05-26-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

h js- &!■. ' Vi’ r ■ ■;. Metropolitan Council Rural Service Area Policies - 64/640 May 18, 1992 Page 2 planning for "rural to urban transition" areas and they will support lethal efforts to prevent development that is incompatible or inefficient for future urbanization. However, they appear to be diametrically opposed to Orono's philosophy that development on 2 acre lots will adequately eliminate the need for future sewers and MUSA line extensions. None of this comes as a big surprise, the Met Council has been discussing 1 unit per 10 acres for many years. However, it appears that they intend to exert whatever limit^^d authority they might have in attempting to shape development as the metro area expands. Perhaps the most disturbing impression I got at the February 27 forum was that in areas such as Or io and North Oaks, which have 2 to 3 acre minimum lot sizes ana are slowly moving along the merry pathway of orderly development. Met Council would apparently attempt to limit any future density increases for sections which are already at the 64 per 640 density. Analyzing Orono's rural sections (Sections 2-11 and 25 - 36), only Sections 6, 9, 25, 29, 30 and 32 have not reached the 1 per 10 density, but they are very close to it. Overall, Orono currently is at a 1.5 unit per 10 acre density. Met Council apparently would eliminate additional density increases in those sections already at the limit, but might be wl i ling to allow the developed portions of those sections to develop at the 1 per 10 density. This all sounds pretty big brotherish; however, they do control the valve on the big sewer pipe that goes to Shakopee, I would encourage each Council member to read the December 5, 1991 amendments and the February 10, 1992 memo from Bob Overby regarding implementation of the new rural policy. We currently have a comprehensive plan amendment, including MUSA line revisions, before the Met Council, presented as a minor comprehensive plan amendment. This amendment does not include Stubbs Bay, which will have to be the subject of a future amendment, (and which does require additional flow into the MWCC interceptor), but does include the MUSA line amendment for the Long Lake sewer plant property, which th City has agreed to proceed with in a timely fashion. The Met Council planners have requestd a number of items of additional information, including breakdowns of sewer units between the Long Lake and Orono lift stations, estimated increase in sewered population and sewer construction by 5 year periods for the next 20 years and additional information regarding infiltration/inflow abatement. While they have not broached the issue of development densities, I would not be surprised if that ultimately enters into their review. Again, please read the attached information Isv