Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 313 Upper Toyon topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbor-backed parking deck seeks side-yard variance; ADR questions legal hardship
Summary
The ADR praised the design for 313 Upper Toyon Drive and noted neighbor support for a two-stall parking deck, but several members said they could not find a legal hardship to justify the requested side-yard variance and asked the Town Council to evaluate findings.
The Ross Advisory Design Review panel reviewed a proposal for a 500-square-foot open parking deck at 313 Upper Toyon Drive and offered mixed recommendations: design support paired with skepticism that the project meets the legal standard for a setback variance.
Staff said the project requests design review, a hillside law permit and a variance to place a concrete parking deck within the side-yard setback; the deck was described as a 500-square-foot slab above grade with concrete columns, a 2-foot-5-inch perimeter concrete wall and wood panels, plus a trellis for partial screening. Engineer Vlad said the deck would provide two additional parking stalls and that the site’s driveway alignment and an existing tree influenced the deck location.
A nearby neighbor, David, called in to say he lives at 307 Preparatory and voiced support, asking that the two-foot concrete wall be continued around the structure to match existing conditions: “I am the neighbor at 307 Preparatory ... we are the most impacted, by this new structures … I am in favor of the project.”
During deliberations ADR members lauded the design and noted the project is not highly visible from public areas, but several panelists said the lot already contains ample parking and they could not find a hardship that would justify breaking the side-yard setback. One ADR member said, “I don't find that to be a compelling reason to say that this is a great design and or location on the lot or a necessity or a hardship.” The panel asked staff to record that most members supported the design but had concerns that the variance findings might not be met; the Town Council will decide on the variance application.
The ADR recommended the design be noted as acceptable while leaving the legal determination of variance findings to the Town Council.
