Commissioners deny design review for prefab carport at 78 Fairview; variance continued

The Piedmont Planning Commission denied the design review permit for a prefabricated two-post carport proposed at 78 Fairview Avenue and continued consideration of the related setback variance so the applicant can return with a revised design.

Applicant David Arpi told the commission he sought a variance to place a carport within the right-side setback because lot shape and an existing accessory dwelling unit make other options impracticable. "The proposed carport would allow me to park and charge my new, Audi, electric SUV off street, year round, protected from falling branches and fruit," Arpi said, describing the structure as a lightweight, two-post prefabricated unit intended to preserve sight lines and the home's historic footprint.

Commissioners expressed broad sympathy for the applicant's hardship and for the need to provide protected off-street EV charging, but they said the submitted design does not fit the house or neighborhood. "The proposed design is not consistent with the city's general plan and Piedmont design guidelines," a commissioner moving denial said, citing Chapter 4 design guidance and design review standards under Section 17.66.060. Multiple commissioners said the carport's arched roof profile and perceived aluminum appearance clash with the Craftsman house’s rectilinear forms and traditional materials.

Several commissioners suggested modifications that could preserve the applicant's goals while improving compatibility: use of different materials or colors to mask metal, a low‑pitch straight roof rather than a curved profile, or an alternate prefabricated model with four posts if it can meet the required fire‑access clearances. The applicant said he preferred a two‑post solution to maintain a 3‑foot fire-access path to the rear ADU and estimated an engineered prefabricated unit at roughly $4,000 compared with much higher costs for a custom solution.

After discussion, Commissioner Ortiz moved to deny the design review permit, the motion was seconded, and the commission adopted the motion by roll call. The application was denied on the record for inconsistency with the cited design-review criteria and relevant general plan/design guidelines. The commission then moved to continue consideration of the variance application until the applicant returns with an approved design that requires the variance; the motion to continue passed by roll call, and the variance remains pending.

The commission encouraged the applicant to research alternate prefabricated options or material/roof-profile changes and return with a design that addresses compatibility concerns so staff can consider whether a director-level approval would be possible without returning to the commission.

Next steps: the applicant will pursue design alternatives and return when a design that requires the variance is available; the variance file remains continued pending that submission.