Laserfiche WebLink
~~~~~ <br />T.H.I.S. <br />DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT RUC C 2 ~:. ~ <br />Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 T01NN CF LOS GA`fOS <br />Fax: 408.354.1823 Tel: 408.354.1863 PLANNWG DiVI~ION <br />i~-v~-c'i3 <br />110 E. Main Street '' _ ~~7 -~'~3 <br />Los Gatos, CA 95030 <br />Attn: Town Counci I <br />July 30th, 2010 <br />15928 Union Avenue Subsivision. <br />M-08-13, ND-09-02 <br />Mme Mayor and Councilmembers: <br />You are fully aware of the 2.5 year history of this project, so I will not subject you to <br />a complete recap. <br />The last time this came before you, the Planning Commission had denied the subdivision <br />7-0 based on State Subdivision Map Act findings (c), (d), primarily because of the <br />pseudo "flag-lot" approach that I had taken in its design. Even though my reason was to <br />separate the houses from the neighboring homes -this was not deemed an adequate <br />reason to justify the unusual lot layout. <br />When you deliberated on the matter, you agreed that the design was rather contrived <br />and suggested that finding (b) might better represent the reason for denial. However, <br />we suggested that we could eliminate the "flag-lot" design approach in a manner not <br />previously discussed with the Planning Commission so you returned the matter in a 5-0 <br />vote for redesign and reconsideration. <br />Some specific directions accompanied that vote: <br />Panorama Way should be considered the primary "neighborhood" and that less <br />weight should be given to Leewood Ct. <br />The "rhythm" of the existing lots on Panorama does not necessarily mandate an <br />orthogonal layout round the Cul-de-Sac. <br />Planning Commissioners should explicitly identify "reasons" for denial findings. <br />At the most recent Planning Commission hearing we presented both a new subdivision <br />design and the A&S design for two of the 3 houses. This was based on earlier requests <br />from neighbors who had complained that they wanted to see a more complete picture. <br />Unfortunately only 5 Commissioners were present and we were denied 3-2, but this was <br />a significant improvement over our original 7-0 denial one year earlier. <br />ATTACI[MEENT 15 <br />