My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PRECM 03-03-1981
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
Parks And Recreation
>
Minutes Park & Recreation Commission Meetings P&R 01200
>
MINUTES
>
1981
>
PRECM 03-03-1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2007 4:08:10 AM
Creation date
3/15/2007 12:00:22 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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).
View images
View plain text
March 3, 1981 Park Board Minutes <br />Page 5 <br />Staff said yes, if Ramsey County and Metro. Council gave approval. <br />Mary Lynn Ditsch, a New Brighton homeowner on Windward Terrace, <br />was present and was concerned with the deletion in the resolution. <br />She was concerned that the resolution may not. be strong enough. <br />Gunderman stated the resolution was strong enough with the deletion <br />and the concern was that we don't lose total communication with <br />Metro Council. <br />Staff stated the statement could be added at a later date if it is <br />necessary. <br />Ditsch asked what would happen if a response to the resolution did <br />not come for 6 to 8 months. <br />Staff said it is certain they will repond as quickly as possible but <br />because of approvals needed, it .may not be for about three months. <br />Ditsch expressed her feelsings on behalf of New Brighton homeowners <br />that people are waiting for something to happen. <br />Van Hatten noted that the resolution did not state we are referring <br />to the Long Lake .and Rush Lake portions. <br />Staff felt it should be specified. <br />Schmidt stated it was the Council's intention that we be implementing <br />agency for the hole thing. He feels it is a good idea to add Ramsey <br />County's portion. <br />Gunderman stated there. is nothing that would prohibit us from leaving <br />Rush Lake in its .natural state and develop our portion. <br />Motion by Van Hatten,. seconded by .Dahl., to change, in the third <br />paragraph of the Long Lake Resolution, the word "this" to -"a" <br />facility and add~~corisisting of the Long Lake and Rush Lake sites." <br />Motion pa-sled. <br />Motion by Van Hatten, seconded by Olson, to recommend adoption of <br />the Long Lake Resolution. Motion passed. <br />C. Concept Plan and Naming.'"Rice Creek Park" <br />Gunderman stated we normally call in residents to_get their response. <br />Anderson said we did this backwards because of the grading plan <br />previously approved. We submitted the plan and also discussed names <br />but. nothing was determined as .far as a name when it was discussed <br />at previous. meetings. ~nie need a name so the plan can be done in <br />its formal .drawing for the Comprehensive Park Plan:. <br />Johnson commented that the development on both sides is Park Place. <br />Van Hatten moved to adopt the name Rice Creek Park. Motion failed <br />for lack of a second. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.