ASRB forwards conceptual plans for 380 Mountain Home Road to formal staff review

At its Sept. 8 meeting, the Woodside Architectural and Site Review Board reviewed conceptual plans for a proposed single-family residence and an accessory storage structure at 380 Mountain Home Road and voted to forward the project to formal staff review. Planner Jillian (staff) summarized the project as “conceptual review for 380 Mountain Home Road, which consists of the construction of a new single family dwelling and accessory storage structure on an existing parcel” and said the subject property is “about 3.01 acres” with several easements, including a 15-foot bicycle/equestrian/hiking easement and ingress-egress easements indicated in the title report. Jillian also reported that the applicant proposes removal of six trees — five oak trees and one of an unidentified species — where those trees fall within or adjacent to proposed building footprints. Why it matters: the board found the proposal modest in scale and generally aligned with the Woodside residential design guidelines, a determination that clears the project to proceed to formal design review and staff analysis for permits. Board members praised the design’s understated materials and the applicant’s effort to site the new house on already-disturbed portions of the parcel. Project details: Jillian said the proposed single-story main residence measures about 1,195 square feet and stands a little over 16.5 feet tall; the accessory storage structure is about 684 square feet and roughly 15.5 feet tall. The accessory structure was described as relying on a minor-encroachment allowance under Woodside Municipal Code section 153.207(c) to permit a limited corner encroachment into the setback without exceeding the code’s averaging rules. The project would use an existing driveway off Mountain Home Court (a private roadway) and includes tandem parking adjacent to the residence. Board discussion and questions focused on easements, driveway condition, retaining walls and potential future conversion. One board member asked whether the accessory structure might function as an accessory dwelling unit; the applicant said there was no present intent to use it as an ADU, though conversion could be possible in the future and would require separate review. The applicant noted retaining walls on the property reflect earlier development and said the plan seeks to place new work within previously disturbed areas; the applicant said they are “paralleling two of those walls” so the new building “just kinda sits and reinserts itself almost into the site.” Action: the board moved to forward the conceptual plans to staff for formal review, with the motion seconded and approved unanimously; Member Delgavio did not recuse on this item. The board noted that formal submittal will include material samples and finalized floor-area and site details for staff review. Next steps: staff will process formal design-review materials, request any required clarifying information (samples, final grading, parking layout, and confirmed tree removals) and return the project to the board as required by the review timeline. No permit was issued at the conceptual stage.