07-27-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

those in support of the plan have said that such a ³hidden gem´ of a park can¶t really benefit the public if they don¶t know about it or that it¶s used for inappropriate or nefarious activities (³kids doing drugs´). We don¶t think many of the people saying these things are familiar with the park at all. Summit Beach is very well used. We use it, our acquaintances use it, those living by the park use it, and we see people there all the time engaged in various activities (picnicking, swimming, walking, fishing, etc.). My sister has lived in Long Lake for 20 years. She and her family, along with their friends and their kids, frequent the park too. Most of her friends live in Minneapolis. While they have lakes and beaches and parks in their area many of them are far more developed and crowded. We heard in one of the meetings a man from Medina say that his family uses the lake and the park all the time, and he knows many others outside of the immediate community who use it. All of this is to say that the park is well used, accessible (you can walk there, bike there, or drive and park for free), and not like many other parks and beaches - it¶s an asset that we should be proud of and preserve. Even in the two and a half years we¶ve been living in Long Lake we¶ve seen development pick up significantly, which is why it¶s more important than ever to consider each development carefully, and protect our parks. We understand that it¶s part of the mission of the park commission to increase usage of parks and open spaces, but there are other ways. The development of the East Long Lake Road trail (beginning August 1st) is one of these ways, and will most certainly increase usage in a positive way. That development also seems more in line with what Mr. Dayton intended when he gifted the park to the City of Orono. (Regarding Mr. Dayton, and his gift of the park, it seems there¶s more investigation to be done as to the legality of any development on the park land - in one of the meetings a former caretaker made a statement as to Mr. Dayton¶s intentions and another member of the community mentioned that the abstract for the parcel is missing…) On the other hand, the type of development being proposed by the LLRC would surely increase usage but not necessarily by the public. Sure, users of the park would increase from this one category (LLRC members and their friends and family), but users of other categories may actually decrease. We would feel less welcome in the park if it was home to a private club, and while it was actively being used by the LLRC. We¶d find it stressful to use the park freely and safely not knowing when they¶d be there, for how long, and if we were in the way. (It¶s likely that parking will also become more difficult - even if it was increased - and that signage, permitting and enforcement would be required eventually.) We¶re also very disappointed with how the LLRC developed and presented its proposal, and how the overall process has unfurled. The first proposal was, in a word, appalling. With no consideration for the park, the beach, the neighborhood, or the user community, the LLRC proposed to build a 9,000 square foot facility with decks and patios and outbuildings (pavilions and playgrounds) along with a few docks - one that completely enclosed the beach and another right next to the rope swing. Some of these facilities and amenities were supposedly intended to be open to the public. Regardless, the main element is a private clubhouse, training and storage facility for use by its membership - right in the middle of the park. To us, this initial proposal 2