Planning Commission Minutes 08-14-2006MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, August 14th, 2006
6:00 PM
Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy
Commissioners Absent: Craig Schibonski
Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Kimberly Holien, NAC
1. Call to order.
Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order, declaring a quorum of the Commission, noting the
absence of Commissioner Schibonski.
2. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
NONE.
3. Citizen comments.
NONE.
4. Public Hearing — Consideration of a reauest for Variance to setback reauirements for a drive-thru lane
within an existing PUD within a B-3 (Highwav Business) District. Annlicant: Dan Mielke/Alan Loch.
O'Neill reviewed the staff report, stating that after the original amendment to PUD was approved and
construction on the building began, the applicants found a need to include a drive -through. This use
required consideration of a second amendment. Additionally, staff did not receive the civil drawings
for the drive -through until after the publication deadline for the public hearing. As such, it was found
that a variance would be needed to accommodate the proposed use, due to the drive-through's location
within the drainage and utility easement. The question the Commission needs to consider is whether
the applicant has full use of the property without the variance.
Dragsten clarified that the Commission had considered the amendment to PUD at the August 1 st
meeting, recommending denial.
Spartz inquired whether the medians in Cedar Street would remain. O'Neill confirmed.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Dan Mielke, property owner and applicant, addressed the Commission. Mielke referred to the
previous examples of other drive-throughs approved at setbacks less than the current proposal.
He noted that his original PUD for the Travel Center site had been approved with setbacks at 5',
rather than the 6' and 12' required with the recent ordinance amendment. Mielke reiterated his
belief that this amendment takes a substantial amount of usable property. He stated that he had
checked with other cities; they allow encroachment into the easement areas.
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/14/06
Mielke referred to the 15' easement the City had taken in the south area of the site, stating that the
City has created a hardship by requiring such a large easement on the south side of the property.
Mielke illustrated the area that would be within the 5' setback, the previous ordinance
requirement, stating that it would be minimal.
Dragsten asked for clarification on the 6' and 12' easement requirement. O'Neill clarified that a
recent ordinance amendment requires that parking or drive aisle areas not encroach into setbacks.
The setback for these areas is equivalent to the drainage and utility easement. Prior to the
amendment, the setback for parking and drive aisles was 5'. Schumann noted that the
amendment to PUD allowing for the construction of this building was approved after the 6'/12'
drainage and utility easement amendment.
Mielke asked about flexibility granted by PUD status. O'Neill responded that by ordinance,
PUD's do not allow flexibility in perimeter setbacks. Mielke referred to the Exhibit Z Conditions
of Approval, stating that he is willing to sign an agreement for surface restoration for utility work
needed in that easement.
Hearing no other public comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Dragsten stated that he believes there are three issues to consider. The first is that if the
Commission believes the variance should be granted, then the Commission may want to
reconsider the recommendation to deny the amendment to PUD. Secondly, consideration as to
whether this site should be held to the previous ordinance requirement of 5' setback or the
amended ordinance requirement of 6'. Finally, the Commission needs to determine whether the
variance supports the PUD as a superior development.
Suchy stated that the guidelines for granting variances are very specific in that they cannot be
granted for financial purposes. She noted that as the original PUD for this building seems to have
been approved with this requirement in place, it doesn't seem like an improper taking of land.
Spartz stated that his concerns regarding the stacking and access remain, as well as the definition
of low -volume drive -through. These seem not to support a variance approval.
Hilgart indicated that he did not see that hardship had been demonstrated. The development had
already been approved utilizing the site within the ordinance requirements.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST
FOR A VARIANCE BASED ON A FINDING THAT NO HARDSHIP IS PROVEN AND
THAT REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY (A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER)
IS AVAILABLE WITHOUT THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE DRIVE -THROUGH
WINDOW IN THE PROPOSED LOCATION.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Dragsten noted that the applicant had an opportunity to appeal the denial to the City Council.
5. Adi ourn.
is
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCAY. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/14/06
•
•