CCP 01302023 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ATTACHMENT F Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 2, 2022 Page 12 Member McGehee wondered if the sustainability folks thought five percent was a lot because it seemed kind of low to her. Ms. Gundlach indicated staff got that percent directly from the consultants and they got that number based on what they have been seeing in other cities or other projects. Staff has really relied on the consultants to gauge what the right percentage is. If the Commission would like something higher staff can certainly bring that back and make an amendment to the worksheet. Member McGehee thought it could go higher, maybe ten percent because anything better would be good. She was also wondering about the stormwater management stuff. She did not know how much is involved in this but certainly from the standpoint of sustainability, her interest in this is to keep it at the maximum amount of permeable surface and the maximum amount of green space and the ability to have space to put a tree on. She indicated she was naturally going to want to value those. Ms. Gundlach thought this was touched on at the last meeting. Regarding storm water, in terms of unlocking an incentive, if the project does unlock an incentive, enough points to increase their impervious surface the impervious surface still needed to be treated. That takes care of that issue. The other point regarding the two, the point values staff came up with were based upon the cost and the challenge in order to do these things and the belief is that some of these storm water items are less expensive and easier to implement on a project and so that is why the points were set at two versus some of the other things that are more expensive or more challenging and were valued higher. Chair Kimble explained the only comment she was going to make on the five percent is that ten percent is better, but it might just not be achievable. Member McGehee thought that was fine, she thought the City should see how this works, but she would like to see more points for the bird safe glass. Ms. Gundlach indicated staff can make those changes. Member Pribyl indicated she was very interested in how this will work. She reviewed as an architect what items she would work on to get points. She noted on the incentives if there was a maximum on the number of incentives that people can take. Ms. Gundlach explained staff talked about a limit. She did not see that noted in the narrative but thought there was a discussion on the limit of no more than two or three so staff can incorporate that into the narrative. Member Pribyl asked if there is going to be someplace else for further definition of some of the things in table two.