Laserfiche WebLink
'' 1 <br /> Orono City Council ` <br /> Committee of the Whole � <br /> January 26,2010,6:30 p.m. <br /> Orono City Council Chambers <br /> • The Met Council also has a requirement to provide 311 affordable housing units. This can be met <br /> by having any development at 6 units per acre. For example, the Common Bond proposal would <br /> receive credit for density as well as affordable housing. <br /> • Approximately 2-3%of the existing housing in Orono would be classified as affordable housing. <br /> • Met Council will monitor plat reviews, but they can't force the city to build a high density project. <br /> The city should be prepared to approve high density projects. Although a high density project could <br /> be denied, the reasons would have to be based on performance issues and not just density. <br /> • McMillan asked how property taxes are affected for properties that are reguided. Grittman stated <br /> that the county has statutory authority to assess property at the highest and best use. The county <br /> almost always assesses property at the existing use and wouldn't change until the property was <br /> actually re-developed. <br /> • To get a sense of density,the Stonebay Lofts building is at 15 units per acre (60 units). This would <br /> translate to 10 buildings of similar size on the Dumas property to accomplish 9 units per acre. <br /> • Grittman commented that the city is well served to identify some mixed use development as the <br /> Met Council looks favorably on mixed use areas. Mixed use could potentially be used in exchange <br /> for the 1 in 10 acre requirement. <br /> • McMillan stated she would not want to concentrate all of the high density on the Dumas property. <br /> • The summary proposal to submit to the Met council will include the following: <br /> o Development pattern and history <br /> o Impracticality of extending sewer to remaining rural parcels <br /> o Difficulties of promoting lakeshore density <br /> o Environmental advantage of providing sewer to existing unsewered parcels in MUSA without <br /> offset penalties <br /> o Compliance with system statement numbers for density and housing count in new <br /> development <br /> o Willingness to provide density in appropriate locations (Dumas/James and Navarre, etc.) <br /> • Murphy asked if there was anything that allows for expanding the MUSA. Grittman responded that <br /> the Eisinger property would be a good consideration. Per Gaffron, the White Oak Circle <br /> neighborhood would also be an option because it was developed prior to 1985 and without <br /> alternate septic sites,the area would meet the criteria for not having to be part of the density <br /> count. <br /> 3. Open Book vs. Local Board of Review <br /> • Olson stated there was a brief discussion last year about considering a change to the Open Book . <br /> process. If the city wants to pursue the Open Book process for 2011, it would be helpful to notify <br /> residents at this year's Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. <br /> • Council agreed to discuss further after the new City Administrator starts and that it may not be the <br /> right time, politically,to make a change in the process for the Local Board of Review. <br /> • The city has until December 1 to notify the county if they wish to change to the Open Book process. <br /> • The Hennepin County Assessor has indicated that both formats have advantages. <br /> • McMillan asked how the property assessments are coming in compared to prior years. Olson <br /> indicated that there has been a decrease but not as much as last year. He will provide additional <br /> information in the next Information Update. <br /> 4. Comments Regarding Information Updates <br /> • None <br /> Page 4 of 4 <br />