Laserfiche WebLink
r.! <br />ip"' <br />ibi"" <br />m <br />i'p <br />»■; <br />. , ^.. <br />%r?p <br />■■■^v-huf <br />'Pipi <br />#■ <br />W" - " ■tm <br />i& <br />K-^ <br />'V- <br />if'-’i'''' <br />#1^:' <br />lt,|. <br />■■ ;':r^ i ,v <br />’ <br />V , ■' !;i'f. <br />I: ■ ■ <br />p:- <br />Met Council Rural Area Policy <br />June 23, 1992 <br />Page 5 <br />- Data Compilation <br />Currently, Met Council suggests they will not approve niajor <br />Comp Plan Amendments until city policies are consistent with <br />density standards. Further, Met Council suggests that some time <br />1993 they will issue a Systems Statement, which is a more <br />formalised requirement that cities revise their plans to be <br />consistent with Met Council policies, or presumably suffer <br />%fhatever consequential sanctions might be imposed by Met Council. <br />Does Orono qualify for an •exception* under the Met Council <br />cxitsria? <br />1. <br />The Met Council Policy states "exceptions to the policies <br />for the rural area will be considered only for communities that <br />cannot meet the policy because of the existing subdivisions or <br />land development". Such exception would be based on how well we <br />*'*'^** protected good agricultural land (probably not <br />pertineit to our situation) <br />pj*otecttd wetlands and other environmentally sensitive <br />areas <br />implemenved performance standards for on-site sewage <br />disposal .systems that are consistent witn the Met <br />Council's Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan <br />adopted a comprehensive Plan consistent with all Metro <br />Development Guide chapters, especially those for the <br />metropolitan systems (sewers, transportation, aviation <br />and parks). <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />Xtem 1 probably does not uffect .is. We have more than <br />adequately dealt with Items 2 and 3 for many years. Item 4, <br />unfortunately, is based on Met Council's interpretation of <br />whether we are consistent with their metro plans. My impression <br />la that Met Council will find us not consistent with elements of <br />the sewer plan that relate to development density. <br />In order for Met Council to grant an exception to the <br />density policy, they expect us to provide detailed backgroun <br />information on our state of development., the physical features of <br />the lana, and an analysis of how it might be developed under <br />current planning and soning. However, because we are for the <br />most part already in excess of the upper limit on the 1 in lo <br />development density, it is questionablt (based on statements ^de <br />by Met Council staff to date) whether they would "support" an <br />exception that would allow our remaining undeveloped lands to <br />further develop at anything greater than 1 unit per 10 acres. <br />% <br />V