Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />housing allocation of 147/year, and conservation subdivisions. Council will have several <br />progress review meetings. <br /> <br />Mr. Gorowsky asked what the maximum number of lots are available in the city, and how <br />many years at 147/year will it be until the city is built out. Mr. Grochala said the Comp <br />Plan calls for 7,575 households by 2020. Now the city has 4,800. Mr. Gorowsky asked if <br />the available developable acreage in the city matches this growth scenario. Mr. Grochala <br />said the city has much more acreage than this growth plan allows, but it’s not zoned for <br />residential. He stated it seems there are two schools of thought in the community, some <br />saying a lot of property will be coming on the market, and the others are saying because <br />of wetlands, etc., there isn’t much left. Mr. Grochala said there is enough upland to last a <br />long time. At 240 units/year over the last decade, without growth mechanisms that could <br />go up to 400-500/year. There is more land in the Stage 1 growth area than the city will <br />have in available MUSA. <br /> <br />Ms. Hansmann asked what the maximum time allowed is for a moratorium. Mr. Grochala <br />explained the maximum it can be extended is 2.5 years. There is no support for extending <br />it over 12 months. Ms. Hansmann asked if the growth issue would be addressed with <br />subdivision ordinances, and what avenues would be used to control growth. Mr. Grochala <br />said the main method to control growth is MUSA allocation, controlling whether sewer <br />and water is available. Criteria will be developed for determining the most developable <br />land based on practical constraints such as the ability to extend utilities. Proximity to <br />existing utilities will be very important. The city needs a rational basis for explaining <br />who gets the 147 units per year. Phasing plans will be developed, and mechanisms for <br />who get the first allocations. <br /> <br />Mr. Vacha moved to recommend approval of the moratorium as presented. Mr. <br />Gorowsky seconded the motion. During discussion, Ms. Schwartz asked why EDAC <br />needed to take action. Mr. Chase said the purpose of EDAC was to give the Council its <br />opinion. Mr. Gorowsky said the Council and the boards seemed to have consensus that <br />growth must be controlled. As an individual one might think that limiting new homes is <br />constraining for economic development, but fighting it would be a losing battle, so the <br />other choice is to endorse it and find a way to work within it to promote economic <br />development. Mr. Juni noted there will be new housing starts in 2002, even with the <br />moratorium. Mr. Grochala stated that the year of the moratorium will likely see the most <br />housing starts. From an economic development standpoint, the concern is after the Comp <br />Plan is implemented. Mr. Chase noted that the image issue is more important. Ms. Divine <br />stated that EDAC can play a role also as the process develops. Phasing of new <br />subdivisions will be critical to future residential development, and will an impact <br />economic development. <br /> <br />Mr. Grochala stated that the issue is the perception of how this impacts economic <br />development. The city has a lot of positive C/I growth right now, especially with Target. <br />Without the moratorium the city will have residential applications following the existing <br />regulations. It could be more damaging if developers get caught in gray areas with boards <br />wanting them to follow new rules that aren’t in place. Mr. Chase said his concern is that