My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-17-2024 PTRC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee (PTRC)
>
PTRC Packets (2010 to Present)
>
2020-2029
>
2024
>
12-17-2024 PTRC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2024 12:13:04 PM
Creation date
12/11/2024 12:10:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
295
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
t:inutes of Floral Park Neighborhood Meeting <br />village of Arden Hills <br />Tuesday, March 9, 1976 <br />Village Hall <br />Present: Committee members, Bob Anderson, Mary Blomquist, Maureen Cronin. <br />Cheryl Grudnoske and Bob O'Toole. <br />Also Present: Councilmen Charles Crichton and William Feyereieen and Park <br />Director, John Buckley. <br />About 35 neighborhood residents attended this meeting. <br />The meeting began with Robert Anderson introducing John Buckley. Buckleyproceededtoexplainthehistory, basic philosophy and intent of the Arden <br />Hills Park Committee and continued with the history of Floral Park. <br />R. Anderson then presented the three concept plans for Floral Park, preparedbytheUniversitystudents. The meeting was then opened for questions andcommentsfromtheresidents. <br />Some concerns of the residents: <br />Provisions for policing park as development proceeds. <br />Concerned about park access; wanted major access off Hemline to <br />eliminate traffic from Floral Park neighborhood. <br />Opposed to large parking lots and roadway through park. <br />11/Concern that development would destrcy marsh area in park. There <br />was an expressed "desire to keep park as natural as possible. <br />nesiuenrs on Indian oaks lraii objected to too much development <br />ball fields, tennis courts), adjacent to their southern propertyline. <br />Some residents were concerned about peak boundries. Park propertyshouldbewelldefinedwithtrees, shrubs and other plantings. <br />Concern that future walking and bile paths would result in limiting <br />privacy. <br />Comments on Park Improvement: <br />General consensus was that the development should be low key andgradual. <br />Desire for skating and hockey facilities. <br />Informal ball field was desirable. <br />Park development be planned for the interior of the park to protect <br />residential privacy. <br />Vegetation be restored on the sewer easement. <br />Have the final concept plan shared with the residents at a neigh- <br />borhood meeting. <br />Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.