Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies design review for 48 Renata, continues variance
Summary
The commission voted to deny design review for a large renovation at 48 Renata Avenue while continuing the applicant’s front‑yard setback variance so designers may return with revisions addressing massing, window placement and garage elevation.
The Piedmont Planning Commission on Dec. 8 denied the design review application for a proposed renovation at 48 Renata Avenue but continued the related variance for the front‑yard setback to a later meeting so the applicant can return with revisions.
The applicant team — the property owners and architect Avi Foreman — said the house has accumulated extensive deferred maintenance and that the proposed addition and renovation are intended to preserve the structure without full demolition. Foreman told the commission the triangular lot and existing nonconforming front‑yard and garage setbacks limit options and that the design keeps most existing walls and roofs while prioritizing tree preservation. Foreman also said the applicants had neighbor support: "there is absolutely no intention to rent out any of the bedrooms," he told the commission, addressing a concern raised in letters.
Commissioners focused on architectural compatibility, massing and window treatment. "I think the thing I have the biggest issue with is I'm not really clear … what you're trying to achieve when you say you're trying to capture a modernized craftsman style," Commissioner Yee said during a lengthy critique of roof forms, window types and proportions. Several commissioners agreed the project should be refined for clearer unity of style, reduced visual mass at the Hampton/Renata street face and narrower or lower garage elements.
During deliberations the commission determined the proposal, as presented, did not comply with Piedmont's design review criteria and standards; the body made findings citing roof massing, the placement and number of windows and the garage's relationship to the street. Commissioner Yee moved to deny the design review application without prejudice; Commissioner Ortiz seconded. The motion passed on a roll call vote with all commissioners recorded as "aye." The commission continued only the variance request to a subsequent meeting and invited the applicant to return with revisions and a landscape plan that preserves visual screening.
The denial applies only to the design review; commissioners noted the site's unique shape and the objective of preserving mature trees as factors that could justify a variance. The commission instructed staff to identify specific guideline sections for the applicant's review so revisions can be crafted to address compatibility and massing concerns. The applicant may refile or return with modified drawings and additional documentation addressing the commission's direction.
