## Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, May 6, 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 April 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 11 ## REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION Date: 5/6/2026 Item No.: 5.a. ## Department Approval Agenda Section ## Approval of Meeting Minutes ## Item Description: Review of April 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 April 1, 2026 minutes and make a motion to approve subject to requested corrections. 13 14Alternative Actions 15n/a 16 Prepared by: ## Attachments: 1. April 1, 2026 Minutes 17 Page 2 of 11 ## Planning Commission Regular Meeting ## City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Draft Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 – 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 1 Chair Bjorum called to order the regular meeting of the Planning Commission at 2 approximately 5:30 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, Vice-Chair Pamela Aspnes, and 8 ## Commissioners Steve Cyra, Allison Campbell Jensen, Rose 9 ## Lindsay, Erin Lynch, and Ben Schaefer 10 11 ## Members Absent: None 12 13 ## Staff Present: City Planner Thomas Paschke, Community Development Director 14 ## Janice Gundlach, and Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd 15 16 3. Approve Agenda 17 18 ## MOTION 19 Member Aspnes moved, seconded by Member Cyra, to approve the agenda as 20 presented. 21 22 Ayes: 7 23 Nays: 0 24 Motion carried. 25 26 4. Public Comment 27 28 5. Review of Minutes 29 30 ## a. March 4, 2026, Planning Commission Regular Meeting 31 32 ## MOTION 33 Member Campbell Jensen moved, seconded by Member Cyra, to approve the 34 March 4, 2026, meeting minutes. 35 36 Ayes: 7 37 Nays: 0 38 Motion carried. 39 40 6. Communications and Recognitions: 41 Page 3 of 11 ## Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Page 2 42 a. Swear in New Members. 43 44 Chair Bjorum performed the Oath of Office on new Commission Members Rose 45 ## Lindsay and Ben Schaefer. 46 47 7. Public Hearing 48 49 8. Business 50 51 ## a. Annual Organizational Business 52 53 City Planner Paschke reported that, in accordance with City Code 201.03.A, each 54 advisory commission shall elect a chair and vice-chair from among its appointed 55 members for a term of one year, as well as appoint a member to serve on the Ethics 56 Commission. The Planning Commission shall also appoint three members and one 57 alternate to serve on the Variance Board. 58 59 ## MOTION 60 Member Aspnes, seconded by Member Cyra, to appoint Erik Bjorum as Chair 61 of the Planning Commission. 62 63 Ayes: 7 64 Nays: 0 65 Motion carried. 66 67 ## MOTION 68 Member Bjorum, seconded by Member Cyra, to appoint Pamela Aspnes as Vice-69 Chair of the Planning Commission. 70 71 Ayes: 7 72 Nays: 0 73 Motion carried. 74 75 Member Cyra indicated he wanted to be on the Variance Board. 76 77 Member Campbell Jensen also agreed to serve on the Variance Board. 78 79 Vice-Chair Aspnes asked to be on the Variance Board again and indicated she 80 would like to continue in the role of Chair. 81 82 Member Lynch agreed to serve as the alternate on the Variance Board. 83 84 Mr. Paschke noted that this did not require a motion because the Variance 85 Board selects its own Chair and Vice-Chair. 86 87 Member Lynch indicated she would like to volunteer for the Ethics Committee. 88 Page 4 of 11 ## Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Page 3 89 ## 9. Commission Direction on Commission Member-Initiated Agenda Items 90 91 Member Cyra indicated that he would like to add a member-initiated agenda item for the 92 next meeting to discuss Ordinance 10.13.04(d), which relates to minimum electric vehicle 93 charging station requirements for multi-family residential and non-residential buildings. 94 He explained that the request was prompted by a variance application reviewed that 95 evening and noted the topic would be worthwhile for further discussion. He also 96 encouraged commissioners, particularly newer members, to review the recording of the 97 variance board meeting for additional context. 98 99 Chair Bjorum asked staff if adding this item to the next meeting required a vote. 100 101 Ms. Gundlach explained that adding the item to the agenda does not require a vote. She 102 noted that Commissioner Cyra will prepare written materials for the next meeting, and at 103 that time, the Commission will review the information and formally vote on whether to 104 take further action. 105 106 10. Adjourn 107 108 ## MOTION 109 Member Aspnes, seconded by Member Campbell Jensen, to adjourn the meeting 110 at 5:41 p.m. 111 112 Ayes: 7 113 Nays: 0 114 Motion carried. 115 116 117 Page 5 of 11 ## REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION Date: 5/6/2026 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 1 1 2Application Information 3Applicant: n/a 4Location: n/a 5Application Submission: n/a 6City Action Deadline: n/a 7Zoning: n/a 8 9This is a commissioner-initiated item and is not subject to application and/or city action deadlines. 10 11Background 12At the April 1, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Cyra requested that the Commission 13evaluate the City's requirements for electric vehicle charging installations in conjunction with construction 14of new parking areas. In accordance with Roseville's City Council and Advisory Commission Rules of 15Procedure, upon the item/issue being presented by a Commissioner, the item is placed on the agenda 16for the next meeting, at which time the Commissioner provides preliminary materials for inclusion in the 17meeting packet (see Attachment 1). The Commission, upon review of this information, then provides 18staff direction as to whether, how, and when the agenda item will be taken up at a subsequent 19meeting. This must be done via motion. 20 21Staff Recommendation 22The Commission should vote on whether, how and when to initiate discussion surrounding the 23evaluation of the City's electric vehicle charging requirements for new parking areas, in service of 24possible amendment to the zoning code. 25 ## 26Requested Planning Commission Action 27The Commission should vote on whether, how and when to initiate discussion surrounding the 28evaluation of the City's electric vehicle charging requirements for new parking areas, in service of 29possible amendment to the zoning code. 30 31Alternative Actions 32A lack of a motion would result in the item not coming forward for discussion. 33 Prepared by: ## Janice Gundlach, Community Development Director ## Attachments: 1. Commissioner Cyra discussion materials 34 Page 6 of 11 ## MEMORANDUM ## To: Roseville Planning Commission ## From: Commissioner Steve Cyra Date: April 9, 2026 Subject: Considerations for the future direction of Roseville’s non- residential parking lot EV charging policy. ## Recommended Action: Commence Planning Commission evaluation of ## Roseville’s EVCS and EVSE requirements for new parking areas (code section 1013.04.D) to consider whether any amendments should be recommended to the City Council. ## Purpose The purpose of this memo is to support the commencement of Planning Commission discussion about whether Roseville's current electric vehicle parking requirements (EVCS and EVSE) should be amended for new parking lots. Based on the two variance applications submitted since the ordinance was enacted, there is evidence that the current code may be imposing requirements that are difficult to apply to some non- residential development projects. A targeted review now would allow the Commission to consider whether the ordinance should be adjusted to meet our stated goals to facilitate and encourage the use of electric vehicles, and to expedite the establishment of a convenient, cost-effective electric vehicle charging infrastructure, while also considering local market conditions, the practices of neighboring municipalities, and consumer preferences. ## Background on the Current Ordinance Roseville adopted EV charging requirements on March 20, 2023 as part of Phase 2 zoning code amendments. For non-residential parking areas with 30 to 49 spaces, the code requires two EV charging stations (EVCS), at least one accessible, at Level 2 or greater. For non-residential parking areas with 50 or more spaces, the code requires 5 percent of required parking spaces as Level 2 or greater EV charging stations, with at least one accessible. Additionally, code section 1013.04.D.2.d.1 requires that ALL new non- residential parking areas provide electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) with the electrical capacity necessary to accommodate the future hardwire installation of EVCS as Level 2 or greater for a minimum of 10% of required parking spaces. ## ATTACHMENT 1 Page 7 of 11 ## What the Two Variance Applications Suggest The two variance applications submitted since adoption of the ordinance suggest that the current standards may be difficult to implement as written for some large commercial projects. In the Rosedale/Dick's Sporting Goods case, the Planning Division staff determined the project would otherwise be required to install 15 Level 2 charging stations and 30 EVSE stalls, but they advocated for a variance requiring a total of only six chargers (three Level 2 and three Level 3) plus the 30 EVSE stalls as required by code. The applicant argued that fast charging was a better fit for a retail setting with higher customer turnover and shorter dwell times and also that Level 3 chargers should be considered to count for more level 2 chargers given the significantly increased turnover. The packet also documented nearby charging options and noted that several neighboring municipalities either had no minimum EV charging requirement or materially lower requirements. The variance was granted by the Variance Board. In the Hempel Real Estate / 2700 Snelling Avenue case, Planning Division staff concluded that the project would otherwise be required to install 26 Level 2 or greater EV charging stations and 53 EVSE stalls for a 528-space lot. The applicant proposed instead to install eight Level 2 chargers and 22 EVSE stalls. Staff recommended approval of the proposal and stated that, as the ordinance is being more widely implemented, it is becoming clear that a one-size-fits-all approach for non-residential uses may not be appropriate. Staff further stated that the EV standards may need modification to adjust required numbers for large parking lots, especially where the use does not serve a more transient customer base. The variance board denied the variance request, citing a lack of unique circumstances to the property and the proposal failing to align with the intent of the zoning code. ## Regional Context and Neighboring Municipalities The variance materials provide a useful snapshot of the regional landscape. The Rosedale/ Dick's Sporting Goods variance packet stated that Minneapolis required a minimum of 5 percent of parking stalls to be EV charging stalls at Level 2 or greater, while St. Paul, Bloomington, Edina, and Blaine did not have minimum EV requirements in code. The same packet states that Minnetonka encourages appropriate planning for future installation but had no minimum EV requirement. Even allowing for the fact that municipal ordinances evolve over time, the variance record supports the general conclusion that Roseville's current non-residential requirements are more aggressive than those in several nearby communities. That regional comparison matters because development decisions are often made across a competitive metropolitan market. If Roseville's code imposes materially higher up-front costs than neighboring communities, it is reasonable for the Commission to evaluate whether the current structure is calibrated appropriately or whether a less restrictive framework would better support redevelopment and new investment while simultaneously supporting electrification goals. ## Current EV Adoption and Charging Trends in Minnesota MnDOT indicates Minnesota is not on track to meet its 2030 EV target, although EV registrations continue to increase. (http://www.mndot.net/measures/electric-vehicles.html) ## ATTACHMENT 1 Page 8 of 11 Figure 1: Electric Vehicles Sales and targets in Minnesota, from MNDOT EV Performance Measures Dashboard. It may also be important to consider local supply and demand for public EV charging when evaluating whether additional Level 2 chargers in non-residential parking lots would meaningfully advance the City’s stated goals. I was not able to find charger utilization data specific to the Twin Cities metro, but I did find state-level estimated utilization data from Stable Auto. According to that source, Minnesota’s estimated Level 3 charger utilization was 4 percent as of Q2 2025, compared with 18 to 23 percent in states such as California, Nevada, Florida, and Maryland. This could suggest that charging demand in Minnesota may not yet justify uniformly high upfront installation requirements in every non-residential setting. https://stable.auto/insights/electric-vehicle-charger-utilization-by-month Figure 2: Estimated average level 3 charger utilization rates from Stable.Auto ## ATTACHMENT 1 Page 9 of 11 Further, in the Hempel Real Estate variance packet, Planning Division staff noted that “18 major automakers have scaled back, delayed, or scrapped electric vehicle (EV) plans or models in the U.S. as of March 2026, driven by slowing demand and reduced incentives.” This represents another headwind to near-term EV adoption. Lastly, we should evaluate consumer charging preferences and how they are evolving (home, workplace, public level 2, public level 3) to find a targeted strategy that will give us the best chance of achieving our long-run goals. ## Economic Considerations for Businesses In addition to the high upfront installation costs, estimated at more than $500,000 in the Rosedale/DSG case, businesses must also consider ongoing maintenance costs and whether they want to take on what is effectively an EV charging business. If chargers fail and the owner chooses not to repair them, I am not aware of any provision in the current code that requires uptime or continued operation. That raises a practical concern: the code may be forcing businesses with no real interest in operating EV charging infrastructure to make a major investment, even when it may not be sustainable or financially viable. If so, what prevents those chargers from simply being taken offline? For the same reasons, the 10% EVSE requirement may never bear fruit in terms of actual charging capacity at many installations. ## Policy Considerations for Possible Code Amendments If the Commission chooses to continue this discussion, there are several policy directions worth studying. First, the ordinance could distinguish between public-facing uses with higher turnover, such as retail and entertainment, and private employment-oriented uses where the same vehicles may remain parked for most of the day. Second, the ordinance could establish different thresholds or reduced percentages for very large lots, where a straight percentage of required parking can produce unusually high totals that may not match demand. Third, the code could provide additional flexibility to substitute a smaller number of Level 3 direct-current fast chargers where that technology better serves the use. Fourth, the City could benchmark Roseville's requirements against nearby municipalities to ensure the code remains competitive while still advancing long-term electrification goals. ## Balancing Private Mandates with Public Investment If the Commission determines that the current requirements for private development should be adjusted, it may be appropriate to consider how the City can simultaneously expand public charging infrastructure on municipal properties. This would allow Roseville to continue advancing its electrification goals while shifting some of the implementation burden from private developers, who may lack the expertise, interest, or sustained commitment to operate charging infrastructure, to purpose-driven charging networks with proven business models. One option would be to explore partnerships with established charging providers active in Minnesota, such as ChargePoint, EVgo, Electrify America, Blink Network, and ZEF Energy. Through an RFP process, the City could invite these companies to install and operate chargers at municipal sites such as City Hall, the Library, and parks, potentially in exchange for lease payments, revenue-sharing agreements, or no-cost installation. This approach could address several concerns identified in this memo: it would ensure that chargers remain operational and maintained by entities with a business incentive to do so; it would create charging ## ATTACHMENT 1 Page 10 of 11 infrastructure in publicly accessible locations rather than private parking lots that may have restricted hours or access; and it could generate modest revenue for the City while drawing residents to public facilities. This concept would benefit from input from the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Public Works Commission regarding site selection, electrical infrastructure, and operational considerations. If the Planning Commission is interested in pursuing this approach, staff could be directed to report back on the feasibility of such partnerships as part of the broader EV policy discussion. ## Recommended Action I recommend that the Planning Commission continue its discussion of Roseville’s EVCS and EVSE requirements for new parking lots and consider whether any amendments should be recommended to the City Council. The purpose of that discussion would be to evaluate whether the current standards remain appropriately calibrated to the City’s goals, local development conditions, and regional context. ## Draft Motion Move to continue the Planning Commission’s discussion of potential amendments to Roseville’s electric vehicle charging requirements for new parking areas and to direct Planning Division staff to report back at a future meeting on: 1. How implementation of the current code has proceeded to date, including issues or concerns raised by developers; and 2. How Roseville’s current requirements compare with those of neighboring municipalities. ## Source Notes ## • City of Roseville Zoning Code • Rosedale Center / Dick's Sporting Goods variance packet (uploaded file). • Hempel Real Estate / 2700 Snelling Avenue variance packet (uploaded file). • MnDOT Electric Vehicles performance dashboard. • Stable.Auto charger utilization data ## ATTACHMENT 1 Page 11 of 11