Laserfiche WebLink
Ed Broom: Thank you. My name is Ed Broom. I live on Hawaii Court. Frankly I didn't <br />think this evening would ever come, but we're here. So as Pam mentioned we have <br />been working hand -in -hand with Ponderosa for the last couple of years. I would like to <br />clarify and support what staff said about Valley Trails Homeowners Association. It is <br />defunct. We put together a subset of that organization so to speak. It can best be <br />described now as an advocacy group or social club type of thing. There are no dues. <br />There are no compulsory rules. The leadership is informally formal so there are no <br />elected positions, but obviously some folks do need to rise to the occasion to kind of <br />voice our concerns, get the neighborhood together as a whole and get the different <br />ideas and so forth. So that's kind of the background of where we are. Even though it's <br />referred to in the staff report as the VTHOA or the homeowners association, I just <br />wanted to clarify that's a misnomer. <br />So, we are speaking tonight mainly from that point of view and we are in very much <br />support of this project. It's been a long road. We think that it's time in the evolution of <br />this particular parcel for the church to convert one of their larger assets into capital so <br />they can move elsewhere and grow which is really I'm sure what their intent was all <br />along with this piece of property. History didn't prove that out. The neighborhood was <br />very much opposed to this as you all well know over the years and it's just recently that <br />that attitude has changed a bit and they're more welcoming. We think that Ponderosa <br />has a great plan. We think that the density and design of the plan will work very well and <br />it's a good complement to our neighborhood as a whole. <br />The community room or amenity which seems to be the topic of choice tonight, that <br />really came about from the voice of the neighborhood as a whole. Obviously not <br />everyone agrees to that and we respect those opposing viewpoints, but right now when <br />we look at how we utilize the church building we utilize it now as a place to vote, we <br />utilize it for Scout meetings, we utilize it for community club meetings so when it's said <br />it's the heart of our neighborhood, it really is. It does serve that purpose. When we <br />started thinking about that going away, that left a hole, so that was the genesis for us <br />getting behind the community building. The one thing we would prefer is we would <br />prefer the Lot 11 location which I think is Option 2. We would propose that Lot 11 be the <br />preferred location mainly because of its proximity to the park. If there's going to be a <br />restroom facility, it only makes sense that its closer to the play equipment which is what <br />our residents mentioned would be their preference and their favor. I think some policing <br />issues and concerns have come about through different letters and so forth and that's <br />really we feel a police action and it should be considered but I don't think it should be <br />the deal- breaker in my opinion. Also, we do intend to have further discussion on the City <br />accepting the dedication of the facility. We think Ponderosa has put together a very <br />solid funding plan for not only the day to day operational costs but a small capital <br />improvement fund to handle things over time. The one change we would ask however <br />and I think the two -lot came up— Commissioner Nagler, you brought it up— originally <br />yes, Ponderosa did displace two lots when there were two entry/exits to the project. So <br />what we did is we were trying to come up with a creative way to make this clubhouse <br />work, to make the restrooms contiguous with the park, how could we do that? So we <br />essentially changed the two lots that were displaced by a roadway, made it a single <br />entry/exit and moved those two lots which was Lot 10 and Lot 11. So what we would <br />ask is that we would be allowed Lot 10 as well and that would accommodate off - street <br />parking which we believe would be a requirement of zoning code Chapter 18. We feel <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 31, 2016 Page 12 of 58 <br />