Laserfiche WebLink
lake; others shoui' d keep off the lake; the public should not • <br /> be allowed to use it . It should be posted . <br /> 8. How wilt the teams ( if league size field is put in) be policed? <br /> Are park closing hours closely policed? <br /> 9. Nursery Hilt lane and Nursery Hill Court alone have 32 pre- <br /> school children, would like to see play equipment the top <br /> priority, do not see need for league field at this time, <br /> would sucigest changing the time table to Install plzy equipment <br /> first. <br /> 10. Do we have a choice of whether we get a deg-eloped park or not? <br /> It is a very nice park the way it Is. <br /> If . Questioned location of warming house; feel it is too far <br /> from parking, looks like it would be an eyesore. <br /> 12. Would Barks Conmittee consider a neighborhood survey to see <br /> what the majority of the residents would like in the ;park? <br /> In general discussion, it would seem the neighborhood would like <br /> balance of trails, u.ndisturbed areas, play equipment for young <br /> children, family related activities (volleyball , etc . ) smi, iler <br /> field for 1 -bE! t P , unorc,an i red be- i i games -- and some assu`•ance of <br /> better access to the perk. The Committee was questioned about • <br /> trying to obtain acces_, through Mrs. Cummings ' property. Main <br /> objections are to teagUe size field , and potential parking problems <br /> and policing problems. They suggested a second meeting sc they <br /> can see what Parks Committee eventualiy decides to put in . <br /> After considerable discussion, it was moved by J . McTavish, <br /> seconded by J . Dreyling, that Committee again submit this proposal <br /> as a long range plar: , that we proceed with grading and seeding , <br /> but only development In imm3dIatO future wi I l be in the play area <br /> and In informal neighbo?hood field , contingent on being able to <br /> work out a parking agreement with Control Data . Notion carried, <br /> four In favor, Bergene , halva opposed. Pationale for opposition : <br /> I . Committee has spent 2- 1 /"2 years developing this plan, has <br /> considered It caref0lly, has submitted It twice to Covr;cJI <br /> already. <br /> 2. Only other possible location for another league field is <br /> Hazelnut Park; with closing of public schools, there will be <br /> a necessity for this field. <br /> 3. This should be an "Arden Hills" park, as well as a neighbor- <br /> hood park; should provide activities for entire Village as <br /> well as immediate neighborhood . <br /> 4 . Developmont as proposed on Concept Plan is Integral to the S <br /> carefully considered ten year pl &n . <br /> 5. D. Halva noted that when a recommendation is made by th ' s <br />