CCP 05042026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment 2 196 Mr. Paschke added that more information and case studies may now be available to help 197 refine the ordinance, but researching and implementing those changes would take time. 198 Chair Aspnes stated that when considering variance requests, she evaluates whether the 199 outcome will improve, worsen, or have no impact. She noted that, in this case, the proposal 200 would result in eight new charging stations where none currently exist, which she viewed as 201 a positive outcome. 202 Chair Aspnes added that there is also potential for 22 additional stations in the future if 203 demand increases, further supporting the proposal's benefits compared to having no charging 204 infrastructure at all. 205 Chair Aspnes opened and closed publiccomment at approximately 7:09p.m. 206 Member Cyra reviewed the variance criteria and stated that he agreed the proposal is 207 consistent with the comprehensive plan, represents a reasonable use of the property, and 208 would not alter the essential character of the locality. However, he expressed concern about 209 the criteria related to alignment with the zoning ordinance's intent and the presence of unique 210 circumstances. 211 Member Cyra indicated that the ordinance is relatively recent and clearly established, and 212 questioned whether it is appropriate for the variance board to apply it effectively. He 213 suggested that revisiting or modifying the ordinance would be more appropriately handled by 214 the Planning Commission and City Council. He also noted that, while denying the variance 215 could delay the project, the City has the option to reevaluate or revise the ordinance through 216 its formal legislative process. 217 Member Campbell Jensen added that, based on information she reviewed on the City of 218 Roseville website, the ordinance aligns with broader state-level actions. She noted that in 219 March 2023, the Minnesota State Legislature approved adding EV charging requirements to 220 the State Building Code for commercial and multifamily properties with on-site parking. She 221 indicated that, at the time, additional guidance from the Minnesota Department of Labor and 222 Industry was expected and suggested that more up-to-date information or research may now 223 be available to help inform future decisions regarding EV charging requirements. 224 Ms. Gundlach provided additional background, explaining that the City has been waiting for 225 the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry to release guidance on how EV charging 226 requirements may be incorporated into the State Building Code. She noted that a Technical 227 Advisory Committee has been convened to study the issue, but no final determinations have 228 been made. 229 Ms. Gundlach stated that any future recommendations from the state could be considered 230 when the city revisits its ordinance, with the Planning Commission leading that review and 231 staff providing technical support. 232 MOTION 233 Member Aspnes moved, adoption of Variance Board Resolution No. 179 (Attachment 234 5), entitled “A Table 1013.04-2. Minimum Number of Required Electric Vehicle 235 Charging Stations (EVCS) and §1013.04D2 D 1 Regarding the Required Number of 236 Electrical Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) Required for the 528-Stall Parking Lot Qbhf!47!pg!299