Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woodside ASRB continues farmhouse design review, asks for off-white sample, reduced rear glazing
Summary
The Woodside Architectural and Site Review Board continued conceptual review of a proposed farmhouse-style residence with a junior ADU, asking the applicant to provide story poles, material and landscape samples, document neighborhood outreach and reduce rear glazing to limit light toward neighbors.
The Woodside Architectural and Site Review Board on an unspecified meeting date continued conceptual review of a proposed single-family residence with a junior accessory dwelling unit, asking the applicant to supply story poles, material and landscape samples and to address rear fenestration and neighborhood outreach before formal review.
The applicant, Doug with Mark Gross Architects, described the design as “a simple farmhouse design residence, with clean details, which complement the town's vernacular,” and said the project is sited to minimize grading. Doug also said the design team will meet building-code fire-resistance requirements: “we do have to comply with the, chapter 7 building code requirements for…fire resistance,” including garage doors, siding and window frames.
Board members praised the siting and massing but raised two consistent concerns: the exterior color and the large sliding doors at the rear. Multiple members said the town’s residential guidelines favor off-white or warm tones rather than stark white; one member called for review of color samples. The board also urged the applicant to reduce the amount of rear glazing to limit light emission toward neighboring properties.
Staff clarified several code points during the hearing. Staff said vehicle gates must be at least 40% open and that solid fencing over 4 feet tall in the R‑1 district must be set back at least 30 feet from the street. A board member asked whether a junior ADU requires additional parking; the board cited the Woodside municipal code (section 153.211(c)(7)) noting that an ADU or JADU does not, by itself, require new on‑site parking.
After discussion, a board member moved to continue the item on conceptual review and place it on a future consent agenda provided that materials and a landscape plan are submitted and that fenestration and neighborhood outreach be addressed at formal design review. The motion was seconded and carried on a roll‑call recorded in the transcript as "Yes" from Chair Lindsey, Vice Chair Comer, Member Middleman and Member Sullivan; Member Delgavio had no recorded response in the transcript. The chair closed the item and staff said the project will return on a future consent agenda so staff can complete formal design review after required story-pole installation.
The meeting closed with no additional director’s report and an administrative note that an item is tentatively set for the April 7 meeting.
The ASRB’s action was procedural: the board did not approve or deny final design but set conditions and a path for the applicant to return with required samples and story poles for formal review.
