Laserfiche WebLink
Parks and Environmental Commission Regular Meeting Minutes <br />May 21, 2025 <br />Page 5 <br />1 requiring the infrastructure while attempting to incentivize installation. He would like to <br />2 explore the options for incentives because of the lack of future development. As we are not <br />3 seeing development in St. Anthony, going with Option 3 is a harsh move. <br />4 <br />5 Mr. Grittman stated that another division point in the code would be to apply this to multi- <br />6 family residential and not commercial. The thresholds for Commercial could be raised. <br />7 <br />8 Chair Fee asked Commissioner Hark if he wanted the infrastructure to be put in for future <br />9 implementation. Commissioner Hark stated Yes. When retrofitted after the cost would be <br />10 much higher. Commissioner Hark stated he would prefer Option 2 and try to explore <br />11 incentives for the installation of the EV chargers. <br />12 <br />13 Ms. Morello reviewed some of the City Council conversation regarding this matter and noted <br />14 they had selected the third option. She suggested that if there are additional considerations <br />15 from the PEC, they could be relayed to the City Council. <br />16 <br />17 Commissioner Synhavsky asked if the bulk of the cost is for the infrastructure, and <br />18 Commissioner Hark stated that it is correct. Commissioner Hark stated that commercial <br />19 projects are drawn to Roseville. St. Anthony is not thought of in that way. If we add more <br />20 burden, it may encourage potential developments to go elsewhere. Commissioner Synhavsky <br />21 stated she would like to see low-income housing and commercial development incentivized <br />22 for coming to St. Anthony. <br />23 <br />24 Commissioner Hark stated that the Level 1 chargers are very low-cost. <br />25 <br />26 Commissioner Swiontek stated she would like to see it sooner rather than wait for commercial <br />27 development to come to St. Anthony. <br />28 <br />29 Commissioner Peterson stated she would like to talk about having the residential requirement <br />30 for less than 30 parking spaces. She believes there is room to introduce some requirements for <br />31 current multi-family buildings. <br />32 <br />33 Ms. Saulog stated that the draft ordinance is written for new future developments or <br />34 reconstruction. There is no requirement for retrofits. There was limited discussion about EV <br />35 chargers in public facilities. <br />36 <br />37 Commissioner Hark suggested having no requirement for non-residential and a minimum <br />38 requirement for multi-family housing. Chair Fee stated the requirement has already been <br />39 determined by the City Council. Ms. Morello will note the comments received. <br />40 <br />41 Chair Fee stated the ultimate goal is to encourage EV cars over gasoline cars within the City. <br />42 More charging capabilities should be available throughout the City. Commissioner Hark <br />43 suggested adding a requirement for smaller multi-family buildings. <br />44 <br />45 Commissioner Peterson stated she would support some level of requirement for commercial <br />46 non-residential developments.