Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears code amendments for EV charging, bike parking and solar in Snyderville Basin; asks staff for developer cost input
Summary
Staff presented proposed Snyderville Basin Development Code updates to require EV parking readiness, bike parking and standards for solar systems. Councilors praised the 'future‑proofing' concept but asked staff to seek input from developers and return with cost information and possible exceptions for affordable housing.
Get email alerts on the Energy Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff presented draft amendments to the Snyderville Basin Development Code to require electric‑vehicle (EV) infrastructure, bicycle parking and rules for solar systems in commercial and multifamily development in the basin.
Key proposals would require new multifamily and commercial projects to install EV charging equipment at 10% of off‑street spaces and make another 20% EV‑ready (conduit installed but equipment deferred). Single‑family homes would be required to be EV‑ready. Draft bicycle standards include short‑term racks (1 space per 1,000 square feet up to 20) and long‑term parking for residents and employees. Solar provisions would allow roof‑mounted arrays without a fixed size limit but limit ground‑mounted installations to 1,000 square feet.
Councilors praised the 'future‑proofing' approach and county sustainability goals but asked staff to solicit feedback from local developers and builders about installation costs and impacts — particularly whether EV requirements could affect the feasibility of affordable‑housing projects. Councilors suggested possible paths: require conduit (EV‑ready) while offering exceptions or waivers for affordable projects, or set standards that planning commission can tailor via conditional permits. Staff agreed to return with input from other Utah cities that have enacted similar codes and to model cost estimates.
No ordinance was adopted; the council asked staff to gather developer feedback, return with cost analyses and clarify the outreach and permitting standards before a final adoption vote.
