Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conceptual Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ADR presses applicant at 325 Upper Toyon to pull new structures out of setbacks
Summary
During conceptual review of a proposed guest house and separate gym at 325 Upper Toyon Drive, ADR members urged the applicant to move building mass away from neighbor setbacks, questioned variances for two covered parking spaces and expressed skepticism about granting variances for non‑hardship uses such as a home gym.
The ADR conducted a conceptual review of a two‑lot proposal at 325 Upper Toyon Drive that would replace an existing nonconforming guest house with a new single‑family residence on one lot and construct a separate gym on the other.
Architect Greg Godsey showed story‑pole surveys and explained the constraints of steep grades, a sewage easement and dense vegetation. He said the proposal reduces impervious cover in part by replacing existing blacktop driveway surfacing with pervious pavers.
Committee members raised multiple concerns. Several members said the project still creates a prominent two‑story façade within an existing side‑yard setback and recommended shifting the massing south (away from the neighbor) or otherwise keeping the upper story out of the side‑yard setback. One member said that moving the building slightly farther from the setback by “a foot or two” was not sufficient to address the privacy and massing impact.
Members also questioned the applicant’s request for a variance on the two covered parking spaces typically required for a single‑family dwelling. Staff and members noted the lot’s large size and observed that hardship findings would be difficult to substantiate for convenience elements such as a gym or a design preference against a covered parking solution. The ADR suggested the applicant explore design approaches — a lowered or rotated garage, a better‑integrated covered parking design or shifting the building — that would avoid variances.
The ADR did not make a recommendation to the council at this conceptual stage but asked staff and the applicant to return with revised drawings that reduce side‑yard encroachment and address parking and siting alternatives.
