Laserfiche WebLink
ATTACHMENT F <br />Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, September 7, 2022 <br />Page 8 <br />Ms. Gundlach indicated regarding the suitability part, that suitability language is <br />in the current Shoreland Ordinance and will continue if the City moves to the <br />Model Ordinance. <br />Mr. Jeff Miller, HKGi continued the presentation on Electric Vehicle Charging <br />Ordinance and Definitions. <br />Member McGehee asked if there was a check and balance system in place for <br />when a developer comes in with a cost that is too high. Doesthe City has the <br />ability to verify their figures, just to be sure? <br /> <br />Chair Kimble asked how the figures could be verified. <br /> <br />Member McGehee was not sure but thought maybe a third party might be able to <br />do that. <br /> <br />Chair Kimble thought there were so many variables that she was not sure the City <br />could get a third party to verify that. <br /> <br />Member Bjorum did not know what the legal ramifications would be for that. <br /> <br />Member Schaffhausen thought technically the five percent also helps small <br />businesses because that was one of the things discussed earlier. <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke agreed and thought there would be ways for staff to challenge the <br />numbers if they did not think it is correct. He did not think there needed to be a <br />checks and balance in the Ordinance but if staff believes it may be too high they <br />could question and challenge the amount and work with the developer on it. <br /> <br />Chair Kimble thought developers want to provide electric charging stations <br />because it was a way to attract people to offices and is important. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller continued his presentation on EV Charging Ordinance and Definitions. <br /> <br />Member Pribyl explained there is nothing in the Accessibility Code that <br />specifically addresses EV charging. She thought it probably would in the next <br />cycle and the model codes, at least what she has heard so far, will not be required <br />to be at an assigned, required accessible parking stall but at least some of the EV <br />charging stations will be required to have access aisle and appropriate reach range <br />so they are not tying up a designated accessible stall, as close to the building for <br />EV charging but providing that accessibility at some of the charging stations. She <br />thought it might be more appropriate to think about providing an access aisle and <br />providing the reach ranges at one of the charging locations and they might also <br />want to reference that requirement or the State Accessibility Code, whichever is <br />more stringent because when that goes into effect that might impact this as well. <br /> <br />Chair Kimble thought that made sense. <br /> <br />