Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Parking Deck topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ADR split on variance necessity for 313 Upper Toyon parking deck; design generally acceptable
Summary
At 313 Upper Toyon Drive, ADR members generally found the proposed 500 sq ft parking deck design acceptable and noted neighbor support, but most said the record does not demonstrate the legal "hardship" required for a side-yard setback variance and left the findings to Town Council.
The Ross Advisory Design Review on Nov. 19 reviewed a proposal at 313 Upper Toyon Drive for a 500-square-foot open parking deck that would intrude into a side-yard setback and therefore requires a variance. The ADR generally found the design acceptable but did not identify a legal hardship supporting the requested setback relief.
Staff described the project as a 500-square-foot concrete slab parking deck supported on columns, with a 2-foot-5-inch concrete barrier, wood panels, and a trellis. Structural engineer Vlad Yojica said the concrete columns and slab are an efficient structural solution and that the wall is intended as a barrier to keep cars from going over the edge. Yojica said the adjacent neighbor had been consulted and was supportive; neighbor David, who identified himself as living at 307 Upper Torreon, told the ADR he recommended continuing the existing concrete wall around the new structure and said the design would help keep cars out of a turnaround area.
Several ADR members said the structure is isolated and largely hidden from public view and that, as designed, it could improve a currently unattractive area around equipment. At the same time, multiple members questioned whether the parcel demonstrates the specific "hardship" findings required for a variance. One member noted substantial existing on-site parking — three covered garage spaces plus several additional on-site spots — and said that convenience and neighbor support do not by themselves justify breaking the setback. Another member raised concerns about precedent: approving a large elevated structure in a setback when no documented hardship exists.
Staff clarified that ADR's primary role is to comment on design quality, and the Council would make legal findings on variances if the application moves forward. The ADR concluded by recording that a majority found the design acceptable but did not find evidence of a hardship; that statement will be included in the record forwarded to the Town Council.
The Town Council will consider the variance application and any formal findings later in the entitlement process.
