Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ADR split on variance for parking deck at 313 Upper Toyon; neighbor supports project
Summary
At 313 Upper Toyon Drive an engineer proposed a 500 sq ft parking deck that would add two stalls but encroach on a 45-foot side-yard setback; the neighboring resident called in support, while several ADR members questioned whether the application demonstrates the legal "hardship" needed for a variance and noted the packet did not include formal variance findings.
Ross’ Architectural Design Review panel reviewed a proposal for a 500-square-foot open parking deck at 313 Upper Toyon Drive that would sit partly within a 45-foot side-yard setback and requires design-review recommendation plus variance and hillside permit consideration.
Engineer Vlad Yojica described the deck as a slab‑above‑grade structure on concrete columns intended to provide two additional parking stalls and to keep cars off a narrow cul‑de‑sac street. The design includes a low concrete perimeter wall about 2 feet 5 inches high, wood panels and a trellis; the team said stormwater mitigation measures are proposed per code.
A neighbor, David of 307 Upper Torreon, called in and said he suggested that the two‑foot concrete wall continue around the structure to match existing conditions and stated, "So that's my input, and I'm in favor of the project." Staff clarified the application lacked the formal variance findings that a council decision would require; the transcript records staff saying the findings were not included in the packet.
Several ADR members said the design is competent and not highly visible from public ways but questioned whether a legal hardship exists given the site already has multiple parking locations, including covered garage spaces. One member summarized the panel's view: "the majority was okay with the design, but the majority also felt that there was not a hardship." The ADR suggested the council ultimately make the findings on any variance and, if the applicant wants to pursue the variance, to include clearer findings in the submittal.
What happens next: the ADR will forward a recommendation reflecting support for the design while noting the lack of demonstrated hardship; the council will consider both the design review and the variance request, with staff and the applicant providing any additional findings.
