Ross ADR asks for major revisions to 87 Glenwood Avenue design over massing, setbacks and pool equipment

On March 18 the Town of Ross Architectural Design Review Committee reviewed a proposal to demolish the existing house at 87 Glenwood Avenue and construct a new two‑story single‑family home with an attached garage, pool, fire pit and water feature. The committee identified several design and setback issues and asked the applicant to revise plans before the matter moves to the Town Council.

Barbara Chambers, the project architect, described a modest new house on a narrow 6,810‑square‑foot lot with a First and Second Floor footprint of about 2,224 square feet (2,487 square feet including the garage). She said the ADU over the garage is not part of the current application and that landscaping includes a pool centered on the back porch, stepped retaining walls, and pool equipment located in the northwest corner of the rear yard.

A neighbor, Becky Delgado of 89 Glenwood, spoke during public comment to express concern about privacy from a second‑floor balcony and about pool equipment positioned near an accessory dwelling behind her property. “We are concerned about the second story balcony invading the privacy of our backyard and the living space back there,” Delgado said.

Multiple ADR members praised the design but repeatedly questioned the proposed front‑yard encroachment and the massing of a two‑story facade pushed close to the street. An ADR member recommended the applicant move the primary facade about 9 to 10 feet south to align with neighboring facades and reduce the perceived bulk. That member also urged accuracy on side‑yard setback dimensions and suggested removing or narrowing the second‑floor balcony on privacy grounds.

Other recurring concerns included: the size and placement of the pool equipment and an associated enclosure, which several members said should be pulled out of the side or rear setback or integrated into the house; the transparency of the proposed front gate (members recommended 50 percent transparency); and the scale of a rear fire‑pit/terrace that sits close to the property line.

The project team told the ADR they had neighbor outreach and letters of support from many neighbors, and acknowledged one objection letter from 90 Glenwood. Chambers and a landscape designer said the pool sits in the flattest part of the yard and that the pool equipment had been sited to be farthest from adjacent houses.

Two ADR members indicated they would recuse themselves from further review of the project because they live too close to the property; the transcript records that recusal but does not provide a formal roll‑call or vote on a recommendation.

The ADR directed the applicant to revise the design to address massing and setback concerns, to explore alternatives for the pool equipment and terrace to reduce impacts on adjacent properties, and to work with staff on gate transparency and landscaping screening. The revised plans will be returned with a staff report for Town Council consideration.

No formal ADR roll‑call vote approving the project as submitted was recorded in the transcript; the committee’s feedback constitutes the formal ADR recommendation on design changes and further submittal requirements.