Laserfiche WebLink
Therefore, what is the minimum density we would allow for property in the 1-acre zone, for <br /> example, which is entirely in the MUSA but which contains some developable properties that <br /> would be sewered? Ignoring the buildable area exclusions needed for new roads, stormwater <br /> ponds, etc. and assuming all code standards are met, would we allow a 5-acre site to subdivide: <br /> - into five 1-acre lots? Yes (net density = 1 unit per acre). <br /> - into three 1.66 acre lots? Yes (net density = 0.6 units per acre). <br /> - into two 2.5 acre lots? Yes (net density = 0.4 units per acre). <br /> In the same 1-acre zone, would we allow the owner of a 10-acre property to subdivide it into two <br /> 5-acre lots? Yes (net density = 0.2 units per acre). The bottom line is, we have never placed <br /> restrictions on development in the 1-acre zone that establishes a maximum lot size or a minimum <br /> density. The same is true for our other zones. <br /> If we were to arbitrarily establish a minimum density for new development in the 1-acre zone, <br /> what would it be? We would likely be satisfied with it as low as 0.2 units per acre; it would be <br /> counterproductive to the goals of our 1-acre zoning if it was any higher than 1.0 unit per acre; <br /> Met Council would like it to be at least 3.0 units per acre. <br /> Now consider the developable Shoreland areas in our 2-acre zone that were placed into the <br /> MUSA in 1998. We have parcels as large as 20 acres that could be developed into 2-acre lots; <br /> but we would not object to them being 3-acre or 4-acre or even 5-acre lots; and the zoning code <br /> would not prohibit a mere split into two 10-acre lots, i.e. a density of 0.1 units per acre. This is <br /> true of our 2-acre zones both within and outside the MUSA. What should we establish as the <br /> minimum allowed density? 0.1 units per acre? At 0.1 units per acre, the density range would be <br /> reported as 0.1 - 0.� units per acre. If we had, say �00 acres of developable land in the 2-acre <br /> zone, Met Council would multiply 0.1 units/acre x 500 acres = 50 units which would be Orono's <br /> `capacity to accommodate residential growth' on that land. That number has no relationship to <br /> reality, since we could ultimately expect 150-200 homes on those 500 acres under Orono's <br /> historic development patterns. <br /> Urban Density Issue. Met Council expects that going forward from 2000, all new development <br /> in the MUSA served by regional sanitary sewer will achieve a minimum net density of 3 units <br /> per acre. We have significant acreages of further developable land in the MUSA in the 2-acre <br /> zones (and a much smaller amount in the 1-acre and 1/2-acre zones) that we intend to allow to <br /> develop under the zoned and guided densities of 0.5-2.0 units per acre. Achieving a 3.0 units per <br /> acre density going forward will be impossible to accomplish under our proposed plan as noted <br /> further below. <br /> This also leads indirectly to our issue regarding Met Council's denial of individual sewer <br /> connections for existing homes in the MUSA on large lots. Met Council is using the same <br /> standard for existing development that it uses for new development. If the 7-acre property at <br /> 3125 Fox Street (denied a single sewer connection for the existing home) wanted to subdivide <br /> into 3 total lots, the resulting density would be 3 units per 7 acres = 0.43 units per acre. Met <br /> Council would probably not allow this development to be sewered, even though that was our <br /> clear intent in the 2000 CMP, unless we offset it elsewhere to result in a net overall sewered <br /> density of 3 units per acre. <br /> The calculations below illustrate the difficulty of ineeting the 3 units per sewered acre density <br /> average for the overall City: <br /> Review of Met Council Comp Plan Initial Response Page 11 of 17 <br /> August 28, 2009 <br />