My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PRECM 08-13-1980
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
Parks And Recreation
>
Minutes Park & Recreation Commission Meetings P&R 01200
>
MINUTES
>
1980
>
PRECM 08-13-1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2007 3:53:17 AM
Creation date
3/16/2007 7:51:24 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
August 13, 19$0 Park. Board .Meeting Page.3 <br />Motion by Carlson, seconded by Van Hatten, to buoy and sign. <br />the south and west-side of Long Lake and send a mailing to <br />all lakeshore owners stating the ordinance is in.:effect. <br />Motion passed. <br />Benke felt the motion should state that the .whole side from <br />the north side to south end be done. Anderson said he will <br />do the-south and west sides. Anderson said the .buoys would <br />be about 100-200 feet apart. <br />Carlson said he had. been.. contacted by Jim Nagle from ,the <br />St. Paul Dispatch wanting his input on water enforcement. <br />Carlson had told him patrolling the area is .difficult. ,_ <br />Anderson stated he could write a letter giving Ramsey County <br />Sheriff Water Patrol permission to use. the east access on Long <br />Lake. for patrol. <br />VI. Old Business <br />A. Hansen Concept Plan <br />Anderson stated that at the last meeting the concept plans for <br />the parking lot were discussed .and the Park Board had asked for <br />new variations. Anderson stated: he would like a final approval <br />for the plan or an approval from the Park Board to make altera- <br />tions on a plan. He ,stated it is imperative.to get the entire <br />plan approved. Anderson summarized the plans. A is a large lot <br />(104 cars) similar to the present. one. The need is somewhere <br />between 60 to 100 cars. B is a smaller rectangular lot and Yiandles <br />about 70 cars. He feels there is efficient use of space in this plan. <br />C is radically different-with .two separate lots. The idea is to <br />have one used for the people using ball diamonds and the other for <br />playground, tennis and things at the other end of-the park. The <br />disadvantage to this plan is high cost. <br />Olson commented that in the winter you could maintain only one <br />lot . <br />Carlson commented that plan C eliminates people just driving <br />through.. <br />Olson commented that speed bumps were not very effective out <br />at Turtle Lake. <br />Anderson stated that in all cases the pathways go around the <br />parking-lot. <br />Dahl was concerned for safety in drawings A and B. There were <br />no curves in the entrance to slow traffic down. She also felt: <br />the trees in the middle of the lot may be a visibility. problem. <br />Anderson. commented that the trees are tall and the drawing is <br />misleading because it is Viewed from the top. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.