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, July 6, 2022 <br />Page 7 <br />Member Pribyl agreed and noted she does not necessarily like the layout of this but <br />also do not feel that having twinhomes in the neighborhood with large lots ruins the <br />character of the neighborhood automatically. <br />Ayes: 4 ayes <br />Nays: 1 nay (McGehee) <br />Motion carried. <br />7.Other Business <br />a. Discuss Phase Two Zoning Code Update AmendmentsDiscuss Phase Two Zoning Code Update Amendments <br />Mr. Jeff Miller of HKGi,summarized the information as detailed in the staff report <br />dated July 6, 2022. She asked for feedback regarding the four identified areas for <br />sustainability requirements. <br />Mr. Miller made a presentation on Phase Two of the Zoning Code Update. <br />Staff and the Commission discussed EV charging station requirements for different <br />size businesses. <br />Ms. Gundlach indicated staff is looking for specific feedback from the Commission. <br />Staff is looking to see if the Commission is ok with the EV ready versus the EV <br />charging, the percentage and the overall number of parking that should trigger that <br />requirement. <br />Chair Kimble indicated given this is new she would err on the conservative side and <br />say minimum of thirty parking stalls versus twenty and include if it is burdensome. <br />The City can always see how it goes and increase this if needed rather than imposing <br />something that is a little stricter. <br />Member Pribyl agreed. She noted there are more and more electric vehicles out there <br />so there will be more demand from residents living in multi-family or people <br />shopping looking for EV charging stations. Getting something in the Zoning Code is <br />helpful and important and making this intermediate step makes sense. <br />Member Bjorum thought it was also ok to say there needs to be some on day one but <br />to have additional down the road may be needed. He has found that some developers <br />will go more than EV ready just because they know it is coming down the line and <br />forcing the minimum really tells them to just do the whole setup. He knew that with a <br />lot of these things it demands a much bigger electrical feed to do these projects when <br />done but he thought that was anticipated on the front end and a lot less damaging to <br />anybody doing development work. He thought having the split is probably very <br />important. <br />Member Pribyl indicated for new construction it is not as much as a cost and easier to <br />get them ready and to have electric service. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.