2012-06-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 6, 2012 Page 5 Mr. Grefenberg referenced pages 4-8 of the Comprehensive Plan and definition of 198 “Community Business;” and examples provided of what was included. Mr. Grefenberg 199 noted that this section also stated, it would encourage access and traffic management, 200 when those areas were located on A-minor augmenters or relievers as defined in the 201 Transportation Plan. Mr. Grefenberg questioned if this use met that requirement. 202 Mr. Paschke responded that he was unable to answer that particular question of Mr. 203 Grefenberg. 204 Mr. Grefenberg expressed appreciation that shuttle service would be provided, since the 205 Comprehensive Plan indicated a strong orientation to pedestrian and bicycle access. 206 While reassured by staff related to his concerns with parking, Mr. Grefenberg noted that 207 he remained concerned that this proposed use and Text Amendment was a significant 208 departure from the Comprehensive Plan; and without a satisfactory answer to his 209 questions, why waste time doing a Comprehensive Plan at all. 210 Mr. Grefenberg opined that this issue had come up before; and further opined that the 211 City apparently wasn’t learning from past mistakes. While recognizing that the 212 Commission may not be prepared to respond to his questions as a citizen or those of the 213 volunteer Commission, at tonight’s meeting, he stated that he would like some answers. 214 Mr. Grefenberg advised that his remaining questions were: 1) clarifying the clear 215 distinction between a campus setting and non-educational land use; 2) whether there 216 was some way that the Planning Division and Planning Commission could collaboratively 217 work with Northwestern College to determine the extent of their future expansion needs 218 to addressed their increased need for services and demand on the City’s infrastructure. 219 Mr. Paschke advised that Northwestern College had a Master Plan that outlined those 220 details, and if not available online, suggested that Mr. Grefenberg request a copy from 221 the College. 222 Mr. Grefenberg advised that he had looked for such a Master Plan on the College 223 website; however, he was unable to find anything outside the campus, with the Master 224 Plan apparently focused on the College’s purpose, goals and mission, but not addressing 225 the physical plant itself. 226 Member Boguszewski asked the applicant to verify that they had no intent to make any 227 physical modification to the building or site, or access points; and that this request simply 228 allowed for changes in the function of some of the rooms within the existing building. 229 Mr. Lloyd verified that intent, with concurrence by the applicant. 230 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Humphries addressed current uses or 231 tenants in the building, stating that the first floor was currently leased to Edina Realty; 232 with the other two (2) floors used by Northwestern College employees as offices and 233 conference rooms. 234 Member Boguszewski, based on the applicant representative’s response, noted that this 235 use would not be much different from its current use, with all activities occurring in a 236 building that already existed and rooms within it for a new, but different function. Member 237 Boguszewski observed that this should then in no way materially or negatively affect 238 traffic. 239 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Humphries advised that, while he was 240 unsure of the number of employees currently occupying the Edina Realty space on a 241 daily basis, there were twenty-five (25) Northwestern College employees on the site. 242 Dr. Ginger Wolgemuth, Northwestern College, Nursing Department Chair 243 Ms. Wolgemuth advised that there would be no increase from current to future 244 employees or students on that site, as most of the students throughout the day would be 245 based at agencies and/or clinics around the metropolitan area. Ms. Wolgemuth further 246 noted that the number of students per square foot was stringently calculated and 247 enforced by the State for average space per student. 248