07-27-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

From:Anthony Quill To:Anna Carlson; Dustin Rief Cc:Denny Walsh; Aaron H. Printup; Victoria Seals; Richard Crosby; Matt Johnson Subject:Summit Beach Park Redevelopment Date:Sunday, July 26, 2020 10:41:43 PM Dear Mayor and City Council Members, My family and I moved to the area in July of 2019 and live near the east side of the lake. We love Summit Beach Park and have been using it weekly since the first weekend after moving into our house. We are there multiple times per week and it always has other families or groups there. The narrative that it is unused, hidden, and full of unsavory characters is simply false. It can in no sense be considered hidden if a new family to the area found it within two days of moving in. Summit Beach Park is full of people who spend all week looking forward to a relaxing day at the beach. It is full of teanagers lounging on hammocks and swinging on the rope swing. It is full of parents teaching the joy of fishing to young children. It has groups of people playing soccer, volleyball and frisbee in the large open area. The hill where the boathouse would stand is often used by people relaxing or enjoying a picnic. It has become an important part of our lives and we know many other residents feel the same. There are many arguments that can be used to counter this proposal: For residents close to the park, the excessively large building and footprint will be a constant eyesore for people who bought or built homes with the valid expectation that it would not be developed for private use. For general park goers, the building and the necessary buffer around the building will greatly reduce the ability to enjoy the park. To say it is oversized relative to developable land would be an understatement. For swimmers, the in and out of boats and the fact that a private dock will be around or next to the swimming area will not only create a safety hazard, but will also inevitably lead to friction between public users of the beach and the private club. For environmentalists, many old trees will be cut down and the lakeshore will be affected to the detriment of water quality. The last thing we need are more developments close to the lakeshore. Many court battles have been fought by homeowners just trying to build a sauna close to the lakeshore, let alone an 8,000 sq ft building. For proponents of the efficient use of taxpayer funds, the lending of land for free or at below market rates to a private entity and to the detriment of the taxpayers that use the park is a major concern. If the City would like to revitalize the park using a public/private partnership, then a public comment period and a call for proposals should be the first step. For the Dayton Family, who were kind enough to buy the land, return it to a semi-natural state, and then donate it to the city to protect the lake and prevent development, this would be a clear slap in the face. It would be very surprising if the legal documentation that supported that donation did not stipulate future uses of the land and prohibit this type of private development, and if the paperwork did not support this claim, donor intent surely would.