PL PACKET 07152025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 17, 2025 Page 4 1 and there is not yet a standard. She noted the EV charging stations need to be proportionate to which 2 EV vehicles are actually being driven. 3 4 Commissioner Mayne stated that the State Building Code is written in a good way in EV Ready and 5 EV Capable. The focus should be on multi -family has the capability rather than commercial. 6 7 Commissioner Corneille stated he also has an EV. He has never charged outside his Level 1 home 8 charger. He is concerned this would be like the hitching post code that is still in the books. If 9 impractical requirements are set, we are adding cost to the City. This is contrary to the goal of 10 affordable housing. He feels this is impractical and contrary to the affordable housing goal we are 11 getting from the Council. 12 13 Chair Socha summarized that the Commission has reservations. She feels they need to pause to find 14 out what's happening on the State level. The 10-29 spaces with 1 charger at Level 1 or greater were 15 not included in Roseville or New Brighton's code. She would like to know more about EV Ready and 16 EV Capable. The 10-29 spaces portion gives her pause. 17 18 Commissioner Erickson stated he would support there being some sort of requirement for residential 19 properties, excluding the 10-29 spaces requirement based on comments by Commissioner Corneille 20 about it not being practical, along with no requirement for Commercial properties. 21 22 Mr. Paul White, 3201 32" d Avenue NE, stated he has experience with EV chargers. There is a study 23 looking at Commercial properties that have put in Level 2 and 3 chargers and the payback. The report 24 shows a 10-fold payback for the Commercial businesses that funded the chargers. He also has an EV. 25 Mr. White will send the link to the report to Mr. Grittman. 26 27 Commissioner Mayne stated he struggles with going forward at all. The Ruby did voluntarily put EV 28 Chargers in their parking garage for their residents. Level 1 and 2 chargers are useful in homes. He 29 would support an EV-ready requirement for multi -family dwellings. He does not believe this has a 30 place for non-residential. The State's requirement is only for new construction. 31 32 Commissioner Corneille stated that a building may not have efficient electricity to provide a charger, 33 and the cost for upgrading would be substantial. There are a lot of unintended consequences that 34 could occur. 35 36 Chair Socha stated they had to upgrade their electricity for their Level 2 charger. She asked if a multi- 37 family building could request a hardship waiver when upgrading its parking lot. Mr. Grittman stated 38 that it would be a difficult variance to prove. A conditional use permit threshold could be 39 implemented. 40 41 Commissioner Corneille stated he put electrical service to a parking lot of a business he owns, and the 42 cost was $35,000 to provide 100 amp service to the parking lot without the receptacles. This does not 43 address a need; it is an amenity that is the responsibility of the building owner. This would put a 44 bunch of infrastructure that will be obsolete in the next 5 years. We do not know how EVs will look 45 over the next decade. There are cost implications when upgrading parking lots. If we want to 46 encourage this, we should require level 2 chargers in any new single-family construction. The focus