09-11-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

17-3932 August 21, 2017 Page 2 of 8 which the developer should pay special attention. As a sketch plan review, any comments or suggestions to the applicants are non-binding but will be extremely helpful as the applicants move forward. The City Council will also provide comment at a future meeting. Conformity with the Orono 2030 Community Management Plan There are three main issues with respect to the proposal and the Community Management Plan. 1. Overall guided density, 2. Rural versus urban development patterns, and 3. MUSA boundary adjustment. The project requires amendment in all three areas. Guided Density. The property is guided for Rural Residential, with a density of 1 unit per 2 acres. The 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan requires lots at a minimum size of 2 dry -buildable acres if the lots are not served by municipal sewer. The proposed re -guiding to Low -Density Residential with a range of 0.5-2.0 units per acre (1/2 -acre to 2 -acre lots) is a departure from these goals. The proposed 15 unit subdivision will occur on 39.4 gross acres. 24.1 of the acres (wetlands, wetland buffers, and conservation areas*) are excluded from the calculation as they are in -eligible for development, based on the Met Council calculations. The adjusted, net density is 1.02 units per acre (15 units on 15.3 net acres). *if in Fed, State, or Local control and subject to a perpetual easement Rural versus urban development. The property is within the defined Rural Area of the City (CMP Map 313-1) in which new development is expected to occur with lot sizes of 2 to 5 acres. The boundary between the defined Urban and Rural Areas was established in the 1980 Community Management Plan, at that time being consistent with the MUSA line. It has been the City's intent to avoid creating new pockets of higher density within the defined Rural Area. Is it appropriate to introduce higher density to this area? MUSA. The project requires the expansion of the MUSA line and extension of water and sanitary services to accommodate development. The expansion of the MUSA into the subject parcel was not contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan, but the Planning Commission and Council could determine that the project satisfies one of the priority statements outlined in the CMP: Priority 1 Properties that abut the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and all other Orono lakes. Priority 2 Properties that abut City -protected tributaries, and all other properties within the Shoreland Overlay District. Priority 3 Existing substandard developed lots not covered by Priorities 1 and 2 and developed prior to 1985 that have failing septic systems and do not have an alternative site available to replace said system. Priority 4 New development using clustering that permanently preserves blocks of open space. Priority 5 Conforming developed lots not covered by Priorities 1 and 2 and developed prior to 1985 that have failing septic systems and do not have an alternative site available to replace said system. Priority 6 New or existing development not covered by Priorities 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. The Met Council has stated they will not support the expansion of the MUSA boundary for prof ects with densities less than 3 units per acre.