Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION <br /> MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 1997 <br /> (#4 - Long Term Funding for Parks - Continued) <br /> Funding source #10 was the use of grants, such as the grant obtained through the DNR <br /> for Saga Hill. <br /> Funding source #11 was the creation of revenue through creation of facilities by other <br /> organizations. The example of the proposed amphitheater in Scott County by the <br /> Minnesota Orchestra was noted. <br /> Wilson asked for comments on these funding sources. It was noted that the park <br /> dedication will be obsolete as land for development no longer exists. <br /> Welles suggested prioritizing the funding sources, determining what type of funding the <br /> community would likely consider, and focus in on that with further research. Welles said <br /> he was in support of#7, conservation subdivision, but not of#3, bonds. <br /> Beal suggested determining how much open space is desired for acquisition and what that <br /> cost would be in determining what source should be considered. <br /> Wilson suggested the list include other private and non-profit organizations. McDermott <br /> asked if such a list was available. White noted the list was limited. The Minnesota Land <br /> Trust, the DNR, and Nature Conservancy, who only gets involved with large tracts of <br /> land, were listed. <br /> Welles indicated that leveraging was only spoken of in terms of open space and not in <br /> identifying parcels for neighborhood parks. He felt joint powers agreements was a <br /> possibility for a neighborhood park. <br /> McDermott noted that sources#5 and#6 were similar to that used by the Orono Ice <br /> Arena. <br /> Preservation of existing land was noted. Flint said the City wants to protect the lot sizes <br /> of 2 acre and 5 acre parcels. He cited Saga Hill as a PUD. Welles noted the aesthetic <br /> quality of 2 acre parcels and the argument of sewering as it relates to the MUSA <br /> restrictions. He asked what is the consideration behind these lot sizes. Flint said it was <br /> for aesthetic reasons but the City works with other agencies. He cited the storm water <br /> management plan being developed where runoff limitations will be established aiding in <br /> protecting larger lots. Flint said the fear is that PUD's will open the flood gates for <br /> development. Welles noted that PUD's allow the density levels to still remain the same. <br /> Flint said there are areas which should be developed and still maintain the 2 acre zoning. <br /> 7 <br />