Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ASRB recommends 170 Fox Hollow to Planning Commission after glazing, grading and tree-protection changes
Summary
The ASRB recommended approval of formal design review for 170 Fox Hollow Road and forwarded a grading-exception review to the Planning Commission, citing reduced two‑story glazing, grading details, and requirements for arborist oversight and possible screening or a 4–6 ft wall to block headlights.
The Woodside ASRB voted May 18 to recommend formal design review of a major residential redevelopment at 170 Fox Hollow Road and to forward a requested grading exception to the Planning Commission with conditions addressing tree protection and grading documentation.
Staff described the proposal as demolition of an existing house, pool and associated site work and construction of a new main residence with an attached studio ADU, two detached ADUs (a pool ADU and a guest ADU), a detached trellis and site improvements on a 3.013-acre parcel. The proposal includes relocation of the driveway entrance, efforts to avoid significant on-site trees and a materials palette of weathered wood, stone veneer and standing-seam metal roofing.
Staff and the project team said they had responded to prior conceptual review comments by reducing the width of two-story glazing: the south-facing two-story window was reduced from 18 feet to 8 feet 4 inches and the north-facing tall window from 9 feet 9 inches to 7 feet 3 inches. Architect Ken Winstead said neighbor outreach had been performed and that the nearest neighbors south of the property expressed satisfaction with the window reduction. "Our clients love those oak trees, so they do not want to disturb them," Winstead said, adding the team will work with an arborist and will not proceed if arborist review indicates harm.
Board members focused on grading quantities and tree protection. Staff and the project team stated that basement excavation accounts for a large share of earthwork (a grading table labeled ~2,400 cubic yards pertaining to the basement) and that the site proposes roughly 1,360 cubic yards of cut and about 1,200 cubic yards of fill, leaving on the order of 150–160 cubic yards not balanced on site. Staff emphasized that the specific findings for any grading exception will be made by the Planning Commission.
The board discussed neighbor concerns about headlights directed at a neighboring room and the option of screening or a landscaping/retaining wall. Plans show landscape/retaining walls varying between 4 and 6 feet; staff said code implications are similar across that range but the board suggested the record could specify a maximum and that the board could consider a condition requiring a 6-foot wall if warranted. Staff also reiterated that residential guidelines prohibit uplighting in trees and that specified site fixtures are downlit.
After deliberation the ASRB voted to recommend approval and to forward the grading exception to the Planning Commission, with conditions emphasizing tree protection (arborist oversight), clearer grading documentation for Planning Commission review, and attention to screening or wall height to reduce headlight impacts. The motion passed unanimously as recorded.
