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
Orono 2030 Comprehensive Pian <br /> Plan Approval Issues <br /> I. Identify and Prioritize Potential Goals of City <br /> a. Plan Acceptance by Met Council with: <br /> i. MUSA question resolved — Density and Unit Counts per System <br /> Statement <br /> 1. Quantify unit count, affordable housing, and density issues <br /> 2. Factor 5% discount v. System Stmt projection <br /> 3. Factor HH v. DU discount <br /> 4. Other discounts? <br /> ii. MUSA existing large lots hooked up with or without offsets <br /> 1. Resubdivision options? <br /> 2. Density Transfer options? <br /> iii. Rural 2-5 acre zoning areas resolved <br /> 1. Oak Grove or Ham Lake exception possible? <br /> In this stage, all of the City's goals for the Plan need to be identified, and each discrete <br /> goal needs to be prioritized as to which ones the City Council believes are necessary to <br /> accomplish in the short term, and which ones (if any) might be longer term goals to <br /> pursue later. Do we want to succeed on every front right now? Do we want to get a <br /> Plan approved without addressing some (such as large-lot hookups and offsets), setting <br /> them aside for another forum? <br /> II. Identify Possible Locations for additional density assignment, MUSA or non- <br /> MUSA <br /> a. Expansion of existing higher density areas <br /> b. High intensity corridors, e.g. Wayzata Blvd. <br /> c. Properties abutting Long Lake <br /> d. Dumas property or others? <br /> e. Navarre area <br /> It would be valuable to examine each potential location, even particular properties, as to <br /> their ability to carry additional density, and sort each of these for factors relating to <br /> acceptability. The City may also factor into its strategy those properties that could carry <br /> additional density conceptually, but relatively unlikely do to redevelopment barriers, <br /> infrastructure availability, etc. <br /> III. Prioritize potential density locations <br /> a. Land use compatibility <br /> b. Compromises to other long-term goals <br /> c. Infrastructure availability <br /> d. Redevelopment issues <br /> e. Other factors <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.