Laserfiche WebLink
-■••,' «irp <br />.:>■ <br />'i-: ^>^;Yr <br />:ii" <br />m. <br />.» <br />.t-?; <br />&: <br />Wl- <br />TJit*.rv. <br />!L-^. <br />!?.%■ <br />it <br />W-’-'*ll%- <br />i%L 'fm. <br />-'lift <br />Met Council Rural Area Policy June 23, 1992 Page 6 - Data Compilation <br />In fact. Met Council staffers have suggested that the type of <br />exception they would consider granting would be to restrict from <br />further development enough property to offset our existing <br />density excesses. However, on both a section by section basis <br />HD overall basis, such undeveloped land for "credit" does not <br />exist. Based on what Met Council staff indicated in February, <br />the "exception" policy would do nothing more than grandfather our <br />unsewered development and at best allow the remaining <br />im^^Ysioped property to develop at densities no greater than 1 <br />unit per 10 acres. This is not an acceptable "exception". <br />hhnt sanctions can Met Council impose on the City if we refuse to <br />cdMunge our policies? <br />Barb Senness took a very conservative and strong viewpoint <br />when asked this question at the work session. She indicated that <br />Stubbs Bay would possibly not be allowed to connect into the <br />iu4t.ro system (actually we are connecting into City lines which <br />flow to a metro interceptor). <br />^is policy would seem to be counterproductive in the broad <br />scheme of why the Metropolitan Council even exists, especially in <br />light of our past history of dealing with other areas expected to <br />be sewered per the 1980 Comprehensive Plan which Met Council <br />accepted. <br />h second sanction they might impose would be to deny <br />extension of the MUSA line as requested in our current proposed <br />Coap Plan Amendment. This leaves the question of the agreement <br />with Long Lake. <br />Our first goal needs to be separation of the Stubbs Bay <br />issue from the density issues. <br />Pacts That Should Be Persuasive la Our Favor <br />Stubbs Bay was indicated in 1980 Comp Plan as 1 of 5 <br />areas that might need to be sewered during 1980-1590. <br />The other 4 were allowed to be sewered and connected to <br />MMCC system without question, because there was <br />capacity in the system. <br />3.Met Council did not require prior approval of a MUSA <br />amendment to connect those 4 areas." (Today they <br />suggest this must have been an oversight on their <br />part). <br />.1^ > <br />i