11/23/1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

NOU -20 -1998 11 :54 NAC 612 595 9837 P.06/88 2. Alternative - Limit 2010 expansion to 200 acres, post 2010 to 500 acres. All MUSA could be requested at the time the Comprehensive Plan is filed. Establish written limitations on MUSA availability. Response: 2a. The City could consider the reduction of the MUSA request to reduce or eliminate the amount of MUSA overage. 2b. Based on Anoka County assessment policies, the geographic application of MUSA would restrict the City's flexibility in future use of the MUSA. If the City does not wish to retain this flexibility, the direct geographic application is possible. 2c. The past geographic application of MUSA resulted in areas of the City with MUSA not having practical access to sanitary sewer. -As a result, this land has not developed. To bring utilities to these isolated MUSA areas require projects of sufficient size to finance the needed utility improvements. This may work contrary to the City's objective of a steady rate of growth. 3. Use alternative measures that relate to a "footprint size of 7,575 households." 3a. The alternatives for controlling growth generally stem from the availability of MUSA. The following alternatives can be considered: (1) Adjustments to the amount of MUSA requested. (2) The direct geographic application of MUSA versus the use of growth areas and a MUSA reserve. The Comprehensive Plan outlined its MUSA forecasts and application philosophy as a means for controlling growth while retaining some flexibility in addressing future growth interests. As a compromise, we would suggest a reduction in the MUSA acres request while retaining the proposed Phase I- growth area. This would serve to limit the amount of MUSA expansion but allow the City flexibility in the geographic application of MUSA. This option would provide the City with the ability to maintain a constant rate of growth rather than the peaks and valleys of past years. 5