08-12-2019 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE #LA19-000047 July 15, 2019 Page 2 of 3 Analysis The Comprehensive Plan, in Chapter 4B, provides guidance for considering MUSA boundary expansions, attached as Exhibit E. Included within the narrative is table 46-12, which lists priorities when considering expansion requests: Table 413-12; MUSA Expansion Priorities Priority 1 Properties that abut the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and all other Orono lakes Properties that abut City -protected tributaries, and all other properties within the Priority 2 5horeland Overlay District Existing substandard developed lots not covered by Priorities 1 and 2 and developed prior to 1985 that have failing septic systems abd do not have an alternative site available Priority 3 to replace said system. Priority 4 New development using clustering that permanently preserves blocks of open space. 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 Priority 5 said system. Priority fi New or existing development not covered by prioritises 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. 4400 Deering Island meets Priority 1. The Comp plan considers conditions: Conditions Expansion of the MUSA on the established prioritized basis noted above will occur only when one of the folloNviing conditions is found: 1. When an area of existing houses has failing or non-conforliung septic systems and replacement drain field sites are not available for a significant share of the existing homes. 2. When an individual home has a failing or 11011 -conforming septic system. does not have an alternate drain field site. is adjacent to existing sewer lines. aid is not part of a neighborhood that could be better served by a 11eighborhood sewer lateral project. When a new Or existing residential development meeting all required development standards is adjacent to existing sewer lines and the developer or homeowners agree to bear all costs of extending municipal sewer to the development. but only when inclusion of such development in the MUSA will not result in a decrease in the City's severed density as calculated by the Metropolitan Council. Condition 1 is met, as the site was determined to be non-compliant in 2001 due to vertical separation with the water table replacement sites would require significant tree removal. Density. Expansion of the MUSA boundary does not inherently increase the density of a given parcel; MUSA boundary and land use is independent. The property is currently zoned seasonal residential, which requires a 5 acre minimum lot size. The 2.79 acre parcel is non -conforming. Subdivision to create additional lots would require a variance, the City Council has historically not supported such variances. The applicant has not indicated a desire to subdivide or add additional housing units.