Laserfiche WebLink
Met Council's conclusion that Orono's existing developable MUSA areas are planned to develop <br /> at an overall density of less than 3 units per acre is absolutely correct. Much of the existing <br /> further-developable MUSA areas are Shoreland areas that were incorporated into the MUSA <br /> either in 1998 (prior to the 2020 CMP) or in 2001 (as part of the 2020 CMP). The Met Council <br /> approved these amendments to expand the MUSA with the full knowledge that Orono planned to <br /> allow sewering of existing low-density neighborhoods and further sewered development of <br /> undeveloped properties in these Shoreland areas under the 2-acre minimum lot size (0.5 units per <br /> acre) zoning standards that have been in place since 1975 or earlier. Those approvals did not <br /> require that the City develop these areas at densities of at least 3 units per acre. It did not place <br /> any restrictions on how these areas could develop. <br /> Regarding the two Advisory Comments: <br /> 1) The "expanded MUSA" is a scenario described on pages 4G 19/20 of the Sewer chapter, <br /> under which additional rural-density areas would be brought into the MUSA, most likely to <br /> retrofit existing Shoreland and non-Shoreland neighborhoods with sewer service, but also <br /> potentially to accommodate new low-density clustered development to preserve open spaces. <br /> However, the Met Council comment indicates any such MUSA expansion would require a <br /> plan to achieve 3 units per acre in the expanded area. That would not be our goal of an <br /> "expanded MUSA", so expanding the MUSA further into Orono's Rural Area to serve <br /> existing development or new low-density development is not likely to be accepted by Met <br /> Council. <br /> This Met Council position reflects the same logic that MC is trying to impose on our existing <br /> MUSA areas by denying sewer connections to individual homes. MC would have us create <br /> offsetting high density to average 3 units per acre. An example of how this would play out: <br /> the single family home at 3125 Fox Street, in the MUSA since 1998, has been denied a sewer <br /> connection by Met Council. To offset sewering this one 7-acre homesite, a 29 unit <br /> apartment/condo building on a 3-acre site would have to be built. <br /> 2) The Met Council forecasts for Sewered and Unsewered areas do differ significantly from our <br /> forecasts for the Urban and Rural areas, because they are different subsets of the City. The <br /> MC comment stems from their comparing apples and oranges. Met Council may be having <br /> difficulty grasping the idea that we have an "Urban Area" and a "Rural Area" defined <br /> primarily by historic and planned development density, that are completely different from <br /> our "Sewered Area" and "Unsewered Area" defined strictly by being in or out of the MUSA. <br /> Our "Sewered Area" includes all of our Urban Area and part of our Rural Area. Not all of <br /> our "Sewered Area"has been provided with sewer lines yet, but our intent is that it will be. <br /> However, when one compares apples and apples, Orono is projecting significantly fewer <br /> sewered households than Met Council for 2020 and 2030, based on our Plan vs. MC desires. <br /> Implications. Orono household forecasts for 2010 are about 50 units less than MC forecasts. <br /> Under Orono's current proposed guiding and zoning, City predictions indicate that 450 new <br /> households will be added to the City between 2010 and 2020; MC forecasts this number to be <br /> 750 units, a difference of 300 units. Between 2020 and 2030, both MC and Orono project an <br /> additional 150 homes, reflecting that the City will be nearing full development during that <br /> decade. <br /> Review of Met Council Comp Plan Initial Response Page.5 of 17 <br /> August 28, 2009 <br />