Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PARK COMMISSION <br /> Monday, March 2nd, 2020 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 14 of 20 <br /> <br />Roath recapped the concerns regarding the proposal: legal aspects about the easement; Dayton’s intent for <br />the park; growth of the club; impact of its usage relative to other users of the park; building size; <br />environmental impact; whether it’s part of a master plan or if the Commission is being strategic enough; <br />placement of the dock; and size of the parking lot. The next step is to decide if they want a second date. <br /> <br />Hudson moved that the proposal as presented progress to step two of the process, taking into <br />account all the concerns/considerations that have been highlighted during the entire process. <br /> <br />Carter said if the motion was to support the proposal, he would vote no. However, if the motion was to <br />bring the discussion to the Council with a series of suggestions, he would be able to vote for that. <br /> <br />Hudson indicated it would be the latter scenario. <br /> <br />Carter moved that the proposal be moved to the City Council with guidance from the Park <br />Commission, including a recommendation of a completion of a master plan for Summit Park that <br />contemplates the potential of the boat club and involves some kind of citizen group committee that <br />represents the community. He would also like the proposal to come back to the Park Commission. <br /> <br />Ruegemer stated it is the Park Commission’s job to vote on the proposal rather than pass the buck to the <br />City Council, because then it’s out of the Park Commission’s hands. <br /> <br />Carter clarified he was offering a friendly amendment. Carter moved to move the discussion to the <br />City Council meeting with the caveat that the next phase is to develop a master plan for the park <br />where the City includes the consideration of the rowing club and having some sort of community <br />council or committee to represent the community at large. <br /> <br />Hudson supported and accepted the friendly good amendment. <br /> <br />The Commissioners discussed that the Park Commission is supporting that the proposal be brought to the <br />City Council with the following conditions: a master plan be completed, likely to be done by the Park <br />Commission; a citizen representative committee formed that has input into the master plan and process; <br />the proposal comes back to the Park Commission at some point after task number two. They also <br />discussed what the Park Commission should be voting on. <br /> <br />Berg seconded the motion as amended. <br /> <br />After discussion it was decided the motion should be restated. <br /> <br />Carter moved, Berg seconded, to move the proposal to the City Council for review with the <br />guidance that there needs to be a master plan created before there is any decision as to whether the <br />rowing club is part of the park or not, it needs to involve a broader set of community input, and the <br />Park Commission should have a role in that. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0, Abstain 1 (Ruegemer). <br /> <br />RECESS & RECONVENE <br /> <br />Chair Roath recessed the meeting at 8:19 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:25 p.m. <br /> <br />3. PARKS COMMISSION SCHEDULE - REVISED