My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PRECM 02-03-1981
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
Parks And Recreation
>
Minutes Park & Recreation Commission Meetings P&R 01200
>
MINUTES
>
1981
>
PRECM 02-03-1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2007 4:07:42 AM
Creation date
3/15/2007 12:02:00 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
February 3,.1981 Park Board Minutes Page 4 <br />Dahl felt the table could be presented in a clearer manner. <br />Van Hatten asked what our population was. <br />Anderson said according to the new census, approx. 23,210. <br />Anderson said the next page was the SCORP Consistency. He <br />listed the survey results with the activity and the percent <br />of population requesting the activity. ..Anderson stated he <br />did not want to use New Brighton's questionnaire because of <br />the low response but the SCORP Plan gave most of the needed <br />information. <br />Van Hatten asked what "Metro" was defined as. <br />Anderson said the 7 county metropolitan area. <br />Van Hatten asked if our questionnaire was compared with the <br />SCORP Plan and if there were any .similarities. <br />Anderson said. there were some similarities. <br />Anderson stated that in Mounds View's survey it showed trails <br />and bicycles as high interest. The interest is leaning toward <br />passive activities.. Camping is high on the list but that is <br />something we will not be getting involved in. Anderson said <br />what we have developed is pretty consistent with the metro- <br />politan area. <br />"Special Population"page - Anderson stated we do some things for <br />these people in the recreation area but nothing. in the park de- <br />velopment area. He feels it would be a mistake to overlook <br />this area in the Comprehensive Plan. Things we are. already <br />planning to do we could develop for joint use with handicapped. <br />We could develop a community garden. We have enough room and <br />it would: be well .used. Some are very. successful. <br />Van Hatten felt .that was a good idea but there was one dis- <br />advantage and that was that if the garden-were developed on <br />the Long Lake site, people .would have to drive to the location. <br />Anderson said that play equipment can be modified to be used <br />by the handicapped. It doesn't look as if it is designed for <br />handicapped. In the things we already are planning to do, we <br />should be able to incorporate right into the plan-and design <br />without much additional money-being spent. <br />Dahl asked if we had much data on handicapped in our community. <br />Anderson said no, it's very hard to get. <br />The Facilities for .Schools and Parks was next. Dahl suggested <br />that instead of putting the number of parking .lots in this area <br />put the number of cars the lot allows. <br />Anderson said that generally speaking, the parking lots are de- <br />signed to accomodate enough parking for the activities that go <br />on at the park. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.