Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />HELD AUGUST 3, 1992 <br />ROLL <br />The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date wit>' the <br />foI Iowing members present: Chair Charlie Kelley, Ed Cohen, Candace <br />Rowlette, Jeff Johnson, and Stephen Peterson. Maureen Bellows <br />arrived after the vote. Charles Schroeder was absent. The following <br />represented the City Staff; Planning and Zoning Admtnistrator <br />Michael Gaffron, and City Recorder Teri Naab. Chair Kelley called <br />the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. <br />(#1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 4 - <br />STUBBS BAY/MUSA BOUNDARY REALIGNMENT - <br />PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 - 7:08 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. <br />Gaffron explained that Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 4 Is an <br />amendment to include the Stubbs Bay project area within the <br />Metropolitan Council’s urban service area boundary. The area <br />includes 137 property, 12b of which are developed, and 12 vacant <br />lots. The City is not proposing to change any district boundaries <br />or zoning standards. The amendment is to meet the criteria set by <br />the Metropolitan Council requiring a plan amendment to show the <br />boundaries of the MUSA line as the City continues to sewer various <br />i jrtions of the City. He noted that in the past the City has gone <br />ahead with a project and later applied for the amendment to the <br />Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Council has now asked that In <br />the future amendments be requested prior to commencement of a <br />project. <br />Johnson asked the time line for the current MUSA boundary line for <br />the City. <br />Gaffron stated that the City has not adopted a specific "Year 2000" <br />MUSA per the Metropolitan Council’s schematic. He said that the <br />Stubbs Bay area is the last of five areas identified in the 1980 <br />Comprehensive Plan, which were generally expected to be sewered by <br />the 1990s. He noted that the City does not have any plans for <br />future amendments. He explained that Comprehensive Plan Amendment <br />No. 3 has not been adopted by the Metropolitan Council as they have <br />requested additional information, and intend to address the issue <br />of 64/640. He added that when North Oaks recently went through the <br />same type of request the City will soon be going through, they were <br />eventually allowed to continue with their current development of <br />1 to 1 1/2 acre unsewered development without a problem from the <br />Metropolitan Council.