My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-06-2016 Park Commission Packet
Orono
>
Park Commission
>
Agendas
>
Historical
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
09-06-2016 Park Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/8/2019 9:07:21 AM
Creation date
1/8/2019 9:06:57 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING <br />Tuesday, July 5, 2016 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Bryce Johnson stated what he likes about 3B is that it allows more space in the dog park than in the non - <br />dog park and that it is complying with the request of the owner. Johnson noted there is a bench in the <br />upper right, and that the way the bench is situated currently, it is just on the outside of the trail. Johnson <br />stated he is wondering if someone would be able to walk around the fence at that corner. <br />Edwards pointed out there is a little trail that winds down to the wetlands. The orange line is on top of the <br />bluff and the little red line is a foot trail that winds down and goes along the wetlands. <br />Bryce Johnson stated the neighbors and the Council may be assuming there will be a parallel trail in that <br />area. <br />Edwards stated there is a way to put a trail on the other side of the fence if so desired. Edwards stated he <br />depicted that on the map to show that there is a way to put another trail in that area. <br />Meyers stated volunteers can put more wood chips down on the trails but that the neighbors were more <br />concerned about the area to the north. <br />Ruegemer asked whether the neighbors have seen the revised plan <br />Meyers stated the neighbors have not seen the revised plan. Meyers stated in his view relocating the <br />small dog area is a huge improvement over the original plan. <br />Pesek moved, Berg seconded, to recommend Option 313, which will hereafter be called Option 3. <br />VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. <br />Edwards noted the City Council will be hearing the variance application next Monday, and if it is <br />approved, Staff will go out and solicit bids. <br />Edwards noted there are two cost estimates included in the Park Commission's packet. Design 1 is <br />$129,198 and Design 3 is $94,372, assuming the same types of quotes are received as last time. <br />Meyers stated he would propose the items that were removed by the Council be put back in the proposal <br />since the cost for the fence has come down. Meyers noted if the well is added later, the fence would need <br />to be taken down and then erected again. Meyers stated in his view it is important to have water at a dog <br />park and that it is cost efficient to do it up front. <br />Bryce Johnson stated one of the most important components to a dog park is the socialization of the dog <br />owners and that having a place to sit, as well as the other amenities, would be beneficial and would fulfill <br />the intent of the park. Johnson noted the cost for the park with the amenities comes to approximately <br />$117,000 and that the average of the two park dedication fees that Staff provided for the Eisinger <br />development would come to $118,000. <br />Bryce Johnson moved, Meyers seconded, to recommend adding back in the shade structures, the <br />water source, as well as the picnic table and bench, to support the socialization of the people using <br />the park. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. <br />STAFF REPORTS <br />Page 4 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.