03-24-2009 Council Work Session Packet

Home Browse Search

1 SSO Wayzata Boulevard December S,2008 Page 2 The Metropolitan Council has recently enacted strict rules regarding additians to the MCTSA, Those rules require that any new residential properties added to the MUSA must be included in a calculation of the City's development density since 2000, and that density must be no less than 3.0 dwelling units per acre. This condition was imposed on Orono when the Myrtlewood MUSA addition was approved. Orono's development density since 2000 is just slightly above 3.0 units per acre Adding any properties to the NI[JSA that have a planned/guided density of less than 3 units per acre vvill likely place Orono out of compliance and result in denial of the MUSA addition. Therefore,I have discussed with Met Councii staff the options for bringing your property into the MUSA. The options include: 1. Change the current residential zoning of the site to allow a density af at least 3 dwelling units per acre,and continue the current conditional use; OR 2. Change the land use guide plan to show the properiy as Institutional,which means it couldn't redevelop as low density residential without future Met Council review and approval (at which time Met Council would likely push for 3 units per acre}; �R 3. Change the land use guide plan to show this as office or other non-retail commercial use, if such uses are pezmitted in an office district (cumently they aren't). You have indicated you do not want your property to be re-guided to Institutional Use because that wi11 limit the pool of potential buyers upon your future sale of the property. However, Met Council won't allow the property into the MUSA as currently guided for 2-acre minimurn lot size single-family residential use without a commitment by the City (i.e. a xezoning)that it will be developed at a densiry of at least 3 units per acre if redeveloped for residential use. To date,the City Council has indicated they are not ready to make such a commitment. Likewise,the City Council is not at this tirne willing to rezone the property for commercial uses,which would open up the possibility for a variety of uses the Council does not want at this location. Density Transfer as a Fourkh Option?. As the City Council was discussing these three options with you last May, a potential fourth option was suggested: how would Met Councii react to a proposal for a densit��transfer? The idea would be to commit to a higher density in some other part of the City where the City Council would find high density acceptable, in exchange for allowing this property to be added to the MUSA under ihe 1-unit per 2 acres existing guided&zoned density. I pursued this with Met Cauncil staff',indicating to them that it is not reasonable to prevent your property from being sewered when all the groperty around it is either in the MUSA or is dedicated as permanent conservation]and. Their very short response was that"in theory"such an exchange would be acceptable,providing that both properties would be involved in a joint or concurrent Comp Plan Amendment process.