CCP 05042026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment 2 237 Associated with the Proposed 125,400 Square Foot Medical Office, Research, and 238 Laboratory Facility at 2700 Snelling Avenue (PF26-005).” 239 Chair Aspnes stated that both the applicant and staff presented a reasonable case for 240 approving the variance, particularly given the unusually large size of the parking lot and the 241 employee-based nature of the site. She indicated that requiring the full number of charging 242 stations under the ordinance did not seem reasonable in this context and viewed the proposal 243 for eight initial stations, with the potential for 22 more, as a practical compromise and an 244 improvement over having none. 245 Chair Aspnes noted that broader concerns about the ordinance should be addressed through 246 future discussions with the Planning Commission and City Council, which would take time. 247 She encouraged the applicant to remain responsive to employee demand and consider 248 activating additional stations if needed. 249 Chair Aspnes asked if there was a second to the motion. There was not a second. 250 Ms. Gundlach stated that the motion failed for lack of a second. She noted that staff had 251 recommended approval of the variance and that, if the Commission intends to deny the 252 request, a motion should be made with clearly stated findings to support the denial for the 253 record. 254 MOTION 255 Member Cyra moved, seconded by Member Campbell Jensen, denying the variance 256 (PF26-005).” 257 Member Cyra stated that his reason for moving to deny the variance was that he does not 258 believe the request meets the five required criteria for approval. 259 Chair Aspnes asked whether the motion for denial should include more specific findings, 260 particularly identifying which criteria the request fails to meet. 261 Mr. Paschke indicated that it would be appropriate to specify which criteria are not being 262 met, so that the record clearly reflects the basis for denying the variance. 263 Member Cyra elaborated that, in his view, the proposal does not meet specific variance 264 criteria. He stated that, for the criterion related to unique circumstances, he does not believe 265 the property qualifies, as it is a new development and is not constrained in a way that would 266 prevent compliance with the code. 267 Member Cyra also stated that the proposal does not align with the zoning ordinance's intent, 268 noting that the ordinance clearly establishes requirements for electric vehicle charging 269 infrastructure that the request does not meet. 270 Ayes: 2 271 Nays: 1 (Aspnes) 272 Motion carried. 273 Chair Aspnes stated that the variance board's decision is final unless an appeal is filed within 274 10 days. She explained that the applicant may submit an appeal, or any Roseville property 275 owner may, and that it must be filed in writing with the City Manager by noon on April 13, 276 2026, to be heard by the City Council. Qbhf!48!pg!299