Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />September 9, 2021 <br />Page 2of6 <br />encourage EV and take away barriers. Ritchie noted that EV was cheaper to install <br />during construction as opposed to during retrofitting. She described the three different <br />categories of requirements: "installed," "ready," and "capable" spaces. Ready and <br />capable spaces would not have a City trigger but were more for the purpose of reducing <br />barriers to EV in the future. The only category that would achieve EV readiness on day <br />one was "installed." Ritchie also described the EV approaches of neighboring cities, <br />stating that this proposal was in line with neighboring codes and went a bit further. She <br />noted that there were standards relevant to ADA, public and private use, and service <br />fees in the proposed changes. <br />Dietrich asked about the difference among residential requirements and stated that <br />residential should be treated similarly regardless of whether it was single- or multi- <br />family. <br />Hoefner asked about charging for e-bikes. <br />Ritchie replied that e-bike usage was allowed by code but these changes did not <br />address e-bikes. <br />Hoefner stated that it was a sensible idea overall, with the caveat that tech changes <br />quickly and he did not want to lock people into tech that would be rapidly out of date. He <br />was more in favor of putting in ready and capable spaces than choosing winners and <br />losers of charging tech. <br />Williams asked what would happen with shared parking. <br />Ritchie responded that multi -tenant buildings would look at the PUD collectively with <br />some discretion in the language to determine the right number of stations if it was <br />unclear within the tiers of uses. She did not know that they could make improvements <br />on an adjacent property owner without their permission and stated that staff would have <br />to work on that language. <br />Williams stated that she was thinking about square footage of different uses and noted <br />that street parking and day/night usages issues would make the right number of stations <br />harder to determine. She asked about tying the number to the size of the development. <br />Ritchie replied that staff would work with developers to prorate the use percentage to <br />match the requirement with the proposed uses for a development. <br />Williams stated that she supported codifying a process for how to arrive at the numbers <br />for mixed -use development. <br />Diehl asked for how this would apply to a place like Dakota Ridge. <br />Ritchie stated that for a multi -family property there would be designated parking spaces, <br />e.g. a garage would have an EV requirement of one ready and one capable. Cases with <br />surface lots, without designated spaces, would fall under the 10% threshold for the <br />ready option, unless someone elected to install more. She added that staff had tried to <br />determine the status of EV now and the best estimate statewide was that around 3.5% <br />