2012-06-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 6, 2012 Page 6 Member Boguszewski verified with the applicant that the number of people on site in the 249 future may actually be less than currently found, since the students would be involved in 250 simulation labs using hands-on equipment; and that the site would not be used as a 251 campus dormitory, lecture hall or classroom use, but more one-on-one personal labs. 252 Ms. Wolgemuth concurred with Member Boguszewski’s assessment; further noting that 253 the State Board of Nursing requirements were for a 1/8 ratio for clinical and labs, 254 meaning one (1) professor per eight (8) students. 255 Member Olsen asked if there were any tax implications to the City with Edina Realty 256 leaving the space versus this proposed school use. Member Olsen questioned if the 257 school, as a non-profit entity, was paying taxes on this building. 258 Mr. Paschke advised that the building, currently owned by Northwestern College, or any 259 owners of any other office buildings for that matter, could have multiple tenants coming 260 and going freely without having to pay property tax. Mr. Paschke clarified that property 261 taxes were borne by the property owner, and a tenant’s lease was negotiated to cover 262 those costs. From his personal perspective, Mr. Paschke was unable to confirm or deny 263 that this particular site was a property tax payer. 264 Member Olsen opined that this was an important question relative to the use of space; 265 whether this would detrimentally impact the City’s tax base. 266 Member Boguszewski clarified that the ownership of the building was not changing, and if 267 Edina Realty left as a tenant, whether or not their lease covered the cost of any taxes, 268 nothing else was changing with the proposed use. Member Boguszewski noted that, if a 269 non-profit entity used space for its own purposes, and paid nothing for a tax obligation, 270 this proposed use didn’t change their tax status; and opined that either way, it didn’t 271 matter respective to this discussion. 272 Vice Chair Gisselquist concurred with Member Boguszewski’s comments. 273 Mr. Paschke reminded Commissioners that property taxes were not a zoning issue and 274 they were not a function of the Planning Commission or of the City’s Zoning Code. Mr. 275 Paschke stated that such a broader discussion could be held at the City Council level for 276 them to set a policy in their Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Paschke noted that non-profits come 277 and go; the building could exchange hands; it could be on or off the tax rolls; but any or 278 all of those situations were not related to zoning. Mr. Paschke recognized the overall 279 implications of tax burdens; however, reiterated that the broader issue would not be 280 solidified through zoning, or who owned the building or who paid or didn’t pay taxes. With 281 all due respect, Mr. Paschke reiterated that this was not a concern of the Planning 282 Commission related to this specific request. 283 Member Strohmeier, respectful of Mr. Paschke note of caution; opined that the 284 Commission was being asked to turn around zoning for this applicant, a non-profit, to buy 285 an office building and remove it from the tax rolls. By adding this use, Member 286 Strohmeier concurred that there would be no change to that status; however, the 287 Commission would be opening up the City for a similar use in the community allowed 288 more specifically in the Zoning Ordinance. 289 Vice Chair Gisselquist and Mr. Paschke in turn reminded Commissioners that 290 Northwestern College already owned this building, and was not purchasing it. 291 Member Boguszewski, respecting Mr. Grefenberg’s concerns, opined that they didn’t 292 apply; since those concerns were related to something changing the function of those 293 occupying the space, while this request didn’t change anything about the character or 294 nature of an activity already occurring. 295 Member Boguszewski opined that the request was for a similar use to that already 296 occurring on site, with no one raising any concern or contention that the current use was 297 in violation of the Comprehensive Plan or nature of what use could happen there; and 298 further opined that therefore, this proposed use should not raise any concerns either. 299