Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 04 11

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 8, 2024 Page 7 of 11 Choi said that he had been thinking of this from the perspective of the chargers coming from a provider. Brauneis said that a provider would likely want the chargers to remain on so that they could continue to profit off them. Choi noted that Section 1, Part E, General Requirements 2B of the draft ordinance had a typo in it, as it was missing the word "that". Brauneis asked the Commissioners for their further thoughts on the quotas. Mihaly noted the challenge of scale, and that the difference between 8% and 10% for a big box store with much larger parking lot would be appreciable. He also said that he appreciated that the proposed code would bring Louisville into line with neighboring cities. Hunt said that there would be value in aligning with the state guidance as it would make it easier for developers. She added that they did not want to get too far ahead of demand, and that demand would hopefully take care of this in the future. Brauneis felt that the multi -occupancy buildings should have at least 1 EV installed space rather than the 0 in the proposed code. Moline asked whether Brauneis was meaning commercial R-2 buildings. Brauneis said that he was wondering about non-R-2 occupancies as well. Hunt felt that homes should stay at 0 as a charger could always be installed there later if it was EV ready. Moline asked to clarify whether Brauneis wanted to see at least 1 EV installed space at all commercial buildings. Brauneis said that he was not sure what the best approach would be, but that this should be a consideration. Zuccaro suggested that they could exchange 1 EV ready space, or a small percentage of EV ready spaces, for EV installed spaces. Brauneis said that he was not dead set on this. Bangs asked how many new builds would be built with less than 10 parking spaces. Zuccaro said that there would be very few. Brauneis said that this could be more applicable to buildings that are expanded by 25% or more. He noted that there could be more application of this to downtown than the McCaslin corridor. Mihaly asked how this code would be applied if a new building were constructed that utilized an existing parking lot. Zuccaro said that this would require its own PUD, and staff would evaluate it on an individual basis. They may require a carve -out from the existing parking lot. Bangs asked whether the City had a minimum number of parking spaces that were required for buildings. Zuccaro said yes. Bangs noted that the general consensus was that the proposed code required very few spaces. 0