Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Clemente design reviewers discourage glass balcony rails, ask applicant for revised plans
Summary
Design Review Subcommittee reviewed a permit to add two second‑story balconies with glass guardrails at 115 Via Artemisia (PHP 25‑095). Staff and the subcommittee recommended traditional materials, recessed openings and plan clarifications; the item will proceed to the Zoning Administrator after revisions.
The San Clemente Design Review Subcommittee on March 26 reviewed an application by Ray Quan and his wife, Jennifer Kwan, to modify the front elevation of their Spanish‑style home at 115 Via Artemisia by replacing an existing Juliet wrought‑iron balcony with glass guardrails and adding a second balcony above the garage.
Staff told the subcommittee the application (PHP 25‑095) was submitted July 1, 2024, received Homeowners Association approval Oct. 7, 2024, and saw multiple plan revisions; staff said earlier approvals of glass guardrails in the Sea Summit neighborhood prompted a 2023 review and that prior DRC feedback discouraged visible glass guardrails in the Marblehead Coastal visual enhancement area. Christopher Wright, the city’s senior planner, summarized staff recommendations: use traditional wrought‑iron railings, recess doors or add divided‑light mullions, thicken pilasters to preserve wall massing, avoid wall‑mounted lights over the garage, and revise plans to show accurate as‑built and proposed dimensions.
The applicant described delays and confusion over historic guidance and permitting. "We would love to compromise. We would love to work with the DRSC," he said, adding that he and his HOA received earlier approvals for similar elements and that custom bifold doors already purchased are stored at the home.
Committee members repeatedly emphasized preserving the Spanish colonial‑revival character emphasized in the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan and related design guidelines. A subcommittee member said the group is opposed to "divided lights" only on second‑floor openings that would be prominently visible and recommended that, if glass is used, it be deeply recessed or combined with thickened top rails so it is not a prominent reflective plane visible from public trails and streets.
Technical and plan clarifications the subcommittee requested included: clear as‑built and proposed dimensions for the upper door openings; a measurement showing whether the proposed balcony meets the 18‑foot setback requirement to the garage face; documentation of how the proposed balcony relates to the existing roof/eave; and a plan note that door openings will not be enlarged beyond the width of existing window openings unless specifically shown. Staff reported the existing garage balcony projection measured about 45 inches past the garage wall in the site photos provided; members asked the applicant's architect to confirm measured distances on revised plans.
The subcommittee discussed architectural alternatives to a cantilevered balcony over the garage, such as extending the garage wall upward so the balcony reads as part of the building massing rather than a projecting cantilever—an approach the subcommittee said better fits Spanish colonial‑revival precedents used in Sea Summit.
No final approval of the project was made at the meeting. The subcommittee framed recommendations for design changes and requested the applicant submit revised plans that accurately reflect existing openings and proposed work; staff said the matter will proceed to a hearing before the Zoning Administrator after the applicant provides the requested clarifications.
Less urgent business: the subcommittee approved the meeting minutes as presented at the start of the session by voice vote.
