Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council grants Hemphill Real Estate appeal, reduces EV‑charging requirement for 2700 Snelling project
Summary
Sitting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, the Roseville City Council voted 4–1 on May 4 to reverse a variance board denial and allow Hemphill Real Estate to phase compliance for electric‑vehicle charging at a proposed 125,400 sq. ft. lab at 2700 Snelling Avenue, permitting 8 chargers now where code would require 26.
The Roseville City Council, convened as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, voted 4–1 on May 4 to grant Hemphill Real Estate’s appeal to reduce electric‑vehicle charging infrastructure requirements for a proposed 125,400‑square‑foot medical and research facility at 2700 Snelling Avenue.
City planner Thomas Paschke told the board the applicant requested a variance from Table 10.13.012 and section 10.13.04.d.2.d.1: the variance sought to allow 8 charging stations when code calls for 26 and 22 EV service equipment stalls when 53 would be required, based on a 528‑stall parking lot. "The request was to allow 8 of the charging stations when 26 would normally be required," Paschke said, summarizing the staff packet and the variance board’s 2–1 denial.
Why it mattered: Council members said the proposal and staff analysis raised questions about how to set a one‑size‑fits‑all standard for large, private employers and whether the ordinance needs refinement. Hemphill’s representative, Brandon Champo, said the company’s internal operations survey and a parking‑demand study guided the day‑one figure of eight stalls. "Our request tonight is not about avoiding the EV charging. It's about approving a phased compliance approach that matches what the employee demand for these spaces will be," Champo said.
Legal standard and findings: City Attorney Rachel Tierney reminded the board of the ordinance’s variance findings that must be satisfied to grant relief, including consistency with the comprehensive plan, harmony with zoning intent, reasonable use of the property, unique circumstances not created by the landowner, and that the variance not alter the essential character of the locality. The motion to grant the appeal cited the packet’s findings and staff’s view that the applicant met the practical‑difficulty test for this particular site.
Dissent and support: Opponents on the dais, notably Member Strong, argued the board should not repeatedly use variances in lieu of clearer legislative standards and said the 8‑stall proposal appeared unsupported: "The number is just pulled from the air from what I can tell," Strong said. Supporters said the city has little data from comparable private‑employer projects and that the Planning Commission has already asked to review the ordinance; several members said the project’s timing and the applicant’s commitment to expandable infrastructure weighed in favor of granting the appeal.
Outcome and next steps: The board’s vote to grant the appeal was 4–1. Council members who supported the motion urged the Planning Commission to study the EV‑charging requirement, consider land‑use categories and parking‑type distinctions (long‑term vs. short‑term), and return recommendations to the council. The applicant said it would install infrastructure to allow future expansion if employee demand increased.
Sources and context: The council heard a staff report, the applicant’s testimony, a single public commenter calling for follow‑up on prior reduced variances, and legal guidance from the city attorney. The appeal reverses a 2–1 variance board denial reported in the packet.
