|
!
<br /> .
<br />~
<br />~.h +.- ~
<br />r
<br />- - -
<br />6
<br />l ,~
<br />1~ Vii, ~ ~ i.
<br />Y ~ ~ tY- `~ ~t ~. +r
<br />E
<br />' 4
<br />;r,
<br />July 21, 1981 '.
<br />~~ _
<br />. ~ ,, -~. City of New Brighton
<br />'' '
<br />+ .~:
<br />~"~
<br />City Officials
<br />: ';
<br />:~~ =New Brighton, Minnesota 55112 •
<br />~~~
<br />•
<br />:.
<br />,,,:f': Dear City Officials: - ~ f`~~
<br />l
<br />-~
<br />},~., At the.~J~ri.l 15, 1.981 New Brighton Park Board Meeting, ±he ,. ~r
<br />
<br />'
<br />~,. ~ Long T,ak~ Improvement Association voiced a number of concerns .
<br />~~ ` relating to the Long hake/Rush .Lake Park Development. matter.,
<br />" ~;<
<br />that .point we were requested to more formally relate to you
<br />_kt `.
<br />. 4 our concerns..-and thoughts puIIUant to the,park issues facing
<br />the Park: Board and City Council as well as the .residents.
<br />-.By ~,hi~ better:, :while we cannot present professional opinions
<br />. pro~id d to us, we will. offer in the folloMing' sections :our.:
<br />~,'
<br />.
<br />u ~erstandin e, opinions, and recommendations for your i o~natio ~
<br />~~cc g ~ ~
<br />.
<br />~
<br />~
<br />~~eview
<br />and action. _
<br />~I• In reference to the document entitled: Y~~' ••
<br />-~
<br />~' ^_ ~ = _
<br />' ~-;~'"`"`rCieuasey~ County recommended. action glen fore expedtta.ng~= .._
<br />~
<br />~~
<br />' ~
<br />;
<br />°~~?~~.
<br />-
<br />aoquisition~ development, maintena::ee "and o=eration;~f~~
<br />,~ '
<br />•
<br />,
<br />'~` " • ~ ' bong: Lake~ERush Lake regional park. ~~~ - -
<br />-
<br />+~
<br />' "'
<br />~
<br />~' ~" ~ • General Section, Subsection 1.2 ``
<br />~ ~ ~~
<br />. .~ ~ ' It i~ .our opinion, that ,the regional significance ~expres:ed.`-
<br />•. N"~~ in this sec+ion is secondary to the interest of New Bri~htdn.
<br />' ~ ~~ We further' intend to provide expert .advice relevant o th e '
<br />;' question of optimum land use and timeliness and .value o.f
<br />' ,
<br />' ~~ ~,
<br />,
<br />.
<br />~.~`!, - ~~ an environmental impact study. Tt is our position .that _a ;~~
<br />: presentation should be prepared with necessary audio/vineo~l ~ `
<br />•' ~ ' '
<br />,
<br />,
<br />`°s; ~~ of actual uses of county parks with similar servi.C®e and
<br />~: i;~y
<br />~ ~ presented to the, city of New Brighton public so as to ...~'~'
<br />'~' ~ ~ adequately portray what the regional perk use will be 11ke;
<br />'~
<br />`-'upon completion. A comparison of such expected use ,ao
<br />
<br />part:~of the.: baai~~t.`~'or t
<br />'`~ alternative,approaches would-form
<br />e:~
<br />'
<br />h
<br />~
<br />s understanding of, their op•t~ri
<br />' New Brighton public
<br />:~ ~ ~
<br />.
<br />w, ;
<br />Hs. General Section, Subsection 1.4
<br />~'
<br />zr
<br />~'~ ~ We do not concur that dual ownership is an ~~,pedment to •
<br />~ ,*
<br />ex ed in deve o ment. As a matter of fact the Count 's
<br />~ ~~''
<br />• intent to passively develops Rush hake -may .well fit , in
<br />~~ v
<br />are
<br />
<br />v~ith the optimum development of Long Lake which alto may .
<br />,•.
<br />~
<br />•~' ~>-emphasize optimization of the `status quo. W~e recognize tha ~
<br />'`
<br />~ -~ `~~ ` with the introduction of the County :population instead of ` ~ k
<br />i •' the New Brighton population that ~facilitie$ will require };Ye
<br />=;dramatic expansion. However, .rye believe the~basi~~•of: your
<br />'~, A'
<br />l
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
|