Board of Adjustment

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting DATE: September 4, 2024 TIME: 5:07 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, City Hall PRESENT: Conway, Krofchalk, Murphy, Slavey, Sanchez ABSENT: Breza & Buege Chairman Sanchez called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. The minutes from the Board’s July 17, 2024, meeting were approved by Tom Conway and seconded by Aaron Slavey. All were in favor of approving the minutes. Chairman Sanchez opened the public hearing and read the petition: Petition No. 24-18-V, Jaime Pelaez Jaime Eduardo Pelaez - City Code Section 43.03.72 L) 3) which requires 6,000 square feet of lot area to certify a short-term rental for four (4) people. Applicant wishes to certify a new short-term rental for four people on a property with 2,690 square feet of lot area. The property is already certified for 4 related people in a long-term rental – this variance is to allow up to 4 unrelated people in a short-term rental. The Planning Commission approved the Interim Use Permit for short-term rental on August 11, 2024, with the condition that a variance be obtained for four unrelated. Property is described as R-3 zoning, SECT-26 TWP-107 RANGE-007 LAIRDS ADDITION LOT-008 BLOCK-015 SLY 23.6' OF NLY 45' LOTS 7 & 8 & ELY 12' OF NLY 21.4' LOT 8 or located at 216 Liberty Street. Jaime Pelaez, 8108 Colfax Ave S., Bloomington, MN, addressed the Board. Mr. Pelaez said he is asking for the variance for several reasons, one is to bring in BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES September 4, 2024 PAGE 2 economic growth with short term rentals attracting tourists who will bring in tourism dollars to the City of Winona and possible decide to stay in Winona. Mr. Pelaez said he put a lot of money into the property to restore it and make it look nice for the neighborhood and he said it would be a second home for his family as well. Mr. Pelaez said by having this tourist home will help with the financial burden for his family and help to pay for the restoration as well as reinvestment for him and his family. Aaron Slavey asked Carlos Espinosa, Senior Planner, City of Winona, the guidelines for a short-term rental versus long-term rental. Mr. Espinosa said with a short-term rental you can stay up to 29 days in a unit and a long-term rental you can stay 30 days or longer. Mr. Espinosa also said a long-term rental you do not need an Interim Use Permit from the Planning Commission and short-term you do need one. Mr. Espinosa said with short-term rentals you need the Interim Use Permit because the city must inform neighbors that a short-term rental is being proposed and give them a chance to speak for or against the rental and so they know there will be more people coming and going a lot more often. Mr. Espinosa also said that with a short-term rental you must pay hotel/motel tax. Jon Krofchalk asked about the last staff finding question and it being about economics and it sounded like the request was about economics. Mr. Espinosa said economics are part of most requests and what they are looking to do is to see if the overall request meets the practical difficulties which are the questions that come before that last question. Mr. Espinosa also said that short-term rentals are well kept and there are no complaints, and they do provide an economic incentive with more people in one unit, and they benefit the neighborhood and re-investment for the property. Jon Krofchalk asked if it was going to be like an Airbnb and Carlos Espinosa said yes. Tom Conway asked about an Airbnb and short-term rental and if there were any restrictions, for example do they get monitored more closely. Carlos Espinosa said there must be a representative within thirty miles who could handle issues if they came 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES September 4, 2024 PAGE 3 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 short-term rental for 4 unrelated in an R-3 zoning district. This is the most flexible residential zoning district and housing code already allows 4 related. A short-term rental for 4 unrelated people will promote investment in the property. Also, because short term rental properties are generally well maintained, the variance will protect property and property values of the area. Yes, and it was approved by the Planning Commission. 2) Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The 2045 Comprehensive Plan promotes investments in existing homes. This property was built in 1880, and continued investment is needed to maintain the attractiveness of the structure. Yes, it gives another option for housing and being a short-term rental in the City of Winona. 3) Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? It is reasonable to allow 4 unrelated since 4 related are already permitted in the home. Yes, it is already certified for four. 4) Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Yes, small lot size. 5) Will the variance, if granted, retain the essential character of the locality? Given the R-3 zoning of the property (where the 30% rules does not limit the number of rentals on a block), the essential character of the locality will be maintained by the variance. Yes, will improve the location. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES September 4, 2024 PAGE 4 6) Are there other considerations for the variance request besides economics? If the findings of questions 3-5 are affirmative this criterion is satisfied. Chairman Sanchez asked about zoning and what the property was zoned at, and it was stated that it was zoned R-3, and he asked if short- term rentals were allowed in an R-1 zone. Carlos Espinosa said they’re allowed but they are subject to the thirty percent rule. Mr. Espinosa said there is an exception if its owner occupied like a bed and breakfast then you can get an exception to the thirty percent rule Aaron Slavey asked Carlos Espinosa about a Conditional Use Permit and how long it lasts, and Mr. Espinosa said it goes with the land and an Interim Use Permit is just like a rental permit, it’s renewed every five years. Jon Krofchalk made a motion to approve the variance request and adopt the findings as approved by Staff and it was seconded by Tom Conway. 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 and to talk to City of Winona Planning & Zoning and Inspections as to what he will need for permits. Petition No. 24-19-V, Dan Nisbit Dan Nisbit – City Code Section 43.03.79 A) 5) which prohibits construction of standalone garages on lots without a primary dwelling in residential zoning districts. Applicant wishes to construct a 48’ X 56’ garage on a lot adjacent to his property. This proposed garage would be the second on the adjacent property, the first received a variance for construction in 2012. Property is described as R-R zoning, SECT-34 TWP-107 RANGE- 007 WINONA TWP ANNEX OLD #19.070.1260 PAR CONTG 7.5 AC IN SW 1/4 NW 1/4 PER MF #272254 or located at 60 Lorraine Court. Dan Nisbit, 57 Lorraine court, Winona, MN, addressed the Board. Mr. Nisbit said it will be the third structure added. Mr. Nisbit said a concrete structure sits on the property that a radio tower was on, which is no longer there, and he took out a variance in 2012 for a 24’x24’ structure on the property as well. Mr. Nisbit said this property is adjacent from his and he said the property he lives on is one continuous piece of property and is part of a subdivision and the lots are technically combined but are not. Mr. Nisbit said the reason for the structure is so BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES September 4, 2024 PAGE 5 he can store his camper in it, which is too big to fit in the other structure that is there and use it for personal use. Jon Krofchalk asked Mr. Nisbit if someone wanted to buy that property, could they build on it and Mr. Nisbit said they could and according to the variance approved in 2012 it says if the lot is sold than the structure on it would have to be torn down unless the adjacent lot with his house on it was sold with it. Aaron Slavey asked Mr. Nisbit what he plans on using the building for and Mr. Nisbit said it would be a garage and he wanted it for his RV, boat and he would like to basically use it for personal use only. Tom Conway asked about the previous variance, if he were to sell his house would he sell the lot at 60 Lorraine Court with it and Mr. Nisbit said he wouldn’t sell the lot along with his house, he would just take the structures down. John Krofchalk asked Mr. Nisbit if he was okay if the same stipulations were put down for this structure as with the variance he took out in 2012. Mr. Nisbit said he was okay with that. Chairman Sanchez wanted to know if there was still room to build a house on the lot and Mr. Nisbit said yes there was room. Chairman Sanchez commented that if someone were to build a house could they keep the structures without a variance needed. Carlos Espinosa, Senior Planner, City of Winona, said yes, they could, and Chairman Sanchez wanted to know why they would ask for the structures to be torn down then. Carlos Espinosa clarified that if Mr. Nisbit sold the lot that has the structures on it than they would have to come down because the Board of Adjustment in 2012 stated that the lot with the accessory structures would have to be sold with the house or they would have to be torn down if not bought with the house. Carlos Espinosa said if the lot were to be sold, whoever decided to buy the lot would have to know about the variance request and the stipulations that were put on it by the Board of Adjustment. Again, Chairman Sanchez wanted to clarify that if he sells both lots together than the structures can stay but if he sells the lot alone with just the structures than they will have to be torn down because of the stipulation in the variance request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES September 4, 2024 PAGE 6 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 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 construction of a second stand-alone garage on a residentially zoned piece of property. A variance was granted in 2012 for another garage on the same property with the stipulation that “the building is only to be used for personal use and if the house located on the adjacent lot were sold, the lot with the accessory structure on it would have to be sold with the house unless the structure was removed from the lot.” The same condition is recommended for this variance. If this condition is added to this variance, it is in harmony with purpose and intent of the ordinance. Yes, residential use. It’s a unique situation with the two lots that are technically combined but are not. 2) Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The 2045 Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Residential Suburban. Garages are commonly accessory to residential structures. Given the lot where the garage is proposed is immediately adjacent to the owner’s dwelling, the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Yes, already a building there, no change. 3) Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? It is reasonable to build a stand-alone garage on a property adjacent to the owner’s dwelling. Yes, no change to the lot. 4) Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? The property is located immediately adjacent to the owner’s dwelling. Yes, technically you can’t combine the lots. If you do combine, regulations come in place.