Board of Adjustment

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting DATE: March 6, 2024 TIME: 5:00 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, City Hall PRESENT: Breza, Buege, Conway, Krofchalk, Murphy, Slavey ABSENT: Sanchez Acting Chairman Murphy called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. The minutes from the Board’s February 21, 2024, meeting were approved by Aaron Slavey and seconded by Jon Krofchalk. All were in favor of approving the minutes. Acting Chairman Murphy opened the public hearing and read the petition: Petition No. 24-5-V, David & Michelle Pringle Dave Pringle – City Code Section 43.02.23 Table 43-3 Lot Dimension Standards which limits residential units in business districts to R-3 standards, allowing for 23 units at the property. Applicants propose 28 units. Also, City Code 43.02.24 Table 43-3 Site Dimension Standards, which requires 25 feet front yard and 50 feet rear yard setbacks. The applicant is proposing a front yard setback of four feet and rear yard setback of 32 feet and 6 inches. Property is described as B-3 Zoning, Sect-21, Twp-107, Range-007, LIMITS Lot-066 PAR COM AT INT OF S LINE 5 ST & W LINK BLK 6 D & LADD, W 300’, S 115’, E 300’, N 115’ TO BEG, or at 1461 West Fifth Street. David Pringle, 25077 Almon Drive, Lewiston, MN addressed the Board. Mr. Pringle said he wants to put up an apartment building at 1461 West Fifth Street. Mr. Pringle said it will have indoor parking and exterior parking located at the west end of the building. Mr. Pringle said he will be staying with the same variance request that he had asked for two years ago on February 16, 2022, and he hopes to move forward with the project. Jon Krofchalk asked Mr. Pringle if it was a new request or an extension from the previous one. Mr. Pringle said the request is the same as the one brought forward in 2022. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES March 6, 2024 PAGE 2 Mr. Krofchalk mentioned that he wasn’t available for the meeting on the first request, and he wanted to be clear on this request. Mr. Krofchalk asked how many parking spots there were going to be, and Mr. Pringle said it had been a while since the last request so he wasn’t quite sure as he didn’t look at the plans and he thought since the request hadn’t changed, it would be approved as it was requested previously. Tom Conway asked if parking complied with the previous request and Mr. Pringle said he thought it did. Jon Krofchalk said he was only asking because he wanted to know the rules per parking spots per unit and Chad Sommer, Building Official said two per unit. It was mentioned that the site plan shows that there are 38 inside parking stalls and 17 bicycle parking stalls and 8 covered bicycle spaces, which meets the requirements. Acting Chairman Murphy read to the Board what they approved on the February 16, 2022, variance request which was for 28 units with the stipulations that there are no more than 2 unrelated occupants and 3 related per unit and meets parking requirements and green space. Setbacks were also approved. Acting Chairman Murphy asked if there was anyone present to speak for or against the proposed variance. Douglas Penning, 1476 West Broadway, Funeral Director, Fawcett Funeral Home, addressed the Board. Mr. Penning said he was concerned about the 4’6” setback and the new building being closer to West Fifth Street than the existing building is now. He said if the new building sits in the same place as the old, he had no issues. Jon Krofchalk said the building will be bigger, but it will be moved back so it’s not closer to West Fifth Street. There were more discussions about the setbacks. Acting Chairman Murphy said they could put stipulations on the requests, and one would be that the petitioner agrees that he will not place the building any farther forward on West Fifth Street than the building that is already there, since they didn’t have drawings showing where the building will be located. Jon Krofchalk said there is a site plan, and it shows where the existing building is and where he will be putting his new building, which is in the same place as the existing. Christopher Gunn, 1417 West Fifth, addressed the Board. Mr. Gunn said his concern was the building being placed right next to his property. Mr. Gunn said BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES March 6, 2024 PAGE 3 his concern was not knowing what was going on and how it would affect his property. Tom Conway told Mr. Gunn that the side yard setback was compliant and the new building was going to be closer to his property but not by much. Acting Chairman Murphy asked if there was anyone else present to speak for or against the proposed variance. There being no one who desired to speak, Acting Chairman Murphy closed the public hearing and opened it up for the Board for discussion. Jon Krofchalk asked if anything different was going to be requested and if nothing changed, they should just adopt the findings and add stipulations about setbacks. All Board members agreed. The Board adopted the variance finding questions as considered by Staff. 1) Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? The intent of the ordinances in question is to ensure that proposed residential uses in the B-3 zoning district match the character of properties in R-3 zoning districts. The R-3 zoning district is the high-density residential zoning district in Winona and apartment buildings of similar size are found in that zoning district. Yes, because of zoning and getting more density in those areas. 2) Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The variance does not affect the land use as dictated in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan’s future Land Use map designates this property as Neighborhood Commercial, which will not be affected by the variance. Multi-family housing is encouraged in the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation, including increased density and reduced setbacks to encourage more engagement with the street. Yes, getting more units in each property for density. 3) Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? The B-3 General Business district allows for a range of uses, including multi-family residential. The proposed apartment building falls under that allowed multi-family residential use. There are other apartment buildings in BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES March 6, 2024 PAGE 4 the B-3 zone across the city, including directly adjacent to the property in question to the south. Yes, zoning is correct, existing apartments by it. 4) Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? The proposal for this property would incorporate compliance with the building code which dictates the configuration and, subsequently, the depth of the building. This requires accommodation through a variance due to the limited depth of the property. Yes, because of the lot size and shape. 5) Will the variance, if granted, retain the essential character of the locality? The surrounding area has a range of uses including multi-family and single family residential as well as commercial properties. Yes, because of other apartments in proximity. 6) Are there other considerations for the variances request besides economics? If the findings of questions 3-5 are affirmative this criterion is satisfied. Tom Conway made a motion to adopt the variance findings as approved by Staff and approve the variance request for the 28 units with the stipulations that there are no more than 2 unrelated occupants per unit and 3 related per unit and meets parking requirements and greenspace. The Board also approved the setbacks as requested and the new building will not go farther out towards West Fifth Street than where the original building sits. The petitioner was informed that there was a 10-day appeal period during which time no action can be taken on the petition. Petition No. 24-6-V, Nathan Slenczka Nathan Slenczka – City Code Section 43.02.24 Table 43-4 which requires a 30’ rear yard for buildings in the I-1 Light Industrial Zoning District. Applicant wishes to construct a 60x60 warehouse building addition 6’ from the rear property line to allow for business expansion and ensure that trucks can be loaded on private property without infringing upon the public street (Ronco Avenue). Property is described as I-1 zoning, Sect-36, Twp- 107, Range-007, LAKESIDE INDUSTRIAL PARK, Lot-002, Block-001, or located at 1790 Ronco Avenue. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES March 6, 2024 PAGE 5 Nathan Slenczka, 34880 Old Homer Road, representing Fairchase Products, LLC, addressed the Board. Mr. Slenczka said Fairchase Products is looking to add a 60’x60’ addition to the back of the current building that is there. Mr. Slenczka said the building is used as a warehouse and distribution facility and the addition is essential for company growth. Jon Krofchalk asked Mr. Slenczka if a 60’x60’ addition would be big enough and Mr. Slenczka said it would be. Acting Chairman Murphy asked if there was anyone present to speak for or against the proposed variance. There being no one who desired to speak, Acting Chairman Murphy closed the public hearing and opened it up for discussion. The Board went through the variance finding questions as considered by Staff. 1) Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? The variance will allow a building addition to be constructed 6’ from the rear property line. The variance will support continued investment in the property which is in the public interest. Yes, correct use, its industrial 2) Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for light industrial use which is proposed to continue. Construction of the proposed addition will not change this. Yes, it’s a light industrial area. 3) Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? It is reasonable to construct the addition in this location adjacent to other light industrial and commercial uses. Also, the location of the proposed addition allows trucks to be loaded entirely on private property and not infringe upon the road right-of-way. Yes, industrial. 4) Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? The location of the existing structure and the relatively shallow depth of the lot are unique circumstances in this zoning district. Yes, setbacks. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES March 6, 2024 PAGE 6 5) Will the variance, if granted, retain the essential character of the locality? Adjacent properties accessory structures in rear yards close to property lines. Construction of the proposed addition will not change this character. Yes, no change. 6) Are there other considerations for the variance request besides economics? If the findings of questions 3-5 are affirmative this criterion is satisfied. Tim Breza made a motion to approve the variance request and adopt the findings as approved by Staff and it was seconded by Jon Krofchalk. The request was unanimously approved. The petitioner was informed that there was a 10-day appeal period during which time no action can be taken on the petition. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Board, Aaron Slavey made a motion to adjourn, and it was seconded by Jon Krofchalk. The meeting was adjourned at 5:22 p.m. _______________________________ Chad Sommer Secretary