CCP 05042026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment 2 41 Ms. Gundlach noted that while the City could revise the ordinance rather than grant 42 variances, doing so could delay projects as staff studies potential changes. She stated that 43 relying on the variance process allows projects to move forward in the short term while the 44 City gathers information to inform future adjustments. 45 Member Campbell Jensen commented on the growth of electric vehicle adoption, noting that 46 Minnesota has seen an increase from approximately 2.3% to 8% in recent years, with 47 national figures around 10%. She stated that, given these trends, she found the proposed 48 reduction in ordinance requirements significant and expressed concern that the reduced 49 number of charging spaces may not adequately meet future demand. 50 Member Campbell Jensen indicated that, in her view, a percentage closer to 10% of parking 51 capacity would be more appropriate, particularly for a site with multiple shifts, where 52 employees may need to charge vehicles during the workday. She acknowledged the 53 importance of supporting business development but emphasized the need to balance that with 54 long-term infrastructure needs. 55 Member Campbell Jensen also noted limitations in alternative transportation options in the 56 area, stating that public transit access is limited and that walking or biking may not be 57 practical for many people, particularly during winter months. 58 Chair Aspnes stated that she has some reservations about the proposal, noting that the 59 ordinance imposes a higher requirement than the applicant is requesting. She referenced a 60 discussion in the presentation about potential future expansion and asked whether it referred 61 to adding more active charging stations over time. 62 Chair Aspnes indicated her understanding that the proposal includes a smaller number of 63 installed charging stations, with additional infrastructure in place to allow more units to be 64 brought online later, and sought confirmation that this interpretation was correct. 65 Mr. Paschke clarified that the proposal does not include plans to add additional electrical 66 service equipment beyond what has been proposed for the site. 67 Chair Aspnes asked whether the total number of electric vehicle charging-related spaces 68 would be capped at 30 under the proposal. She also asked who would determine when the 69 additional 22 pre-wired spaces would be activated, given the ordinance's current structure. 70 Mr. Paschke explained that the property owner or operator would decide whether to activate 71 additional charging stations. He noted that as demand increases, they would install additional 72 charging stations using the pre-wired infrastructure. 73 Chair Aspnes sought confirmation that the decision to install additional charging stations 74 would be within the applicant's control. 75 Mr. Paschke confirmed that, as a private business, the applicant would control when 76 additional charging stations are installed. He explained that if employee demand increases, 77 the applicant could add more chargers using the pre-installed infrastructure to bring 78 additional stations online. 79 Chair Aspnes stated that the proposal includes eight active charging stations with the 80 potential for 22 additional units. Still, they noted that those additional stations may never be 81 installed, and asked for confirmation of that understanding. Qbhf!43!pg!299