Laserfiche WebLink
right -of -way; the public's sphere on the street at least, easy access maybe by vehicles <br />so you could make an argument for that one location. You could also make an <br />argument for the other location too that's closer to the park that there's a potential for <br />the clubhouse to be better integrated with the park. You can walk through the park and <br />immediately arrive at the clubhouse. So I think staff's opinion is that both sites have <br />merit. I don't think there's a strong preference for one over the other. <br />Commissioner Nagler: Thanks, and on the restroom, I guess there's some question <br />about how the restroom would be accessed. Does staff have an opinion about that? <br />Lee: It will be accessed at least the way the floor plan is now from the inside; from the <br />clubhouse. I think that's because it's going to be open to the public only for part of the <br />time. So for a large part of the time it will be just for the development and also maybe a <br />benefit is that it could be a little safer by not being open to the public at all times. <br />Beaudin: I'm going to just maybe clarify a little bit on that point. Staff does have a <br />preference that it be outward facing. To be truly available to the public I think it has to be <br />open to the public. I don't think it's a make or break point. I think the points that Jay <br />made are valid, but I think if it's a restroom accessible to the park, having to go inside of <br />what will feel like an interior space that may not be as available to the public may make <br />it less accessible. So the idea here is if there is going to be a restroom and it is going to <br />serve the public realm, then it should be accessible from the public side. <br />Commissioner Nagler: Okay. I believe at one time the amount of space to be allocated <br />to this amenity was actually two lots to properly site it and maybe even allow for some <br />parking for its use. But, when the option was created to move it to Option 2 to Lot 11, it <br />was reduced to one home site. Is that accurate in staff's perspective? <br />Beaudin: Yes, we did see an option that did involve some on -site parking and I believe <br />the site was slightly larger and I think that what we've come to realize is that the <br />clubhouse is not going to be that large. It may draw from the larger community but the <br />numbers of people who may be using this space could easily be accommodated <br />elsewhere in the neighborhood for the duration of a neighborhood gathering at an event <br />location like this. So there's not as much land allocated to this particular use, but in <br />general, whether it's C Street within the development or Valley Trails out on the main <br />road, there's going to be adequate space for people to use for parking. It's not a large <br />amenity building. <br />Commissioner Nagler: Thank you. <br />Commissioner Balch: To refresh my memory, Valley Trails Park does not currently have <br />restroom facilities in that park, correct? <br />Beaudin: That is correct. <br />Commissioner Balch: Can you please elaborate as to why the City policy is not to <br />accept additional ancillary buildings at park locations in light of Creekside Park restroom <br />and Bernal Community Park restroom facilities that the City already owns and <br />maintains. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 31, 2016 Page 5 of 58 <br />