Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967 05-03 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION HELI? WEDNESDAY* MAY 3, 1967 EDINA VILLAGE HALL Members Present:x T. L. Todd, Chairman; Wm. Lewis, R. A. Huelster, George Nugent, H. J. Heegle and D. J. Griswold . Staff Presentr George C. }bite, Haren Sorensen I. &Mroval. of April 5.1967 -commission Kinutes Mr. Nugent moved that the April 5, 1967 Commission Minutes be approved as written. Mr. Todd stated that the record so show. I i . ZONING i/ GSTS Z-67-2 Shell Oil Co. Avenue and Heritage give. Fix. Hite presented his staff report in which he rev ewed the provisions of the Edina ordinance applicable to the proposed rezoning; the use and zoning of all surround- ing lands, and the policies of the Village Planning Commission and Council relating to the establishment of now commercial uses. He recommended that the request be denied stating that eche petition failed to conform to paragraph 2 of Section 9 of the ordinance; that the establishment of the proposed C-4 zoning on the property would be completely contrary to the Village's policy on the location of new commercial uses= and that the resulting land use, would be totally inconsistent with the land use plans developed for this area in 1960, which nearby property owners and residents have in good faith depended upon and should be aide to rely on. Mr. William Rosen. attorney representing the petitioner, stated that he had discussed the proposed re- zoning with Mr. Site prior to the Commission Meeting, but that none of the items advanced by ire. Hite in his staff report had been mentioned at the time of their conversation. Mr. Rosen then reviewed Shell's need for a station in the Edina area and said that it would be necessary for Shell to seek a rezoning for that station in that no vacant C-4 sites were available. Mr. Rosen reviewed the land uses adjacent to established stations at 50th and Halifax, 51st and France, Edina planning Commission Minutes May 3, 1967 -2- 54th and France and at 66th and Xerxes. He noted that in many of these cases single family uses were located adjacent to st;ationns. He said that the proposed gas station site on Xerxes Avenue at heritage Drive was within the commercial influence of Southdale Center. Mr. Rosen noted that the proposed Xerxes Avenue site would be 105 feet south of the Crosstown Highway, and that apartment construction on surrounding properties would screE:n the station from the view of single family areas. He asked that the Planning Commission consider his petition strictly on a planning basis and not be concerned about any ordinance provisions that might need to be changed. Fir. Lewis said that in many of the instances sigh+ced by Mr. Rosen, the gas stations had been established on site9 already zoned for commercial purposes which he said was not the same situation as was proposed at Xerxes and heritage Drive. Mr. Todd added that most of the homes built near the stations sighted by Mr. loosen were built by people who had ful: knowledge of the existence of the commercial zoning on the nearby property. He said that the people who had developed residential properties near the proposed Xerxes Avenue gas station site did so with the understanding that all adjacent anti surrounding properties dere zoned residential. Mr. Huelster said that the Village had prepared a, plan for the development of the properties within the area 1,etween the crosstown Highway and Southdale, and that he felt 4;hat the Village had an obligation to the people who have since moved into that area to see that the pian was not changed with- out good reason. Mr. Todd asked Mr. Rosen if he did not agree that the establishment of a commercial use on this property could be construed as "spot zoning." Mr. Rosen said that he did feel the establishment of the gas station would be adverse to the use of surrounding properties. Mai. Sam Schneider appeared and said that he owned the three apartment buildings immediately to the south of the proposed gas station site and that he was very much opposed to the proposed rezoning. He said that before he built his build- ings he carefully checked with the Village to determine whether Edina Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 3, 1967 or not there was any existing commercial zoning in the area, and also checked with Mr. o'Neill, the owner of the proposed Shell site, to determine if any such commercial development was contemplated. He said that Mr. O'Neill informed hits that the property was zoned R-4 residential and that no change was anticipated. He said that on the basis of these assurances he proceeded with the construction of his three buildings. Mr. Griswold said that he did not feel that the site was a good site for the proposed use. He said that he agreed with W. Rosen that the planning Commission should be concerned primarily about planning, but that he felt that from strictly a planning point of view the proposed use was entirely inappropriate. Mr. Griswold moved that the 7Planninq f ommi.ss, ion recommend to the Village Council that the rggaest of Shell. Oil C m n for C-4 zonin on the northwest corner of Heritage Drive and Xerxes avenue be denied. Mr. his_ econded the motion. Notion carried unanimousl Z-67-3 Johnson Eros. R-1 Residential District to R-+4 Street and T.H. 100. (See Minutes 4-5--67' Mr. Site presented his staff report outlining the history of the zoning and land use planning in the area of the petitioner's property and the existence of a sanitary sewer capacity problem. He recommended that action on the proposal be deferred until a new analysis of the sewer capacity situation had been completed. He said that this analysis would not be completed for about a year. Mr. Nordbloom, architect for the petitioner, and Mr. Frederick Johnson, owner of the property, both stated that the property had been purchased with the thought that it could be developed for multiple family residences. Mr. Nordbloom suggested that perhaps the number of proposed units could be reduced by 25;6 to meet the sewer capacity problem. Pair. Johnson suggested that perhaps the sanitary sewer pipes could be enlarged sufficiently to handle the additional sewage floe. Mr. Johnson further stated that they were not inter- ested in developing the property for any other purpose and Edina planning Commission Minutes -4- May 3, 1967 that the Village would be much better off from a tax stand- point with apartment development. Mr. Huelster moved 'aat further consideration of the r uest be deferred until such time as the sewer ca cit roblem was settled. Mr. Bee le seconded the motion. Mr. Griswold said that his primary concern was that. the petitioner°s property was not combined for planning purposes with the other vacant parcels in the area. He said that he would be much more receptive to the idea if someone could present an overall development plan for all of the area in question. Mr. Todd called for a vote on the matter. �Ir. Huelster ° s motion carried unanimously Z-67-4 jgdwest Federal Savin s and Loan. R -1 -Residential istrict to Office Buildin District. West 66th Street and Xerxes Avenue. Mr. Hite presented his staff report and commented that he had suggested to the petitioners that they consider establishing their proposed use on the site in question be- cause he felt that it represented an excellent solution to what had been for many years a difficult land use problem. He noted that the site was the triangle bordered by blest 66th Street on the south, Xerxes Avenue on the east, and York Avenue on the northwest. He said the property encompassed approximately one acre of land. it was noted that the petitioners had secured the services of Barton -Fischman Associates, traffic consultants, for the preparation of their plan. Mr. Hite said that the Hennepin County Highway Department had granted preliminary approval to the proposed traffic pattern. SFr. Foster Dunwoodie, representing the petitioner, said that they anticipated that approximately 60 vehicles would use the drive-in window per day and that about 40 people would park their car and go inside the building to transact their business. Edina Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 3. 1967 Mr. Lewis moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Village Council that the rectuest for Office RuildiRS District zonincr on the -West 66th Street and Xerxes Avenue triangle be a roved. Mr. Ruelster seconded the Motion. Many of the Commission members indi- cated that they felt the proposal to be a good solution to the problem. Air. Griswold stated that he would have pre- ferred to see the property used as a park but that if this was not possible. he would be happy to see the property used for the proposed purpose. Metion carried unanimow_ ugly;, Z-67-6 Edina Plaza Corp. R-1 Residential District to Planned Industrial District. West 78th Street. Air. Bernardi presented his request for Planned Industrial District zoning on three land parcels situated south of West 78th Street along the Edina border. This property is included in the Southwest Edina Plan Study and was recommended to be used for Planned industrial use. Mr. Hite commented that Mr. Bernardi had not as yet submitted the information about the proposal required by the Ordinance. He also advised that Mr. Bernardi has started rezoning pro- ceedings on the Bloomington property immediately to the south. He suggested that there should be some agreement between the two communities about zoning control and advised that Bloomington's industrial district does not prohibit outside storage. Mr. Bernardi said that he was agreeable to place covenants on the Bloomington property which would prohibit outside storage. Mr. Levis moved to aces t the r2gRest for stud ,and a fieldSinspection. Mr. Beeale seconded the motion. M .MA Carrier. Ill. Loll, D1V'TS IONS .. S. J. Schneider. 6d %o & 3,g Bloc 1 ,.. ...�. Hormandale Addition The lots proposed for division are located on Virginia Avenue between West 62nd Street and Nest 63rd Street. `our of the lots in the block have been divided into the east and west halves and are approximately 120° by 121°. Air. Schneider now proposes to divide the gest halves of Lots 2 and 3 into three lots 80' by 1201. This type of division is not typical of the area. Edina Planning Commission Minutes My 3, 1967 -6- Mr. Lewis suggested that the Commission inspect the property. Mr. Griswold moved that the Commission accept the pLopgsed 12ro rt division for stufty and,,-in9R2ct the p.r22!Erty-prior to the June meeting. Lewis second 2. E. P. Eike. 5717 T.H. 169. Lot 1, Kohlrid a Addn. Mr. Hite presented Mr. &tike's proposal to divide Lot 1, Kohlridge Addition into two parcels, each 75 feet by 224 feet. The area is served with sewer and water and no variances are required. The lot to the west is a large lot and has a single house on it. The Eike house presently is located in the center of the lot and the plan is to build a new foundation and move the existing house onto one of the proposed lots and construct a home on the second new lot. Mr. Lew moved that the r est be accepted for study and a field insuection. Mr. Griswold seconded the motion. All Voted &e. Notion Carried.. 3V. SUBDIVISIONS SP -66-12 Sioux Trail IV Addition. Mr. lite reported tha completed the grading of Cutlot l a He suggested that until the work is action on the final plat. He added would be issued until P¢xrr. Ruz4 c has quired. No action taken. Mr. Ruzic had not requested by the Village. completed, there be no that no building permits completed the work re - SP --67-5 Scenic View 7 and 11 Mr. Hite reported that this plat meets all ordinance requirements and recommended that it be approved subject to a review or street names and an acceptance by Clinger Road property myners who have lots adjacent to the proposed streets. Edina Planning C:ormnission Minutes -.7- May 3, 1967 Mr. Nucient moved that the glat be given final p.pproval subject to the conditions listed bX Mr. Mite. Mr. Be le seconded the motion. All. Noted A e. Motion Carried SP -67-7 Kemrich Knolls Mr. Hite suggested some changes with regard to the road patterns between the M.P. Johnson plat and Fjeldheim 11 Addition. Mr. Kemp and ire. Smith, developers of the plat, were agreeable to the changes. Mr. lHiuelster moved that the plat be received SP -67-8 Cherokee Hills.VX Addition. This five lot prat is located along Cherokee Trail. Sesser and water is available to the plat and it meets all Ordinance requiirements. Mr. Lewis moved, , at the orelimi ry p a - he Apn!2!zed Nr.. -Huelster seconded. All Voted �AVe. Motion carried. SP -67-9 Gleason 111 Addition This seven lot plat is located along the north ,vide of T.H. 169 near Gleason Road. Three of the lots have access from Aspen Road. The four lots along T.H. 169 recently received R-2 zoning and the Hoard of Appeals granted lot area variances on two of the lots. The plat meets all ordinance requirements. . Ruelster icacsved that thep1St be�a ap roe„ owed ..� ... as a preliminar glat. Mr. Bee le seconded the motion. All Noted Ave. Motion Carried. SP -67-10 lndianhead Crest 11 Addition Mr. Messenger's property is located on Valley View between Cheyenne Circle and Dakota Trail. The property will be served by seiner and water. The two proposed parcels exceed the minimum requirements for platting. Bee le maed that the plat be a roved as a AreljMj:LWU-% plat. Mr. Huelster seconded the motion. All Voted Aare. Motion on Carried. Edina Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 1967 M8 - V. OTHER BUSINESS 1• Commercial Dev_elo,nentb T.H. #169 and Olin, cue; Road. A special meeting was set for May 24, 1367 at 7:00 P.M. to discuss this item. Adjournment at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Karen Sorensen, secretary Z-67-2 EDflNA FILANNI�ING (7091'11ISSION' STAFF REPOART May 3, 1967 Shell Of! Co. Residentiat District R-4 to Commercial District C-4. Northwest cornar of Xerxes Avenue and Her itaw v Eli' Ixe. Refer to: Petition dated March 30, 067. Location and Zoning Map Minutes of April 5, 1967 The petitioner's property is a part of a 31 acre parcel zoned for muitiple residential use in :960. The 1960 Council action also included the application of the same zoning classification to the properties west and south of this 31 acre site. Since 060, multiple residence structures have been constructed upon these adjacent sites. The properties to the east of tho petitioner's site (across Xerxes Avo.) are zoned and developed as two family residences. Tho Gross Town Highway is situated adjacent and to the north of ?he 31 acre parcak Properties north of the Cross Town Highway oro zoned and developed as single family residencos. The poli tionaris portion of the 31 acre parses Is situated in the no7thwast corner & Xerxes Avenue and Heritage Drive; has an area of 24,750 square feet; a Xcrxas Avenue frontage of 165 feet; and, a Heritage Drive frontage of 150 feet. The northerly line of the proposed C-4 zone is 105 feet south of the Cross Town right-of-way. Residences containing 5 or more dwelling units are tho only permitt6d principal use in the existing R-4 District. The dwelling unit density roquirements in tho R-4 District would pernit an apartment building containing 8 - IC units to be constructed on the petitioner's site. Automobile service stations, automobile car wash establishments and drive-in restaurants are the permitted principai uses in the proposed C-4 Commarcla! District. Viii age records contain no reference to earlier rezoning requests for this property although Mr. O'Neill, the fee owner, has appeared at one or twD Conmission and Cowncl; meetings and coiroented that he was of the opinion that the R-4 zoning was unrealistic. Paragraph 2. Reou-Iraments for- the Es-ablishment of Commercial Districts, of Section 9, Commercial Di strict of the Edina Zoning Ordinance (No. 261) states: "�a) No propoply will be zoned Commorcial District unless it K either W more than two acres in aroa, or (2) contiguous on a side Wt Kno or street frontage to an ostair lishsd Commorcial District when such contiguous line or frontage coast itruss not less than 25% of the total length of the pori Brie ter of such property or (3) contiguous on not Wss than 75% of the total length oT tho perimeter of such Site I I I age 2 propert} to an existing Conif:erclal District, Office Building District, lndustr€al District or Planned Industrial District, or any combination thereof." The petitioner's proposal dozes not comply with this requirement. All adjacent properties aro zoned residential and the site area is 0.57 acre. Subparagraph (b) of that sarne paragraph states: "(b) When the proposed Commercial District is (1) more than two acres in area and is contiguous on less than 75% of the total length of its perimetor -to an existing CrmrRerclal District, or (2) five or more ac,,., -as in area, it shall be zoned as a Planned Coirimarcial District under paragraph 6 of this section." Paragraph 6. Planned Ccfiml.ercial Districts defines such a district as follows: _ "A Planned ComTercial District is a pre -planned development of business estabaishments usuaily characterized by central management, integrated architectural design o` buildings, joint or common use of parking and other similar facilities and a harmonious selection and efficient distribution of business types. Any Commercial District established by the enactment of an ordinance amendment under this paragraph shall thereafter be referred to as a Planned Cormrercial District, PC -1, PC -2, or PC --3, depending on the actual district uses and standards allowed and each such district shall be subject to the provisions of this paragraph relating to Planned C(Yrmorcial Districts as well as to tt;P requirements of this seal -ion relating to Districts C-1, C-2 or C-3, as the case may be. A Pianned Commercial District wherein C-•4 uses are authorized in addition to other uses shall be referred to as a Planned Commercial District PC -1(4), PC -2(4) or PC -3(4), as the case may be." These paragraphs are merely the Ordinance implementations of the Village's poI€c€es with respect to the establ€shrr:ent of commerc€aI uses. These policies are generally outlined in the "Purpose`" paragraph (1) of Section 9. With specific reference to the Shell Oil petition or any other request similar to it, the Village policy is simply that such uses be established only in locations which are contiguous to existing compatible uses or be established in conjunction with a planned, integrated comurorcial development. The establishment of a single C-4 use on 1/2 acre parcel in a purely residential area would seem to be in direct contradiction to this policy. The petroleum industry itseif seems to expouse this same policy. A booklet (entitled, "The Place Of The. Service Station In The CoiTtmunity", published by the American Petroleum Institute in 1957 states as one of the zoning policies of the Marketing Division of that organization: "Modern service stations should be penT € tted in areas which a I I oar the esstab I € shment of any othor rota i 6 bus € ness and under they same conditions." Simi Page 3 May 3, 8967 The stafement goes on to say that this zoning policy means: ,,*rhe po!icy provides that service stations be permitted in areas which allow other retail business. It does not propose that they be permitted to locate in purely residential areas where no other business is permitted J. to operate. While thare m',,ght bh some question about the concept that service stations are no d I f f orent than any other reta I k bus i ness, there i s no d I sag reem--nt wi-i-h -the "not in pure Iy rosid-anflai area" argument. Recovrnondaticjn: Recornmond to Vitlage Council, that the requested es t ab B i shrpent of a C-4 zone on the norlffiwest corner of Heritage Drive and Xerxes Avenue be denied. The petition fails to conform to Paragraph 2 of Section 9; the estaWshment of the proposed C-4 zoning on the property would be completely contrary to the Village's policy on the location of new Ccaffnercial uses; and the resulting Band use wou;d be totally Inconsistent with the land use plans developed for this ar-ja in 1960 which nearby property owners and residents have in good faith depended upon and should be able to rely on. gch LAW OFFICES -,AICIRSKY & ROSEN ROBERT A. DWORSKY WILLIAM S. ROSEN PAUL H. RAVICH OTIS F. HILBERT ' March 30, 1967 George Hite, City Manager Villi ge of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 400 MiNNESG" a BU,-O,NG SAINT PAUL, MIN?.ESOT= 55101 TELEPHONE 227-7. Re: Shell Oil Company Application to Rezone the S. 195' of the N. 462' of the E. 183' of the N.E.1/4 of the N.W.1/4 of S. 29, T. 28, R. 24, from R--4 to C-4. My File No. 2481 Dear Mr. Hite: Enclosed herewith are seven copies of the application by Shell Oil Company to rezone the above described real property from R-4 to C-4. Also enclosed is our Check No. 2916 in the amount of $50.0 made payable to the Village of Edina, Minnesota, in payment of ti - filing fee. Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation, it is my understanding that this will be placed upon the Edina Planning Commission agenda for hearing before the Planning Commission on Wednesday, April 5 Please confirm to me in writing that this matter will be on the age for hearing at that time. I will submit the plot plan, plans and specifications for the build:. -.g and pictures of the proposed building before the Planning Commission meeting. I would like to meet with you before the meeting also. I would appreciate it if you would telephone me and advise me at wLit time you will be able to meet with me on next Monday or Tuesday. Yours very truly, �- ph enclosures I, { �{ I, ' � � ��� I ��F' , `I j �, = � �' f' ,1 �� �� EDINA PLANNING CC Ml SSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1967 Z-67-3 Johnson Brothers. Residential District R -I to Residential District - R -4. Holt Nursery,property. 7200 S. Normandale Road. Refer to: Commission minutes of April 5, 1967. Location and Zoning Map. Proposed site and building plans. This 14J acre parcel is situated adjacent to the west side of T.N. 100 about midway between W. 70th Street and Metro Blvd. It has a T.H. 100 frontage of 956.34 feet and a depth of 672.31 feet. The major portion of the site has, In recent years, been occupied by the Holt Nursery. Most of the site is marshy and is situated below the 826 foot Nine Mile Creek flood plain elevation. The Creek traverses the property from the northwest to the southeast over a distance of about 1150 feet. The underlying soils are suprisingly good with the peat being only 2 to 5 feet deep. The outer table is, of course, quite high. The property is zoned R-1 as are all adjacent properties. The only permitted principal uses In that District are single family homes, public facilities, churches and private golf courses. Until December, 1965, when the R-1 District was estabiished by the Council, the Village's single family district (Open Development District) also permitted nursing homes by special permit. Such a permit was granted in 1964 to the Evangelical Free Church for a 72 bed nursing home on property north of the parcel now under consideration. The home was never constructed, although the Church still owns the land. Nursing homes are now only permitted as principal uses in multiple residence districts and there is some question as to whether the special permit granted to the Church In 1964 is still valid. Land use plans prepared by the Commission in 1964 as part of the Edina Interchange Canter considerations, projected office and industrial development on all lands south of Nine Mile Creak with single family or two family development to the north. The 200 foot aide flood plain zone along the Creek alignment was to serve as the transition between the two areas. This land use pattern resulted in part from a desire to provide expansion space for the attractive office and industrial development moving up frau the south; in part because it was not felt appropriate to intermingle residential and non-residential developments; and, finally because of capacity limitation on the area's sanitary sewer system. - _: - w, - - - - _ - Johnson Bros. Page 2 May 3, 1967 The requested R-4 zoning of the Q acre tract would permit the establishment of anywhere from 220 to 320 dwelling units, depending on the location o! the parking and whether the roadways are public or private. The Johnson Brothers proposal contains .312 units. The actual land area that gill be available for development is also somewhat in doubt because of a proposed highway taking along T.N. 100 (now scheduled at 85 feet) and the flood plain requirement. in 1962, the Commission recommended that a requost for multiple residence zoning to permit 148 torn house units to be constructed on this same site be denied. The file record of that deliberation is not as complete as it should be, but the minutes seem to indicate a concern about the great number of apartments being proposed and built In Edina. Mr. Nordb i oom, architect for the petitioners, has commented that the present alignment of the Creek through tits property would make it difficult to develop the property for either office of industrial uso. a read ignm:nt of the Creek might overcome this problem!. The tai; situation i s confusing. Assuming the taxable value of apartments to be ;15,000 per unit and the taxable value of industrial or office deveaopment to be $6 per square fool- of site area, an acre of apartments (20) would have a value of $.300,000 and an acre of office or industrial would have a va l uL of $264,000. The industrial or office development :would have a lower cost of service, but tha apartments would add to the Village population which is becoming an increasingly important consideration as mora and more State and f=ederal aids and tax returns are being distributed on a population basis. The sanitary sewer situation Is of extreme importance. A thorough analysis of our trunk sewer systems in 1963 indicated that the predicted flow in the large trunk seater located w€thin this property would exceed its capacity by 25% when the areas contributing to the pipe are fully developed. A new analysis of this situation will be made as soon as a decision Is imade on the proposed Mud lake fnva l opiment, and when the land rases along County Road 18 are more certain. Because the 15 acre parcel now under consideration is only a part of an 30 acre area, all of which might well ba developed for apartments, the consideration of the sever system's capacity to assume this added load is of extreme importance. Recommendation: The uncertainties relative to the ability of the sewer system to serve the proposed apartirtent area, leave no choice but to recommend that multiple residence zoning of the petitioner's 15 acre tract, or any other large tract in this area, be de y erred until a new analysis of the sewer situation has been completed. This wil! be at least a year from now. t n the meantime, any proposal to develop this pvopenty for office or industrial use should be favorable considered. gch i.. � I � i I � i { 1 I i I i�' � III C BILI f �� 'I�' (, i u �. I a Ali li ' i i� i; ii I1 ' I � � L � ail i; ,� ,f 1 i j,:. i � '� I li '�I �I a �� i � i i � { i� , ±� �I � �� �� 1 �I � �`� '� � I � '� � � � ', II� � I �' I, �' ,i f � � ' � �I �I I�, i � �', I, SII i �'I ��! �, I 11' L � I I � 1 t 114 I � I i � ��� li 'il �' �I �. �� �i e ��I j� i� �� ;3 {{ � I Z-67-4 gch EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1967 Midwest Federal. R -I Residential District West 66th Street and Xerxes Avenue. Office Buildinq District. The petitioner's property is the island formed by Xerxes Avenue, West 66th Street and York Avenue. It has an area of approximately one acro. The existing R-1 zoning Is not in force because the Village has considered single family development to be an appropriate use of the property, but rather, because the shape, size, and relationship of they site to its surrounding road system has made it difficult to determine gust what use would be appropriate under these conditions. All surrounding land areas are zoned cortrcial. The two closest existing uses are a gas station to the east and a restaurant to the south. A portion of anis site (the westerly 1%3) was involved in the Pearce vs. Edina zoning case. The District Court ruled and the State Supreme Court affirmed that the Village should permit any commercial use of of that site which would not Interfere with the flow of traffic on surrounding streets. The petitioner proposes to have the property zoned Office Building District and then to construct upon It a branch office of their organization. This facility would be similar to Midwest Branch offices recently constructed at Southtown and in Golden Valley. The petitioner expects customer traffic at the new facility to be about 40 people per day who will park their car and walk into the office and another 60 who will use the drive -up window. The plan provides for 6 employee parking stalls, 18 customer stalls, and a drive -up window waiting space that will accommodate 7.0 cars. The design of the stre:cture is such that it has no distinguishable "frons-" or "back" :which is an important consideration on the proposed site. The traffic pattern on the site was developed by Barton Ashman Associates who originally designed the overall Southdaie area road pattern. Recchmmendation: This seems to be an ideal solution for a most difficult problem. Approval Is recommended subject only to Hennepin County Highway Departmentapproval of -the driveway locations.