## Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, August 5, 2026 ## 6:30 PM ## City Council Chambers In accordance with Minnesota Statutes §13D.02 and City policy, Council and Commission members may attend meetings remotely up to three times per calendar year. (Times listed are approximate – please note that items may be earlier or later than listed on the agenda) 1. Call to Order ## 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda ## 4. Public Comment ## 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. Review of July 1, 2026 Minutes 6. Communications and Recognitions ## 7. Public Hearing 8. Business ## 9. Commission Direction on Member Initiated Agenda Items a. Evaluate Roseville's EVCS and EVSE (electric vehicle charging) requirements for new parking areas — Commissioner Cyra 10. Adjourn Page 1 of 12 ## REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION Date: 8/5/2026 Item No.: 5.a. ## Department Approval Agenda Section ## Approval of Meeting Minutes ## Item Description: Review of July 1, 2026 Minutes Page 1 of 1 1 2Application Information 3n/a 4 5Background 6n/a 7 8Staff Recommendation 9n/a 10 ## 11Requested Planning Commission Action 12Review the July 1, 2026 minutes and make a motion to approve subject to requested corrections. 13 14Alternative Actions 15n/a 16 Prepared by: ## Attachments: 1. July 1, 2026 Minutes 17 Page 2 of 12 ## Planning Commission Regular Meeting ## City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Draft Minutes – Wednesday, July 1, 2026 – 6:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 1 Chair Bjorum called to order the regular meeting of the Planning Commission meeting at 2 approximately 6:30 p.m. and reviewed the role and purpose of the Planning Commission. 3 4 2. Roll Call 5 At the request of Chair Bjorum, City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. 6 7 Members Present: Chair Erik Bjorum and Commissioners Steve Cyra, Allison 8 ## Campbell Jensen, Rose Lindsay, Erin Lynch, and Ben Schaefer 9 10 ## Members Absent: Vice-Chair Pamela Aspnes 11 12 ## Staff Present: City Planner Thomas Paschke, Community Development Director 13 ## Janice Gundlach, and Sustainability Specialist Noel Bakken 14 15 3. Approve Agenda 16 17 ## MOTION 18 Member Lindsay moved, seconded by Member Campbell Jensen, to approve the 19 agenda as presented. 20 21 Ayes: 6 22 Nays: 0 23 Motion carried. 24 25 4. Public Comment 26 27 5. Review of Minutes 28 29 ## a. May 6, 2026, Planning Commission Regular Meeting 30 31 ## MOTION 32 Member Schaefer moved, seconded by Member Cyra, to approve the May 6, 33 2026, meeting minutes. 34 35 Ayes: 6 36 Nays: 0 37 Motion carried. 38 39 6. Communications and Recognitions: 40 41 Page 3 of 12 ## Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 1, 2026 Page 2 7. Public Hearing 42 43 8. Business 44 45 ## 9. Commission Direction on Commission Member Initiated Agenda Items 46 47 a. Evaluate Roseville’s EVCS and EVSE (Electric Vehicle Charging) Requirements 48 ## for New Parking Areas – Commissioner Cyra 49 50 Sustainability Specialist Noel Bakken presented an overview of Roseville's existing 51 electric vehicle charging ordinance and explained why staff believed it was an 52 appropriate time to evaluate whether revisions were warranted. 53 54 Ms. Bakken reviewed the ordinance's history, explaining that it was developed during the 55 City's Phase Two Zoning Code Update process. While the first phase of the zoning update 56 focused primarily on implementing the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the second 57 phase included sustainability initiatives identified by the Planning Commission and City 58 Council. Because transportation is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, 59 staff determined that encouraging electric vehicle infrastructure aligned with the City's 60 long-term sustainability objectives. 61 62 City Planner Thomas Paschke evaluated ordinances adopted by comparable Minnesota 63 communities, including St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, Edina, and guidance prepared by the 64 Great Plains Institute. Based on that research, Roseville adopted its ordinance in 2023 65 requiring electric vehicle charging infrastructure in larger parking lots associated with 66 new development and major redevelopment projects. 67 68 Ms. Bakken summarized the City's current requirements. Parking lots containing fewer 69 than 30 spaces are exempt from the ordinance. Larger commercial developments are 70 generally required to provide electric vehicle charging stations equal to approximately 71 5% of the parking supply. In contrast, multifamily residential developments have separate 72 requirements that emphasize Level 1 charging for overnight use. Residential charging 73 requirements recognize that residents typically leave vehicles parked for extended 74 periods, making slower, more practical charging necessary. In contrast, commercial 75 developments require Level 2 charging to serve customers and employees during shorter 76 visits. 77 78 Ms. Bakken explained that since the ordinance became effective, only two developments 79 have been subject to charging requirements. Both developments ultimately requested and 80 received variances, reducing the number of charging stations required. Those variance 81 requests prompted staff to revisit the ordinance to determine whether adjustments may be 82 appropriate before additional projects move forward. 83 84 Ms. Bakken then reviewed anticipated changes to the Minnesota State Building Code. 85 The proposed code will establish statewide minimum electric vehicle charging 86 requirements for new developments. Unlike Roseville's ordinance, the proposed state 87 standards distinguish among installed charging stations, EV-ready spaces with conduit 88 Page 4 of 12 ## Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 1, 2026 Page 3 and wiring already in place, and EV-capable spaces that reserve future electrical capacity 89 for charging equipment. 90 91 Ms. Bakken acknowledged that the proposed state terminology has generated questions 92 throughout Minnesota, including among electrical inspectors and municipal staff. She 93 explained that staff contacted state building officials directly to obtain clarification 94 regarding the new definitions and confirmed that the proposed requirements remain under 95 consideration. 96 97 Mr. Paschke also compared Roseville's ordinance with those of Minneapolis, St. Louis 98 Park, and Edina. While Roseville's commercial requirements are generally consistent 99 with those of comparable communities, the City's residential requirements exceed those 100 of the State Building Code. Because state law prohibits municipalities from enforcing 101 building standards more restrictive than the State Building Code, Roseville will 102 eventually need to revise or repeal portions of its ordinance once the state requirements 103 take effect. 104 105 Ms. Bakken presented several possible options for commission consideration. Staff could 106 continue researching the issue, prepare an ordinance amendment to reduce the 107 commercial charging requirement for employment-based developments from 5% to 3%, 108 or wait until the State Building Code is finalized before recommending revisions. 109 110 Ms. Bakken concluded by noting that transportation currently accounts for approximately 111 48 percent of Roseville's greenhouse gas emissions. The City's Climate Equity Action 112 Plan establishes a goal of reducing transportation emissions by 57 percent by 2036 while 113 increasing electric vehicle ownership from approximately 1.6 percent of all registered 114 vehicles to 15 percent. She emphasized that, regardless of any modifications that may 115 eventually be made to the ordinance, encouraging electric vehicle charging infrastructure 116 continues to support the City's adopted sustainability goals. 117 118 Commissioner Campbell Jensen thanked staff for the extensive research and commented 119 that the presentation provided valuable background regarding both the City's existing 120 ordinance and anticipated state requirements. She asked staff to clarify the distinction 121 between employment-based developments and traditional commercial developments to 122 better understand how the proposed three percent requirement would be applied. 123 124 Ms. Bakken explained that the discussion primarily involved office and employment 125 campuses where parking facilities are used almost exclusively by employees throughout 126 the workday. Those developments differ significantly from retail centers where customers 127 arrive and depart throughout the day, creating much different charging patterns and 128 infrastructure needs. She explained that the proposal was intended to recognize those 129 operational differences while still encouraging electric vehicle charging. 130 131 Commissioner Lynch asked about the anticipated timeline for implementation of the new 132 State Building Code and whether Roseville needed to act immediately. 133 134 Page 5 of 12 ## Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 1, 2026 Page 4 Community Development Director Janice Gundlach explained that the revised building 135 code is expected to take effect sometime in 2027. As with other building code revisions, 136 the state typically provides an educational period before strict enforcement begins. She 137 reminded the commission that municipalities cannot maintain standards that are more 138 restrictive than the State Building Code. Once the new requirements become effective, 139 Roseville will be required to amend or repeal portions of its ordinance to remain 140 consistent with state law. 141 142 Ms. Bakken added that some Minnesota communities are evaluating alternative 143 approaches that rely on development incentives rather than mandatory requirements. 144 Under those programs, developers could receive flexibility in areas such as setbacks or 145 building height in exchange for voluntarily providing additional sustainability 146 improvements, including electric vehicle charging infrastructure or solar energy systems. 147 148 Commissioner Lindsay questioned whether reducing Roseville's commercial charging 149 requirement from five percent to three percent would have prevented either of the two 150 recent variance requests. 151 152 Ms. Bakken explained that both developments would likely have continued seeking 153 variances because each request involved unique circumstances, rather than simply 154 objecting to the required percentage. One development proposed installing fewer 155 charging stations but providing faster Level 3 chargers that would better serve public 156 users. Another employment-based development demonstrated that projected employee 157 demand did not justify the number of charging stations required under the ordinance. 158 159 Ms. Gundlach further explained that the Dick's Sporting Goods variance involved a retail 160 development, meaning the proposed three percent reduction for employment 161 developments would not have applied. She emphasized that the two variance requests 162 were fundamentally different and were evaluated independently based on their individual 163 circumstances. 164 165 The commission discussed whether reducing the required percentage would eliminate 166 future variance requests or merely reduce their magnitude. Several commissioners 167 observed that developers would likely continue to request variances whenever they 168 believed site-specific conditions justified a different approach. 169 170 Commissioner Lindsay questioned whether creating a separate employment-based 171 classification could unnecessarily complicate the ordinance by introducing additional 172 definitions that might be difficult to administer consistently. 173 174 Ms. Bakken acknowledged that clearer terminology would likely be necessary if the 175 commission chose to pursue that option. 176 177 Ms. Gundlach agreed, explaining that Roseville's Comprehensive Plan already 178 distinguishes employment districts from traditional commercial districts. If the 179 commission wished to proceed, staff could develop language that more accurately 180 reflected those distinctions rather than relying on the phrase "private commercial." 181 Page 6 of 12 ## Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 1, 2026 Page 5 The discussion then shifted toward the variance process itself. 182 183 Ms. Gundlach explained that applicants requesting variances must demonstrate practical 184 difficulties associated with complying with the ordinance. Simply preferring fewer 185 charging stations is not sufficient. Applicants are expected to provide evidence supporting 186 their request, including parking demand studies, operational data, or other documentation 187 demonstrating why the ordinance creates unique hardships for a particular development. 188 189 The commission agreed that this process encourages thoughtful discussion regarding each 190 project's actual charging needs rather than relying solely on numerical requirements. 191 They also discussed how quickly an ordinance amendment could be completed if 192 modifications were desired. 193 194 Ms. Gundlach explained that staff could prepare a zoning text amendment relatively 195 quickly. Following a public hearing before the Planning Commission, the amendment 196 would proceed to the City Council before becoming effective after publication. She 197 estimated that revisions could become effective as early as September if directed by the 198 commission. She also advised the commission that several employment-based 199 developments are currently undergoing review. At least one project may seek a variance 200 if the current five percent requirement remains unchanged. 201 202 Commissioner Campbell Jensen commented that reducing the requirement to 3% could 203 provide a reasonable bridge until the State Building Code becomes effective, while also 204 creating greater consistency for projects currently under review. 205 206 Some of the commissioners began considering whether modifying the ordinance's 207 existing cost exception might provide a more effective solution. 208 209 Ms. Gundlach reminded the commission that the ordinance currently includes an 210 exception that allows flexibility when compliance costs exceed 5% of the total project 211 cost. She explained that recent variance requests have shown that the greatest expense 212 often lies in electrical infrastructure rather than the charging stations themselves. 213 214 Ms. Bakken agreed, explaining that the charging equipment itself represents only a small 215 portion of the total installation cost. The necessary electrical infrastructure, transformers, 216 switches, and utility improvements often account for the majority of project expenses. 217 218 Several commissioners indicated they preferred exploring modifications to the existing 219 cost exception rather than lowering the required percentage of charging stations. 220 221 Commissioner Campbell Jensen observed that modifying the cost exception could 222 maintain the City's commitment to sustainability while recognizing that infrastructure 223 costs vary significantly between developments. 224 225 Commissioner Lindsay agreed that refining the exception would avoid creating additional 226 classifications while preserving flexibility for projects experiencing unusually high 227 installation costs. 228 Page 7 of 12 ## Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 1, 2026 Page 6 229 Ms. Bakken cautioned against selecting a new cost threshold without first consulting 230 developers, architects, and other industry professionals. 231 232 Mr. Paschke indicated that staff would prefer to gather additional information before 233 recommending any revisions to the existing exception. 234 235 The commission also discussed whether infrastructure costs vary depending on the 236 availability of electrical service throughout the city. 237 238 Ms. Gundlach explained that Roseville's commercial districts generally have sufficient 239 electrical capacity because the community is fully developed. However, the cost of 240 delivering additional electrical service to individual developments can vary considerably 241 depending on the equipment required and site-specific conditions. 242 243 As the discussion continued, commissioners reflected on the ordinance's overall purpose 244 rather than focusing solely on numerical requirements. 245 246 ## Commissioner Campbell Jensen emphasized that Roseville's Comprehensive Plan 247 encourages long-term sustainability and that electric vehicle charging infrastructure will 248 become increasingly important as vehicle technology continues to evolve. She 249 commented that charging infrastructure should be viewed similarly to other essential 250 building systems that require long-term investment. 251 252 Ms. Bakken agreed, explaining that although federal tax incentives have been reduced, 253 staff expect electric vehicle ownership to continue increasing as used electric vehicles 254 become more widely available and affordable. She believes the long-term demand for 255 charging infrastructure will continue growing regardless of short-term market 256 fluctuations. 257 258 Several commissioners observed that the previous variance requests had already 259 prompted constructive discussions and, in some instances, led to improved charging 260 infrastructure. Rather than simply reducing requirements, the variance process 261 encouraged developers to justify their requests while allowing the commission to 262 evaluate the merits of each proposal individually. 263 264 Ms. Gundlach suggested that staff further evaluate modifications to the ordinance's cost 265 exception rather than immediately reducing the required percentage of charging stations. 266 Staff also intends to consult with developers, architects, and other municipalities to 267 determine whether alternative exception language may better address unusually high 268 infrastructure costs while preserving the City's sustainability goals. 269 270 The commission expressed general agreement with that approach. Rather than pursuing 271 an immediate ordinance amendment to reduce charging requirements, the commission 272 reached consensus directing staff to continue researching potential revisions to the cost-273 based exception and to return with additional recommendations at a future meeting. 274 275 Page 8 of 12 ## Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 1, 2026 Page 7 10. Adjourn 276 277 ## MOTION 278 Member Lynch, seconded by Member Cyra, to adjourn the meeting at 7:36 p.m. 279 280 Ayes: 6 281 Nays: 0 282 Motion carried. 283 284 285 Page 9 of 12 ## REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION Date: 8/5/2026 Item No.: 9.a. ## Department Approval Agenda Section ## Commission Direction on Member ## Initiated Agenda Items Item Description: Evaluate Roseville's EVCS and EVSE (electric vehicle charging) requirements for new parking areas — Commissioner Cyra Page 1 of 2 1 2Application Information 3Not applicable. This is a city-initiated request. 4 5Background 6The City of Roseville adopted an ordinance requiring electric vehicle charging on March 20, 2023 as part 7of the phase 2 zoning code update. This project was aided by consulting services with HKGi. 8 9Since adoption, two developments sought and received variances to reduce the requirements of the 10ordinance. 11 12Commissioner Cyra brought this item forward for discussion during the May 6, 2026 Planning 13Commission meeting, with a majority of commissioners voting to evaluate the ordinance to determine if 14changes were necessary. At the July 1, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, city staff followed up with 15initial research requested by commissioners. This included information on the general use of electric 16vehicles, relevant goals from Roseville's recently adopted Climate Equity Action Plan, a review of other 17City ordinances, and forthcoming Department of Labor and Industry requirements. 18 19After discussion, the Commission determined that Roseville's requirements, specifically pertaining to 20private commercial developments, were not greatly out of line in comparison to other cities or the 21requirements the Department of Labor and Industry intends to impose with the upcoming Building Code 22update. The commission further questioned whether amending Roseville's regulations was worth the 23effort given the Department of Labor and Industry's requirements, once adopted, will supersede 24Roseville's. However, there was concern the variance process may not be the most viable interim 25solution, as a year or more could pass before the new Building Code is enacted and enforced. So as 26not to expend considerable effort on further research and amendment of the current charging 27requirements, staff suggested amending the current language that provides for an exemption. There 28was consensus amongst the commission that this was a viable option and directed staff to bring forward 29language for consideration. 30 31Given the commission discussion surrounding exemptions, and feedback from one of the variance 32recipients, staff is suggesting broadening the exemption language to include a second condition 33regarding electrical capacity. Additionally, staff would suggest lowering the existing project cost 34exemption. Because staff is not an expert in commercial project costs or electrical capacity, we reached 35out to three different developers/contractors who are currently working on projects in the City for 36feedback on these two exemption options. As of the writing of this report, we had not gotten their 37feedback, although we are expecting responses from at least two of the three. In an effort to continue 38moving forward, staff drafted amended exemption language to compare against the existing ordinance 39(see Attachment 1), but left out the details we await feedback on. 40 Page 10 of 12 Page 2 of 2 41Regarding the proposed exemption language in Attachment 1, staff offers the following additional 42information: 43• While most of the concern centered on electric vehicle charging requirements for private 44commercial developments, the proposed language does not make any distinction on use. After 45some thought, staff isn't entirely certain this is necessary as the existing exemption language did 46not factor in the use. Additionally, staff suspects a project requiring at least 30 parking stalls 47(triggering electric vehicle charging), and which is a use serving the public, would likely not meet 48the project cost or electrical capacity exemption anyway. The one variance granted that served 49the public (Dick's Sporting Goods) was an anomaly and one the City was backed into given 50Rosedale made commitments to Dick's before the City's ordinance was enacted and they felt 51blindsided by the added cost so late in their negotiation. 52• The exemption language already gives staff the ability to approve a reduction when the project 53does not otherwise require City Council approval. However, staff feels additional language was 54needed that would require supporting documentation to help determine the level of 55reduction. As drafted, this could be used for either administrative approval or a City Council 56approval if one is necessary. 57• The exemption language proposed explicitly states a project can not be completely absolved of 58electric vehicle charging. 59 60At this time, staff is requesting the commission review the conceptual draft exemption language provided 61in Attachment 1 and offer feedback. Once developer/contractor feedback is received, staff will 62incorporate that, along with any commission feedback, into a formal ordinance for consideration at an 63upcoming meeting. 64 65Staff Recommendation 66Review the information contained herein and offer feedback. 67 ## 68Requested Planning Commission Action 69Review the information contained herein and offer feedback. 70 71Alternative Actions 72Since this is a City-initiated item, no action is required. 73 Prepared by: ## Janice Gundlach, Community Development Director ## Attachments: ## 1. Draft Ordinance Language 74 Page 11 of 12 ## ATTACHMENT 1 1Section 1013.04. – Minimum parking spaces and electric vehicle charging requirements. ## 2(d) Electric Vehicle Charging Standards 3 ## 4EXISTING 5(3) Reductions to EVSE and EVCS requirements. When the cost of meeting the requirements 6of this section would exceed five percent of the total project cost, the property owner or 7applicant may request a reduction in the requirements and submit cost estimates for city 8consideration. When City Council approval of the project is not required, the Community 9Development Department may administratively approve a reduction to the requirements 10in order to limit the installation costs to not more than five percent of the total project 11cost. 12 ## 13PROPOSED 14(3) Reductions to EVSE and EVCS requirements. Reductions to EVSE and/or EVCS 15requirements may be granted when at least one of the following is met: 16a. When the cost of meeting the requirements of this section would exceed 17(something less than five) percent of the total project cost. 18b. When the amount of electrical capacity needed to meet the requirements of this 19section would exceed ___ of the total amount of electrical capacity needed for the 20project. 21To request a reduction in the EVSE and/or EVCS requirements, the property owner or project 22applicant shall submit evidence to the City confirming eligibility under this section. When 23City Council approval of the project is not required, the Community Development 24Department may administratively approve the reduction to EVSE and/or EVCS requirements 25when eligible under this section. Supporting documentation to determine the level of 26reduction may be required, but under no circumstance shall reductions approved by the City 27Council or Community Development Department result in complete elimination of EVSE 28and/or EVCS parking spaces and/or equipment for projects that would otherwise be subject 29to the requirements in Section 1013.04 (d). 30 Page 12 of 12