[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6532022,"mediaKeyId","3428560-caa1434d8fac08c0e3ce549fa23a493b","parentId",3428560,"title","ADR recommends design changes at 87 Glenwood; members press for pool equipment and side-yard adjustments","audioSeconds",784,"startMs",100000,"endMs",884000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3428560-caa1434d8fac08c0e3ce549fa23a493b&start=100&end=884","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3428560-caa1434d8fac08c0e3ce549fa23a493b/thumbnail_100000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6532022/Ross/Marin-County/California/ADR-recommends-design-changes-at-87-Glenwood-members-press-for-pool-equipment-and-side-yard-adjustments","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6532022-199ff81375f6f7e0500228a333fd5caa/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448414&Signature=UkkLUqTy~0wc6e3xIzcVoBm-pOdC~4ROYq1qsm~gFLS-FtO0NXMWs7ZQJTwAwJK~WSbq96LFHfVqswQ-bUMjjZhCyIc0UkiCaoH5gEy1p7tWfP7ZGo-WZjPhOPohR4vSSJonr~BWKQlFsYWwA1JCF6595ISQ5-upT~v-yqjU84qm~oDJ3JTWIc8Oi5CpsXKhbb~nBksVI-~gxQqXkwhZWYh2y54s0Zlv-~sdwcja9Qqa99mz6rOvCCr87TseqtfpoWbw4lyK7QAW1bSL6KpjOo0zV0eVmW~PqQdqTFjpQ2LAx2mJaLXasfqjV4GblujewbojcBbSofRxV7Q1mIsWBA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town of Ross","date","2025-05-20T00:00:00Z","article","The Ross Architectural Design Review (ADR) on May 20, 2025 discussed revised plans for 87 Glenwood and gave generally supportive feedback while asking the applicant and staff to address the proposed location of pool equipment and narrow side-yard passage.

The applicant asked the ADR to recommend design review, a demolition permit, a nonconformity permit and a variance to the Town Council; town staff summarized prior concerns and revisions. Alex, speaking for town staff, said the applicant had “pushed the mass… back to meet the 25 front yard setback,” relocated pool equipment to the side yard, redesigned the auto gate to be transparent, and removed the second-story balcony.

Why it matters: The ADR provides the town council with design recommendations for projects that request variances or nonconformity approvals. Members’ concerns about equipment placement and side-yard access reflect both neighborhood impacts and practical issues — e.g., maintenance or emergency access — that could affect later permitting, building inspections and neighbor relations.

Matt Cagle, presenting for the design team on behalf of Chambers and Chambers, reiterated the changes and said the team “pushed the mass… back by about 8 feet” and moved the pool equipment next to the neighbor’s driveway, noting that the neighboring house is “about a hundred feet away.” He confirmed the second-story balcony was removed and that a bay window was added to break up the front façade.

ADR members complimented the revisions but pressed for additional changes. Laura Doer (ADR member) said she appreciated the move to the 25-foot front setback and the redesign of the gate, and said the pool equipment location made sense in context of the neighbor’s driveway. Mark Fritz (ADR member) supported the massing changes and removal of the balcony but objected to locating pool equipment on or next to a property line for a new build; he argued the equipment could be located inside the garage or otherwise placed to avoid penalizing a future neighbor. Fritz also raised fire-safety and functional access concerns about narrow side-yard passages and recommended increasing side-yard clearances by roughly a foot or two where feasible.

Martin (ADR member) and others agreed the front-massing changes improved the project, but several members asked staff to verify how the town measures setbacks for stair landings (one member noted staircase landing definitions in the Ross code may affect setback measurement). Town staff agreed to review that technical question.

Key technical details raised in the meeting:
- Applicant revised the house to meet a 25-foot front-yard setback (staff request).
- The design team said the north side setback improved from about 4 feet 4 inches to about 4 feet 8 inches after revisions. (presenter: Matt Cagle)
- The pool equipment was relocated to the side yard, placed next to the neighboring property’s driveway; the team said that neighboring house sits roughly 100 feet away from the equipment location.
- The second-story balcony was removed; the auto gate was redesigned to meet the town’s transparency expectations (members referenced a 50% transparency guidance).

Outcome and next steps: The ADR did not take a formal roll-call vote. Members expressed conditional support for the revised design while asking the applicant to find an alternative location for pool equipment that avoids placing significant mechanical equipment directly on a lot line and to consider modestly increasing side-yard clearances for service and emergency access. Staff will note the ADR comments in the record provided to the Town Council.

A closing note: Comments on measurement of stair landings and exact setback interpretation were deferred to staff verification of the Ross code; ADR members asked staff to confirm the correct application of setback definitions before the council packet is finalized.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Advisory Design Review Group Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Ross Architectural Design Review (ADR) on May 20, 2025 discussed revised plans for 87 Glenwood and gave generally supportive feedback while asking the applicant and staff to address the proposed location of pool equipment and narrow side-yard passage.","taxTitle","Ross, Marin County, California","taxId",79356,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6532008,"ADR staff to share pool/amenity variance precedents; full committee to review before recommending code changes",0,4813000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3428560-caa1434d8fac08c0e3ce549fa23a493b&start=4813&end=4813","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3428560-caa1434d8fac08c0e3ce549fa23a493b/thumbnail_4813000.jpg","/articles/6532008/Ross/Marin-County/California/ADR-staff-to-share-poolamenity-variance-precedents-full-committee-to-review-before-recommending-code-changes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6532008-255ff0d077a988bec936e5f8dd8b5d29/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448414&Signature=SMUv0-zx~eUHajBQjQ2EFBbLu5JBFFOQW65uutU0sfaUF9LetG~fhNo~kBhwYF2PoO2vObIqHHWjdrr4HYey4~7tWyFnVcxZ97zKbNgSCriHLOwveyZh1lRLej4oNz3BEhXCkYHf0J5pCO0WTzAXaMhdTYS5s1wQrp0MWdHIBbJjVsr3gBfKM9eqYFxjOfx~sktATspYhau9c4bVsb17JX~fo0N79ddLLrfp798ZNV6hmTNnmbxTSpQ9~C1fPBEU3~8yzQckxiwNYWZY0H9AYu0jtXOdbg20m8OzqAslVtoqnuUEA9n3aMyKoPgGiEiIzCBw9jmsM2P9PIKg3LmzFA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Ross staff presented research of pool and landscape-amenity variances approved since 2020 and asked the ADR whether it preferred to receive the analysis now or wait until a full committee was present. Roberta and Alex explained the research compares Ross decisions with neighboring towns and shows inconsistencies in how pools, sports courts and patios have been treated.

Why it matters: Staff said the research could inform whether the town should amend its code or adjust administrative processes so some types of on-grade pools or sports courts no longer require variances (for example, neighboring jurisdictions allow a 10-foot setback or do not regulate below-ground pools). ADR members preferred a full-committee discussion and asked staff to circulate the compiled data by email so all members can review before a decision.

Points raised and next steps
Roberta (staff) said the research aims to determine whether to change process or code so that certain pools or sports courts would not require variances, and to consider whether in-ground pools or on-grade amenities should be treated differently than elevated features. ADR members recommended staff email the materials to all ADR members and then schedule the full discussion when all five members can attend. Staff agreed to do so; the item was tabled pending full-committee discussion.

Outcome: Staff will circulate the compiled variance data to the full ADR and return the item for discussion with the complete committee; members suggested the research include sports courts, patios, fireplaces and other landscape features that the code treats as structures when placed in setbacks.","The ADR discussed a staff compilation of pool and outdoor-amenity variance approvals since 2020 and agreed to have staff circulate the data to all ADR members and return the topic for full-committee consideration; potential code changes (for on-grade pools, sports courts and patios) were proposed for future discussion.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6532012,"ADR asks redesign work for 47 Sylvan Lane: massing, sports court and floodway elevation are central concerns",2038,2471000,4509000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3428560-caa1434d8fac08c0e3ce549fa23a493b&start=2471&end=4509","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3428560-caa1434d8fac08c0e3ce549fa23a493b/thumbnail_2471000.jpg","/articles/6532012/Ross/Marin-County/California/ADR-asks-redesign-work-for-47-Sylvan-Lane-massing-sports-court-and-floodway-elevation-are-central-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6532012-c2c265dc441db63f0044f1e5ecb317ff/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448414&Signature=ZjyzluXjOLSwIeRJdj-~~~xFpXCHt6OIgd7gX0UIY-jOAhaFdof541iTACHKWibREbhPaho325eJ9TI5zTCZC6IahztLvYHZf4eOY7VWJKQ2~X9Re6UGma4KYVzlmBlQbX00sqfOBU3b5F30I0wrui0WR0ak5yn3yikRi0eojiMJlzlKCOy4VY12v8Yquqw8F7Yn3Ium8qlI3lRQVelLYfuH3ufT86fmlnj1N--Xm69XX~tbbcgwKz7LjFT3jVZif6waBSjn9Xqwpe94OiFMCa97ISzydXvowqDJnU1bFsEKY6BK0~2eyMvUp2oGc-b2VIowEUCtDuZJnnLYtaMvjw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Ross ADR on May 20, 2025 reviewed a proposal at 47 Sylvan Lane to demolish an existing one-story home and construct a new two-story residence with a one-car garage, sports court, spa and other outdoor amenities. Staff asked the ADR to comment and provide a recommendation to Town Council.

Jason Yi, the project architect, described the irregular, narrow lot (about 21,584 square feet but nonconforming in width) and noted the property lies in a designated floodway. He said the new house would be elevated to meet FEMA regulations; the design locates living spaces above the base flood elevation and places outdoor amenities (deck, spa, sports court and turf area) at the rear. The architect said the buildable area is constrained by the creek, setbacks and an effective base flood elevation that raises the finished-floor requirements.

Why it matters: The project requires variances to place a sports court, deck and spa within side-yard setbacks and must comply with FEMA elevation requirements because it is in a floodway. ADR review focuses on neighborhood character as well as public-safety and drainage implications tied to elevation and stormwater design.

Comments from neighbors and ADR members
A nearby resident raised concerns about sightlines from the proposed windows into her kitchen and requested screening; the applicant agreed to consider frosted glass and additional landscaping for privacy. The design team said the homeowners also own the adjacent property, which influences layout choices.

ADR members praised landscape improvements and stormwater measures but requested revisions to the front façade and massing. Several reviewers said the front elevation reads as a large, relatively unbroken 30-foot facade; members recommended stepping back the second-story massing, introducing more architectural relief and reconsidering the horseshoe driveway so vegetation can screen the house. Members also questioned the sports court’s proximity to the northern property line and the proposed 6-foot rebound wall and asked the applicant to explore relocating the spa equipment and AC units away from side-yard edges.

Technical and site details
- Proposed new house: 2,371 square feet; garage: 663 square feet (architect’s presentation).
- Lot size: stated as 21,584 square feet but irregular in shape and narrower than neighboring parcels.
- Sports court: shown within the side-yard setback with a proposed 6-foot rebound wall; applicant said portions of the court are roughly 3 feet from a property line in places and planting strips are proposed for screening.
- Stormwater: four bioretention areas were proposed (two under the deck and two in planting strips) to offset added impervious surface; permeable pavers and crushed gravel walks were also proposed.

Outcome and next steps
ADR members did not grant a final recommendation. The committee asked the applicant to revise the design to reduce the visual massing at the street, reconsider the sports court location and setbacks, clarify spa-equipment location (the team suggested it could go beneath the raised deck) and return to ADR with updated plans. Staff will include the ADR’s comments and neighbors’ screening requests in the council packet.","Design review for 47 Sylvan Lane, a proposed demolition and rebuild within a floodway, drew ADR scrutiny on front massing, placement of a sports court and outdoor amenities within side-yard setbacks; staff and members asked the applicant to revise drawings and return.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6532017,"ADR endorses pool variance for 230 Wellington but splits on house size increase",1362,1088000,2450000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3428560-caa1434d8fac08c0e3ce549fa23a493b&start=1088&end=2450","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3428560-caa1434d8fac08c0e3ce549fa23a493b/thumbnail_1088000.jpg","/articles/6532017/Ross/Marin-County/California/ADR-endorses-pool-variance-for-230-Wellington-but-splits-on-house-size-increase","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6532017-ce83dd26611716af6f0eb0ea8a9248db/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448414&Signature=ZKsUxzTpW-4KElguM4Dxr5A8qXQiLqhGauEwNy6K7~a121BH-AFWn7y~hBWyvcl~jtaNkdPNmv233zPqTRxIH65bjTyAFUWkTuUXakuy1KSGUoPUlfXv8C43dDUavEQNplUVyEV3uRj6FpNigOh2jF--vP7X20Y4K2zkgPsRdyTD9oeF3Kt3~0lyoyya9DkobvWEuFtUxowXhkOAELmOwkkaHhI3nSGACF1~1yGhv9TQejrCsnZShmqDTZT5rKzRL7F1mDvZbo4yCZ~aRx7rqTqzuEUGLkwwKzOvuQnsAlOTGXGIu0BYhuTPR5-hvDnxuGGLIC227orELO6GBXQaYg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Ross ADR members reviewed revisions at 230 Wellington on May 20, 2025 and offered a split recommendation: support for the applicant’s revised pool location but serious objections from some members over an increase in allowed floor area for the main house.

Town staff summarized earlier ADR comments and the applicant presented changes to the pool: the pool length was reduced from 38 feet to 34 feet and repositioned so the side-yard clearance increased from 9 feet to 12 feet and the rear clearance from about 13 feet to roughly 17 feet 2 inches. The applicant’s team also pointed to topographic constraints and said the owner also owns the adjacent property, which the design team said reduces privacy concerns.

Why it matters: The ADR’s advisory recommendation could influence the Town Council’s decision on a variance for pool location and the broader debate over floor-area (FAR) allowances on hillside lots. ADR members flagged potential precedent effects: allowing a substantially larger home could encourage similar exceptions townwide.

Design team comments and technical details
Brooks, presenting remotely for the applicant, emphasized the site’s steep topography and retaining walls and said the revised pool location was the most viable option. He noted retaining walls will “recess” portions of the pool so adjacent neighbors would not directly see the swimming surface; a portion of the retaining wall near the stairs is about 6 to 7 feet tall rather than the 10-foot figure that appears on a topo line.

Concerns over house size and precedent
One ADR member (Mark Krushnet) strongly objected to the proposed net increase in square footage. He summarized the numbers for the committee and argued the house is “too large for this lot.” He reported the base allowable square footage under the Hillside Lot standard as 2,137 square feet and said the current proposed gross floor area is about 2,267 square feet; the project seeks roughly 627 square feet above existing, which he described as a roughly 27% overage relative to the existing home and about a 38% overage relative to the Hillside standard. He warned that approving a large FAR increase would set a precedent that “would open the floodgates” for similar requests.

Other ADR members raised additional points: several said they were comfortable recommending the revised pool variance given the topography, the owner’s adjacent lot ownership and the reduction in pool size; others supported adding covered parking and said the garage FAR increase for parking was acceptable but questioned justification for adding several hundred square feet to the main house beyond parking needs.

Outcome and recommended actions
- Pool variance: ADR members Mark Krushnet and Laura Doer recorded a thumbs-up on recommending the pool variance to the Town Council; the committee’s discussion reflected support among a majority for the revised pool location as presented to ADR.
- House FAR: Mark Fritz and other members expressed opposition to the proposed increase in primary-house floor area; some supported the garage FAR increase for added covered parking but not the larger overall house increase.

Design and material notes
Brooks and the applicant noted minor finish changes: lap (fiber-cement) siding in gray to help the house recede into the hillside and concrete-faced planters/board-formed concrete walls rather than extensive veneer stone.

Next steps
Staff will include the ADR’s split recommendation and recorded member preferences in the Town Council packet. The committee also asked staff to provide the numerical FAR comparisons and precedents cited during the discussion so council members can review them.","Design review committee recommended approval of a revised pool variance at 230 Wellington but several members objected to the proposed increase in house floor-area above the Hillside Lot standard, citing precedent and bulk-and-mass concerns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

ADR recommends design changes at 87 Glenwood; members press for pool equipment and side-yard adjustments

ADR staff to share pool/amenity variance precedents; full committee to review before recommending code changes

ADR asks redesign work for 47 Sylvan Lane: massing, sports court and floodway elevation are central concerns

ADR endorses pool variance for 230 Wellington but splits on house size increase