11-22-82 PC Minutes � ��
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
November� 22, 1982
A r•egular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chamber•s of
the Civic Center•, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. Chair•man Thompson
called the meeting to order• at 7:00 P.M.
Those pr•esent wer•e Commi ssi oner•s For•ster•, Leppi k, Prazak, Si nger•, Thompson and
Tubman. Commissioner• Polachek was absent.
Also present wer•e Mike Miller, Planning and Redevelopment Coor•dinator, and Alda
Peiker•t, Assistant Planner•.
I . Appr�oval of Minutes - November• 8, 1982
It was moved by Commi ssi oner• Leppi k, seconded by Commi ssi oner• Si nger• and car•r•i ed
unanimously to appr•ove the minutes of the November• 8, 1982 Planning Commission
meeti ng as r•ecor•ded.
II. Set Date for Informal Public Hear•ing - P.U.D. #40, Ewald Way
APPLICANT: Monson/Ueland Architects, Inc.
LOCATION: Southwest corner• of Golden Valley Road and Xer•xes
Avenue Nor•th
REQUEST: Approval of Pr•eliminary Design Plan for• PUD #40
which praposes ten townhouse units
Chair•man Thompson intr•oduced this agenda item and noted the staff r•ecommendation
of a December• 13, 1982 i nformal publ i c hear�i ng date. The pr•oponents, Mr•. Jon
Monson and Mr•. Chr•i s Uel and, wer•e pr•esent.
It was moved by Commissioner� Pr•azak, seconded by Commissioner• Leppik and
car•r•ied unanimously to set an infor•mal public hear•ing date of December• 13, 1982
for• consi der•ati on of the P r�el imi nary Desi gn P1 an for• PUD #40, Ewal d Way, whi ch
pr�oposes ten townhouse units on the site of the for•mer• Ewald par�king lot located
on the southwest cor�ner� of Golden Valley Road and Xerxes Avenue North.
III. Set Date for• Infor•mal Public Hear•ing - Conditional Use Per•mit
APPLICANT: H. I. Enter•pr•ises, Inc.
LOCATION: 7925 Wayzata Boulevar•d
REQUEST: Condi ti onal Use Per•mi t for• Gasol i ne Ser�vi ce
Station and Convenience Food Store in a
Commer•cial Zoning Distr•ict
Planning Commission Minutes - November• 22, 1982 -2- � 4 7
Chair•man Thompson intr•oduced this agenda item for• addition to the Planning
Commission agenda and called on Planning and Redevelopment Coor•dinator Mike
Miller for an explanation of the request. Mr. Miller• explained that the r•equest
i s for• amendment of a Speci al U se Per•mi t gr�anted to H. I. Enter•pr•i ses for• a
Gasol i ne Ser•vi ce Stati on and Conveni ence Food Stor•e under• the for�mer• Commer�ci al
Zoning Distr•ict Section of the Zoning Code. The pr•oponent r•equests an amendment
to allow installation of an over•head door• not included in plans accompanying the
or•iginal Special Use Per�mit application. Under• the r�evised Commer•cial Zoning
Distr•ict section of the Zoning Code, both Gasoline Service Stations and
Convenience Food Stores are Conditional Uses. Therefor•e, the amendment follows
the Condi ti onal Use Per•mi t pr•ocedur�e i n the Zoni ng Code. Mr•. Mi 11 er i nfor•med
the P1 anni ng Commi ssi on that the faci 1 i ty i s cur•r�ently under� constr•ucti on and
that fr•aming for• an overhead door� has alr•eady been installed. The proponent
maintains that the over•head door• would be used for• loading and unloading of
1 ar�ge bar•r•el s of anti f r•eeze and othew suppl i es, but ther•e i s potenti al for• use
as a ser•vice bay. At the time of issuance of the or•iginal Special Use Per�mit,
concer�n was expr~essed over� possi bl e futur•e use of the bui 1 di ng stor•age area as
service bays and over• the fact that the site does not pr•ovide adequate par•king
f or the addi ti on of ser•vi ce bays. Mr•. Mi 11 er• r•ecommended a December• 13, 1982
i nformal publ i c hear•i ng date for• consi der•ati on of thi s Condi ti onal Use Per•mi t
r•equest.
It was moved by Commi ssi oner• For•ster� and seconded by Commi ssi oner• P r•azak to set
an infor•mal public hear•ing date of December• 13, 1982 to consider• a Conditional
Use Per•mi t r•equested by H. I. Enter•pr•i ses for• addi ti on of an over•head door• to
their� Gasoline Service Station and Convenience Food Stor•e located at 7925
Wayzata Boulevar•d in a Commer�cial Zoning Distr•ict. Commissioner• Leppik asked
staff how the Ci ty became awar�e of the i ntended addi ti on of an over•head door� to
the gas station and convenience store under• constr•uction. Mr•. Miller• r•eplied
that the City Building Inspector� noticed addition of the over•head door• dur•ing an
inspection of the constr•uction site and stopped that por•tion of the pr•oject.
The motion carr�ied unanimously.
IV. Infor�mal Publ i c Hear•i ng - Rezoni ng
APPLICANT: Mar•k Nur•d Aerial Sur•veys, Inc.
LOCATION: 305 Pennsylvania Avenue South
REQUEST: Change Zoning from Residential (Single Family)
to Business and Pr•ofessional Offices (B & PO)
Chair•man Thomspon introduced this agenda item, noted the staff r•ecommendation
for� denial , and asked Planning and Redevelopment Coor•dinator• Mike Miller• to ela-
bor•ate on the staff r•epor•t. Mr�. Mi 11 er• offered di scussi on of an i tem i n the
neighbor•s' petition for� denial , which discussion was omitted fr•om the staff
r�eport appar�ently due to cler•ical error. THe neighbors' petition states that
� ��lanning Commission Minutes - November• 22, 1982 -3'
they feel appr•oval of the r•equested r•ezoni ng woul d harm the char�acter• and i den-
tity of the neighborhood. Mr•. Miller• stated that this is a ver•y valid point and
that the pr•oposed thr•ee stor•y str•uctur�e on a si de hi 11 woul d consti tute an
intr•usion with an adver•se impact on an established very low density single
fami ly nei ghbor�hood. Mr•. Mi 11 er• r•evi ewed the thr•ee r•easons gi ven i n the staff
r•epor•t for• the staff r�ecommendati on of deni al .
Commi ssi oner• Pr•azak asked the use of the pr•oper•ty on whi ch the exi sti ng Mar�k
Hur•d bu i 1 di ng i s si tuated pr•i or� to r•ezoni ng of that pr•oper•ty i n 1973. Mr•. Mi 11 er•
sai d i t was hi s under•standi ng that Mar•k Hur•d had a smal l nonconformi ng str•uctur•e
on the pr•oper•ty pri or• to r•ezoni ng to Busi ness and Pr�ofessi onal Offi ces i n 1973.
Chai r�man Thompson asked for• comments fr•om the pr�oponent. Mr. Loui s Mor•i ar•ty,
attorney for• Mark Hur�d, spoke for• the pr�oponent. Mr•. Mor•i ar•ty stated that
repr•esentati ves of the pr•oponent pr�esented pr�oposed pl ans to the nei ghbor•hood at
a meeting at Mr•. and Mr•s. Jaffe's house and that the plans wer•e not well
r•ecei ved by the nei ghbor�s. Mr•. Mor•i ar•ty stated that Mar•k Hur•d has always been a
good neighbor• and has been above boar•d and honest in dealing with the neigh-
bor•hood. After• di scussi on, Mar•k Hur•d deci ded to submi t an appl i cati on for•
r•ezoni ng despi te the opposi ti on of the nei ghbor•s for• the fol l owi ng r•easons:
1. At the time of purchase of the subject pr•oper•ty, Mar•k Hur�d was under• the
impr•ession that the pr•oper•ty was zoned Business and Pr•ofessional Offices.
Mr•. Mor•i ar•ty sai d that he was i nfor•med over• the tel ephone by Ci ty P1 anni ng
staff that the zoning was Business and Pr•ofessional Offices and that he has
in his possession a letter• emanating fr�om the City Planning Office stating
that the zoning of the pr•oper•ty was Business and Pr•ofessional Offices. Mar•k
Hur•d woul d not have pur•chased the Zimmer•ly pr•operty had not the Ci ty con-
fir•med Business and Pr•ofessional Offices zoning.
2. Ar•chi tectur•al pl ans pr�epar•ed by Mar•k Hur•d str•i ve to bl end wi th and enhance
the neighbor•hood, and the pr•oposed addition to the Mar•k Hur•d building would
be an impr�ovement over• the existing house on the subject pr•oper•ty.
3. Mark Hur•d needs addi ti onal space i n or•der• to adequately car•r•y on i ts busi-
ness.
4. Mar•k Hur•d has been and intends to continue to be a good neighbor•, keeping
the pr•emises secur•e and clean and maintaining the proper�ty as well as any
house in the ar•ea is maintained.
Mr•. Mor•i ar•ty i ntr•oduced Mr•. Ri char•d Power�s, Pr•esi dent of Mar•k Hur•d Aer•i al
Sur•veys. Mr•. Power•s expl ai ned the natur•e of the Mar•k Hur•d busi ness, stati ng
that Mar�k Hur•d is a specialist in the mapping business and that it is a clean
i ndustr•y consi sti ng of dr�afti ng and photogr•aphy depar•tments. Mark Hur•d had 110
empl oyees pr•i or• to the cur•r•ent r•ecessi on, i s cur•r�ently down to 77 empl oyees, and
expects to go back up to 110 to 115 employees. The pr•oposed addition is pr•i-
mar•i 1y to accommodate computer• mappi ng machi ner•y. Mr•. Power•s stated that the
Planning Commission Minutes - November 22, 1982 -4- � �9
proposed Mar•k Hurd pr�oject, which includes impr•ovement of the exter•ior of the
existing building as well as the addition for• which the subject pr•oper•ty is
requir•ed, would enhance rather• than detract from the neighbor•hood.
Mr•. Powers introduced Mr. Bob Br•antingham of Brantingham and Associates, ar•chi-
tectur•al firm for Mar•k Hurd. Mr•. Brantingham introduced Mr. Elmer Nelson,
desi gner• of the pr•oposed pr•oject. Mr�. Nel son expl ai ned that hi s fi r•m was ori gi-
nally hir•ed by Mark Hurd in January 1980 to conduct efficiency studies of the
bu i 1 di ng i nter•i or• 1 ayout. The ar•chi tectur•al fi r•m pr•epared pl ans for• r•edesi gn
and r�efurbi shi ng of the bui 1 di ng i nter•i or and for impr•ovement of the entr•ance
and landscaping. When the subject pr•oper•ty became available, plans were
expanded to include an addition. Mr•. Nelson descr•ibed the pr•oposed addition
using a model of the Mar•k Hur�d building with the existing house on the subject
pr•oper•ty and r�epl acement por•ti on of the model showi ng the pr•oposed addi ti on.
Mr•. Nelson described effor•ts to blend into the area and to enhance the existing
str•uctur�e al ong wi th constr•ucti on of the addi ti on. Mr�. Nel son concl uded wi th
the statement that the pr•oponent r•equi r•es no var�i ances for• devel opment of the
pr�oper•ty as pr•oposed and r�equests the rezoni ng only.
Commissioner• Leppik asked the pr•oponent whether• expansion within the cur•r•ent
site is possible. Mr. Nelson replied that expansion to the north is ideal
because it fits in with the layout of the existing building in which offices ar•e
situated at the north end. Expansion to the south would encr•oach on existing
par•king, while at the same time r•equir•ing additional par•king. This would
necessitate construc'tion of a parking str•ucture, which would be pr•ohibitive in
cost and which the pr•oponent feels would be more offensive to the neighbor•hood
than the pr•oposed addition to the nowth.
Commissioner• Singer• asked whether parking could be placed on the subject pro-
per�ty to the nor•th as an al ternati ve. Mr�. Nel son repl i ed that use of the
sub ject proper•ty for par•ki ng woul d r•equi r•e extensi ve r•egradi ng and that he
questioned whether• parking on that pr•operty would be preferable to the pr•oposed
addition.
Commissioner• Prazak asked what buffering was planned on the east side of the
pr•oper•ty. Mr. Nel son r•epl i ed that pr•oposed gr•adi ng woul d meet exi sti ng grades
to the r•etaining wall now located at the east edge of the pr•oper•ty and that
ther•e would be no change in the view of the existing house to the east.
Commissioner Tubman questioned the statement that the pr•oposed addition would be
scr•eened from proper•ties to the east by the r•etaining wall , noting that the
existing house on the subject pr•oper�ty is visible for• six blocks and is referred
to as "the lighthouse". Mr. Nelson said that the addition will be visible if
neighbors look upwar•d above the r•etaining wall .
Commissioner� Leppik asked what facilities would be located in the proposed addi-
tion and whether� the hir•ing of additional employees would accompany the building
� �(�lanning Commission Minutes - November• 22, 1982 -5-
expansion. Mr•. Power•s replied that the executive offices would be moved to the
Qr•oposed new addition and that the additional space in the existing building
would be occupied by machinery. The space pr•oblem is lar•ge machines rather than
additional employees. Mar•k Hur•d expects a maximum of 115 to 120 employees.
Commissioner• Leppik said she understood that Mar•k Hur•d pr•eviously owned adjacent
proper•ty to the southeast which could have been used for• expansion but was sold.
Mr•. Power•s r•epl i ed that the proper�ty to the southeast was owned by a pensi on
fund contr•ol l ed by a tr•ustee and that Mar•k Hur•d exer•ci sed no contr�ol over• sal e
of the pr•oper•ty.
Commi ssi oner• Tubman asked about pr•i or• zoni ng of the pr�operty on whi ch the
existing Mar•k Hur•d buiding is located. Mr•. Miller• stated that he believes the
zoning was Residential pr•ior• to r•ezoning in 1973 to Business and Professional
Offices. Mr•. Power•s continued with an explanation of the misunder•standing con-
cer•ni ng zoni ng of the subject pr•oper•ty. Mr•. Mi 11 er cl ar•i fi ed for� the record
Ci ty staff cor•r�ecti on of zoni ng i nfor•mati on on the subject pr�oper•ty. Mr•. Mi 11 er•
stated that he r�eceived a r•equest from the pr•evious owner• of the subject pr•o-
perty, Mr�s. Zimmer•1y, for• a wr•itten statement of the zoning. Mr•. Mi11er pr•o-
vided Mr�s. Zimmer•ly with a letter• stating that the proper•ty was zoned Business
and Pr•ofessional Offices based on a check of a cur•r•ent zoning map maintained in
the City Planning and Redevelopment Depar•tment. Subsequently, as a r•esult of an
i nqui ry made by a par�ty other� than Murk Hur�d, the Ci ty Manager asked Mr�. Mi 11 er•
to investigate the backgr•ound of the zoning of the subject pr•operty. Mr. Miller•
found that the pr•oper•ty had been zoned Residential and that ther•e was no r•ecor•d
of r•ezoning to Business and Pr•ofessional Offices at the time of r•ezoning of the
Mar�k Hur•d pr•oper•ty to the south. At that poi nt, Mr�. Mi 11 er• sent a 1 etter to
Mar•k Hur•d noti fyi ng them that the cor�r�ect zoni ng of the pr•oper•ty i s Resi denti al .
At no time di d Ci ty P1 anni ng Depar•tment staff r•ecei ve a r•equest fr•om anyone
i denti f i ed as a r�epresentati ve of Mar•k Hur•d for• cl ar•i f i cati on of the zoni ng on
the subject pr•oper�ty.
Commi ssi oner Tubman asked the pr•oponent whether anyone repr�esenti ng Mar�k Hur•d
had ever• i nvesti gated the zoni ng of the sub ject pr�operty. Mr•. Mor•i arty r•epl i ed
that he could not answer� that question because he was not awar•e of the actions
of all per•sons who might have been involved in the matter• on behalf of Mar•k Hurd
and that the answer� to that question would be a matter• for• the lawsuit.
Chair•man Thompson opened the infor•mal public hear•ing for• public input.
Mr•. Gr•egg Corwi n, 210 Nevada Avenue South, i ntr•oduced himsel f as attor•ney r•epr•e-
senting the Souther•n Golden Valley Residential Association, as well as ar•ea pr•o-
per•ty owner•. Mr•. Cor•wi n ter�med the Mar•k Hur•d pr•esentati on i n the natur•e of a
thr�eat. He sai d he had hear•d nothi ng i n the pr�esentati on concer•ni ng the mer•i ts
of whether the pr•oposed r•ezoning meets land use planning cr•iter•ia, only an argu-
ment based on a zoning infor•mation mistake coupled with the thr•eat of a lawsuit
i f the Ci ty fai 1 s to appr•ove the r•ezoni ng. Mr�. Cor•wi n sai d Mark Hur•d cl ai ms to
Planning Commission Minutes - November• 22, 1982 -6- I 5 1
be a fr•i endly gr•oup of peopl e even though they ar•e owned by a for•ei gn cor•por•ati on
and that they told the neighbor•s they want to make their•s a pretty site for•
their• visiting Saudi Ar•abian fr•iends. Mr•. Cor•win continued with the following
points concer�ning the pr•oposed r•ezoning and building addition;
1. Pr•evi ous Ci ty Compr�ehensi ve P1 ans i ndi cated that the ar•ea nor•th of Laur•el
Avenue was to be Residential . The area has already been subject to a couple
of r�ezonings and the neighborhood does not want a thir•d one.
2. Residential development has taken place and is continuing adjacent to the
Mar•k Hur•d pr•oper•ty. Lots immedi ately to the nor�th of the pr�oper�ty pr�oposed
for• r•ezoni ng wer•e r�ecently sol d and have been staked for• devel opment. Pl ans
are for• ,si gni f i cant resi denti al str•uctur�es of a ver•y hi gh val ue. Constr•ucti on
of a two to three stor•y office building obviously would have an effect on
development of the r�emaining lots on Pennsylvania Avenue.
3. Ther•e i s adequate r•oom for• expansi on on the si te. Fur•thermore, Mar•k Hurd
until r•ecently owned additional pr�operty to the southeast controlled by a
pensi'on fund tr•ustee appoi nted by Mark Hurd. Mar•k Hur•d al l owed the pr•operty
to be sold and another• building to be constructed the►~e, which building the
neighbor•hood is not happy with.
4. The pr•oposed addition is a massive str•ucture which would be situated on
gr•ound hi gh above the sur•r•oundi ng r•esi denti al ar•ea and whi ch woul d domi nate
the ar•ea. The pr•oposed office development is differ•ent fr•om the existing
house on the pr•oper•ty apar•t fr•om hei ght compari sons. The domi nati ng str�uc-
tur•e on the hi ghest gwound sets the char•acter• of the ar•ea.
5. The neighbor•hood does not wish to be a tr•ansitional ar�ea.
6. Once the pr•operty is r�ezoned, the owner•s are not bound to build accor•ding to
pl ans pr•esented at the time of r•ezoni ng. Devel opers may bu i 1 d any str•uctur•e
which meets zoning requir•ements for the zoning distr•ict.
7. Mar•k Hur�d states that one r•eason for the building height is to place parking
under•gr•ound and out of sight. In fact, the underground par•king consists of
12 executive par•king spaces only.
8. The pr•oposed building addition is a lar•ge str•ucture in a r•esidential area.
The pr•oponents admitted that the existing building is unattractive in
discussing plans to upgr�ade the outside appear•ance. By adding to the
building they ar�e only making it worse.
Mr•. Cor�win concluded with the statement that the pr•oposed Mark Hurd addition is
the last straw for the neighbor•hood.
Mr. Cor�win introduced Mr. Br•uce Barton, 155 Or•egon Avenue South, who spoke on
behal f of the nei ghbor•hood fr•om the vi ewpoi nt of a r•eal tor• as wel l as that of a
� R r' -�-
� �I�lanning Commission Minutes - November 22, 1982
neighboring property owner•. Mr•. Bar•ton explained that he has been in r•eal
estate for• 12 year•s and that he i s associ ated wi th Mer�r•i 11 Lynch Bur•nett Real ty.
Mr•. Barton stated that the pr•oposed r•ezoning would definitely r•esult in devalu-
ation of sur•r•ounding housing and a longer• selling time for houses in the ar•ea.
Mr•. Bar•ton r•epor•ted that confer�ence r•epr•esentatives from the lar•ge ar�ea r•eal
estate compani es agr•ee that one thi ng they woul d never• do i s guar�antee sal e of a
house next to an apar•tment building, an office building or• a commer•cial develop-
ment due to the fact that selling time of houses in such locations is at least
doubled. Mr•. Bar•ton said he under•stood that the pur•chase agreement on the lots
adjacent to the par•cel proposed for• r•ezoning contains a contingency which allows
the buyer• to back out up unti 1 December� 1, 1982. Mr•. Bar�ton pr•edi cted that the
buyer would back out if the pr•oposed rezoning is appr•oved because he would not
wish to build $200,000 homes next to an office building. Mr�. Bar�ton added that
he i s concer•ned for• the safety of the nei ghbor•hood chi 1 dr•en, whose aver•age age
i s ten year•s, i n vi ew of potenti al i ncr•eased tr•affi c r•esul ti ng fr•om the pr•oposed
Mar•k Hur•d building addition.
Mr•. Dan Herbst, Pemtom Company, spoke on behal f of Pemtom whi ch owns r•esi denti al
1 ots i n the vi ci ni ty of the pr•oposed r•ezoni ng. Mr•. Her•bst stated that Pemtom
i nvesti gates sur•r•oundi ng zoni ng before i nvesti ng i n pr•oper•ty. Mr•. Her•bst
r•epor�ted that Pemtom was assured by the City Zoning Depar•tment that zoning of
the subject pr•oper•ty was Resi denti al . Mr•. her•bst stated that Pemtom woul d agr•ee
with Mr•. Bar•ton that an abrupt change from r•esidential to commer•cial use is
going to affect pr�oper•ty values. Mr•. Her•bst concluded that due to the pr•ominent
location of the subject pr•oper•ty in the neighbor•hood and due to the need for
buffer� zones between r•esidential and commer•cial land uses, Pemtom is str•ongly
opposed to the pr•oposed r�ezoning.
Ms. Rhoda Jaffe, 420 Pennsylvania Avenue South, stated that her• concer•n is the
tr•affic on Pennsylvania Avenue. Ms. Jaffe stated that she is tir•ed of having
dogs hit and of not being able to par•k in fr•ont of her• own house. Ms. Jaffe
stated that Pennsylvania is a danger•ous hill and that the entrance fr•om Quebec
onto Pennsylvania is a blind entr•ance. Ms. Jaffe concluded that if the City
conti nues to add rezoni ngs whi ch add commer•ci al pr•oper•ty to the ar•ea ar�ound
Pennsyl vani a, the Ci ty shoul d be pr•epared for� lawsui ts.
Ms. Pear•1 Berdess, 170 Or•egon Avenue South, stated that she is the �rner of the
house to the east of the site below the retaining wall . Ms. Berdess reported
that there i s al r•eady a pr•obl em wi th the wal l cavi ng i nto her proper•ty. Ms.
Ber•dess stated that her• concer•n i s the vacant 1 ot next to her• whi ch has been
left with mountains of dir•t. It is her� desir•e to see the lot developed as a
home site, but she fear•s that if the pr•oposed Mark Hur•d building addition is
allowed, that lot will never• be used for• a r•esidence.
Mr•. Dan Gr•eenstein, 7621 Ridgeway Road, stated that he is a new r•esident in the
area and that his main concer•n when consider•ing purchase of his house was the
tr•affic on Pennsylvania Avenue. Mr�. Gr•eenstein stated that he is concer•ned that
an addition to the Mar•k Hur�d building will r•esult in additional tr•affic. He
concluded with the statement that the main issue in consider�ation of the
r•ezoning is preser•vation of the neighbor•hood.
Planning Commission Minutes - November 22, 1982 -8- � �3
Mr. Jim Smuda, 5001 Circle Downs, stated that he is pr•esident of Mar•in Corpora-
tion which is acquir�ing the pr•operty immediately to the north and east of the
subject pr•oper•ty. Mr. Smuda stated that the model presented by the pr•oponents
shows the proposed building addition to be more massive than he had r•ealiaed
fr•om r•eviewing plans at the City Planning offices. Mr•. Smuda stated that he
plans to develop single family residences of high caliber• in the pr•ice r•ange of
$200,000 and up. Mr•. Smuda concluded that he objects to the pr•oposed develop-
ment because of 1 ack of buffer•i ng and because of the massi veness of the str•uctur•e.
Mr. Jim Zimmer•ly stated that he gr•ew up in the existing farm house on the sub-
ject pr•operty. Mr•. Zimmer�ly stated that he considers the proposed Mark Hurd
addi ti on to be the best use of the 1 and and the proposed Mar•k Hur•d str•uctur•e to
be mor•e pleasing to the eye than the house cur•r•ently on the proper•ty. Mr•.
Zimmerly reported that hi s par•ents have been deal i ng wi th Mar•k Hur•d for 25 year•s
and have found them exceptionally fine to deal with. Mr•. Zimmer•ly stated that
the proposed expansion move would benefit the City of Golden Valley in terms of
employment and taxes. In conclusion, Mr•. Zimmerly cautioned that if Mar•k Hurd
is not ailowed to use the pr•operty for expansion, it will become r•ental property.
Mr•. Wi 11 i am Rosenber•g, cur�r•ently r•esi di ng i n the Ci ty of Plymouth, stated that
he is building a house at 70 Or•egon Avenue South. Mr•. Rosenberg stated that no
matter how aesthetically pleasing the proposed new building might be, the point
is that it is a commer•cial building and not a house. In that sense, the
existing house on the subject site is more suitable to the neighborhood. He
stated that the proposed development would detr•act fr•om the housing investments
made by ever•y one of the fami 1 i es i n the nei ghbor•hood.
Mr•. Ar•nol d Kanar•i ck, 150 Nevada Avenue South, stated that the pl an pr•esented by
Mar•k Hurd at the meeting is the same plan that the neighbors r�eviewed and
objected to six months ago. Mr. Kanar•ick offered the opinion that if Mar•k Hurd
wished to act in good faith and good citizenship, they would have incorpor•ated
into their• plan the reactions of the neighbor•hood.
Mr. Mor•i ar•ty requested the opportuni ty to refute untr•ue statements made duri ng
the publ i c heari ng testimony. Mr•. Mor•i ar•ty stated that Mar•k Hur•d i s not owned
by a for�ei gn cor•por•ati on and that Mark Hur•d feel s a r•esponsi bi 1 i ty to i ts
employees as well as to the neighbor•hood.
Mr•. Bi11 Kr•eykes, 95 Or•egon Avenue South, stated that the r•ezoning question is
simply a question of commercial encroachment into a r•esidential ar•ea.
Chair•man Thompson closed the infor•mal public hear�ing and invited Commissioner
discussion.
Commission Leppik asked who provided Pemtom with the cor•rect infor•mation on the
zoning of the subject proper•ty. Mr. Miller• replied that the information pro-
vided may have depended on timing of the r�equest. Mr. Miller• stated that he
never• per•sonal ly tal ked to Mr•. Her•bst.
� �� Planning Commission Minutes - November 22, 1982 -g-
Commi ssi oner• For•ster• asked why thi s proper•ty was not i ncl uded i n Pemtom's r�esi-
dential development. Mr•. Herbst answered that Pemtom buys vacant lots for• deve-
lopment and was not inter•ested in the subject lot because of the existing house.
Mr•. Moriar�ty added that Mrs. Zimmer•ly chose to live in the existing house until
recently and that it was not for• sale.
Commissioner• Forster• asked whether the City has available any traffic studies
on Pennsylvania Avenue South. Mr. Miller• r•eplied that the City does not have
any recent studies. Mr•. Miller• added that the proponent did not address the
i ssue of tr•affi c and that the r•esponsi bi 1 i ty for pr•ovi di ng a study i s wi th the
pr•oponent r•equesting the development. Mr•. Nelson stated that the proponent did
not make a traffic study because the pr•opased development involves no additional
traffic or• par•king. Mr•. Nelson explained that the incr•ease in building size is
to accommodate machine'ry wather than additional employees. Ms. Jaffe offered
the information that the last tr•affic study was conducted at the time of the
last addition to the Mark Hur•d building and that the study at that time showed
1000 car•s per• day on Pennsylvania Avenue. Ms. Jaffe said that the State of
Minnesota confir•med that the tr•affi.c count at that time was high for• a residen- -
ti al str•eet.
Chairman Thompson r•eviewed the staff r•ecommendation and the thr•ee r•easons given
for• the staff r•ecommendation of denial .
Commissioner Prazak stated that he sees no compelling reason to change the
zoning of the subject lot, that the pr�oposed zoning would detr•act fr•om the
curr•ent char•acter• of the neighbor•hood and that he is in opposition to the
rezoning.
Commissioner Tubman stated that the pur�pose of a rezoning should be to upgr•ade a
pr•operty. Ther•e is no way to shield the proposed building located on the hill ,
and a commer�cial building on the top of the hill would dominate the sur•r•ounding
r•esidential neighborhood. Commissioner• Tubman concluded that his would be
inappropriate.
It was moved by Commissioner Tubman and seconded by Commissioner Leppik to
recommend City Council denial of the request received fr•om Mark Hur•d Aerial
Sur•veys, Inc. to r•ezone the pr•operty at 305 Pennsylvania Avenue South fr•om the
Residential to the Business and Professional Offices Zoning Distr•ict on the
gr•ounds that the pr•oposed r•ezoning is not in confor•mance with the Compr•ehensive
Plan and would be an unwise land use decision.
Commissioner Leppik stated that she opposes the r•ezoning because she sees no
compelling r•eason to r�ezone the pr•operty and sees negative impacts which could
occur• as a r•esult of the rezoning. Commissioner Leppik stated that she does not
think that continuation of cornrner•cial use northward into the r�esidential neigh-
borhood is desirable.
Commissioner• Singer• stated that he concurs with opinions expressed by other•
Planning Commissioner•s.
Planning Commission Minutes - November 22, �9s2 -lo- 1 5 5
Commissioner Forster� stated that he agrees with the statement in the staff r•epowt
that the pr•oblem started with the original Mark Hurd rezoning. Commissioner•
For•ster said he thinks that the situation should not be compounded by expanding
the use any fur•ther• and that it would be better• to allow the subject pr•oper•ty
with the existing house to r•emain as a buffer•.
The rrrotion car•r•ied unanimously.
V. Repor•t on HRA Meeting - November• 9, 1982
Chair�man Thompson pr•ovided the Planning Commission with a repor•t on the November� 9,
1982 HRA meeting.
VI. Repowt on City Council Meeting - November• 16, 1982
Chair�man Thompson pr•ovided the Planning Commission with a repor•t on the November•
16, 1982 City Council meeting.
VII. Repor•t on City Council/Planning Commission Subcorr�nittee Meeting -
ovem er• , -
Chair•man Thompson provided the Planning Commission with a r•epor•t on the November
10, 1982 City Council/Planning Commission Subcommittee meeting.
Chair•man Thompson r•epor•ted that the fir•st item on the agenda of the Subcommittee
meeting was Planning Commission r•epr•esentative pr�esentations at City Council
meetings. The City Council r•equests that the Planning Commission r•epr•esentative
make a pr•esentation including the recommendation, whether• the vote was unanimous
and the r•ationale for� the r•ecommendation. Planning Commissioners discussed the
fact that City Council member�s have copies of the staff r•epor•t and Pianning
Commission minutes which pr•ovide that infor•mation and that they feel they ar•e
r�epeating infor•mation which is alr•eady available to the Councii . Planning and
Redevelopment Coordinator• Mike Miller• suggested that the pur•pose of pr•esen-
tations on public hearing items is both for the public hearing r•ecord and for•
tMe benefit of the public. It was suggested that the Mayor• request that the
Planning Commission r•epr•esentative give a pr�esentation of the Planning
Commission r•ecommendation, r•ather• than asking whether• the Planning Commission
r•epr•esentative has any comments, to which Planning Commission repr•esentatives
tend to reply that they have no comments in addition to the agenda materials
pr•ovi ded.
Chair•man Thompson r•epor•ted that the City Council Subcommittee was r•eceptive to
the suggestion of a Zoning Plan for• the Valley Squar•e Redevelopment Ar•ea and that
he had infor•med the City Council Subcommittee that the Planning Commission is
willing to make a study of the Golden Hills ar•ea if the City Council wishes.
The Subcommittee thought that the City Council might call on the Planning
Commission to review the Golden Hills Study Ar•ea in the futuwe. Chair•man
� ���lanning Commission Minutes - November• 22, 1982 -11-
Thompson r•epor•ted that the Subcor�nittee also discussed examination of the land
u ses bor•der•i ng the Val l ey Squar•e Redevel opment Ar•ea i n or•der• to gui de uses to
those complementar•y to Valley Squar•e.
The meeting was adjour�ned at 9:25 P.M.
Respectfully su mitted,
� �., �
��� `` r '�,� ; .
Davi d Thompson, Chai rma ar•gar•� Leppi , r•etar•y