Laserfiche WebLink
Parks and Environmental Commission Regular Meeting Minutes <br />May 21, 2025 <br />Page 3 <br />1.1 Incentives to encourage – but not require – EV charging installation. <br />2.2 Requirements for installing infrastructure (such as power supply and site plan <br />3 provisions, but forgoing installation of chargers until a future date. The future date <br />4 sometimes relates to a fixed period, or a time at the owner’s discretion. <br />3.5 Requirements for installing EV charging facilities as a component of new or upgraded <br />6 development. These requirements often create a tiered standard for the number of <br />7 charging facilities based on the size of the project. <br />8 <br />9 During the work session, the City Council agreed to focus on option 3 – requirements for <br />10 installing EV charging facilities as a component of new or upgraded development. Staff <br />11 agreed to draft the ordinance language for this option for Commission and Council review. <br />12 Commission members are tasked with reviewing the ordinance language and providing <br />13 feedback. <br />14 <br />15 Mr. Grittman stated that research was done on both Roseville and New Brighton’s models. <br />16 Both Roseville and New Brighton establish a basic threshold of 30 spaces as the lower <br />17 threshold for requiring EV Charging. Below that size, no requirement would be applicable. <br />18 Additionally, both communities exempt certain levels of parking lot maintenance from <br />19 triggering the addition of EV charging – essentially, only full reconstruction or major patching <br />20 project (25% or more of the parking surface) would require a retrofit with EV charging <br />21 facilities. <br />22 <br />23 A new parking lot supporting a residential project of fewer than about 20 units would be <br />24 exempt. A parking lot supporting a new commercial development of about 8,000 sf or less <br />25 would also be exempt. These thresholds would typically require parking lots of fewer than 30 <br />26 vehicles. <br />27 <br />28 The one aspect of the comparison codes that raises a potential administrative issue is the <br />29 suggestion that a project may choose to only develop the electrical infrastructure for EV <br />30 charging, but without going the final step to provide the charging equipment. The language in <br />31 the code draft referring to that option is highlighted. The draft language is modified to create <br />32 some limitations around that choice by inserting a timing deferral for final construction. As <br />33 with any deferral of this sort, there is an administrative burden in tracking the deferral and <br />34 then enforcing the construction later. The alternative would be to disallow the option for <br />35 “electric infrastructure only”. This approach could be simpler to administer, although it would <br />36 offer less flexibility for the property owner. The draft creates a fixed percentage of charging <br />37 units, distinguishing between Level 1 and Level 2 requirements, based on land use (multi- <br />38 family residential vs commercial/industrial) and parking lot size (0-29 spaces, 30-49 spaces, <br />39 and 50+ spaces). This draft follows New Brighton’s structure, which is slightly less complex <br />40 than the Roseville model, although the two communities have comparable standards. <br />41 <br />42 Mr. Grittman noted the discussion items for Commission feedback: <br />43 What input does the Parks & Environmental Commission wish to provide after <br />44 reviewing the draft language of the EV Charging Ordinance?