Laserfiche WebLink
HENNEPIN <br />PARKS <br />Suburban Hennepin <br />Regional Park District <br />1 261S Co��,v Rood V <br />PO bon Ai320 <br />Pl,-oVlA %AN i$"l <br />791eph "o 6121 SSa-9J00 <br />Board of Commissioners <br />Da-d la+ooMo <br />Sh.rl.y A lon.n. <br />ladahS Andww. <br />W.II.aT M 9of ^ron <br />N�cMlo. folo{1 <br />G.orR. R M.ck.� <br />August 11, 1986 <br />To Members of the Orono City Council: <br />Enclosed are two alternatives for the parking lot at <br />Noerenberg. We believe Alternative #2 is the more attractive <br />solution both in F�.,se I and in Phase II for the following <br />reasons: <br />e Auto circulation in the event of an overflow situation is <br />a,:sier for the park visito-- to comprehend. A visitor, <br />perceiving that }he lot i S Tull, has only to turn into a <br />grassed spa(-,. Aiternative #1 if the lot is full all <br />._ cars arriving gill have to drive a distance on the g.ass <br />to park or leave the lot. <br />e►Tho .mount of haro -urface would appear less in <br />A, rnative #2, Phase I. because the dense screening <br />6vt ?eel the two sides of ti-e lot visually divides the <br />expanse V paving. The for will perceive a driving <br />lane and 12 parki g spa ether than a driving lane and <br />V aved spaces (Alternative #l). Ultimately after Phase <br />nd II construction is completed, Alternative #2 has <br />J more; squire feet of pavemert than Alternative V. <br />Thank you for your consideration. <br />Si erely, �s <br />orah L. Bartels <br />Landscape .Arch itect <br />DB/�k <br />A. <br />Marty JeAson <br />Associate Superin,.vident <br />