Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />Mr. Chase said stopping development is not the answer. Ms. Carlson said she didn’t <br />believe C/I would be included in a moratorium. Mr. Wessel said staff continues to work <br />with developers in the Village, and there is a housing piece that could be under <br />construction next year. A housing moratorium would affect that. Mr. Milbauer said the <br />market will determine development. Are we telling commercial developers that they can <br />bring a business here, but they can’t live here? Mr. Milbauer moved that EDAC does not <br />recommend to the city council that a moratorium for residential, commercial or industrial <br />be considered at this time. Ms. Schwartz said this didn’t know if it was appropriate to <br />make a recommendation regarding residential, since EDAC didn’t know enough about <br />those issues. Mr. Chase said residential is a part of economic development. All boards <br />will have an opportunity to review projects and problems can be addressed through the <br />process. <br /> <br />Ms. Carlson said she believes the P&Z is waiting for more information on projects in the <br />pipeline. Each board will have a point of view, and the council should look at all of them. <br />Mr. Gorowsky seconded the motion. Mr. Chase added that the numbers in the Comp Plan <br />are a limited moratorium to begin with. Ms. Schwartz said the city has already exceeded <br />the 147 housing units/year. Ms. Carlson said the council is looking at a limit of 7,575 <br />households by 2020. The city has been building well ahead of that. The census shows that <br />Lino Lakes has the highest percentage of married families with children in Minnesota. <br />Phasing will be an important tool. Ms. Hansmann said it is premature to have a <br />moratorium if there is no problem with people coming into the city now. <br /> <br />Mr. Chase said the Environmental Board can always present more facts, but now EDAC <br />is acting on what is before them. Mr. Vacha wants more information regarding the <br />Environmental Board recommendation. Mr. Milbauer amended his motion to include a <br />request for additional information from the Environmental Board regarding the basis for <br />its position. Mr. Gorowsky seconded the motion. Mr. Gorowsky said EDAC does not <br />want to take on the Environmental Board’s responsibility, but is charged with economic <br />development responsibility. Ms. Carlson stated the council would not approve a <br />moratorium on the Village plan. Ms. Schwartz questioned if a moratorium would enable <br />the city to implement policy by doling out limited MUSA. <br /> <br />Motion passed, with Mr. Vacha and Ms. Schwartz opposing. <br /> <br />MARKETPLACE DEVELOPMENT <br />Mr. Wessel said a tax abatement request from the Marketplace Development has been <br />made, and is being negotiated. The Village is also a candidate for tax abatement, and both <br />projects need to be studied in a balanced sense. Tax abatement has become problematic <br />because of recent changes by the legislature. <br /> <br />Mr. Rolek said the city had Springsted analyze what the Marketplace would generate in <br />taxes to provide subsidy. Prior to the action of the legislature, the development had ample <br />capacity to provide a subsidy with a 5-6 year payback. Since tax reform, general funding <br />for school districts was removed from the property tax, and C/I properties pay lower taxes