The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-08-25 PACKET 06.1.STAFF REPORT CASE: V2014 -025 ITEM: 6.1 PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 8/25/14 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 9/17/14 APPLICATION APPLICANT: Dan and Michele Tatro REQUEST: A variance to City Code Title 7 -2 -2, Curb Cuts, to allow a second driveway. SITE DATA LOCATION: ZONING: GUIDED LAND USE: 11701 Leeward Avenue South R -2, Residential Estate Rural Residential LAND USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: CURRENT NORTH: Rural Residential EAST: Rural Residential SOUTH: Rural Residential WEST: Rural Residential SIZE: N/A DENSITY: N/A GUIDED Rural Residential Rural Residential Rural Residential Rural Residential RECOMMENDATION Based on testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation of either approval or denial. Cottage Grove COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING DIVISION %ere Pride -e' p ".spedty Meet Planning Staff Contact: John McCool, Senior Planner, 651 - 458 -2874, Imccool(Qcottage- g rove. org Application Accepted :, 7/30/14 60 -Day Review Deadline: 9/28/14 City of Cottage Grove Planning Division • 12800 Ravine Parkway South • Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Planning Staff Report Dan and Michele Tatro Second Driveway Variance Planning Case No. V2014 -025 August 25, 2014 Proposal Dan and Michele Tatro, 11701 Leeward Avenue South, are requesting a variance to City Code Title 7, Chapter 2, Section 2, Curb Cuts. The property owner is proposing to construct a second driveway that connects to Leeward Avenue. The new driveway is proposed to be 20 feet wide at the front property line and located approximately 36 feet from their north property line. A location map for Tatro's property is shown below. - t F Q Z W Q Tatro > E 11701 Leeward Avenue Z Rear and Side Yard Driveway Setback Variances Mississippi River j 120THSTS 0 500 1.W ZW B.OF Location Map Review Process Application Received: July 30, 2014 Acceptance of Completed Application: July 30, 2014 Tentative City Council Date: September 17, 2014 60 -Day Review Deadline: September 28, 2014 Planning Staff Report — Case No. 2014 -025 August 25, 2014 Page 2 of 8 Ordinance Requirements This property and other residential properties within the Pine Coulee and Countrywood neigh- borhood are zoned R -2, Residential Estate District. The minimum lot size requirements within the R -2 District is 1.5 acres. The R -2 zoning classification is consistent with the "Rural Residential" future land use designa- tion depicted on the Future Land Use map in the Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The property owner is proposing to construct a second driveway that will connect to Leeward Avenue. City Code Title 7 -2 -2, Curb Cuts, stipulates that there shall only be one curb cut for each residential lot having curb and gutter. Leeward Avenue is a rural designed roadway. There is no curb or gutter. City staff has not literally interpreted this regulation to mean that properties fronting along a public street that do not have curb and gutter are allowed to have more than one access drive. The general intent of this ordinance regulation is to limit the number of access connections along public streets. For this reason, residential properties are limited to one drive- way connection, whether or not the street has curb and gutter. If this is an incorrect interpreta- tion, then the number of driveways a residential property can have if there is no curb and gutter along the roadway would not be limited. The variance request pertains to the following City ordinance regulation 7 -2 -2: CURB CUTS: A. There shall only be one curb cut for each residential lot having curb and gutter. Approval of a new or second curb cut shall require that the original curb cut be closed and the driveway removed and the curb cut repaired at the applicant's expense. B. No curb cuts shall be made which will impair proper street drainage or cause ingress and egress from prop- erties to constitute a hazard to traffic if so determined by the public works director. C. The performance of the work and quality of materials shall be in accordance with the latest revision of the state department of highways standard specifications for highway construction. D. The existing curb shall be removed in complete whole sections. No cutting, sawing or breaking of the exist- ing curb shall be allowed, except for blacktop curbs. Joints between the existing curb and the new entrance shall be made at the existing joints in the in -place curb. E. Any portion of the existing pavement structure disturbed during the curb cut work shall be repaired with simi- lar materials of equal or greater structural capacity. Repair limits shall be defined by right angle saw cuts so oriented to provide the least noticeable surface patch. F. On existing streets, improved with curb and gutter, the period between removing the in -place curb and con- structing the new entrance shall not exceed seventy two (72) hours. G. The permit fee fora curb cut shall be in such amount as provided by ordinance of the city council from time to time. The fee shall be waived if application is made in connection with the issuance of a building permit for new construction. (Ord. 783, 2 -15 -2006) The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from the strict application of this ordi- nance provision based on the following findings: Planning Staff Report— Case No. 2014 -025 August 25, 2014 Page 3 of 8 1. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this title. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The proposal puts the property to a reasonable use. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner. 5. That the conditions upon which an application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. 6. That the purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. Planning Considerations Property Characteristics Tatro's property is part of the Pine Coulee subdivision, which was platted in 1961. The 145 -foot wide lot along Leeward Avenue and 186.6 -foot averaged lot depth provides a lot area of approx- imately 0.65 acres. The existing residential structure is in the southwest corner of the property. A 22 -foot by 22 -foot accessory structure is in the southeast corner of the property. A building permit for the accessory structure was issued in May 1985. A copy of the applicant's site plan showing the location of the proposed second driveway is attached. The existing driveway and parking area at 11701 Leeward Avenue is located along the south side of the applicant's property. The existing driveway is a concrete surface. The property owner had previously added a gravel area along the south side of the existing concrete driveway to provide additional parking and a driveway extension to the existing accessory structure. The property owner's initial plan was to construct a driveway along their south property line to ac- cess the existing accessory structure located in the southeast corner of their property. This pro- posal was abandoned since the 20 -foot minimum side yard setback requirement for the proposed gravel driveway and parking area could not be met. The property owner is in the process of removing the gravel material and intends to re- landscape the area along their south property line. Proposed Driveway North of House Aerial photos taken in 2005 and 2013 of their property are shown below. Existing Driveway Planning Staff Report— Case No. 2014 -025 August 25, 2014 Page 4 of 8 2013 Aerial Photo 2005 Aerial Photo Planning Staff Report —Case No. 2014 -025 August 25, 2014 Page 5 of 8 In 2011, an accessory apartment license was issued to the Tatro's and a second address num- ber (11703) was assigned to their current 11701 Leeward Avenue address. The Tatro's use of the accessory apartment will continue to be valid upon accessory apartment license renewals, bi- annual inspections by the City, and confirmation that their sanitary septic /drainfield systems are properly designed to accommodate both dwelling units. City ordinance (Title 11, Chapter 9, Article B(3), Permitted Accessory Uses) allows accessory apartments in a single - family dwelling. The performance standards for accessory apartments require that no more than one accessory apartment is allowed, a minimum of four off - street parking spaces (two parking spaces inside a building are permitted) are provided on the site, and the owner(s) of the property must occupy at least one of the units on the premises. These requirements are currently in compliance. Utilities The Tatro's property and other properties in the Pine Coulee /Countrywood neighborhood are outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). For this reason, the properties within this neighborhood each have their own well and septic /drainfield system. The septic and drainfield system on the Tatro's property is located northeast of their house. The location of the proposed second driveway will not impact their septic or drainfield. The property owner has no intentions of extending a new driveway to their existing accessory structure in the southeast corner of their property, but plans to construct a second accessory structure at the east edge of the new driveway. City ordinance allows two accessory structures in the R -2 Dis- trict, but the cumulative total square footage for both accessory structures must not exceed 2,000 square feet. All private utilities exist and provide adequate service to this property and all other residential properties in this neighborhood. No public utilities need to be relocated or modified to accom- modate the applicant's variance request. Parking on or driving across the designated drainfield area is prohibited. The drainfield area must not be disrupted or impacted, this includes no park- ing or driving motor vehicles across septic tanks and /or the designated drainfield area. Public Hearing Notices Public hearing notices were mailed to 35 property owners who are within 500 feet of the appli- cant's property. These notices were mailed on August 13, 2014. The public hearing notice was also published in the August 13, 2014, edition of the South Washington County Bulletin. The Planning Division received letters, which are attached, from the following property owners: • Trish Thompson, 11733 Leeward Avenue, dated August 20, 2014. • James and Mary Noreen, 11671 Leeward Avenue, dated August 19, 2014 • Phil and Bets Thorkelson, 11795 Lehigh Avenue, dated August 2014 • Charlotte L. Schoen, 11600 Lehigh Avenue, dated August 19, 2014 • Kent and Gail Griffith, 11633 Layton Avenue, dated August 19, 2014 • Bette and Jim Clement, 11827 Leeward Court • Mike and Rose Kvamme, 11625 Leeward Avenue, dated August 20, 2014 • Marie - France Hadlich, 11650 Layton Avenue, dated August 20, 2014 Planning Staff Report— Case No. 2014 -025 August 25, 2014 Page 6 of 8 • Les and Vicki Milverstedt, 11681 Lehigh Avenue, dated August 20, 2014 • Michael and Sylvia Cordato, 11650 Layton Avenue, dated August 20, 2014 • Tim and Jean LaHann, 11680 Leeward Avenue, dated August 17, 2014 City Department Review Representatives from various City Departments reviewed the Tatro's variance request. Their comments did not find any potential adverse impacts if a variance was granted for a second driveway as proposed by the property owner. No comments or recommendations were received from any advisory commissions. Conclusion There are two options available to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council for the second driveway. The following recommendations were prepared for your con- sideration: Recommendation for Denial. That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council denial of a variance to City Code Title 7, Chapter 2; Section 2, Curb Cuts. If the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council denial of allowing a second access drive connecting to Leeward Avenue, the following findings of facts may be considered: A. There are no practical difficulties that support the applicant's request and the existing driveway connection provides adequate residential access. B. There are no unique circumstances to the property that supports the variance. The exist- ence of the existing driveway provides adequate access for this residential use since 1985 without the need for another driveway. C. The applicant failed to provide sufficient findings that support a need for a second drive- way. Their variance request is not unique for this parcel of land and could generally be sought by other properties within the same R -2 District zoning classification. m Recommendation for Approval. That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of a variance to allow a second driveway for property at 11701 Leeward Avenue. The Planning Commission should specify the findings of facts supporting the variance. For the Planning Commission's consideration, the following findings might be considered: A. The location of the residential dwelling and existing driveway does not provide a 20 -foot minimum side yard setback to expand the existing driveway on the south side of the property. Planning Staff Report — Case No. 2014 -025 August 25, 2014 Page 7 of 8 B. The proposed second driveway location 36 feet from the north property line is a practi- cable route, as long as any extension to the driveway to the accessory structure in in the southeast corner of the applicant's property does not cross upon the applicant's septic or designated drainfield area. B. The variance request does not adversely impact development goals and policies docu- mented in the City's Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan. C. Leeward Avenue is a local residential street with a 30 mph speed limit. Traffic volumes are low and the site lines north and south of the proposed second driveway are unob- structed. D. Other residential properties within the Pine Coulee and Countrywood subdivisions have two access drives. Granting a variance to City Code Title 7 -2 -2, Curb Cuts, to allow a second driveway as depicted on the applicant's site plan is subject to the following conditions: 1. The property address for the main residence and accessory apartment must be displayed on the principal structure so the address numbers can be seen from the street. 2. The proposed second driveway or parking area must comply with the 20 -foot minimum side yard setback ordinance requirement. 3. The second driveway between the edge of Leeward Avenue's roadway surface and the front plane of the applicant's dwelling must be surfaced with concrete, asphalt, or concrete paver bricks. 4. The maximum driveway width at the front property line must not exceed 28 feet. 5. A building permit application for the proposed new driveway must be filed with the Build- ing Division and a building permit is issued. Construction of the new driveway must not begin until the building permit has been issued. 6. No part of the driveway or parking area shall encroach on or over any part of the septic or drainfield area. 7. Drainage or erosion from the new driveway shall not create any adverse or nuisance drainage to any abutting properties. 8. The property owner must file a Right -of -Way Permit application with the Engineering Division and obtain the permit before any work constructing the second driveway begins. 9. No more than a total of four vehicles may be parked on the residential lot outside of a building or accessory structure (City Code Title 6, Chapter 2, Section 4(C )(2)). Planning Staff Report— Case No. 2014 -025 August 25, 2014 Page 8 of 8 Recommendation Based on testimony and discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, the Commission can modify any of the draft recommendations, finding of facts, and /or conditions of approval. It is recommended that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council con- cerning the Tatro's second driveway variance request from City Code Title 7, Chapter 2, Section 2, Curb Cuts. Prepared by: John McCool, AICP Senior Planner Attachments: Applicant's Site Plan, 2014 Accessory Structure Building Permit Application, 1985 Accessory Structure Site Plan, 1985 Accessory Structure Building Permit, 1985 Letters from Neighboring Property Owners S 4 r CRY of Cottage Grove 1 Building Permit Application L.F_F1��f� �rJF So. e- zte$rr 2 At L� r� s T / /7vtEw��cr� r��r �{3 - 36 / ADDRESS 3 ---�- 4 V 5 6 OORpANY C[ASSIFICATION: (Check 1) Q Resldential QCeanerclal QIndtn[rial ❑Agrlaeltural . a 7 Pawn FOR: (Check 1) P ew N Building Psdmwiing Deck or patio OD n. DOE Addition Fireplace/5cove (�7��jFence iC"JSRe_S►de Alteration Pool Ocher SToQH(oF �L D!y 8 Explain WOO( cros[tuttion, materials to be used and intended use: F —LDO+Y fsnstruction Data: length o14�A Width lfeight f{ � Square Feet f Nvhber Stories Estimated Valueu* O$" /��" (Including Lsbo 1 0 Attach to or draw site plan on the back of this application: 1 Attach building plans with details of construction as-applicable: 12 the hadetsigned hereby agrees to do all work in accordance with the ordinances of the City of Cottage Grove and the rulings of the Building Official. agnature ce — OFFICE USE ONLY ........................................... ........................... APPROVE]) By Planning Department � [menC Ire Dh:pa nt ��' Permit a Rate Issuel Renewal Date PER41T FEES: Building Permit Plan Check Fee Office Fee Stato Surcharge Metro Sac Charge Water Connection Fee Sewer Connection Fee Water Meter Park Dedication SCOrm Sc+mr Fng.. Legal. Adain_ Water (area fee) Other TUFAL FEE (n 0. i No 13737 " BUILDIN PERMIT COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA FEES: $61.50 Permit Fee State Surcharge 2.58 Metro SAC Charge Other TOTA 64.08 Site Address 11701 Leeward Avenue Owner eri S General Contractor Sa tttT. Estimated Cost INSPECTIONS: Footings Waterproofing - Final IN CONSIDERATION OF The Statements and representations made by the Applicant - Allen Most whose address is 11701 Leeward Ave. in his application is hereby:;; Allen Most made apart hereof, PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO construct storage building as owner to a building described as follows Kind of. construction Size of building lot 2:1 22 22 Front or width in feet ; Side or length In feet. ; Height in feet Number of stories ; Sq. Ft. 484 ; Rear Set Back ; Front Set Back Left Side Set Back., Right Side Set �Back ; upon that tract of land described as follgws.,- LoT 4 BLOCK 4 PLAT OR ADDITION:_ Coulee Assessors Plat Number ; which tract is of the size and area specified in said application. This permit is granted upon the express conditions that said owner or the person to whom it is granted, and bit con- tractors, agents, workman and employee, shall comply in all respects with ordinances of the city Cottage Grove, Minnesota and.alf.conditions as required by the City Council; that it does not cover the use of public property, such as Areefs; sidewalks' etc for which spacial permits must be secured; and that it does not cover Electrical, Plumbingerid HeatingforwFiicit special:`: permits :must: be secured, CONDITIONS: ' . Given under the hega of the Cie �of said City and its corporate seat and attest by its Inspector this 17th day of r77 y ig �w a3r ,�ynoH � � 39bl�M9 ! ,fir MM To Whom it may Concern We are writing regarding the second variance request from Dan Tatro - the first variance was withdrawn earlier. The impact however of the `crushed rock driveway' that Tatros put in initially to accommodate their rental people has not been cleaned up. His crushed rock continues to abut directly on our property line with zero green space between us. As neighbors directly located to the south of this property at 11733 Leeward, we are in opposition to this variance request of yet another driveway and garage on this property. Currently, there are two garages already on this property including the two stall garage in the back yard of this property. It would seem that these two garages could house approximately four units. There is an allowance of 4 additional outdoor units that can be placed on this property site and we be] ieve that these extra cars /trucks caused by the rental property could be located on the current cement driveway without adding another driveway and another garage to this property. When we built our existing home in 1969, this whole area of Pine Coulee was considered single- family homes, There certainly was no talk of rental property ever being allowed in our area or we would never have chosen to build here. The fact is that most of us moved to Pine Coulee to enjoy the green space that we have all come to love and don't want that encumbered with additional cars, trucks, trailers. Our home is our haven .... it is both our "Up North" and "Down South" place where we have invested many hours and dollars. We LOVE our home! If this variance would be granted, we feel the installation of such would strictly be an adverse affect to the physical, social, economic, environmental and aesthetic impact of our beloved neighborhood. The current character and quality of our neighborhood would significantly be impacted with a "duplex" look and we don't feel this is in compliance with our existing green space. This variance request is not in ]seeping with a HARDSHIP. We feel the hardship was created by the Tatros when they took on the rental property in the first place. Our concern now is that we work to find peace among the pieces. In the past, we have enjoyed knowing both Shelli and Dan Tatro. They are good people; however, we can not support this variance request as it will change the entire character of our entire neighborhood. We are here to ask your help to reach a settlement to this variance request. Thank you. Wayne Thompson Trish Thompson - rkO yn fsor t4M -ty - p e - g' z �� 8 -18 -14 Mr. Tatro's VARIANCE REQUEST for a 2nd driveway! We are long time Pine Coulee residents, living next door to the Tatros, on the side of the requested variance. Mr. Tatro is requesting a variance for a second driveway on his property. Our neighborhood's ambiance and attraction are based on the mature trees and green space that we all enjoy! We have enjoyed living in what has always been a single family neighborhood. Without notification or any preliminary information we have found ourselves living next door to a multiple family dwelling, designed to have a rental unit. Again, we were never notified of the status change! We are disappointed that our small local community was never allowed to have input about this significant neighborhood change. We would not choose to move next door to a multiple family dwelling. The purpose of zoning is to protect individual property owners from harmful or undesirable uses of adjacent property. This has always been a single family dwelling neighborhood and the value of our properties are based on that type of zoning. We believe this imposes a negative property valuation to a neighborhood that has an established single family dwelling history. Now we are faced with the trappings of a multiple unit dwelling, including loss of green space, parking lots, multiple driveways, excessive vehicles and trailers, deteriorating neighbor relations, etc. We are coming to this meeting trying to save the quality, value and the unique nature of our neighborhood. We are being asked to allow for a second driveway at Mr. Tatro's home, that will replace trees and green space, for construction of a driveway to hold more cars, trailers and who knows what else. We reference this because of Mr. Tatro's past performance with his current driveway. When he was granted a multiple dwelling permit, he expanded his driveway into an angled parking lot with multiple cars and trailers, creating a neighborhood eyesore. We can only assume that Mr. Tatro will be doing the same with the second driveway, since there are already 2 large trailers parked in his yard next to the side deck. See picture. The variance does not ask for, but appears that the requested driveway, (that goes to nowhere) will become another eyesore parking lot. What is Mr. Tatro's purpose for having another driveway? We question the squared area, on his drawing, at the end of the purposed 2nd driveway. We cannot help but believe that possible future plans, would include the erection of another garage, which would make a total of three garages on his property, and complete the multiple dwelling look. We further question that if the intent is to add another garage to the driveway, how would he access his yard when he needs to replace his original septic system, that seems to have been grandfathered in to his multiple dwelling home permit. Mr. Tatro's expansion of his original driveway has already caused much hardship and expense for his neighbors to the south of him and if he is allowed to continue with the second driveway, it will cause hardship and great expense for us to regain our present green space quality. We are sad about the situation and hope that the City of Cottage Grove can help everyone find a positive solution for our local Pine Coulee Community. James & Mary Noreen 11671 Leeward Ave S q y ,� (� r a�Fp • �i.•nly� e�E �5 r � ' �,tit4117 {I 1 • y/ 1 2Qix v� REC., - AUG 0 a 2014 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE 8 -/ f -i Z -5 �°� UQiu.�.� rte- ✓� D RECEIVED G� ( ( AUG 2 0 2014 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE J41),q - c / J-A d�w //666 �cZ L OX -. 5� CITY OF O O7I'HGE'GR OVE l_l� L- =�Y-u - - 5, - - - - �� F J�` Clew n Ca Awe l 8 k �r a Ja�ra .ec bq cue ws 419 ti : s ` _ RE CEIVED Our '•'� AUG 2 0 2014 U/(q/� f ` ��✓� CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE , JV-IVI "' ll k- & dt av 4 t AUG 202014 CITY Or IATiAGE GROVE Ice j -5:s 0 3� U August 20, 2014 City of Cottage Grove Community Development Department 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Dear City Official, I am opposed to the variance to allow a second driveway on the property located at 11701 Leeward Avenue South. I am a long -term resident of this neighborhood —since 1973. I feel that adding a second garage and driveway will not be good for this neighborhood. I feel that it will lead to additional rental properties and additional structures, such are the one in this variance, and this will permanently change this neighborhood. I cannot be at the public hearing on August 25, 2014, so please consider this letter to be representing my opposition to the variance. Thank you. Sincerely, Marie - France Hadlich 11650 Layton Avenue South Hastings, MN 55033 651- 437 -7053 AUG 2 12014 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE August 20, 2014 City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN Re: Daniel Tatro Variance Public Hearing August 25 2014 Attention: Planning Commission Members: I purchased a lot and built a single family home in 1972. We have enjoyed the beauty and quietness of our lovely neighborhood of about 40 homes and would like the neighborhood to remain single family homes and not to revert to "rental of multi - family homes ". Therefore, we are strictly against the approval for the variance for a 3` garage and a 2 " driveway on the Daniel Tatro property. Sincerely, Les and Vicki Milverstedt 11681 Lehigh Avenue South Hastings, Minnesota 55033 AUG 2 1 2014 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE August 20, 2014 City of Cottage Grove Community Development Department 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Dear City Official, My husband and I are opposed to the variance to allow a second driveway on the property located at 11701 Leeward Avenue South. We live on Layton Avenue which is next to Leeward Avenue. We feel that adding a second garage and driveway will not increase the value of our property nor to the value of our neighbors' properties. We are concerned that if this variance is allowed — our neighborhood will no longer be one of single family homes. This change could also lead to more duplexes, garages, cars and traffic —and could easily change the type of neighborhood we live in. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to voice our opinion. We cannot be at the public hearing on August 25, 2014, so please consider this letter to be representing our opposition to the variance. Sincerely, Michael and Sylvia Cordato 11650 Layton Avenue South Hastings, MN 55033 651- 437 -7053 M CI RECEIVED AUG 2 12014 City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE Re: Applicant Daniel Tatro, second driveway at 11701 Leeward Ave S August 17, 2014 We object to allowing construction of a second driveway as described in the 8/13/14 Notice of Public Hearing. Our home is diagonally across of the subject property and our living room window will look out on the proposed driveway. Our reasons for objecting are as follows: 1) Construction of a second driveway for parking and storage is clearly out of character with the adjacent homes. As such, we are concerned it will adversely affect property values. 2) Among all single family dwellings, this home appears to be a multi - family dwelling due to the numerous vehicles parking on the gravel extension south of the existing driveway. Allowing the addition of a second driveway on the north side of the property, with no controls over its use, only enhances this perception. Again, we are concerned that this will adversely affect property values. Please take our concerns into consideration when addressing this variance request. Hastings, MN 11680 Leeward Ave S