2022-05-05 Windward Exh C (Item 3 County Council Initiated PL-CCI-2022-001)

Home

this is addressing what we just spoke about with that aggregation privilege. The bill is proposing to require actual evidence that the owner is meeting that aggregation requirements. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting the change with a suggested change again from the term "plan review"to "Plan Approval", so that it's consistent with our Zoning Code. So, those are the kind of the proposed changes. In the memo from Councilmember Kimball there were a few other kind of discussion points that she wanted to bring up with the Commission to consider strengthening the bill. The first one is for existing places of public accommodation that come in for plan review or Plan Approval and would be subject to Section 25-4-54.1(b), what other criteria should exist for the EV charger requirement to be triggered. The statement here is some plan reviews may not have anything to do with parking should they have this requirement. So, this is something that certainly the Commission can discuss as they feel necessary. However, because the Commission may not be intimately familiar with Plan Approval and how that works. The Director is kind of going to make a response and statement, and that is that places of public accommodation where electric vehicle parking requirements are considered under this bill would occur, thus all will have a parking component. Additionally, most circumstances where Plan Approval is triggered, required parking is already considered. So, the Director feels based on this the current language of the bill would be sufficient. But again, if the Commission disagrees, and then we can have that discussion later when we get to here. Then the second discussion point is for existing lots, if the electric vehicle charging parking stall requirements put them in violation of any other Zoning Code parking stall requirements due to needing an ADA accessible stall. Which is going to be larger than a normal stall size and perhaps converting stalls from compact to standard size, what should happen? Can the Director approve a variance? Should they be exempted from putting EV chargers in those lots or be allowed to modify the requirements? So, this question is more around those parking lots that are kind of maxed out on parking. So, when an applicant comes in for Plan Approval our County Code lays out how many parking stalls should be required, based on, for example, gross square footage floor area for commercial uses or other requirements based on different uses. So, in the case where if this bill is passed, if now an owner who's maxed out on that parking needs to provide an ADA required stall which may knock down below that minimum Zoning Code requirement for parking stalls. How should we deal with that? And so, the Director's response, again, is as follows. While the Director does have the authority to grant a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Code. The Department would prefer that adoption of a new ordinance would not create a non-conforming circumstance that would require a variance. Instead, the Director recommends that the bill include language to allow a maximum number or percentage of sorry that should say parking stalls not lots. That can be converted to accommodate ADA compliant EV parking stalls, even if it does reduce the overall number of stalls that would otherwise be required by the Zoning Code. So, really here if there was language in the bill which would be adopted as part of the Zoning Code, it would essentially allow for a certain number or percentage grace to allow for that possibility of having to convert existing stalls to ADA stalls. 9 EXHIBIT C