07-27-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PARK COMMISSION Monday, March 2nd, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 14 be done in a responsible way, and the rowing clu b has demonstrated responsibility with the environment and community. She would want new trees to replace the trees that are coming down, swimmer safety, multi-usage of the building, as much public access as possible, and some playground sponsorship. Roath noted something could be put in place to restrict hours of practice/usage at the facility if needed. Carter indicated he is very involved in Big Island Park where they are developing accessible trails, a bathroom, and maybe a shelter. It has been a very long process with a lot of public engagement. When he lived in Minneapolis, he was on a citizens advisory committee for Brownie Lake. He recommended there be something like a citizens advisory committee that either represents the interests of the rowing club or works together with the rowing club to try to come up with a workable solution. Ms. Feldmann suggested “partnership” be defined because the agenda states the proposal is very specific for a boathouse in Summit Beach. She stated there needs to be guidance whether a boathouse in Summit Beach should continue to be discussed, because that would help decide how the committee could be formulated, and who would be put on the committee. It’s not about the partnership with Orono and the boating club, because that partnership is going on; there’s no need for a “second date'' for that. This would be to bring clarity to whether or not there should be a building that is going to take up space on Summit Beach Park to store boats. She suggested waiting until the playground was put in and the other developments and see what that does as far as use. She is worried about the safety aspect also. Berg commented that it is about a partnership as well as how the LLRC will develop what they need for their part of the partnership and how the Commission will approve it. With the partnership comes the building and how the LLRC will utilize the beach and park. Roath recapped the concerns regarding the proposal: legal aspects about the easement; Dayton’s intent for the park; growth of the club; impact of its usage relative to other users of the park; building size; environmental impact; whether it’s part of a master plan or if the Commission is being strategic enough; placement of the dock; and size of the parking lot. The n ext step is to decide if they want a second date. Hudson moved that the proposal as presented progress to step two of the process, taking into account all the concerns/considerations that have been highlighted during the entire process. Carter said if the motion was to support the proposal, he would vote no. However, if the motion was to bring the discussion to the Council with a series of suggestions, he would be able to vote for that. Hudson indicated it would be the latter scenario. Carter moved that the proposal be moved to the City Council with guidance from the Park Commission, including a recommendation of a completion of a master plan for Summit Park that contemplates the potential of the boat club and involves some kind of citizen group committee that represents the community. He would also like the proposal to come back to the Park Commission. Ruegemer stated it is the Park Commission’s job to vote on the proposal rather than pass the buck to the City Council, because then it’s out of the Park Commission’s hands. Carter clarified he was offering a friendly amendment. Carter moved to move the discussion to the City Council meeting with the caveat that the next phase is to develop a master plan for the park