My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PK PACKET 04022025 Worksession
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Parks and Environmental Commission Packets
>
2025
>
PK PACKET 04022025 Worksession
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2025 8:42:02 AM
Creation date
3/27/2025 8:41:48 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
<br /> OVERVIEW <br />Cities throughout Minnesota seek to improve public health, <br />environmental justice, and environmental and economic S <br />sustainability. As cities set targets to reduce carbon D <br />emissions, reduce waste, protect natural areas, and mitigate Sstormwater runoff, many are turning to building-related esstrategies to help achieve these goals. su <br />Generally, cities have three main levers to create change: be <br />mandatory requirements, process incentives, and financial ne <br />incentives. Because the State of Minnesota sets the building si <br />code, cities are unable to establish building requirements that de <br />are more strict than existing code; however, with financial ty <br />levers and authority over land use, cities have tremendous po <br />potential to use sustainable building policies as a tool to make re <br />progress toward sustainability goals. kn <br />po <br />To da te, Minnesota cities have taken three approaches in the <br />application of sustainable building policies, listed below in <br />order of impact: <br />1. Mandatory approach (Recommended). This policy <br />approach identifies default sustainability requirements E <br />for funding programs and land use variances above Acertain thresholds. These requirements are in addition cito other program and land use requirements. f2. Scoring approach. Buildings are scored on a set of acriteria and those with the highest scores qualify for <br />city program funding and approval. <br />3. Suggestion approach. Developers are strongly N <br />encouraged to consider sustainability in construction L <br />through a sustainability questionnaire. T <br />Based on research of existing policies and interviews with tr <br />Minnesota cities, we identified best practices and p <br />recommendations for creating a framework and implementing st <br />a mandatory sustainable building policy. s <br />dThe intent of this guide is to provide a resource for cities pconsidering sustainable building policies and to encourage <br />standardization across cities. Standardization has many <br />benefits including improving efficiency and cost-effectiveness <br />across the region, facilitating the adoption of sustainable <br />building practices, and reducing competition among cities for <br />development. <br />ustainable Building Policy <br />efined <br />ustainable building policies <br />tablish minimum <br />stainability criteria that go <br />yond existing state code for <br />w construction or <br />gnificantly renovated <br />velopments. Included criteria <br />pically target areas for <br />llution reduction and <br />source conservation. Also <br />own as green building <br />licies. <br />xisting Policies <br />s of 2022, eight Minnesota <br />ties have some type of <br />ormal sustainable building <br />pproach: Duluth, Edina, <br />Maplewood, Minneapolis, <br />orthfield, Rochester, St. <br />ouis Park, an d Saint Paul. <br />he affected building types, <br />iggers, and criteria vary by <br />olicy, although some <br />andardization is taking <br />hape. See the Appendix for <br />etailed comparison of the <br />olicies. <br />1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.