Laserfiche WebLink
HENNEPIN <br />PARKS <br />Suburban Hennepin <br />Regional Park District <br />12615 C o"n,y Road 0 <br />11O Bc. 1320 <br />viyTa",h MN 55u1 <br />�•�.pho�.,L,1215'So.V000 August 1 1 , 1986 <br />Board of commissioners <br />Dav,d torwoho <br />•h.y. To Members of the Orono City Council: <br />Sh,rlay A So—o <br />.e:. o• <br />Enc i osed are two alternatives for the parking lot at <br />W,IIw,n« sago,°� Noerenberg. We believe Alternative #2 is the more attractive <br />"'- solution both in Phase I and in Phase II for the following <br />Nicholas Wolf <br />reasons: <br />Gory s «,d•y <br />,;,,..i el <br />Wb•r N•,� • Auto circulation in the event of an overflow situation is <br />easier for the park visitor to comprehend. A visitor, <br />perceiving that the lot is fu 1 l , has only to turn into a <br />grassed space. In Alternative #1 if the lot is full, all <br />cars arriving will have to drive a distance on the grays <br />to park or leave the lot. <br />• The ainount of hard surface would appear less in <br />Alternative #2, Phase I, because the dense screening <br />between the two sides of the lot visually divides the <br />expanse of paving. The visitor will perceive a driving <br />lane and 12 parking spaces rather than a driving lane and <br />26 paved spaces (Alternative #1). Ultimately after Phase <br />I and II construction is completed, Alternative #2 has <br />100 more square feet of pavement than Alternative #1. <br />Thank you for your consideration. <br />SiVerely <br />610-6orah L. Bartels <br />Landsr_ape .Archi test <br />DB 5k <br />Marty Je' on <br />Associate 5uperi-,tendent <br />