My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-10-2009 Council Work Session Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2009
>
11-10-2009 Council Work Session Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2015 3:58:03 PM
Creation date
7/8/2015 3:57:58 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
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
# <br /> With each of the potentiai properties rated in this way, we can analyze how large the <br /> issue is. It would also be useful to consider certain properties at variable densities, e.g. <br /> Dumas property as 5 du/acre, or Dumas property at 8 du/acre, etc. A matrix of these <br /> parcels could be created for analysis. It is also important to consider properties that <br /> would require "redevelopment" or be classified as "mixed use". These categories are <br /> much more difficult for Met Council to attack later in their plat-monitoring role. The City <br /> may be able to assign density to certain redevelopment areas that (1) may in fact be <br /> very long-term redevelopment targets, and (2) may development more commercially, <br /> without the mixed-use component. This gives the City credit at the Plan-approval stage, <br /> but delays (and maybe even avoids) actual development. The impacts of this strategy <br /> would need to be quantified. <br /> IV. Other strategies to consider <br /> a. Tweak low-range density threshold slightly <br /> b. Consider zoning regulations to protect City goals in ways other than <br /> density <br /> Even a small adjustment on the lower-end density can shrink the number of units <br /> needed to meet the Met Council forecast, and in many cases, changing this number will <br /> not impact actual development style. For instance, changing a low range from 1.5 <br /> du/acre to 1.8 du/acre over 100 acres would result in a "capacity" of an additional 30 <br /> units — 10% of problem, and it may be that when applying the zoning later, this change <br /> has little impact on the actual development style. <br /> Another strategy would be to re-examine zoning regulations, such as building height, <br /> setbacks, buffering, etc. that could ramp up as density increases. These zoning rules <br /> would ensure that higher densities, if actually developed, would do so in ways that are <br /> less objectionable, and the regulations may in fact serve as economic barriers in the <br /> short term. <br /> V. Rural Residential <br /> a. Seek exception to Met Council policy— use examples where Met Council <br /> has accepted this approach due to prevalence of existing rural residential <br /> development <br /> b. Wait it out — hope that Met Council policy (or focus) changes <br /> c. Create an alternative transitional strategy — allows rural residential <br /> subdivision with an extensive "ghost platting" requirement <br /> d. Consider multiple use of rural residential areas without platting — CIC, <br /> PUD, "accessory" SF units on large parcels <br /> i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.