PC 021214 - Laserfiche WebLink

before, that that has perhaps been communicated to someone else on the Board and they have not had an opportunity to talk about it. Mr. Carlock stated that they have on record what their concerns are, as stated in the letter from the Silver Oaks HOA attorney representing the community. He added that they still have these concerns and feel like the alternatives presented do not go far enough to really address the visual impact. He asked that an environmental survey be done because there are a lot of opinions on what the visual impact will be. He stated that he has heard a lot of different opinions but does not have facts on what it is going to be, and an environmental report would give them the actual facts on which a decision could be based. Robin Reeves stated that she was going to read something that her husband wrote. She indicated that her husband is the President of their Homeowners Association, and he is very much involved in this matter. She added that she does not know what the Commissioners are receiving, noting that she does not understand why the Commission is getting the attorney's letter only now what it was dated February 6th. She reiterated what Mr. Garlock mentioned that they are Silver Oaks and there is a community that does oppose this proposal. She noted that Mr. Berlogar has not been very neighborly to the neighbors in presenting all this. She added that they are good neighbors, and Mr. Berlogar can just come talk to them but does not. She then read the following into the record: "Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting on February 12 as I have prior travel obligations. However, in reviewing the Draft Staff Report for PUD -84, the recommended development fails to adequately address the concerns and issues raised by (i) the letter from the Silver Oaks Homeowners Association (HOA) attorney dated February 6, 2014, (ii) the letter (and related correspondence) from the HOA dated March 5, 2013, and (iii) the HOA comments raised at the Planning Commission workshop for PUD -84. "Among other concerns, the project violates the Specific Plan and related EIR by locating a project outside of the designated development area and into designated open space. Additional issues include the location of the access road on the front side of the hill instead of (i) using the existing private access road, or (ii) using a less obtrusive route on the west side of the property. "Furthermore, I note two additional items in the staff report: 1. Staff is recommending approval for a 40 -foot building while the Specific Plan only allows for 30 feet. I do not agree with 40 -foot approval when visual impact is of major concern. 2. To demonstrate flexibility in site location, staff refers to page 23 of the VACSP which says that 'The site development standards shall be applied through the City's PUD development plan approval process and may vary for unusual site conditions as long as any new standards are consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan.' What staff fails to mention is that the same paragraph of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 12, 2014 Page 14 of 38