CC_Minutes_2023_0306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,March 6,2023 Page 19 by case variance request, the DNR is going to be much more workable with the City, especially if the City is dealing in a situation where staff asked the DNR to treat the additional hard surface above the twenty-five percent. Then she did not think the DNR would say anything. Mayor Roe indicated he did talk to Ms. Gundlach offline about the tree requirement for multi-family. The language states "Multi-family residential dwellings shall re- quire 1 canopy and 1 evergreen tree per two thousand (2,000) square feet of open area." Open area in the Code is not really defined anywhere. He thought for the benefit of future generations of staff and City Council, it might be helpful that the language is a little more clear. He suggested a parenthetical definition of what open area is to be inserted at that point. Ms. Gundlach thought it was discussed to insert language at line 838 to read"areas not covered by structures", after open area. The Council indicated that made sense. Councilmember Etten explained he talked with Ms.Gundlach about some language changes on Attachment A, page 30, to clarify what was going to qualify for that, add in for the five percent cap for EV additions and then there was the question about line 865 referring to "all new". Ms. Gundlach explained staff has looked at that and she was going to start with the five percent. Lines 875 to 880 are the requirements that are talked about. This is the exemptions where providing the electrical vehicle charging exceeds five percent of the total project costs an exemption can be asked for or a reduction. She believed Councilmember Etten's concern was it is what is included in the five percent, not just providing the charging equipment but for meeting the readiness requirement, which is providing the power source but not the charging equipment. The intent of the ordinance was that the five percent of the total project costs was both the charg- ing equipment and the power for the ready stalls. She believed Councilmember Etten was correct, the way lines 875-880 are worded, it maybe is not entirely true to say that. Staff thought it could be reworded to say "when the costs of meeting the requirements of this section would exceed five percent of the total project costs the property owner/applicant may request a reduction in the requirements and sub- mit cost estimates for City consideration. When City Council approval of a project is not required,the Community Development Department may administratively ap- prove a reduction to the requirement in order to limit the installation costs to not more than five percent." Right now the language uses the EVCS and that is only really referring to the charging equipment. The use of that acronym can be elimi- nated and just refer to it as requirements and she thought that would cover every- thing. Councilmember Etten thought that would work and help a lot.