Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 03 - Electric Charging StationsAM23-02; Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations Written Letters of Communication: 2 Ok "ON DALE VENTURES January 12, 2024 City of Grapevine Grapevine City Hall 200 S. Main Street Grapevine, FX 76051 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, As the principal of both PPMC Realty, Ltd., owner of the Mercedes-Benz dealership at 1300 Texan Trail, and DKK West, Ltd., owner of the Porsche dealership at 1280 Texan Trail, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed amendment of the City of Grapevine Zoning Ordinance to require conditional use permits (CUP) for Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations within our city. I appreciate the desire to ensure safe and appropriate installation of EV charging stations but have concerns with the proposed process for doing so. As you are likely aware, the overwhelming trend in our industry is toward the production and sale of more electric and hybrid vehicles. In fact, we are currently projecting that more than half of our sales will be electric vehicles within 10 years. As a result, it is imperative that we have and continue to expand the vehicle charging capabilities for our inventory at our dealerships. We understand and respect the importance of ensuring EV charging stations are safely installed with appropriate consideration given to adjacent properties and uses. In fact, the standards within the proposed amendment of the Zoning Ordinance are largely unproblematic. Our primary concern is simply with the proposed process of requiring a CUP for every EV charging station. CUP's are processed in the same manner as zoning amendments and require lengthier processes including notice, advertisement, and public hearings. The rising demand we are experiencing for EV's at our dealerships impacts other commercial establishments as well, including shopping centers, office buildings, apartments, hotels, and other uses. Customers and residents of these uses have a need to charge their vehicles, and consequently, there is increasing demand to provide charging options within the parking areas. We do not feel it is an exaggeration to say that potentially hundreds of requests for CUP's could occur over the next few years. A large number of such CUP requests may become a logistical nightmare to administer and create a significant backlog on your public hearing agendas that becomes an impediment to much of the other important business you conduct. 2021 McKinney Ave, Suite 420, Dallas, TX 75201 214 443 8211 Further, EV charging stations are increasingly a part of the essential infrastructure for our community and the many residents who drive EV's every day. Rather than requiring CUP's for EV charging stations, I suggest that the city consider implementing the standards within this proposed ordinance within the permitting process for EV charging stations. Of course, we already apply for and obtain permits for the EV charging stations we install, and it would be no significant burden on our operations to include information in future permit applications that allows your staff to confirm our compliance with the applicable standards. A CUP or variance process with public hearings could be created for those applications that are unable to meet the applicable standards for you to consider. Adopting a comprehensive set of rules and regulations that address key considerations, such as safety standards, parking space allocation, accessibility requirements, and any other relevant concerns could be effectively implemented through the permitting process without requiring a substantially more burdensome public hearing process. This approach would provide clarity and consistency for all stakeholders involved, making it easier for businesses and individuals to understand and comply with the regulations. I urge the City of Grapevine to consider the adoption of an ordinance for regulating EV charging stations that can be implemented through the permitting process rather than public hearings. I appreciate your attention to this matter and hope that the city will carefully consider the proposed alternative approach. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Ken Schnitzer, Principal PPMC Realty, Ltd. DKK West, Ltd. From: T. Bently Durant Sent: Monday, January 15, 2024 11:51:33 AM To: Bruno Rumbelow <brumbelowPerapevinetexas.eov> Subject: AM23-2 *** EXTERNAL EMAIL COMMUNICATION - PLEASE USE CAUTION BEFORE CLICKING LINKS AND/OR OPENING ATTACHMENTS *** Bruno, I received an invitation in the mail for City Counsel tomorrow night. Classic has concerns about the EV charger amendment. As always I appreciate your advice and I am sharing a courtesy copy of my concerns in advance. Sincerely, T. Bently Durant Chief Operating Officer, Classic Chevrolet Inc. General Counsel, The Classic Family of Dealerships Founder, DCIS Insurance 817-421-7235 Direct Mayor and Council, my name is Bently Durant. I represent Classic Chevrolet on 1101 West state highway 114, 2501 , and 3001 William D. Tate Avenue. I'd like to raise a concern over AM23-02, the amendment concerning EV charging stations. This amendment will trigger a conditional use process every time Classic needs to repair, upgrade, or newly install an EV charging station. The amendment isn't even limited to the utility grade level three charging stations either. Under this ordinance plugging a standard charge cord into a standard outlet triggers an CUP. I understand the desire and intent behind the amendment, and I can understand the city wanting to regulate those utility grade level three charging stations better. Those can charge a car in tens of minutes, and suck down more kilowatts than a 20 story office building doing it, but the level one and level two charging stations that take eight or more hours to fully charge a modern EV use the same electricity as a microwave and A/C unit respectively, and this level of scrutiny for those installations is overkill. I'd also like to note that this requirement isn't being evenly applied to the other dealerships around town. Classic's properties are zoned Community Commercial, and this amendment would apply to them, but it would not apply to the other dealerships located in Planned Commerce Development Districts or on airport property.