PC 083116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Does the Commission support the construction of a club /meeting room building with restroom facilities within the project site? If so, which location? Commissioner Nagler: This is an interesting one because when I met with representatives of the entity and it's not really an entity, that shall remain nameless but very active and very influential in their neighborhood, it was clear that while they welcomed what they considered to be a better use of this land, what they certainly were losing was a place to gather and therefore they wanted this amenity and Ponderosa in its well- maintained track record of working with communities agreed to build it. And it raises some interesting questions about the private construction of a public facility and what happens to that over time. The day it's opened, and Commissioner Balch referred to this, the day it's opened it's wonderful, it's maintained, it's gorgeous, it's used, it's welcomed, it's 1 year, 2 years, 10 years down the road, different residents, different time, different attitude, different condition of the building itself and it begs the question — if it isn't the responsibility of the taxpayers at large and therefore fits into the work stream of the City, what does happen to this facility? Does it become an eyesore? Does it become something that isn't properly managed? It occurs to me for example, we can say as an easy statement it's use, even in good times, will be managed by the homeowners association but none of the people buying the homes are being asked the question do they want to take responsibility for managing a facility and somebody has to sit at his or her kitchen table with a spreadsheet and say, sure, you can use the facility on May 15`", right? So I am troubled by this idea of us creating a so- called public space with private dollars and the accountability for maintaining it with yet to -be- identified private individuals. I guess the bottom line for me is I would actually in the end prefer this not to be part of the project. If it is part of the project I think parking is an issue and that it ought to be two lots. If it does exist I absolutely think it should be on Lot 11, but I also think Lot 10 should be included because we do need to be sensitive to parking. We do need to be sensitive to the use of the facility and not have it burden the people whose homes are nearby. But, I'm wondering whether it's a business we want to get into. Commissioner Balch: I served on the Park and Rec Commission for 4.5 years before this. I was a member of the Park and Rec Master Plan Task Force. I voted in favor of the task force plan. I will say just like that, the Council just stopped building two tennis parks that were also listed in the Parks and Rec Master Plan because the community it affected the most widely has voiced their opinion. And listening to this community, we can see that the Park and Rec Master Plan conducted at a 30,000 foot level did not necessarily get the full feedback from the community as we are hearing here. So, I can easily with a sound mind say we should be building this facility for these residents. I have several things I want to mention about this unique item. One, the City is already in the business of maintaining bathrooms. The opinion or the fact that they don't want to get into the business or maintain the bathrooms is because it is difficult and I understand that. But the fact that this is a public park for the greater city I look at as a bolt -on item and I think the City is already in the business. In fact, I happen to know that the crew who maintains the park is typically the crew that maintains restroom facilities, so they're typically already there. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 31, 2016 Page 21 of 58