Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />(y <br />it'v: ■ <br />k <br />w-^ <br />f’*' <br />s' <br />11. <br />w- <br />% <br />.n- <br />''•' vV _, <br />i/-' <br />k&r <br />' r’i'-■VV . <br />Memo <br />June 10, 1992 <br />Page 2 <br />A review of the existing development suggests that while a few <br />sections have not yet reached the 64 per 640 density, the current <br />overall density for our rural areas is approximately 90 per 640. <br />Any attempts to limit the future development in our 2 acre and 5 acre <br />zones will without question create an uproar amom c- rrent large <br />parcel land owners who expect to some day be able to develop it to 2 <br />acre and 5 acre densities. <br />Questions <br />The following would seem to be appropriate questions to be asking the <br />Met Council: <br />1.What is the time frame in which Met Council expects to <br />initiate requiring compliance to the new policies? <br />2.If the 64/640 policy is required, what specific allowances <br />are there for continuing our existing developments with 2 <br />acre and 5 acre minimum lot sizes? <br />3.Doesn't Orono's ntensive program for septic system <br />management provide adequate controls so that Orono could be <br />exempt from the 64 per 64C standards? <br />4.Explain Met Council's concept of "rural to urban transition <br />planning” in the context of a 2 and 5 acre lot size zoning <br />scenario# where the City has no current or foreseeable <br />intent to rezone to densities requiring urban services. <br />t- .•■V-''/- <br />A ■ <br />.c* <br />■ <br />.2 ' <br />; -Ir^' <br />-•7iV ■ 7 ' <br />pr