PRECM 12-06-1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PARK BOARD MEETING December 6, 1972 Meeting was 'called to order at 8012 p.m. H.oard~members present; Dahl, Gunderman, Sherloclt and Weissman. Smith appeared at 8e1g p.m. hoard member: ¢b~e~nt~ E~ook and Hagemeyer. v~ncrs present: Robert Hemmings, Ramsey County Open Space S'~af9 Hen~^y Abbott, McGuire Development Service, Inc.; Lois Helgeson, Richard Newman, Village residents and Robert M. Wickland. Theminutes of the regular meeting of November 1, 1972 wire approved as submitted. Sch©ol District 621 Recreation Advisory Committee The Park Board recommended to the Mapor that Gerald Smith be reappointed as New Brighton's representative on the School District 621 Recreation Advisory Committee. Ramsey County Proposal for Rush Lake Property Robert Hemmings appeared to informally discuss with the Board the.COn- cept for the inclusion of property .surrounding Rush Lake in a total recreation complex along with Rice Creek and Long Lake sites. He stated that at .the present time approval was not being sought on the Rush Lake property. Some Law Con funding approval has been given for Rice Creek property, therefore, the County was going to the next step in putting together this recreational facility, which is the acquisition of the Rush Lake property. This property is int~ptled for acquisition in the year of 1973. The basic proposal, is that there be one mayor point of access to the whole comp~~~;. This would assist in controlling use of the site as well as pro~it~tg through traffic. The proposal shown had access through the north end of the Long Lake site although Hemmings stated that this was only one alternative and that many questions, particularly relating to the possibility of Mississippi becoming a state-aid highway and linking up to Old Highway 8, had td be considered. .The complex as a whole would include both recreation and conservation use of .the property. Rice Creek would have an access both for canoes as well as a historical farm site and support facilities. There would be a partial access to this area. The Long Lake property was considered the primary draw with activities such as a swimming bea.ch., group p3.cnicking, access for canoeing and other such activi;e;s. Rush Lake would be considered as an over-flow facility and supplement to Long Lake. The activities would be basically passive and conservation or3.ented.