My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CCP 01302023
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2023
>
CCP 01302023
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2023 10:26:46 AM
Creation date
1/26/2023 10:26:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
1/30/2023
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
215
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ATTACHMENT F <br />Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, October 5, 2022 <br />Page 5 <br />low-density housing and it could be even distinguished that Green Star is <br />specifically for those types rather than making it a blanket approach. <br />The Commission discussed with staff the different sustainability levels and point <br />values assigned to each. <br /> <br />Member McGee asked regarding the non-traditional stormwater system, if there is <br />a bio-retention area or rain garden it would receive 2 points but if a buffer is put <br />in or if the shoreland is restored it would receive 1 point. She thought those were <br />similar things unless there is a reason that these two things are not. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller explained that could be considered. <br /> <br />Member Bjorum thought the only reason he would think that would not be true is <br />in some of the non-traditional water systems there is an additional cost in there <br />that might not be carried in a shoreland component so the project is getting that <br />extra point because of the additional cost associated with it. He did not think it <br />necessarily says one is more important than the other, rather, it is how points <br />would work themselves out. <br /> <br />Member Pribyl wondered if it would make sense to have a lower point threshold <br />for lower density project because they probably would not be as likely to do EV <br />charging stations or a green roof or a publicly accessible family garden. She <br />thought it might be worth considering that. <br /> <br />The was further discussion between the Commission and staff on the point system <br />and how to implement it. <br /> <br />Ms. Gundlach explained when staff drafts the language in sections 1011, Property <br />Performance Standards, she thought the intent there is to make sure it is clarified <br />that this is new development or redevelopment. This is not for a single family <br />home. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller indicated this worksheet is a work in progress. He noted the next step <br />is to refine this further with a public hearing in December for this and the <br />Shoreland Ordinance and City Council adoption after that. <br /> <br />9. Adjourn <br /> <br />MOTION <br />Member Kruzel, seconded by Member Pribyl, to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 <br />p.m. <br /> <br />Ayes: 6 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.