05-28-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NMCP Advisory Committee Meeting - 2 - March 14, 1985 1. INTRODUCTION Gray made clear his feeling that the court order was not consistent with the will on two specific points: (p.l and 2 of the Draft) 1. The will indicates that only the income from the trust should be used for maintenance of the property. The court order contradicts this by stating that both principal and income may be used. 2. The court order further states that both principal and income may be used for development of the park or land acquisition, while this was not an option as indicated in the will. Gray commented on the Committee's responsibility to inform the Hennepin County Park Reserve District of these inconsistencies in the court order, however, because of the court order the Committee can't do anything else about this matter. II. THE AREA SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 51 Jessen mentioned that further research indicated that at least one other landscape architect was active in the Minnetonka area in addition to Eddie Phelps. The Committee agreed that the wording of the proposal should be changed to include this. (p. 6) Gray suggested that some mention be made of the fact that a Phelps scholarship was available to students in landscape architecture. He further suggested that some mention be made of Deb Bartels, recipent of this scholarship, and her role in developing the preliminary sketches for the Garden Area. Questions from the Committee regarding parking brought forth the following: (p. 10) • Parking -ites for the park would include the area adjacent to the formal garden, with overflow being the area nearer the evergreen buffer and the area across the road. • Space allotted for parking would be approximately 15,000 square feet (approximately 1/3 acre). • An area for buses to turn around would be provided. Gray commented that the cost estimates for the visitor center and the water distribution system we, high. He pointed out that if these could be reduced the resulting total would be a realistic cost in relation to the existing funds available. Don King stated that these estimates are based on the District's recent construction experience and are realistic for a public building of the quality the Garden Area deserves. (p. 13) Further, King stressed that the cost estimates were only for the facility indicated and didn't include landscaping, site work, etc. It was suggested that this be clarified further.