Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/03/2002 EDAC Minutes 1 APPROVED CITY OF LINO LAKES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES DATE: Thursday, January 3, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Juni, T. Vacha, J. Schwartz, F. Chase, B. Hicks, D. Gorowsky, K. Hansmann MEMBERS ABSENT: R. Jensen, J. Milbauer OTHERS PRESENT: D. Carlson, M. Divine, M. Grochala GENERAL/MINUTES Minutes of December 6, 2001 were approved. APPOINTMENTS Ms. Divine notified the committee that Mr. Juni, Mr. Gorowsky and Mr. Chase were reappointed to EDAC. Members agreed it was beneficial to have a P&Z liaison, and will request that P&Z take action to appoint one. MORATORIUM ON HOUSING Mr. Grochala stated the final reading of the interim ordinance would be January 14. The process to get the moratorium done in a year was the biggest council concern. The proposal to the council is a task force comprised for two people each from the P&Z, EDAC, and Environmental Board, chaired by Councilmember Jeff O’Donnell. Staff would prepare the ordinances based on the Comprehensive Plan and bring them to the task force for review and comment. Al Brixius from NAC will be responsible for putting the ordinances together. The intent is to build consensus and it is critical that the city council buy into the process. By-laws will be set up. The council requested a provision for removal from the task force if a member is not working towards consensus. On January 26 Government Training Services will hold a training session for all board members, council and others interested. Task force members will be required to attend. A draft schedule shows task force meetings beginning on Thursday, Jan. 31. Review of subdivision ordinances will go first, then zoning ordinances. The key components are growth management to meet the 2 housing allocation of 147/year, and conservation subdivisions. Council will have several progress review meetings. Mr. Gorowsky asked what the maximum number of lots are available in the city, and how many years at 147/year will it be until the city is built out. Mr. Grochala said the Comp Plan calls for 7,575 households by 2020. Now the city has 4,800. Mr. Gorowsky asked if the available developable acreage in the city matches this growth scenario. Mr. Grochala said the city has much more acreage than this growth plan allows, but it’s not zoned for residential. He stated it seems there are two schools of thought in the community, some saying a lot of property will be coming on the market, and the others are saying because of wetlands, etc., there isn’t much left. Mr. Grochala said there is enough upland to last a long time. At 240 units/year over the last decade, without growth mechanisms that could go up to 400-500/year. There is more land in the Stage 1 growth area than the city will have in available MUSA. Ms. Hansmann asked what the maximum time allowed is for a moratorium. Mr. Grochala explained the maximum it can be extended is 2.5 years. There is no support for extending it over 12 months. Ms. Hansmann asked if the growth issue would be addressed with subdivision ordinances, and what avenues would be used to control growth. Mr. Grochala said the main method to control growth is MUSA allocation, controlling whether sewer and water is available. Criteria will be developed for determining the most developable land based on practical constraints such as the ability to extend utilities. Proximity to existing utilities will be very important. The city needs a rational basis for explaining who gets the 147 units per year. Phasing plans will be developed, and mechanisms for who get the first allocations. Mr. Vacha moved to recommend approval of the moratorium as presented. Mr. Gorowsky seconded the motion. During discussion, Ms. Schwartz asked why EDAC needed to take action. Mr. Chase said the purpose of EDAC was to give the Council its opinion. Mr. Gorowsky said the Council and the boards seemed to have consensus that growth must be controlled. As an individual one might think that limiting new homes is constraining for economic development, but fighting it would be a losing battle, so the other choice is to endorse it and find a way to work within it to promote economic development. Mr. Juni noted there will be new housing starts in 2002, even with the moratorium. Mr. Grochala stated that the year of the moratorium will likely see the most housing starts. From an economic development standpoint, the concern is after the Comp Plan is implemented. Mr. Chase noted that the image issue is more important. Ms. Divine stated that EDAC can play a role also as the process develops. Phasing of new subdivisions will be critical to future residential development, and will an impact economic development. Mr. Grochala stated that the issue is the perception of how this impacts economic development. The city has a lot of positive C/I growth right now, especially with Target. Without the moratorium the city will have residential applications following the existing regulations. It could be more damaging if developers get caught in gray areas with boards wanting them to follow new rules that aren’t in place. Mr. Chase said his concern is that 3 all the work that staff, consultants and the task force completes could get bogged down at Council. Mr. Grochala said the Council does not want to extend it, has directed a schedule, the chair is a council member, and there will be checkpoints along the way so the council is kept informed. Mr. Chase called for the question. The motion was unanimously approved. APPOINTMENT OF TASK FORCE MEMBERS EDAC members discussed who was interested in participating on the Development Regulations Task Force (DRTF). Ms. Hansmann nominated Ms. Schwartz and Mr. Hicks. Motion was seconded by Mr. Vacha. Mr. Juni nominated Mr. Chase. Mr. Gorowsky seconded the motion. Members voted for two nominees by written ballot. Ms. Schwartz and Mr. Hicks received the most votes and will represent EDAC on the DRTF. Mr. Chase will be the alternate. Mr. Juni said chamber of commerce members had a negative reaction to the moratorium. Mr. Grochala said a letter was being sent to chamber members. EDAC and others in the community can help by explaining the purpose to those who perceive it as a bad thing. APPOINTMENT OF EDAC CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR Mr. Gorowsky nominated Mr. Chase for the position of chair. Mr. Juni seconded the nomination. Ms. Schwartz nominated Mr. Juni for the position of chair. Mr. Hicks seconded the nomination. Mr. Vacha nominated Ms. Hansmann for the position of chair. Ms. Schwartz seconded the motion. Mr. Chase nominated Mr. Gorowsky for vice-chair. Members voted for chair by written ballot. Mr. Chase received the most votes. Members voted from the remaining candidates for vice-chair. Mr. Juni received the most votes. EDAC STRATEGIC PLANNING Ms. Divine went through a presentation that addressed some of the accomplishments and goals for EDAC. The purpose was to give members a place to start when discussing EDAC’s role and how it wants to direct its future. Topics to be discussed included: 1) EDAC’s description and mission 4 2) Accomplishments since 1993 3) EDAC’s role 4) 5-year plan and 1-year action plan 5) Measurements of progress 6) C/I site inventory/ranking 7) Financial tools Mr. Chase stated that EDAC needed to spend time looking at the assumptions made for the Comp Plan and how things have changed. Old assumptions may not be valid. Recommendations for changes, such as property zoning changes, should be made to the Council. EDAC is likely the only group that would do those things. Ms. Divine asked members to look at the inventory as she had started it, and make suggestions for improvement. Mr. Gorowsky stated EDAC needed to look at how tax reform impacts EDAC’s economic development mission. Mr. Chase said members can further discuss the issues at the next meeting. Ms. Divine passed out a schedule for 2002 meetings. Meeting adjourned.