2012_0709_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

AttachmentA 107 Mr. Grefenberg advised that he was referencing District 10 of the Comprehensive Plan and the definition 108 of Community Business. 109 Mr. Paschke asked whether the definition specifically stated “no educational use.” Mr. Grefenberg opined 110 that there were two (2) areas where the Comprehensive Plan contradicted expansion on this specific site; 111 and expressed further concern about the specific requirement and whether the City’s requirements were 112 being relaxed for the Northwestern College Master Plan under page 2 of Attachment A. 113 Vice Chair Gisselquist asked Mr. Grefenberg to enlighten the Commission on how this proposal would 114 directly violate or violate the spirit of District 10 of the Comprehensive Plan. 115 Mr. Grefenberg stated that he could not do so; and asked that staff enlighten the Commission and him 116 first, since that was what they were paid for. Mr. Grefenberg read a portion of the Comprehensive Plan 117 language, with an Institutional District use approximately ½ mile to the north with boundaries; and under 118 land use, there was no language addressing educational use under Section 10. 119 Vice Chair Gisselquist asked staff to respond to Mr. Grefenberg as to whether there was any obvious 120 violation addressed with the Comprehensive Plan. 121 Mr. Paschke responded that, as a short answer, his response would be “no.” For a broader response to 122 the question, Mr. Paschke noted that the Comprehensive Plan did not list out a litany of uses, since the 123 City’s Zoning Ordinance provided regulation that incorporated the general or broad definitions and goals 124 and policies stated within the Comprehensive Plan. To the extent that those definitions for any one of the 125 Zoning Districts indicated, Mr. Paschke noted that you may or may not find similar uses listed in Zoning 126 District designations. From staff’s perspective, Mr. Paschke advised that staff’s analysis that may be 127 summarized or not even detailed in the staff report, included a thorough review consistent with the written 128 report, indicating that an office use for this nursing program or some other form of office-based 129 educational use was permitted in an office space. Mr. Paschke opined that such a use seemed to be 130 similar to those uses currently supported under that District and under different Comprehensive Plan 131 designations. 132 Mr. Lloyd concurred; and noted, consistent with his previous conversations with Mr. Grefenberg, that the 133 description of use designation within the Comprehensive Plan didn’t indicate that Institutional uses should 134 be allowed. Mr. Lloyd clarified that Zoning Code definitions leaned toward post-secondary educational 135 campus institutions; however, office space like this proposed use was more distinct from that campus 136 institution. Setting aside the not-for-profit nature of this particular educational entity that Mr. Lloyd opined 137 was beside the point, since he thinks that the Minneapolis Business College and/or National American 138 University may both be for-profit institutions, but still considered to be teaching, rather than a more 139 institutional feeling similar to that of a college campus. Since this is not a campus, and doesn’t appear to 140 be an institutional use infiltrating a business district, which he took to be of concern to some 141 Commissioners and Mr. Grefenberg, Mr. Lloyd opined that the office environment and activity proposed 142 were distinct from an institutional or campus use. 143 Mr. Grefenberg referenced pages 4-8 of the Comprehensive Plan and definition of “Community 144 Business;” and examples provided of what was included. Mr. Grefenberg noted that this section also 145 stated, it would encourage access and traffic management, when those areas were located on A-minor 146 augmenters or relievers as defined in the Transportation Plan. Mr. Grefenberg questioned if this use met 147 that requirement. 148 Mr. Paschke responded that he was unable to answer that particular question of Mr. Grefenberg. 149 Mr. Grefenberg expressed appreciation that shuttle service would be provided, since the Comprehensive 150 Plan indicated a strong orientation to pedestrian and bicycle access. While reassured by staff related to 151 his concerns with parking, Mr. Grefenberg noted that he remained concerned that this proposed use and 152 Text Amendment was a significant departure from the Comprehensive Plan; and without a satisfactory 153 answer to his questions, why waste time doing a Comprehensive Plan at all. 154 Mr. Grefenberg opined that this issue had come up before; and further opined that the City apparently 155 wasn’t learning from past mistakes. While recognizing that the Commission may not be prepared to 156 respond to his questions as a citizen or those of the volunteer Commission, at tonight’s meeting, he 157 stated that he would like some answers. Mr. Grefenberg advised that his remaining questions were: 1) 158 clarifying the clear distinction between a campus setting and non-educational land use; 2) whether there 159 was some way that the Planning Division and Planning Commission could collaboratively work with Page3of6