Board of Adjustment

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting DATE: July 17, 2024 TIME: 5:00 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, City Hall PRESENT: Breza, Conway, Krofchalk, Murphy, Slavey, Sanchez ABSENT: Buege Chairman Sanchez called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. The minutes from the Board’s June 5, 2024, meeting were approved by Tom Conway and seconded by Tim Breza. All were in favor of approving the minutes. Chairman Sanchez opened the public hearing and read the petition: Petition No. 24-16-V, Bruce Morken Bruce Morken – City Code Section 43.01.27 1) a) which requires a 5-foot side yard setback for dwellings on single family lots of record. Applicant wishes to construct a bedroom addition in-line with the existing structure at a 2’4” side yard setback measured to the wall. The property is described as R-2 zoning, Sect-27 Twp-107 Range-007 JENKINS & JOHNSTONS ADD Lot-008 Block-006 or located at 617 Wilson Street. Bruce Morken, 617 Wilson Street, addressed the Board. Mr. Morken said he would like to build an addition onto the house. Mr. Morken said that he can’t add to the front because of the roof line so it would work better in the back of the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES July 17, 2024 PAGE 2 house. Mr. Morken said the neighbors on both sides had no problems with his request. Jon Krofchalk asked how far from the property line would the eaves be, and Mr. Morken said there would be a six-inch overhang. Mr. Krofchalk asked which way the roof would pitch would be facing, and Mr. Morken said the pitch would face towards the property lines and gutters would be put up. Chairman Sanchez asked if there was anyone present to speak for or against the proposed variance. There being no one who desired to speak, Chairman Sanchez 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? This variance will facilitate a bedroom addition which is in-line with the current residential structure. This improvement will conserve and protect property and property values and is an appropriate use of the land. The Board agreed yes, residential use. 2) Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The 2045 Comprehensive Plan promotes investments in existing homes and enhancing the livability of neighborhoods. A bedroom addition is an improvement that enhances the livability of the property, and by extension, the livability of the neighborhood. The Board agreed yes, the property will be used in a reasonable manner. 3) Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? It is reasonable to construct a moderately sized building addition in-line with the existing structure. The Board agreed yes, a lot of houses throughout the city are built too close to property lines and Mr. Morken will be consistent with other lots throughout the city. 4) Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES July 17, 2024 PAGE 3 The original build date (1887) and location of the structure predates zoning and was not created by the landowner. The Board agreed, lot size. 5) Will the variance, if granted, retain the essential character of the locality? Given the moderate size of the addition and location in the rear of the existing structure, the variance will retain the essential character of the locality. The Board agreed, there is 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. Jon Krofchalk made a motion to approve the variance request with the stipulation that there is proper drainage and adopt the findings as approved by Staff and it was seconded by Tim Breza. 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. Petition No. 24-17-V, Winona Levee Development, LLC a) Winona Levee Development, LLC – City Section Sections 43.03.62(C)(3)(a) which requires a ground story façade of a mixed-use building fronting a public street, park, or plaza to have a minimum transparency of 60%. Applicant is proposing transparency of 25% on the east façade and 28% on the northeast façade at the ground floor. City Code Section: 43.03.62(C)(3)(b) which requires that upper story facades fronting on a public street, park, or plaza shall have a minimum transparency of 20%. Applicant is proposing transparency of 14% on the northeast façade for the second through fifth floors. City Code Section: 43.03.62(C)(3)c) which requires rear facades which are visible from a public street, park, parking lot, or plaza to have a minimum transparency of 12%. Applicant is proposing transparency of 4% on the south façade ground floor. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES July 17, 2024 PAGE 4 The property is described as MU-DC zoning, Sect-23 Twp-107 Range-007 ORIGINAL PLAT Lot-001 Block-009 ORIGINAL PLAT & LOTS 2, 3, 4, & 5 EX: THAT PART LYING 9' SW OF CL OF SPUR TRACK 54 & 55 or located at 60 Main Street. Eric Strojny, River Valley Architects, 3300 Birch St, Eau Claire, WI, addressed the Board. Mr. Strojny said they are seeking façade requirements for the northeast, east and south ground facades and on the northeast upper story façade. Mr. Strojny said the northeast corner upper level, they were asking for a reduction in the façade to achieve a desired look for the main hotel entrance. Mr. Strojny said they wanted to have solid brick columns and patio elements to highlight this corner. Mr. Stojny said the on the south side, which will be the backside, they wanted to keep the area private since it was mainly going to be for parking. Jon Krofchalk asked if there were going to be parking spaces on the main level and Mr. Strojny said there would be. Mr. Krofchalk asked how many spaces there were going to be, and Mr. Strojny said twenty-four spaces. Tom Conway asked how far the south elevation was from the back of the movie theater and Mr. Strojny said about thirty feet. Jon Krofchalk asked about driving along the building and would you be able to get to the movie theater and Mr. Strojny said you will be able to drive around the whole building. Chairman Sanchez asked if there was anyone present to speak for or against the proposed variance. Paul Schollmeier, 322 High Forest St, addressed the Board. Mr. Schollmeier said he wasn’t for or against the request, but he said he spoke to the City Council before about windows and about buildings downtown and requirement standards with glazing. Mr. Schollmeier said his primary concern was about energy losses with glazing. Mr. Schollmeier said on the south ground floor he would like to see more glazing and the visibility more appealing to the public. Mr. Schollmeier said the plans show highlighted yellow areas and he wanted to know if those were final as in will they be a part of the building or are highlighted areas showing what will be taken away. Luke Sims, Senior Planner, City of Winona, said the yellow area is to show the windows being proposed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES July 17, 2024 PAGE 5 Mr. Schollmeier wanted to know if the pictures shown on the drawings are how the building will look, and Mr. Sims said yes. Steve Anderson, 523 Maceman St, Winona, addressed the Board. Mr. Anderson said he just wanted to know why there were zoning rules. Mr. Anderson said he felt zoning regulations should just be abolished. Mike Rivers, 72 Valley Oaks Lane, addressed the Board. Mr. Rivers said they purposedly did not put windows on the south side because there was going to be a parking garage on that side as well as the laundry and mechanical area and they felt it should be a more private area. Chairman Sanchez asked if there was anyone else present to speak for or against the proposed variance. There being no one who desired to speak, Chairman Sanchez closed the public hearing and opened it up for discussion. The Board discussed the glazing options for each side of the building and the need for windows or not. The Board asked what was on the north side and Mr. Strojny said it would be the hotel lobby and a dining room, conference room, fitness room and community room for the apartments. Tim Breza said since the building was not being used for retail purposes, there really wasn’t a need for a lot of windows. The Board talked about the south side and it being mostly parking on that side, who want to see in a parking garage. The Board also commented that since it wasn’t going to have any retail there wouldn’t be a lot of people walking around and wanting to see in the building so the requests seem reasonable. 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 intent of the ordinances in question is to promote ground-floor windows and interaction with the street and to prevent expansive blank walls that discourage interaction with a structure when interacting with a building from other locations (e.g. parking lots). Ground floor transparency creates the interactive element of downtown and main street that encourages pedestrian and ground-floor business transactions. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES July 17, 2024 PAGE 6 Transparency standards on upper floors promote “eyes on the street” which is a core tenet of downtown urbanism and supports crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) goals within the City’s adopted Downtown Strategic Plan. The Board agreed yes, the ordinance doesn’t apply, and they felt very few people will be walking by and the purpose of the building isn’t to just go in and walk around since there is no retail. 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 Downtown Mixed Use, which will not be affected by the variance. The Downtown Mixed-Use designation encourages mixed use developments like this hotel and apartment structure proposed. The Downtown Mixed-Use designation encourages buildings with a strong street orientation and should prioritize pedestrian- oriented design. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES July 17, 2024 PAGE 7 The Board agreed yes, it doesn’t affect the land use. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES July 17, 2024 PAGE 8 3) Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? The Mixed-Use Downtown Core (MUDC) zoning district promotes a mix of commercial and residential structures, ideally through the implementation of mixed-use buildings. The proposed project meets the intended mixed- use goals of the property within this zoning district. The associated first- floor interior parking behind the southern façade and the associated pool and fitness areas behind the eastern façade are appropriate associated uses for the primary use of the property as a hotel. The hotel lobby, as the primary interaction point of the hotel use features slightly larger windows along the eastern façade fronting the public street (Center Street) and glass entrance transparency on the northeast corner, which is being treated as the prominent primary entrance on the primary façade under the associated form-based standards applicable to this building in this zoning district (43.03.62(C)(5)(a)) which requires a prominent entry on the primary building façade. Upper story transparency on the northeast façade helps to facilitate use of the hat space as hotel room space. The board agreed yes, it doesn’t change the zoning and the planning commission passed it. 4) Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? The site in question is an empty lot and design characteristics of the proposed structure to facilitate the development of the hotel and apartment building uses may be designed in such a way to meet the required façade transparency standards. The applicant states that the internal accessory components (parking, pool, etc.) of the primary use and their proposed locations within the building are the primary reasons for the desired reduction in transparency. The Unified Development Code’s transparency requirements would be applicable to those accessory components if they were the primary uses of the structure as well. The aboard agreed yes, lot size. 5) Will the variance, if granted, retain the essential character of the locality? The surrounding area is a range of historic and non-historic commercial and mixed-use properties as well as public park space. Levee Park is to the north and northeast across railway tracks. The Gateway to Levee Park is immediately to the west. The form-based standards under consideration specifically address the requirement for transparency when fronting a BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES July 17, 2024 PAGE 9 public park. The properties to the east and southeast are primarily historic commercial and mixed-use structures with a variety of different interactive elements with the street, including exterior porches, eating and drinking areas, and varying levels of transparency reflecting a wide range of historic uses (railway freight house, bank, commercial). The properties to the south and southwest are relatively new commercial and office structures that have limited interaction with the street and would not currently conform to the form-based standards found in the Unified Development Code. The general character of the locality is consistent with that of a mixed-use downtown. The board agreed yes, it will improve the downtown area and it’s a mixed- use area. The downtown area needs a hotel and apartments. 6) Are there other considerations for the variance request besides economics? The applicant has not provided consideration based on economics. The primary reason for seeking a variance, as stated by the applicant, is due to the accessory components (parking, pool, etc.) located behind the proposed locations with non-compliant transparency on the first floor, and the architectural visual quality of the proposed upper story non-compliant transparency. The Board agreed with the Staff recommendation. 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. Tim Breza commented to the other Board members that a site plan was needed. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Board, Jon Krofchalk made a motion to adjourn, and it was seconded by Aaron Slavey. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. _______________________________ Chad Sommer, Secretary