Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Rebuild Massing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ADR asks redesign and tighter setbacks for proposed 87 Glenwood home
Summary
Architect and owner proposed demolishing the house at 87 Glenwood and building a new two‑story home with pool, pool equipment and landscaping; ADR members raised concerns about front‑yard massing, a second‑floor balcony and pool equipment in setbacks and recommended revisions before council review.
The Ross Architectural Design Review (ADR) on March 18 reviewed a proposal to demolish the existing residence at 87 Glenwood Avenue and replace it with a new two‑story single‑family home, attached garage and associated landscaping, pool, fire pit and water feature. The applicant requested design review, a nonconformity permit and variances for front and side setbacks and rear‑yard uses.
Architect Barbara Chambers and team described a compact 2,224‑square‑foot house (2,487 square feet including the garage) on a 6,810‑square‑foot lot. Proposed exterior materials include cedar shingles painted blue‑gray, a standing‑seam metal roof and wood‑clad windows; the backyard plan includes a pool and fire pit. The applicant said a junior ADU above the garage is not part of this proposal; the ADU remains under separate review.
Several neighbors and ADR members raised substantive design concerns. Multiple ADR members said the new two‑story façade as drawn “looms” over the street and recommended pulling the main massing approximately 9–10 feet back to better align with neighboring porches. Panelists repeatedly recommended eliminating or narrowing the second‑floor balcony because of privacy impacts on adjacent properties. One ADR member noted the north side yard is particularly tight and urged accurate setback dimensions and a reduction in width on that side.
Pool equipment and other hardscape elements were a focus. ADR members said the pool‑equipment enclosure as shown appears large and asked that the equipment be removed from setback locations where feasible, either by integrating it into the primary building or locating it closer to the house so it is not a separate structure on the property line. The ADR suggested exploring sunken or enclosed vaults, integration under the house or other strategies — while noting technical constraints for filters and access.
The ADR also recommended changes to the front gate: increase transparency to roughly 50 percent, and soften the visual impact with landscaping. Panel members urged accurate dimensioning for stairs and porches and asked staff and the applicant to verify fire‑protection clearances near windows.
No formal roll‑call vote on action items appears in the transcript. ADR members uniformly praised the design quality but recommended the applicant revise massing, reduce encroachment into the front setback, reconsider the second‑floor balcony, reduce or relocate pool equipment in the setback and present revised plans to staff and council.
