PC 121003 - Laserfiche WebLink

vv-as an applicable comparison. and noted tll.at this vvas a high-el."'l.ergy intensi-vc use VV"hich shou.ldbe treated that V\Tay. If this project "V'Vere to be approved", it VV"ould need some significant energy mitigations", including el""1ergy efficient n""1otors" PV pa..nels to povv-er the facility" and solar/thermal systems to heat the vvater. He noted that. the existi1""1g greer:L building measures vv-ere nice", but he believed they V\Tcre basically symbolic. He did not believe this vvas a..n appropriate or compatible use Tor this area" given t.he natural setting. He noted that. the East. Side V\Tas :not yet pla:nn.ed" a:nd he V\Tas :not. con.vinced that. this use vv-ould be compatible vv-ith an area vv-ith significa..nt community needs. ComTI1issioner Sulli-va.r1 noted that if the use vv-ere to become a problem for the neighbors", it vvou.ld not be practical to shut the V\Tater park dovvTl.. He noted that his teer1age children enjoyed vv-ater parks and appreciated the input o:t-the Youth Commissioners. He vv-as not con-vinced that this "V'Vas a use that kids VV"ou.ld patronize frequently. He belie-ved that community acceptance ~as very important for this project to succeed. Cornmissioner Sulli-van noted that he felt very strol""1gly tl""1at if this project vv-ere to be appro-ved by City Cou.ncil", it shol..1-1d be referendable. He noted that typical conditiol""1al use perrn.its vv-ere smaller projects tl"'l.at did 1"'10t reql..1-ire the level of control that this project did. I-Ie believed that if this use vvere to be approved., the corn.nTu.nity sl""1ould l""1ave son""1e level of recourse. He strongly believed tl"1at the comrn.unity sl"'1ould be able to referel."'1d any City Cou.ncil approval and noted that he had participated in pun referenda in the past. Commissioner Kameny echoed Commissioner Sullivan"'s concerns and believed that this project could be a great asset to the City. .l-I.e believed that at this point" the rl.egati-ve comments he has recei-ved greatly outvv-eigh the positi-ve comments. He expressed con.cern about tra:t"tlc", parkin.g" an.d the noise. He believed that. t.his use vvas planned f:or the "V'Vrong location" vvhich vv-as discussed in t.he staff report. He hoped that this vvould not impact the proposed BI\IlX park. Commissioner 1\..1.:aas supported this project a..nd vv-ould like the kids to stay in toV\/n .for their recreation. She noted that she had visited residents door-to-door in Shado"VV Clif:ts Village and added that the majority of people vv-ere in :favor o.f-the park. They "VVere concerned about the noise element but believed that the mitigations vvere sufficient. The neighbors belie-ved that the park VV"ould be an asset for the kids in the comrrl.unity. She VV"ould like City Conncil"'s fu.rther comme.nts on. the Commission"s concerns. She did not believe it vv-ould be appropriate to hold the project up at the Planning Commission le-veL SI"1e vv-ould like more emphasis placed on the security issues vvith respect to the surrounding areas. She belie-ved that not sCCl..1-ril""1g this applicatiol"'1 "V'Vould put tl""1e B1v:lX tracks in jeopardy. Commissioner I\4aas had spoken to a resident about vvater usage and options during a shortage. She belie-ved that the applicaI1t had addressed that issue adequ.ately and V\Tould consider purchasing "V'Vater from a private source in the event of a drol..1-ght. PLANNING COl'VllVlISS10N l'VlINUTES December 10, 2003 Page 26