sash, and failed caulk joints
between frame and exterior: trim.
Modem compounds are much more
stable, but vinylstill moves more
than wood, metal, or glass.
Vinyl movement today is unlikely
to affect the window, but it's a reason
to be careful about the joints between
windows and exterior walls. Special,
vigilance is required with stucco or
any other installation that relies on
caulk to keep the water out. Don't
assume that the methods you use to
install wood or metal windows will
work equally well for vinyl. Ask the
window manufacturer- and the ven-
dor what -they suggest. It might mean
using backer rod and high-perfor-
mance sealant instead of cheap latex
caulk. But that's a .small price to pay,
for an installation that doesn't leak.
Strength and Durability
The walls of vinyl extrusions are
typically 1/16 to, 3/32 inch thick.
Sounds thin, but the interior walls
reinforce the exterior in much the
way that chords reinforce a roof truss_.
Another benefit of this chambering is
decreased thermal conductivity,
because the ,air pockets act as insula-
tion. Before buying windows, make
sure you see a picture or, better yet,
samples of the_ extrusions. In -general,
the thicker the vinyl and the more
chambers in the extrusion, the better.'
Vinyl is a thermoplastic, meaning
that when it gets hot enough, it will
start to melt. In hot,, sunny climates
it's not unusual for surface tempera-
tures to reach 160 degrees.. Ili theory,
that poses a problem for vinyl win-
dows. The concern is that the vinyl
will soften enough to deform under
the weight of the glass. But in prac-
tice, the air -pocket insulation keeps
AUGUST 1LC 2002• -
Many companies thatjnake, vinyl win-
dows also make vinyl doors. If's easier to
gang doors and windows that come from
the same manufacturer.
Like most vinyl windows
for new construction, this
one comes with, an integral
nailing.flange. Some man-
ufacturer_s offer windows
with an optional attached'
vinyl brickmolding.
Vinyl parts have multiple inner chambers
and, as is the case with these sash, can
be reinforced with metal stiffeners. This
particular window is a replacement unit,
which is why it has no nailing flange.
Vinyl windows start out as 16- or 20-foot
PVC extrusions. The pieces in this .stack
of frame parts are about to be cut to
length. .
the inner, walls cool, allowing them to tilt -pivot window. Common in Europe,
maintain their strength. this type of window is seen in the
Reinforcing. Windows should be U.S. rarely and usually as a high -end
strong enough to withstand heavy mahogany unit.
wind loads, attempts at forced entry, Product offerings vary by region and
and; normal wear and tear. Even company. Double-hungs are especially
though extrusions may be strong popular in the eastern half of the
enough to stand up to those things on country, while sliders and replacement
their own, manufacturers sometimes units are more popular in the West.
reinforce them by putting steel or alu- One thing to consider when choosing
minum stiffeners 'in the chambers. a brand of windows is the breadth of
The bigger the window, the. more -the'-product line. In -addition to win
likely it is to be reinforced. Metal is dows, many companies make hinged
frequently used in the perimeter .of and sliding vinyl doors. Getting all the
large sash and in the stiles and rails of windows and doors for a project from
vinyl.doors. It's also placed in strategic' the same vendor is a plus. The units
areas in windows of all sizes. Typical will match and are more likely to show
locations include meeting rails, sills, up at the same time.
and the side jambs of mulled units. It's Replacement windows. Vinyl win -
worth asking when and where the dows have been especially popular as
manufacturer reinforces windows. replacement windows because it's
Some, companies do a lot of reinforc- easy to get therm in custom sizes.
ing, and others do almost none. Manufacturers have designed vinyl
Shopping for Vinyl Wiiidows
Window manufacturers come in all
shapes and sizes. Some are large
national and regional companies that
build with wood, metal, and vinyl.
Others are small to medium -size com-
panies that make only vinyl windows.
There are lots of local window shops.
Some sell well-known. brands, while
others sell their own private label.
While it's possible to do. small-scale
production, many companies out -
source production to larger manufac-
turers. One such manufacturer is
Republic Windows & Doors, which
produces private -label windows for
window shops and for builders and
remodeiers looking for a way.to differ-
entiate themselves in the marketplace.
In most cases,, the same kinds of win-
dows are available in vinyl as in wood.
You can't get true -divided lites; but you
can get windows with grids sand-
wiched between. the glass. Other
options include snap -in wood jamb
extensions and channels for drywall
returns. Units are also available with
vinyl brickmold or J-channel to accept
vinyl siding. One of the more unusual
products on the market is Polybau's
AUGUST JLC 2002
over the existing jamb, so there's no
need to remove or damage the exist-
ing trim. This lowers the cost of
replacement by reducing the time,
mess, and labor that go into the job.
In most cases, the replacement unit
screws into the existing opening and
is caulked in place. You can also get
replacements with something called a
stucco fin. The fin, which looks like a
wide, thin exterior casing, overlays
the existing window and laps onto
the stucco. That allows you to replace
windows without patching stucco or
repainting anything on the exterior
of the building.
Color. Although vinyl comes in
every color of the rainbow, most vinyl
windows are either white or beige. A
few are brown or bronze. Because dark
colors absorb more heat, windows are
usually light colored. Choices are lim-
ited because of the need to standardize
extrusions.
There's no denying that from up
close, vinyl windows look like they're
made from plastic. On the other hand,
the color goes all the way through the
material, so scratches and dings are
hard to see. It is possible to paint
vinyl, but you .should avoid painting
vinyl windows because in most cases
it will void the warranty. Some com-
panies offer windows with wood grain
interiors or interior surfaces that have
been clad with real wood veneer.
Quality Standards
Energy Ratings
The American Architectural Manu-
facturers Association.(AAMA)'sets min-
tmum quality standards for vinyl
windows. Manufacturers submit sam-
ple windows for independent lab test�
ing, which includes testing corner
welds for strength, testing the windows
against forced entry,, and testing extru-
sions for strength, impact resistance,
color retention, and heat resistance: If
the windows pass, 'the manufacturer
can put an AAMA sticker on that type
of window to verify that. it and all its
components meet certain strength and
durability standards.
Warranties. Many vinyl windows
come with a lifetime warranty on the,
sash and frame. in most cases, "life -
Lime" means for as long as the current
occupant owns the house.
Insulated - glass units - are usually,
warranted_ against seal failure for 15 to
25 years. And hardware is normally
covered for 2. to 10 years. Those cov-
erages are typical for windows that go
into single-family homes. Stricter
terms apply to windows in commer-
cial and multifamily units. Be sure
not to do anything to void the war-
ranty: Many companies void the war-
ranty for example, if you install the
window with expanding foam,
because it can exert enough ,pressure
to deform the frame:
Energy efficiency. ,All things being
equal, vinyl windows are as energy
efficient as Windows made from
wood. Vinyl is a good insulator and
works with the air pockets to slow the
transfer of heat. Because windows are
mostly glass, minor differences in.the
U-values of different sash and frame
materials are not significant.
Glazing has a hu e effect on the
performance of any window. The
AUGUST JLC 2002
Sash and frame extrusions
are cut to length and
mitered with automated
chop saws.
The mitered ends of these
frame parts are being
heated to the melting
point in a fusion welding
machine. If you look
closely, you can see that
the ends have started to
curl. from the heat.
Pneumatic clamps hold, the
melted ends of extrusions
together until they cool and
harden into a,single piece.
The fused corner joint of this sample sash
is strong and watertight. The finished joint
would be completely invisible were it not
for the small amount of excess vinyl that
remains from the welding process.
most efficient windows have gas -
filled `.insulated glass units with warm -
edge spacers and low-e coatings. A
variety of configurations are avail-
able; the one you select should be
based on the local climate and sun
exposure of the building.'
The simplest way to determine the
efficiency of a window is to look at the
label. The better ones will have an
Energy Star label from the Department
of' -'Energy -(DOE) aria'=a�`label' from -
the National Fenestration Rating
Council (NFRC).
Energy Star. The Energy Star label
certifies that the window meets min-
imum DOE standards for your cli-
mate. In some areas, homeowners
who install Energy Star windows are
eligible. for tax credits or utility com-
pany rebates.
NFRC. The NFRC label contains
test data for the size and type of win-
dow you're buying. It shows the insu-
lation value, or U-factor of the
window, along with, an air -leakage
(AL) rating. The lower the numbers,
the better. The label also covers glaz-
ing and includes the solar heat gain
coefficient (SHGC) and visible trans-
mittance (VT). SHGC measures how
well the glass blocks heat caused by
sunlight; low numbers of it are better
as well. VT measures how much visi-
ble light passes through the unit.
Tinted glass has a lower VT than
untinted glass.
NFRC ratings are helpful; but you"
shouldn't use them to compare dif-
ferent sizes or types of window. You
can use them to compare two vinyl
casements or. a vinyl casement with a
wood casement, for example, but not
to compare double-hungs with slid-
ers or to compare units of greatly dif-
fering sizes.
David Frane is a finish carpenter and
contributing editor to The Journal of
Light Construction. Special thanks to
Polybau for allowing its to photograph
the production process at its facility.
CertainTeed Corporation
Republic Windows &. Doors Inc.
Weather Shield
800/233-8990
800/248-.1775
800/477-6808
www:certainteed:com
www` republ icwindows.com
www.weathershield.com
Crestline Windows
Silver Line Windows
800/552-4111
800/234-4228
For More Information
www.crest]inewindows.com
www.siaverlinewindow.com
American Architectural Manufacturers
Association: (AAMA)
i Harvey Industries
Simonton Windows
847/303-5664
800/942-7839
800/542-9118
www.aamanet.org
www.harveyind.conn
www.simonton.corn
Energy. Star
Hurd Windows and Patio Doors
Summit Winddw and Patio Door
888/782-7937
800/223-4873 .
800/877-9482
www.energystar.gov
www.liurd.com
www.summitwindows.com
National Fenestration Rating -Council
Milgard Windows.
Superseal Window-and,Door Company:-_,
301/589=1776 ..
800/645-4273,
800/521-6704
www.nfrc.org'
www.milgard.com
www.supersealwindows.com
Window and Door Manufacturers
Polybau
;Timeline Vinyl Windows & Doors
Association (WDMA)
i 877/765-9228-
800/9.67-2461 .: ..
800/223-2301
www.polybau.com
wiNw.tirhelinewindows.com
www.wdma.com
AUGUST ILC 2002
oic
cut
�°C,ma�ings c
ce je
..h-'perbut j�foate
ew hag coovrng C0,51", i0f
axl . 6 O\lq s
eat��`gV`l
. 5 bt XI
e Ig 999 ,�Io
6,00se the �,,�Tj
here are more than 90 million
homes and approximately 19
billion square feet of windows
in the U.S. alone. It is estimated
z by Steve E81:'
that over half of these still have single -
pane glazing. Most of these homes are
more than 20 years old and, as a result,
the market for . insulated glass units,
(IGUs) in replacement windows is grow-
ing at breakneck speed. At the same
time, "high performance" options have
multiplied over the last few years.
Choosing the right product can cut
heating costs up to 25% and cooling
costs by as much as 40%. Some products
can also reduce UV rays that cause fad-
ing damage by over 80%.
A Profusion of Choices
Since there are hundreds of window
manufacturers, each with many differ-
ent product offerings, it's easy to get
confused trying to sort through the
trade names and marketing hype.
Window options used to be limited to
single -pane versus double -pane and
wood frame versus aluminum frame.
Today, there are eight or more basic
frame types, six or seven .glass options,
and three or four warm -edge technolo-
gies, not to mention argon and krypton
gas. The terminology alone is enough to
make your head spin.
To make matters even more challeng-
ing, consumers have grown to expect
high performance from their windows,
even when they don't understand the
technologies involved. I once received a
call from a homeowner who had bought
tinted windows. A few sunny days after
the installation, she wanted the win-
dows removed because she didn't feel
they were doing anything to reduce heat
gain, as the salesperson had so zealously
promised. After a few questions, I dis-
covered that she had a 10-foot-wide cov-
ered porch wrapping all the, way around
her house. She was right: "Her windows
never received direct sunlight; so there
was no way a tinted window was going
to affect her energy costs. She had been
sold the wrong product.
Comfort Is the Issue
So how do you choose the right win-
dow? The starting point is to figure out
which window technologies work best
for your climate (see Figure 1).
A study commissioned by Pacific Gas
and Electric a few years ago discovered
that the number one reason customers
make energy -efficiency improvements to
their homes is to increase their comfort.
Windows., have a huge impact on com-
fort. When it is 40'F outside, the inside
surface temperature of a single -pane win-
dow can be 20'F colder than room tem-
perature. Since our bodies radiate heat to
colder surfaces, a poor insulating win-
dow can make us feel uncomfortable
even if the home is well insulated. High-
performance technologies can make win-
dows feel warmer during cold weather by
keeping the.. temperature of the interior
glass surface higher.
Summer performance important. We
tend to evaluate window products on
what they do to reduce heating costs.
Winter performance is important, but
the right window can also reduce air
conditioning costs. Since more than
40% of existing homes and 80% of new
homes have air conditioning, it 'makes
sense to pay close attention to a win-
dow's solar heat -gain properties as well.
Better Labeling
Foftunately, it's becoming easier than
ever before to compare windows and
select the unit that's right for a particu-
lar climate and set of conditions.
Thanks to the efforts of the National
Fenestration Rating Council (a collabo-
rative effort between manufacturers, the
Department of Energy, utility compa-
nies, and others), any window worth
buying now comes with an NFRC label
(Figure 2). This label gives you specific
information about a window's winter
performance, summer performance,
and the amount of light it lets in. The
N4RC label lists three important num-
bers: the U-factor, the solar heat gain coef-
ficient (SHGC), and the amount of visible
light transmittance (VLT). These ratings
are for the total window unit, not just
the glass.
U—factor measures the amount of
energy, in. Btus, that. transfers via con-
duction through a window. Essentially,
the U-factor is the inverse of the more
common R-value measurement. The
lower the U-factor of a window, the
higher its R-value is.
Specifically, the U-factor measures the
rate of non-solarheat transfer from one,
side of the window to the other. Heat
transfer implies both heat loss out of a
Matching Windows to Climate
Figure 1. Select windows to suit the climate in which they will be installed. In the
northern regions of the country, windows must be good at keeping in wintertime
heat; southern climate windows should primarily keep heat out in the summer.
Windows installed in the middle of the country must balance summer and winter
performance.
JANUARY JLC 1999
III i�
I ,
living space, during cold winter weather
Figure 2: The NFRC label, found'on and non -solar heat gain into a living
WOrld S Best most high -quality windows, makes space during hot summer weather.
nt<Kc Win ,,dow CO. it easy to assess a window's energy As a point of reference, a single pane of
Mlllennlum 2000, Casement
cpar00o-X-0e0 performance. Whether higher or glass has a U-factor of 1.9 (Btu per sq. ft.
Nalonal Fenestration VInyl�Clad Wood Frame • Double Glue
RamigCaurcilArgonFill•LowErSolar,ControlCoalinga lower U-factor and solar heat gain per degree F). As U-factors fall towards 0,
�ixd:enlaseelalY �i�"'e''�: coefficient ratings are better they indicate better performance.
depends on the climate where the dent. The SHGC
coefficient.
• Emirm savings will depedo OR your speCdlo climate, house snit tlteslyte g f fl
•For more inlormahan, tall 1.800127.4567 or visit NFa61s web site at window wi l be installed. Solar heatmeasures the amount of solar heat that
xwr.nhs.mp
el,ll, ,,,rllyd,}a.e,,b:Nr ewe gets through a window: an SHGC of .78
58
t' a•nsar 33 4eJ r��nr�.6O solar tes that approximately 78°/r� of the
:o rNrn6ae . Ym6U indicates t _-......atel._..._-,..-_
heat which strikes a window actu-
MaoulaYurrreeDtlhkaOelltaeerenal,cornermineDPha6leNFncDrecedu<uto,dctaenlrinD ally passes through it. A single pane of
wh¢iep'edtl<I axrSY DartA'mviu NFAf ningt aN dcarmnM for i loin stl Wenuranmercal
cord:0oe and ivKtiL Drodurt 5ie5
glass has a center -of -glass SHGC of
around .9 (total window = .74), while
for regular double -pane glass it falls off
to around .8 (total window = .63). The
lower the SHGC, the better a window is
With W ith Condensation at reducing heat gain and associated
Condensation on windows, which -often causes callbacks anddisappointed cooling costs.
customers, can be reduced with new glazing technologies. With -a simple Visible light transmittance (VLT) is a
chart (below), it's easy to predict under what conditions condensation will measure of how much visible light
form on a given window. Low-e windows can prevent the formation of con- comes through the entire window. The
densation until relative humidity levels reach 65% at an outdoor temperature higher the number, the more visible
of 20°. Relative humidity levels above 65°/rr are excessive'aild will likely cause light that gets in. A single pane of glass
other problems besides dripping windows. I always recommend that con- transmits about 92%i of available visible
tractors carry a digital hygrometer to measure and record indoor relative light. Since NFRC rates the entire win -
humidity while they are in customers' homes. —S.E. dow, including the frame, the VLT of a
typical single -pane aluminum window is
100 about .70.
A window's VLT rating can be some-
90 what misleading because the whole
A SO
d'as 'M window is taken into account. For
FM�rf-
+_ �_e,:61tn gr s example, a double -pane wood/vinyl
window would have a total product vis-
,..:.,
70 , ��-
•� Trap\ g ,as`. ible light transmission of .57. A double-
_060 a aluminum window is 2.
�• \o�_ ,. I pane n n 6 This
y Z 2C�
�P_�\a co means that windows with wider frames
\e g\a2 end up with slightly lower VLT ratings.
40 �o" Use the VLT when comparing the
ez
' o\az d I energy performance characteristics of
30 pods I windows to make sure you're not sacri-
20 _ ficing any more light than is necessary
for a desired energy performance.
10 II Energy Star label. A companion to
Sing e_glaz d I I I the NFRC label is the Energy Star label
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 (Figure 3), which makes it easy.to tell.
Outdoor Temperature ('F) whether a given window is right for
your climate. The Energy Star rating is
Given an outdoor temperature of 20° F, project up vertically to the desired win- based on minimum Department of
dow product curve. A.double-pane clear, for instance, corresponds to a relative Energy (DOE) performance specifica-
humidity of 51 %. Compare this with a double=glazed low-e argon product, tions by region.
which would allow almost a 70% relative humidity levef before condensation In the absence of an Energy Star label,
would occur. This chart is for the glass only and not the frame. look for a maximum U-factor of .35 for
cold (heating) climates. In hot (cooling)
JANUARY JLC 1999
climates, look for a maximum .75 U-fac-
tbr, and an SHGC of .40 or less. In
mixed climates, aim for a U-factor of .40
and an SHGC of .40. When relying on
passive solar gains to help .heat a home
in a cold or mixed climate, an SHGC of
.55 is a good compromise.
The importance of Lowe
Of the many window technologies
developed in, recent; years; none , has as .
great an effect on energy performance as
low-e coatings. A low-e ("low emissiv-
ity") coating is a. microscopically thin,
transparent metal coating applied
between the panes of an IGU. These
coatings have the' ability to reflect heat,
but they have a hard, time! giving off heat
or emitting energy. In. an infrared photo
of a person standing in front of two win-
dows, it's easy to tell which .window
glass has the low-e coating (Figure 4).
Low-e coatings make the inside sur-
face temperature of glass warmer by
reflecting heat back into the room.
People are more comfortable when a
room's escaping heat is reflected back at
them. In addition, a, warmer glass sur-
face temperature means less of a tem-
perature difference between- a person
and the window surface, leading to less
heat transfer from the .person to the .
window on a cold day: A warmer surface
on the inside of the glass also means less
potential for condensation.
Lowe' coatings are not all the same.
How manufacturers use low-e technol-
ogy varies throughout 'the industry.
Usually, one or two low-e coatings are
applied directly to the inside glass sur-
faces of an IGU. Some manufacturers
apply the low-e coating to a plastic film
that is then installed between glazing
Iayers (Figure 5).
Different low-e technologies have dif-
ferent applications, First -generation
coatings from the,.1'980s do a good job
of letting in light and reducing heat loss
by reflecting heat .back into a room.
These standard low-e coatings are a
good'choice when there is little concern
about summer air conditioning costs.
But they do not do as much to keep'.out
solar heat as do the "spectrally selective"
low-e coatings.
� - rlc�-ncrr
�Av-il lM+r-Iv -
.
M'- Anii-ht-.•r:
"�l1;• ?IIr; 4.a i; _
:i.
k-^ r?xfa:rr1^,
KIl,ns�.1317y - _
1h411.lrm.
Fi;gun, 3. The Energy Star label uses color coding to match, a window to the cli-
mate in which it should be used.
JANUARY )LC 1909
Figure 4. This infrared photo
shows a person standing in front
of a divided window. The left
side, has a low,e coating, the
right side does not. The.brighter
image on the left .indicates, that
much; of the person's heat ,is
being reflected back into the
;room rather than passing
through the glass.
Figure S. Southwall's Heat Mirror film is
a low-e coated plastic that is suspended
between the glass panes in an IGU. The
product shown here has two layers of
Heat Mirror.
How Spectrally Selective Low-e Works
insulating Visible Light Center of Glass Solar Heat Gain
Glass Product Transmittance Winter U-Value Coefficient
Clear 82 .49 .78
Standard Low-e 75 .30 . .72
Spectrally
Selective Low-e 72 .24 .41
Figure 6. Spectrally selective low-e coatings do a good job of reducing summer
heat gain and preventing winter heat loss while still allowing most of the visible
light to enter the space. The chart compares the performance of standard low-e
and spectrally selective low-e to that of clear glass.
Reducing Fading With Low-e
insulating Glass Product UV Transmittance Tdw
Clear 58% 61%
Standard Low-e 47% 52%
Spectrally 'Selective Low-e . 16% 33%
figure 7. Although blocking UV light is important for preventing fading, some
damage is also caused by light on the edge of the visible light spectrum. To
determine the actual fading, potential of light passing through any particular
glazing system, use the total damage weighted (Tdw) values. The lower the Tdw,
the less fading will be caused.
JANUARY 1LC 1999
A spectrally selective coating lets
through most visible light but blocks the
shorter wavelength infrared solar heat
waves (Figure 6), thus greatly improving
summer performance. Spectrally selec-
tive coatings reduce solar heat gain by as
much as 40% over a double -pane clear
window. These coatings also improve
winter performance by about 20% com-
pared with standard low-e coatings,
making them a good choice in most
parts of the country. The exception
would be a passive solar design, which
relies on heat gain from the sun to offset
winter heating costs. In this case, stan-
dard low-e is the best choice.
Occasionally, a sophisticated building
designer may use different glass coatings
on different sides of a house to optimize
energy performance — for example,
standard low-e on the south side to
allow for solar heat gain in the winter
and spectrally selective on an exposed
west side to block summer heat gain.
While this strategy can work, it's impor-
tant to warn customers that different
coatings might have slightly different
color tints. I've heard of jobs where
homeowners demanded window
replacement because the glass on differ-
ent house walls didn't look the same.
,Reasonable cost. The cost of low-e
products is very low compared to their
value. The additional cost averages
between $1 to $1.75 per square foot.
Many manufacturers are now offering
spectrally selective low-e products at the
same cost as standard low-e. If you're
already, planning to buy higher -end win-
dows, low-e products may be available at
the same price by simply speccing them.
Other Low-E Advantages
Another advantage of low-e coatings is
that the improved energy performance
does not sacrifice the quality of visible
light passing from outside to inside. The
visible light transmission rates of these
products are only slightly less than a
generic clear IGU. In essence, windows
with both standard low-e and spectrally
selective low-e glass look clear. In the
case of spectrally selective coatings, this
is remarkable because these coatings cut
solar heat gain by as much as some of
the dark commercial tints while allow-
ing plenty of daylight to pass through.
Low-e coatings can reduce fading. The
fading of fabric and wood surfaces is
caused by a combination of ultraviolet
(UV) and visible light that passes
through windows. Window manufactur-
ers often claim to protect against fading
by citing the amount of UV light blocked
by the glass coatings on theirproducts.
This accounts -for only part. of the prob-
lem, however, because some fading still
occurs in the visible spectrum. To deter-
mine just how much various glass coat-
ings protect against fading, "total
damage weighted" (Tdw) values describe
how much fade -causing natural light
(both UV and visible) actually passes
through a window. Tdw values are not
often publicized but manufacturers will
provide the information when asked.
Spectrally selective low-e coatings can
reduce UV transmission to 16%. A corre-
sponding Tdw value of 336/6 means that
a spectrally selective coating blocks 67%
of the rays that cause fading (Figure 7). It
is important to look for the lowest trans-
mission percentages to minimize fading
problems. I recently visited a 6-month-
old home for a builder that had a call-
back due to ultraviolet light damage.
The family room had hardwood floors.
The owner had placed.an area rug on the
floor near ari 8-foot-tall sliding glass
door that faced west. The floor had dark-
ened except where the rug was located.
Needless to say, most homebuyers would
not be happy and would expect to have
the floors refinished. If the builder had
spent another $60 for low-e, he probably
never would have had the callback.
Tinted Glass
Spectrally tinted glazings are used in
the lightly tinted blue or green glass
products (two common trade names are
Azurlite and Evergreen). These new prod-
ucts are far better than the: older darker,
tints at reducing heat gain because they
allow more visible light to pass through.
But these new spectral tints are not heat
reflective like low-e coatings and will not
enhance the U-factor or winter perfor-
mance of the window. They serve only to
reduce heat gain and visible light glare.
��•
��'ii+' .
Figure 8. Conductive heat foss around the perimeter of insulated glass units (dark
areas in thermographic image, left), caused by metal edge.spacers, has led to recent
innovations in "warm -edge" non-metal spacers, such as the PPG Intercept (right).
Tint films are often retrofitted onto
windows in rooms that overheat due to
direct sunlight. Tint films can be prob-
lematic because they have low visible
light transmission and can excessively
darken rooms. Also, some window man-
ufacturers will void a window'warranty
if tint films have been applied to their
products.
Gas Fills
Many manufacturers are putting
argon or krypton gas between glazing
layers because these gases are less ther-
mally conductive than air. Gas will not
make a huge difference in a window's U-
factor — window performance improves
only about 5% to 10%. The real benefit
of argon or krypton gas is in the colder
climates where any possible improve-
ment helps to reduce condensation. All
in all, gas fillers are usually available as
an extra feature at little extra cost.
Warm Edge Technologies
IGU manufacturers use edge spacers to
separate the multiple panes of glass.
Traditional double -pane windows use
aluminum tube spacers. Although these
are structurally reliable, they are also
heat conductive and therefore cause
heat loss. A thermographic image of a
window (Figure 8) shows the heat loss
associated with the edge spacer. The
JANUARY) Lt 1999
darkest areas of the image are the cold-
est. You can see that the spacer around
the inside perimeter of the window is
conducting heat very well.
In recent years some manufacturers
have begun to use materials ,and spacer
designs that are less conductive such as
Intercept, SwiggleSeal, and SuperSpacer.
These newer "warm edge". spacers
reduce condensation and ice buildup at
the edge of the window. The jury is still
out on the long-term durability of these
products, but overall I believe these new
spacers are reliable.
Some sort of warm -edge technology is
used in about 40% of the windows man-
ufactured today. When buying new win-
dows, it's always wise to pick a
manufacturer with a good warranty and
a good reputation for customer service
in case any of the new technologies
cause problems down the road.
Window' frames affect both energy
bills and condensation potential. Wood,
vinyl, fiberglass, and composites all per-
form about the same thermally.
Aluminum frames, however, are far
more conductive and therefore much
more susceptible to condensation; they
should be restricted to southern cli-
mates. When using aluminum -framed
windows, choo$e products built with
thermal breaks, which lower the U-fac-
tor and help reduce condensation.
Energy Costsvs. Type of Window
Minneapolis, MN
Window Guide
1
Natural Gas: $4.60 MBtu
II /
r
Electricity: $O.083%kWh
single glazing
t
!.N
clear glass
IV
aluminum frame
U = 1'.30
New York,NY 4 4t
%'�
SHGC = 0.74
vLT = 0.70
.
IIIlowNatural Gas: $6.40/MBtu
Electricity: $0.095/kWh
double glazing
IV _
Annual
y
clear glass
! ! !
Cooling Cost
�,
Vinyl/wood frame
Seattle, WA
U = 0.49
�- •= -
Annual
SHGC = 0.57
r
Heating Cost
\`.
'VLT = 0.57
11 * Natural Gas: $5.00/ vABtu
Electricity: $0.058/kWh
III I ,
Total Annual
;
IV IP�11MIM,
Heating & Cooling
f 0 t
;
double glazing
Phoenix, AZ
low-e coating
argon as fill
g g
t\\
vinyl/wood frame
ny I '; I
U= 0.33
r_ x v ,
111 `yam`_
4
Natural Gas:
;
SHGC = 0.52
:.. -
$7.30/MBtu
VLT = 0,52
IV :'..
11
it
Electric y:
$0.117/kWh
Miami.
Iv
-FL
double glazing
4
spectrally selective
$0.072/kWh
�/
low-e coatinElectricity: g
III f"r" k
A y
argon gas fill
,A
vinyl/wood frame
U = 0.29
IV
SHGC = 0.30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
VLT = 0.51
Note: The annual energy_ performonce'figures,shown;here were generated using the DOE2.1 E program for atypical Courtesy: Efficient Windows Collaborative
2,000 sq. ft. house with 300 sq. ft. 6f'.window area (1_5%4'f1bdi area). The windows are equally distributed on U = U value
all four sides of the house and are shaded with overhangs, trees, and other buildings. The hearing system is a gas SHGC =Solar Heat Gain Coefficient
furnace with electric air conditioning for cooling. U4ac1cr„SHGC, and V1T are for the total window,'induding frame. AT = Visible light Transmittance
Figure 9. These graphs illustrate the energy costs associated with four common window choices. In New York, for example, if
you had aluminum -frame single pane windows, you could save about $225 annually by installing double -pane argon -filled
windows with a spectrally selectivelow-e coating. With the same scenario in Phoenix, the savings would be almost $300.
f�1NUARY )LC 1999
Airtightness
pounds of air pressure per square foot
Windows vary in airtightness and
and 2.86 pounds of water pressure per
water resistance — important character-
square foot. A residential window that
istics in areas prone to strong wind and
meets these performancecriteria is des -
rain or in areas with stiff winter winds,
ignated a Grade;,R-15 window (R stands
which cut down energy efficiency.
for `residential"). In hurricane -prone
Getting information on window tight-
areas, builders might use a higher -rated
ness is difficult because it is not; usually
window — a Grade 40 or even a Grade
included on product labels. Areas with
60. Unfortunately,.many manufacturers
heavy wind and rain, exposure require
do not submit their products to AAMA
windows....with :,better -air.-and, water ;-
or.WDMA for official. testing.
resistance. Search for products that have
design pressure ratings suited
Cost of Upgrading
to their applications. The American
Energy experts often ,downplay the
Architectural Manufacturers Association
value of energy -efficient windows by
(AAMA) and the Window and Door
arguing that it will take'homeowners six
Manufacturers Association (WDMA)
times longer to recover the costs than
define the minimum design air pressure
they will ever live in their home. The
for residential doors and windows as 15
reality is that mosrpeople replace their
Efficient Windows Collaborative
1200 18fh St., NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20036
202/530-2245
ww,w.efficiehtwinddWs.org
California Wiridows Initiative
604 Bancroft Way
Berkeley, CA 94710
800/600-9050
ENERGY STAR Windows Program
189 Liberty St.,.Suite 202-B
Portland, OR 97301
800/363-3732
www.energystar.gov
National Fenestration Rating Council
(NFRC)
1300 Spring Street, Suite 500
Silver Spring, MID 20910
301/589-6372
www.nfrt.org
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Building Techrologies Program
1 Cyclotron Rd.
Mailstop 90-3111
Berkeley, CA 94720
Fax: 510/486-4089
windows.lbLgov
F.dr More IhformatiQti
Energy Efficient Building Association
(EEBA)
1300 Spring St.
Suite 500
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301 /589-2500
ww�v.eeba.org
American Architectural Manufacturers
Association. (AAMA)
1827 Walden Office Square, Suite 104
Schaumburg, IL 60173' •
847/303-5664
www.aamanet.org
Window & Door Manufacturers
Association (formerly"NWWDA)
1400 E. Touhy Ave:, Suite 470
Des Plaines, IL 60018
800/223-2301
www.nwwda.org
Makers of Low=E Coatings
AFG Industries
AFG Comfort Ti
P.O. Box 929
Kingsport, TN 37662
806/251-0441
JANUARY JLC 1999
windows for aesthetic reasons or
because the old windows are worn out.
If the decision has already been made to
replace the windows, the cost to add
high performancefeatures ranges from
almost nothing to about $40`per win-
dow. If the client is upgrading from alu-
minum -framed with single -pane glass,
annual energy savings can top $300
(Figure 9). Depending ,on local energy
costs, the; energy savings. features, can
sometimes, pay for themselves in Jess
than two years.
Steve Easley is. g construction consultant
in Danville, Calif, and',.a cofounder of the
California Window Initiative, a group that
educates and promotes the use. of energy -
efficient window technologies.
Cardinal IG
Low-E?
12301 Whitewater Dr:
Minneapolis, MN 55343
800/843-1484
Guardian
Performance Plus !l
14600 Romine Rd.
Carleton, MI 48117
800/521-9040
Pilkington Libbey-Owens-Ford
367 Exton Commons
Exton, PA,93141
800/523-0133
www.pilkingtomcorn
PPG industries
Sungate 7000
1 PPG Place
Pittsburgh, PA 15272
800/774-4527
Southwall Technologies
Heat Mirror..
1029 Corporation Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
800/365-8794