2014-10-28_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

401 practices and requirements for the GreenStep Program, beyond those attached 402 inventories and requirements included in the staff report dated September 23, 403 2014. 404 405 Mr. Johnson opined that Roseville was very progressive and had been taking 406 many of the required steps for years without the incentive of being credited for 407 doing so. 408 409 Mr. Schwartz noted that a group of graduate students had initially put the 410 inventory together, and clarified that it remained a work in progress, with some 411 things needing more refinement, research or further clarification to make sure the 412 City was fully meeting GreenStep requirements. Therefore, Mr. Schwartz 413 encouraged the PWETC to ask questions of this new material developed by the 414 grad students in working with and interviewing City 4oseville staff. 415 416 Mr. Johnson reviewed information entered into the Green website and 417 various columns for that data, including benchmarks. Mr. Jo nson noted that 418 additional code requirements and credit lications would need addressed 419 moving forward as the Ci sought to ac e a higher step up to Level 3, 420 requiring further refine d completion as detailed in the inventory, and 421 whether addressed by co or policy. IML 422 423 At the request of Member Seigler specific to higher housing density, Mr. 424 Schwartz advised that this was a tough issue, and actually incorporated two 425 separate issues: higher density and impacts on home values; as well as creating 426 more green space. Mr. Schwartz addressed the housing plan and goals of the 427 Metropolitan Council as the overall planning agency and their push for density 428 #tat e-w'e while not addressing garage sizes or units per acre. 429 430emeu e concern with Roseville transitioning 431 as whether it should massively improve through new and bigger homes or 432 thr gh high-densiM housing reducing the value of current housing stock. 433 434 Member Cihacek stated that he didn't see higher density decreasing housing 435 values as long as those units were well constructed; and opined that smaller lots 436 on a block would reduce the cost of municipal services. However, Member 437 Cihacek questioned what high density meant to Roseville within the context of the 438 community, recognizing that the property values in some other suburbs (e.g. 439 Edina) with high density actually exceeded those of Roseville, but they still faced 440 architectural issues. Member Cihacek noted one example was for the 441 "grandmother" apartments which could create a larger garage on the first floor 442 while increasing density on the second floor. 443 444 Member Seigler noted that the City of Roseville was currently strict on any 445 reduction for lot line setbacks, especially for a two -car garage; and if the City 446 adopted the GreenStep program, those setbacks may no longer exist. Page 10 of 16