Woodside ASRB advances 4216 Jefferson Avenue concept to formal design review

The Woodside Architectural and Site Review Board voted unanimously at its July meeting to advance a conceptual proposal for a new single-family residence and detached two-car garage at 4216 Jefferson Avenue to formal design review.

Planning staff said the property is a vacant lot of about 15,000 square feet in the R-1 zoning district and described the site as dominated by steep slopes. "The project includes the construction of a new main residence, detached garage, and other site improvements," staff said, noting the design will likely require additional entitlements including variances for development within steep slopes, setbacks and accessory-structure height.

The board’s decision matters because the site presents multiple constraints that will shape a final design: staff reported the applicant plans to remove approximately nine trees, six of which are considered significant; the residence height was listed at about 28 feet; parking requirements will demand four spaces by code though the plan currently shows a two-car garage; and the final building and driveway layout depend on septic/percolation test results that the applicant said are scheduled for Aug. 2.

At the conceptual review, board members and staff focused on four recurring concerns. First, massing and visual bulk: staff recommended reducing perceived mass by lowering crawl-space heights where feasible, breaking the building into different materials or colors and using landscape screening near lower-level piers. Second, color and materials: several members said darker, earth-tone colors are preferred by the residential design guidelines, though staff noted lighter palettes can be appropriate depending on architectural style; the applicant said she is "amenable" to darker colors. Third, parking and circulation: staff reminded the board that the code requires four parking spaces and advised the applicant to demonstrate vehicle maneuverability and any needed turnouts; staff also recommended coordinating with the fire district because fire-truck access rules may require an on-site turnaround if apparatus must drive more than 150 feet onto the property. Fourth, septic siting and timing: the applicant said prior combined-lot percolation test results limited capacity on an adjacent lot and that subdivision of the parcel should yield improved perc results; the applicant told the board the percolation test is scheduled for Aug. 2 and that septic siting will inform drainage, driveway and final placement of the house.

Staff also flagged one accessory-structure issue: the proposed garage’s plate height appears to exceed the town’s accessory-structure plate-height limit (staff cited an 11-foot plate-height example and a 17-foot ridge-height metric), which would require a variance. Board members discussed that variances for steep slopes are expected for this site and that the ASRB must evaluate whether findings can be made at formal review once full grading and design details are submitted.

The board’s motion to advance the application to formal design review included a list of recommendations for the applicant to address at the next stage: provide a detailed circulation and parking plan (including how four code-required spaces will be accommodated), finalize septic/percolation results and show how septic siting affects the layout, submit a complete grading plan and materials board, install story poles at the formal stage, and explore design adjustments to reduce massing and visual bulk. Staff said it will send a follow-up letter within a day or two and that the applicant should meet with staff to prepare materials for the formal submittal.

The motion to advance the project passed on a recorded voice vote: Chair Lindsey — yes; Vice Chair Kamran — yes; Member Mittelman — yes. Members Delgavio and Sullivan were absent.

Next steps: the applicant is to complete the percolation test, work with engineer Lee and Brace and the town’s planning staff on detailed grading, parking and septic plans, and return for formal design review with story poles, a materials board and finalized drawings. The ASRB noted that additional comments could follow once those materials are submitted.