Laserfiche WebLink
850 Wayzata Boulevard <br /> December 5,2008 <br /> Page 2 <br /> The Metropolitan Council has recently enacted strict rules regarding additians to the <br /> MUSA. Those rules require that any new residential properties added to the MIJSA must <br /> be included in a calculation of the City's development density since 2000, and that <br /> density must be no less than 3.0 dwelling units per acre. This condition was imposed on <br /> Orono when the Myrtlewood MUSA addition was approved. <br /> Orono's development density since 2000 is just slightly above 3.4 units per acre Adding <br /> any properties to the?vIUSA that have a planned/guided density of less than 3 units per <br /> acre will likely place Orono out of compiiance and result in denial of the MIJSA addition. <br /> Therefore, I have discussed with Met Councii staff the options for bringing your property <br /> into the MUSA. The options include: <br /> 1. Change the current residential zoning of the site to allow a density of at least 3 <br /> dwelling units per acre,and continue the current conditional use; OR <br /> 2. Change the land use guide plan to show the property as Institutional,which means <br /> it couldn't redevelop as low density residential without future Met Council review <br /> and approval {at which time Met CounciI would likely push for 3 units per acre); <br /> OR <br /> 3. Change the land use guide plan to show this as office or other non-retail <br /> commercial use, if such uses are permitted in an office district (cur�ently they <br /> aren't}. <br /> You have indicated you do not want your property to be re-guided to InstiTutional Use <br /> because that will limit the pool of potential buyers upon your future sale of the property. <br /> However, Met Council won't allow the property izato the MIJSA as currently guided for <br /> 2-acre minimurn lot size single-family residential use withaut a commitment by the City <br /> (i.e. a rezoning)that it will be developed at a density of at least 3 units per acre if <br /> redeveloped for residential use. To date,the City Council has indicated the}� are not <br /> ready to make such a commitment. Likewise, the City Council is not at ti�is time willing <br /> to rezone the property for commercial uses,wl�ich would open up the possibility for a <br /> variety of uses the Council does not want at this location. <br /> Density Transfer as a Fourth Option�. As the City Council was discussing these three <br /> options with you last May,a potential fourth option was suggested: how would Met <br /> Council react to a proposal for a density transfer? The idea would be to commit to a <br /> higher density in some other part of the City where the City Council would find high <br /> density acceptable, in exchange for allowing this property to be added to the MUSA <br /> under the 1-unit per 2 acres existing guided&zoned density. <br /> I pursued this with Met Council staff, indicating to them that it is not reasonable to <br /> prevent yom•property from being sewerad when all the property around it is either in the <br /> MUSA or is dedicated as permanent conservation land. Their very short response was <br /> that"in theory"such an exchange would be acceptabla,providing that both properties <br /> would be involved in a joint or concurrent Comp Plan Amendment process. <br />