Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes <br />July 15, 2025 <br />Page 3 <br />1 Commissioner Erickson noted Roseville is different because they are heavy commercial, and <br />2 he does not see it attracting more commercial businesses. <br />3 <br />4 Chair Socha noted this is what the City Council has in mind, and the Commission needs to <br />5 vote yes or no for the recommendation. This is the most logical thing to do. If anyone wants to <br />6 give a succinct statement before the vote, a succinct statement about what they would like to <br />7 see differently, the City Council can have that statement for consideration. <br />8 <br />9 Commissioner Erickson stated he would like to see a change that would be to exclude <br />10 commercial with no requirement for commercial. This is based on comments from the last <br />11 Planning Commission Meeting. It is not the expectation of EV users to be able to charge their <br />12 vehicle at most commercial businesses. St. Anthony has a bit of a problem in attracting <br />13 commercial business, and this requirement may make that even more difficult. <br />14 <br />15 Commissioner Anderson stated she is supportive, but would be more supportive if the <br />16 requirements for the 10 to 29 spaces were removed. It would mirror Roseville’s ordinance. <br />17 The Level 1 chargers are more appropriate in homes. It does not seem efficient to offer Level <br />18 1 chargers except in a residential area. <br />19 <br />20 Commissioner Hark stated she appreciates the City’s effort in going toward a more <br />21 sustainable ordinance; however, she believes that anywhere Level 1 is mentioned, it should be <br />22 elevated to Level 2. It would be more cost-efficient for a developer to install Level 1, but the <br />23 return on the user is not high. She wants to be able to see an EV charger, so screening would <br />24 not be required. They are not unsightly and should be able to be seen if they are installed on <br />25 commercial properties. She wants to make sure the development agreement states we don’t <br />26 want the developers to be able to install the chargers later and come back, and they should be <br />27 held to that. They should not be granted a waiver. <br />28 <br />29 Commissioner Mayne stated he would not support the ordinance as written with the <br />30 requirement for Commercial non-residential. That is not needed and could be viewed as a <br />31 burden. With the charging technology changing constantly, we should not lock into Level 1 or <br />32 Level 2. An alternative language would be to use EV Ready. <br />33 <br />34 Chair Socha stated that generally, she loves the idea of EV chargers and the sustainability <br />35 benefits, and it should be encouraged. She can’t support it in its current fashion due to the <br />36 concerns previously mentioned. The statement of a reconstructed parking lot could drive away <br />37 development. She would be fine with high-residential and new commercial construction, and <br />38 possibly reconstructed parking lots with a broader exception. <br />39 <br />40 Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Morita, to recommend the <br />41 City Council approve Ordinance 2025-0X, an Ordinance Amending Section 154.179 of the <br />42 City Code to Provide for Regulations Related to Electric Vehicle Charging Requirements. <br />43 <br />44 Motion carried 3-3 (Socha, Erickson, Morita). <br />45 <br />B.46 Short Term Rental Update.