Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and planners press for design changes at Walnut Avenue study session; palm tree, floodplain and privacy top concerns
Summary
At a study session for 29 Walnut Avenue, commissioners urged the applicant to rebalance first and second floor massing, show parking dimensions, provide neighbor vantage photos and examine options to preserve a prominent front palm tree and protect drainage into Warner Canyon Creek.
The Planning Commission used a March 10 study session to give detailed feedback to the team proposing a new two‑story house at 29 Walnut Avenue, focusing on neighborhood character, floodplain elevation, tree protection and privacy.
Staff presented project PL25‑0022 and noted a portion of the site lies in FEMA AE flood zone along Warner Canyon Creek; staff said the finished floor must be at least one foot above the flood elevation. Developer Carl Haas and architect Lincoln Lighthill described a compact, tonal design with a flat roof and screened solar panels and said they had circulated plans to immediate neighbors months earlier.
Commissioners and nearby residents raised multiple issues. Several commissioners urged rebalancing program area to move square footage from the second story to the ground floor to reduce the visual mass seen from side yards, and to break up long two‑story side walls. Commissioner comments repeatedly returned to one front‑yard asset: a large palm tree visible from the street. Multiple neighbors said the palm contributes to neighborhood character and asked the applicant to explore moving or redesigning the plan so the palm can remain; the applicant said the tree is currently on the line of the proposed stairwell and that they would investigate options and provide clearer site drawings showing tree locations.
Privacy was another frequent topic. Commissioners recommended removing or relocating a proposed second‑floor balcony and asked the applicant to provide photo‑simulations from neighbors’ vantage points to document privacy impacts; the applicant agreed to consider removing the balcony. Drainage and stormwater also drew scrutiny: the site slopes toward neighboring basements in places, and neighbors said prior flooding had occurred; commissioners asked for a drainage plan and details about landscape dissipators and pervious surfaces the applicant has proposed.
On sustainability and technical items, commissioners encouraged the applicant to include solar, batteries and all‑electric systems where possible, to use pervious driveway surfacing, and to show locations for heat‑pump condensers and any rooftop equipment that would need screening.
The study session concluded without a decision. The commission asked the team to return with revised drawings that show tree locations and any root‑protection zones, fully‑dimensioned parking (on‑site and street), neighbor‑view photos and a drainage strategy. The session helped clarify the issues staff and the applicants should resolve before full design‑review consideration.
