Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 04 11

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 8, 2024 Page 8 of 11 Choi said that getting the number of spaces as right as possible was a worthwhile effort. He added that a percentage based application of the code could be very difficult to meet, and that Xcel's electricity infrastructure remained an impediment. He said that he also did not see where in the proposed code it said that this was a minimum, and that this would be an important clarification to make. Zuccaro said that state code included credit for the other categories for developers that went above the levels required in the code, however he did not include this in the draft ordinance for simplicity. Choi said that this credit language could be very useful for economies of scale in the construction process. Zuccaro said that staff would interpret this as a minimum code, and that staff would not prohibit developers from going beyond it. Mihaly thought that it would be advantageous to allow developers to trade lower tiers of EV spaces for more EV installed spaces. Zuccaro said that they could add language that said that requirements EV capable light, EV capable spaces, etcetera, could be offset by having additional higher tier spaces installed. Brauneis said that he was reconsidering his earlier position and suggested that multi- family occupancies with less than 10 spaces could be increased from 0 to 5%. He said he was in support of conditions for the level 2 chargers and allowing for developers to "trade up" their charger levels. Moline said that he was in support, and that he found the discussion very helpful. Choi said that he did not see value in keeping the EV capable category given presence of the new EV capable light category. He felt that the allocated circuits for EV capable spaces could easily be misused or reused inappropriately for other things like household appliances. Brauneis said that since the code used the state's model language, this would be tested out across the state. Zuccaro said that the value of requiring the circuit panel space was that this was the most cost prohibitive part of upgrading a parking space, and that he felt it was unlikely to be misused. He noted that the definition of EV capable could be changed to require that the intended use of the circuit space be labeled as "reserved for future". Brauneis wondered whether this would be sufficient to stop people from misusing the panel. Zuccaro said that there were scenarios where people could try and get around the code, but he felt that they should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Mihaly said that he wanted the City to be in line with nearby communities, and this was a good step to achieving that. He initially had concerns about whether this would apply to vacant big box stores but was relieved that it would only apply to renovation that included an expansion. He was in support of the proposal. Choi said that he was in support with the proposed conditions. 10