My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-27-2020 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2020
>
07-27-2020 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2022 3:03:26 PM
Creation date
1/12/2022 2:56:21 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
349
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 <br /> Monday, March 2nd, 2020 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 12 of 14 <br /> <br />Ruegemer noted most of the letters came from the rowing club. The letters she received from neighbors <br />were 99.9% the opposite. The Commission has to look at the broader community, not just the rowing <br />club. The parks are neighborhood parks; they are meant to serve communities. She stated it sounds like a <br />very positive club and she does not know of anyone that says anything negative about the club, but that <br />does not mean it is a great fit for Summit. <br /> <br />Ms. Victoria Seals, 3620 Eileen Street, said she thought the process to get here is unfortunate for <br />everyone. As a Councilmember, she is looking for this to be compartmentalized. She is not worried about <br />the design. What she wants to know is whether it is good to look at a partnership: yes/no. Do the <br />Commissioners think this will expand usage of the park: yes/no. Are there things to figure out: probably. <br />Do we want to maintain the nature setting: yes. She said the LLRC is doing their best to adjust to <br />feedback and that feedb ack may put them in a doom loop. She asked the Commissioners to give some <br />guidance because it helps the Planning Commission, who will dig into it and give some advice. She <br />discussed the Commissioners’ views and noted the reason there are so many steps in the process is so that <br />things can be vetted. If she was the LLRC, she would not know where to go and what their next step was. <br />Basically, they want to know if the Park Commission is interested; do they want to go on a second date. <br /> <br />Carter clarified that this is what he was talking to Roath about, providing guidance to the Council rather <br />than voting. He requested Seals to repeat that specific set of questions. <br /> <br />Ms. Seals stated she looks at the situation this way: Do I think it would be good to look at this <br />partnership: yes/no. Do I think this will bring more people to the park and expand usage: yes/no. She <br />referenced the “secret” park and noted if it’s everyone’s park, it should not be a secret. She asked if <br />people wanted to increase usage. She suggested als o including some callouts/watchouts/lookouts that <br />might be important such as: make sure to preserve nature in a certain way; make sure there is a clear <br />division for rowers as opposed to people who want access to the beach. She stated when it comes before <br />the City Council, she wants to make sure she knows what was important to the Park Commission. <br /> <br />Edwards indicated most of those considerations are in the packet under “Considerations.” <br /> <br />Carter said he read the considerations and had a hard time answering them. In response to Ms. Seal’s <br />questions, he can support a partnership. He would try to keep it natural and create divisions. Yes, it will <br />bring more people to the park; but he is not sure if that is a good idea. He knows they have changed the <br />park dramatically with the closing of the road and other developments, and he would like to see that play <br />out. He reiterated there is a better process and he would support the idea of a second date, but he does not <br />want to have a yes/no vote on this proposal. <br /> <br />Berg said she agreed with Carter’s thoughts. <br /> <br />Klaahsen stated that she is supportive of the partnership, and the time the club would be on the water and <br />using the space is not prime family beach time. She is very concerned about swimmer safety and having a <br />roped-off area and boats being diverted away from the beach. She believes there would be more use with <br />the addition of the LLRC, including winter use and having a multi-use building with community ed. She <br />thinks LLRC sponsoring part of the playground would allow the City to upgrade from their previous plan <br />and make it more of a destination. She said Orono has a lot of “secret beaches” which offer no amenities <br />other than access points, picnic tables, and sand. This is the only beach that has the opportunity to become <br />more of a destination beach because it has a little more space. The City has an opportunity to put a <br />playground there, the rowers would be out there, and there would be trail connections. She thinks it can
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.