2012-06-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 6, 2012 Page 4 Mr. Grefenberg questioned what steps had been taken for payments in lieu of taxes 147 (PILOT). Mr. Grefenberg expressed further concern with making this a permitted use 148 rather than a Conditional Use; opining that the City may find itself with another expansion 149 of a tax-exempt entity using this Text Amendment. From his motivation, Mr. Grefenberg 150 expressed his realization that this seemed to create a backdoor to change the 151 Comprehensive Plan yet again. 152 Mr. Paschke asked Mr. Grefenberg to specify which portion of the Comprehensive Plan 153 to which he was referring. 154 Mr. Grefenberg advised that he was referencing District 10 of the Comprehensive Plan 155 and the definition of Community Business. 156 Mr. Paschke asked whether the definition specifically stated “no educational use.” Mr. 157 Grefenberg opined that there were two (2) areas where the Comprehensive Plan 158 contradicted expansion on this specific site; and expressed further concern about the 159 specific requirement and whether the City’s requirements were being relaxed for the 160 Northwestern College Master Plan under page 2 of Attachment A. 161 Vice Chair Gisselquist asked Mr. Grefenberg to enlighten the Commission on how this 162 proposal would directly violate or violate the spirit of District 10 of the Comprehensive 163 Plan. 164 Mr. Grefenberg stated that he could not do so; and asked that staff enlighten the 165 Commission and him first, since that was what they were paid for. Mr. Grefenberg read a 166 portion of the Comprehensive Plan language, with an Institutional District use 167 approximately ½ mile to the north with boundaries; and under land use, there was no 168 language addressing educational use under Section 10. 169 Vice Chair Gisselquist asked staff to respond to Mr. Grefenberg as to whether there was 170 any obvious violation addressed with the Comprehensive Plan. 171 Mr. Paschke responded that, as a short answer, his response would be “no.” For a 172 broader response to the question, Mr. Paschke noted that the Comprehensive Plan did 173 not list out a litany of uses, since the City’s Zoning Ordinance provided regulation that 174 incorporated the general or broad definitions and goals and policies stated within the 175 Comprehensive Plan. To the extent that those definitions for any one of the Zoning 176 Districts indicated, Mr. Paschke noted that you may or may not find similar uses listed in 177 Zoning District designations. From staff’s perspective, Mr. Paschke advised that staff’s 178 analysis that may be summarized or not even detailed in the staff report, included a 179 thorough review consistent with the written report, indicating that an office use for this 180 nursing program or some other form of office-based educational use was permitted in an 181 office space. Mr. Paschke opined that such a use seemed to be similar to those uses 182 currently supported under that District and under different Comprehensive Plan 183 designations. 184 Mr. Lloyd concurred; and noted, consistent with his previous conversations with Mr. 185 Grefenberg, that the description of use designation within the Comprehensive Plan didn’t 186 indicate that Institutional uses should be allowed. Mr. Lloyd clarified that Zoning Code 187 definitions leaned toward post-secondary educational campus institutions; however, 188 office space like this proposed use was more distinct from that campus institution. Setting 189 aside the not-for-profit nature of this particular educational entity that Mr. Lloyd opined 190 was beside the point, since he thinks that the Minneapolis Business College and/or 191 National American University may both be for-profit institutions, but still considered to be 192 teaching, rather than a more institutional feeling similar to that of a college campus. Since 193 this is not a campus, and doesn’t appear to be an institutional use infiltrating a business 194 district, which he took to be of concern to some Commissioners and Mr. Grefenberg, Mr. 195 Lloyd opined that the office environment and activity proposed were distinct from an 196 institutional or campus use. 197