PK PACKET 05212025- Worksession - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Parks and Environmental Commission Work Session Meeting Minutes April 2, 2025 Page 4 1 2 Chair Fee asked if there is a timeframe for presenting this to the City Council, and Ms. 3 Morello stated the timeframe is TBD, depending on the conversation from this meeting. It 4 would most likely go to a Council work session when appropriate. 5 6 Which type of approach would work best for St. Anthony? (Mandatory approach, 7 scoring approach or suggestion approach). 8 9 Commissioner Peterson asked if a mandatory approach would apply to all buildings, and Ms. 10 Saulog stated that is correct in the way it is defined. 11 12 Commissioner Hark asked how this differs from the scoring method, and Ms. Saulog 13 reviewed the scoring criteria. The scoring approach is ranking. 14 15 Commissioner Peterson noted that buildings in Minnesota are not allowed to exceed the State 16 building code and asked if this is the reason additional criteria would be allowed to be 17 mandatory. Ms. Saulog stated the State building code is separate from the Sustainable 18 building policy. There cannot be a City building code that is not in alignment with the State 19 building code. Commissioner Peterson asked if the suggested approach would also require a 20 change in ordinance or would that just be for the mandatory option. Ms. Morello stated she 21 could not really answer that. More information on that will be forthcoming. 22 23 Chair Fee noted the mandatory approach was recommended, and from a sustainability point 24 she would like compliance. If there is more standardization, it helps everyone in terms of 25 competition and cost control. She would not want to turn off and have developers reconsider 26 developing within the City. 27 28 Commissioner Peterson asked which neighboring cities have something similar to this. Ms. 29 Saulog stated in the Appendix provided there is a summary of policies within the State of 30 Minnesota. There are no policies in directly adjacent cities to St. Anthony. The difficulty is 31 that other cities policies are very specific and would not apply to St. Anthony. Ms. Morello 32 stated that we do not want to deter any development within the City. 33 34 Commissioner Synhavsky noted some standardization is taking shape and asked if there is a 35 boilerplate language we can work from for St. Anthony. Ms. Saulog stated they are referring 36 to that structure in the guide. Commissioner Synhavsky stated developers generally prefer a 37 straightforward policy that is clear. It is less confusing if something is written in Code and 38 mandatory. Ms. Saulog stated she has been spending more time on the mandatory approach 39 rather than the suggested approach. There are opportunities to provide outreach and education. 40 41 What priority impacts do we want to target in a City overlay? 42 What types of projects do we want this policy to apply to? (such as zoning and/or size 43 of building. 44 45 Chair Fee stated she does not know how many new buildings or renovations would be done in 46 a year and how big of an impact would be created from this policy. Ms. Morello stated we do 47