My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-09-1986 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1986
>
06-09-1986 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/5/2026 2:33:33 PM
Creation date
1/5/2026 2:16:57 PM
Metadata
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.
/
505
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Zoning File #1.020 <br />June 5, 1.986 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />The plan presented to you now is the result of the work of the <br />Advisory Committee. The Park District has applied for a conditional <br />use permit for the Park improvements, even though "public -owned parks" <br />are a Permitted use in the LR-lA . ning District in which Noerenberg <br />Park is located. It has been the on -going policy of the City of. Orono <br />to require a conditional use permit for Noerenberg because its use has <br />been and will continue to be perhaps less passive than that of the <br />typical un-staffed municipal nark or playground found in Orono. Also, <br />a small var.ance for hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone is requested. <br />The Planning Commission was asked to review the Master Plain <br />proposal, and found in general that the land use issues of hardcover, <br />drainage, access, utilities, landscaping and scr-ening were all well- <br />addret=sed in the Master Plan. However, some Planning Commission <br />member:- felt that the visitor center and the 50-car parking lot would <br />`ead to an intensification of the use of the park greater than they <br />f,:.t was warranted, hence, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to <br />re,c,--u,-end rejection of the concept of the visitor center and parking <br />lot. The Planning Commission made no findings of fact nor did they <br />references any ccde 6ection in meking this rec( mendation. <br />Frum the meetings staff has geld with the Park District <br />representatives, staff feels that the anticipated ust ` the park will <br />not be as intersive as percei•.•?d by the rlanning Commission. The park <br />is intended t-) be residential in nature, a low-key use with <br />improvements inct.ided to provide - tter facility for current users, <br />mainly garden clubs, student grou.s, and weddings. Note that although <br />the Planning ,ommis-io felt that a 50-car parking lot is "over'All", <br />t. - park real: y has r.,. parking facility to speak of now, and incurs <br />continuing maintenanc- costs in repairing their grassy field parking <br />area as it now exits. Note that the visitor center is intended tc <br />include: <br />- A classroom %, ; tl, maximum capacity of 80 (typical expected to <br />be 40-50) inter,-ed as a place to learn about the unique aspects <br />of the park nri.ot to touring the grourds. <br />- A "reception" area for floral <br />and <br />interpretive displays, with d <br />small area for selling <br />books, <br />*naps, and art related to the park. <br />Note that the park, as <br />part of <br />the <br />requirements of the will, may <br />sell no food on the premises, <br />and <br />no weddi- 3 receptions may be <br />hell on the premises. <br />The restroom <br />area provided is slightly <br />oversized to allow for <br />weddings p�rties <br />to do final makeup touch <br />up, etc. <br />- An office area is provided for the park stagy., and a garden <br />maintenance area completes the visitor center. Note that all the <br />above functions have previously been done out o- the garage on <br />the property, which will be removed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.