My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-25-2016 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
07-25-2016 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2016 3:11:52 PM
Creation date
12/16/2016 3:07:26 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
195
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 CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, July 11, 2016 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 8 of 25 <br /> <br />7. LURTON PARK (continued) <br />Meyers asked if the City Council can vote on where the fence will be located. <br /> <br />McMillan stated she has the impression that the neighbors would like to get more details about how the <br />park will operate and that she would like to do that before spending more money on the park. <br /> <br />Meyers stated the Park Commission can do that and that this park is being modeled after Three Rivers’ <br />dog parks. <br /> <br />Walsh stated he can see the motion being subject to certain things, and that once those items are done, the <br />whole project will be put together and the City can proceed forward with the project. <br /> <br />Meyers stated he would also like to see the other items added back into the plan. <br /> <br />Council Member Printup asked how long it would take to clear the swath and erect the fence. <br /> <br />Edwards indicated it will take a couple of weeks to solicit bids, which would need to come back to the <br />Council probably at their first meeting in August. Edwards noted the original guidance received from the <br />Council was that the Park Commission would only consider design of the park and not the rules. <br /> <br />McMillan stated she would like to see the Park Commission’s comments on the operation of the park and <br />that the Council’s discussion related more to the passes and how that would be handled administratively. <br /> <br />Edwards noted everything was modeled after the existing park rules, with some additional rules being <br />added in that are specific to dogs. <br /> <br />McMillan stated she personally would like the Park Commission to put some time and thought into the <br />operation of the park. <br /> <br />Walsh stated from a timing perspective, this application might not be back before the City Council until <br />September and that the ground could freeze and the contractor may not be able to get it in until next <br />spring. <br /> <br />Meyers stated he would like to have a vote on the location of the fence and then add the contingencies <br />later. <br /> <br />McMillan stated the Council can vote on the variance and then the exact location of the fence can be <br />determined. <br /> <br />Edwards stated what he needs in order to go out for bids is approval from the Council on the location of <br />the fence. Edwards noted there was also a question about variances with the small dog area. Edwards <br />stated there is an existing fence in that area that they are proposing be rebuilt. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if there is a wetland where it says small dog on the map. <br /> <br />Edwards indicated it is all woods currently and that it is his belief the wetland extended into that area <br />prior to the highway being built.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.