Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 224 Ricardo Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission denies variance and design review for front‑facing garage at 224 Ricardo Ave
Summary
The commission voted 4–1 to deny a variance and design review permit for a proposed two‑car front garage at 224 Ricardo Avenue, citing excessive massing, proportionality concerns and lack of demonstrated hardship; neighbors had argued the garage would dominate the front yard and reduce light and views.
The Piedmont Planning Commission voted on Aug. 12 to deny the variance and design review permit for a proposed front‑facing two‑car garage at 224 Ricardo Avenue. Chair Justin Zucker made the motion to deny the street‑yard setback and structure‑coverage variances and the design review application; the motion passed on a roll call (Ayes: Commissioners Batra, DeJodia, Ortiz, Zucker; Nay: Commissioner Rowland).
Applicants Stacy Fahrenthold and David Schultz told the commission the garage would improve safety and allow the removal of a long, steep rear driveway and replacement with landscaping. Architect Bill Holland and staff provided detailed dimensions and parking calculations; staff reported a typical minimum two‑car garage dimension and ran structure‑coverage math during the hearing.
Neighbors spoke strongly against the project. Lynn Chauncey, who lives at 220 Ricardo directly next door, said the proposed garage would "bring it to the forefront creating a front yard dominated by garage doors" and argued the project's structure‑coverage figures overstated the extent to which other homes exceed the 40% limit. Ellen Greenberg, a longtime planner and neighbor, told the commission that front‑yard garages "detract from overall neighborhood quality." Commissioners cited scale and proportionality concerns and uncertainty about whether the property presented an unusual physical circumstance that would meet the variance criteria under code section 17.70.040.
The staff roll call recorded the formal vote and findings. The denial included written findings that the proposal did not comply with design review criteria (Piedmont code section 17.66.060) and was not consistent with general plan policies on scale, height and bulk. Commissioner Zucker said the record did not demonstrate unreasonable hardship preventing the applicants from achieving a conforming two‑car garage without a variance. The application was denied and the project will not proceed as proposed.
