Board of Adjustment

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting DATE: January 15, 2025 TIME: 5:00 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, City Hall PRESENT: Breza, Buege, Conway, Krofchalk, Murphy, Sanchez, Slavey ABSENT: Chairman Sanchez called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. The minutes from the Board’s November 6, 2024, meeting were approved by Aaron Slavey and second by Jon Krofchalk. All were in favor of approving the minutes. Chairman Sanchez opened the public hearing and read the petition: Petition No. 25-1-V, William & Leann Conrad Leann & William Conrad - City Code Section: 43.02.23 Table 43-3 which requires 9,000 square feet and 70’ of frontage for a triplex in an R-2 zoning district. Also 43.02.24 Table 43-4 which requires a 12’ side yard setback for a two-story triplex in an R-2 zoning district. Applicant wishes to convert an existing duplex into a triplex on a 7,000 square foot lot with 50’ of frontage and a 3’ side yard on one side – 5’ on the other. Total certified occupancy on the property is not proposed to change; a unit currently certified for 5 unrelated is proposed to be split into 2 and 3 unrelated. Property is described as R-2 zoning, SECT-26, TWP-107 RANGE-007 HAMILTON ADDITION LOT-003 BLOCK-008, located at 617 East Second St. William & Leann Conrad, 34954 Old Homer Road, Homer, MN, addressed the Board. Ms. Conrad said they would like to take the main floor of the current duplex which is large and change it and make it into two units. Ms. Conrad said basically all they would have to do is add a firewall and add a kitchen. Jon Krofchalk asked how many total occupants she would have in these units, and Ms. Conrad said she would have two in one unit and three in the other, keeping it to five unrelated, so she wouldn’t be adding occupants. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES January 15, 2025 PAGE 2 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) Are the variances in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? The variances will allow for creation of a triplex without increasing the overall occupancy on the property. As such, the variances conserve and protect property values while promoting public welfare through the creation of a new housing unit. Yes, zoned properly. 2) Are the variances consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The 2045 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Traditional Neighborhood which supports 1–4-unit homes. The plan also supports the creation of new housing choices while maintaining neighborhood character. Adding a new unit while maintaining overall occupancy does just this. Yes, it doesn’t change the zoning, and they are trying to make larger units into smaller ones. 3) Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Given the occupancy is not increasing, the variances put the property to use in a reasonable manner. Yes, it stays the way it is. 4) Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? The layout of the building is conducive for a triplex – with a first level dwelling unit that is easily split into two by adding a new wall in accordance with building code. Yes, small lot size. 5) Will the variance, if granted, retain the essential character of the locality? The new unit will be created within the building’s existing footprint. Given this and the cap on occupancy, the essential character of the locality will be maintained. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES January 15, 2025 PAGE 3 Yes, no change of occupancy. 6) Are there other considerations for the variances 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 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. Petition No. 25-2-V, Katelyn & Evan Woodard Katelyn & Evan Woodard - City Code Section 43.02.24 Table 43-4 Site Dimension Standards: Which requires a 25-foot (25’) front yard setback. Applicant is proposing a thirteen-foot (13’) front yard setback. Applicant is proposing an addition to an existing single-family home. The proposed addition is to the south of the property, approximately 16 feet (16’) and will encroach approximately 13 feet (13’) into the required front yard setback. Property is described as R-1 zoning, SECT-21 TWP-107 RANGE-007 CLARK & JOHNSONS ADD LOT-010 BLOCK-003 or located at 471 Wayne Street. Katelyn & Evan Woodard, 471 Wayne Street, addressed the Board. Ms. Woodard said they just moved into the house and mentioned that the house sits on a corner and one part of the house faces towards Howard Street which is where they want to add the addition and the other faces Wayne Street where you would enter. Ms. Woodard said the only way to add on is to the south. Ms. Woodard said the addition would be for a master bedroom and bath. Ms. Woodard said the Howard Street side is huge and they didn’t need all the space. Jon Krofchalk asked if they would be adding between the garage and house and Ms. Woodard said they would be later. Chairman Sanchez commented that the front address is Wayne Street, but they are treating Howard Street as the front yard setback. Mr. Sanchez wanted to know if the setback would be ten feet if it was a side yard setback and it was stated it would be ten feet. Tom Conway asked about the letters that were received, and which neighbor these were as to their location, and Ms. Woodard said the north and the west neighbors that abut their house. Both neighbors expressed in their letters they were in favor of the request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES January 15, 2025 PAGE 4 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? The intent of the ordinances in question is to allow for roadway expansion if needed, as dictated by the 1959 Master Plan (officially “Comprehensive Municipal Plan”) of the City of Winona. The current ordinance has not been updated since original zoning supported by that master plan. Yes, the way the lot is set up. 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 Traditional Neighborhood, which will not be affected by the variance. The 2045 Comprehensive Plan no longer supports the larger, automobile-focused setbacks that were adopted in original zoning. Yes, the use of the property, no difference. 3) Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? The R-1 Medium Density Residence District allows for single family uses and Lots of Record allow for more flexible front yard setbacks up to 10 feet when neighboring properties are also closer (which is not the case in this instance, though the property is a Lot of Record). Expanding the existing living space of the structure is considered a reasonable use of the property. Yes, proper zoning. 4) Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? This property is a Lot of Record on a corner and is the only property among three properties that features a side entrance (Wayne Street). Other neighboring properties create a more constrictive Lot of Record standard for front yard setbacks (25’) than is typical for Lots of Record in Winona. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES January 15, 2025 PAGE 5 Yes, corner lot and how it is addressed. 5) Will the variance, if granted, retain the essential character of the locality? The surrounding area features a range of residences with smaller setbacks than prescribed in the City’s zoning code, some as short as 10 feet (10’). The character of the locality will not be affected by this proposed variance. Yes, no change. 6) Are there other considerations for the variances request besides economics? If the findings of questions 3-5 are affirmative this criterion is satisfied. Jim Murphy made a motion to approve the variance request 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. 25-3-V, Pete Schwab Pete Schwab - Schwab Construction Services - City Code Sections 43.03.62 C) 3) a) which requires a minimum ground floor transparency of 60% for mixed use building facades facing a public street in the Mixed- Use Downtown Core (MU-DC) zoning district. Also 43.02.24 B) Table 43- 4 which sets a maximum building height of 40’ within 150’ of a residential zoning district in the MU-DC zoning district. Applicant proposes a mixed use commercial residential development with ground floor transparency of 27-35% and a maximum height of 65’ (four-stories). The proposed development is similar in scale and appearance to the Main Square development on the adjacent block to the east. Properties affected by this variance are Block 30 bounded by Fourth Street, Johnson Street, Fifth Street and Washington Street. Pete Schwab, Schwab Construction Services, 74 Kansas Street, Winona, MN addressed the Board. Mr. Schwab said they are the Building Contractor for Main Square Properties. Mr. Schwab said that Main Square West is very similar to the first two phases of Main Square East. Mr. Schwab said the apartments at Main Square East has approximately two thirds that are luxury apartments, very large, three-bedroom units. Mr. Schwab said the focus for this development is for market rate apartments. Mr. Schwab said they are looking at approximately 100 apartments, and all would be one and two bedrooms. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES January 15, 2025 PAGE 6 Chairman Sanchez how many square feet the apartments would be, and Mr. Schwab said roughly around 615 square feet for a one-bedroom unit and 775 square feet for a two-bedroom unit. Mr. Schwab said there will be approximately 175 parking spaces, and they will be designed the same as Main Square East, which would be beneath the apartments and some in the courtyard area. Mr. Schwab said on the corner of Johnson Street there will be green space because a home sits to the west which was not sold. Mr. Schwab said they will build around the home. Mr. Schwab said eventually the corner of Johnson Street will have an apartment building there at some time. Mr. Schwab said at the southwest corner there will be 30,000 square feet of commercial space. Mr. Schwab said he was on the Port Authority for ten years and he wanted the Board to know that seldom did they see developers ask for money to fund a project and they were not asking for funding. Kent Simon, Miller Hanson Architects, 218 Washington Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN, addressed the Board. Mr. Simon said he worked with Pete Schwab on the Main Square East building as well. Mr. Simon said they are asking for two variances one for transparency and one for height. Mr. Simon said with the transparency request they are asking for is 34% at Johnson Street, 35% at Fifth Street, 27% at Washington Street and 33% at Fourth Street. Mr. Simon said the outside would be Biesanz Stone and generous areas of glass which is the same as Main Square East. Mr. Simon said they are also asking for a height variance. Mr. Simon said they are asking for a height of 65 feet which would be so they could provide more apartments. Chairman Sanchez asked if there was anyone present to speak for or against the proposed variance. Helen Kowalski, 1415 West Fourth Street, Winona, MN, addressed the Board. Ms. Kowalski was concerned about parking around the Winona Senior Center. Ms. Kowalski mentioned that at Main Square East, there is commercial businesses where people park on the street and the spaces are used up and on Fifth Street across from the Senior Center people take up parking to go to Main Square East and it makes it hard to find parking by the Senior Center. Ms. Kowalski said a lot of older people go to the Senior Center and the parking close to the building was always taken by people who to Main Square East. Ms. Kowalski said with the new building she was concerned parking would get worse. Chairman Sanchez mentioned to Ms. Kowalski that he understood that there were issues with parking around commercial businesses, but they were not looking at parking for this variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES January 15, 2025 PAGE 7 Steven Bibby, 516 Collegeview Street, Winona, MN addressed the Board. Mr. Bibby was concerned about transparency and the building height. Mr. Bibby felt it would affect the homes on the West side by reducing their view and amount of sunlight. He was also concerned about traffic and lights shining into the homes. 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. Chairman Sanchez asked Carlos Espinosa, Senior Planner, City of Winona, about zoning and what it was before it was changed to MU-DC and Mr. Espinosa said it was R-3 zoning. Jon Krofchalk asked about commercial space and what the percentage of the first floor had to be commercial, and Mr. Espinosa said they were treating it like Main Square East and because it covers a whole block that one portion of it needed to be commercial on the first floor which would be on the south side on West Fifth Street. Chairman Sanchez asked Mr. Espinosa about the ordinance and transparency being at 60% and it seemed like it was too high and if they would be looking at maybe changing it and Mr. Espinosa said they would be keeping the 60% on Second and Third Street and a portion of Fourth Street and reducing it outside of those areas and Main Square West falls in one of those areas. Tom Conway commented that the 60% transparency was more for store front shops that you can look in and Main Square West wasn’t going to be like that, it was more of a professional look. Mr. Conway felt going away form the 60% creates a beautiful functional building. Jon Krofchalk commented that more rentals will be created than what was there before the houses that were rental certified were torn down Tim Breza also commented that there will be at least 100 rental units and plenty of parking and he felt it helps with the shortage of housing. Mr. Breza also brought up about parking and it not always being convenient to have parking close to where you needed to go. Mr. Breza said with variances that they grant they do try to accommodate parking if it’s part of a variance request, but he said this was not about parking. The Board talked more about the height request and Jon Krofchalk said they granted the height for Main Square East and for Masterpiece Hall and by asking for the height variance they can create more apartments and keep the cost down per unit. Tim Breza said with the height the building would fit in with the other buildings that are there. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES January 15, 2025 PAGE 8 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? Height The purpose of the maximum 40’ height requirement is to reduce building heights in the MU-DC zoning district immediately adjacent to residential properties. In this case, the proposed Main Square West development is buffered from the residentially zoned block to the west by the Washington Street Right-of-Way (ROW). The ROW is 70’ wide. Although not 150’ (as required by code), this buffer reduces the impact of the maximum 65’ building height on the neighboring residential properties. Additionally, the proposed buildings only reach the 65’ height on the corners of the development. Building heights of interior portions of the development vary from 40’-55’ (see building elevations provided by the applicant). Finally, although there is one property on the block which is still zoned R- 3, efforts to purchase this property are ongoing. If and when the property is acquired, it will be incorporated into the surrounding development. Transparency The purpose of the 60% transparency requirement is to promote interaction with the street and vibrant commercial storefronts characteristic of a historic downtown. A 60% level of transparency is most important along Winona’s Second and Third Street commercial corridors because it matches and enhances the character of existing buildings with first floor commercial. It is less characteristic (and thus of less importance) in areas that are on the edge of downtown such as the location of the proposed development. Further, although less than 60%, the proposed 27-35% first floor transparency is similar to adjacent historic buildings (i.e. the courthouse, library, and Laird-Norton buildings) and is balanced by high quality brick and stone building materials. Yes, the height of the building is not throughout the whole building. 2) Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Height Two City of Winona Comprehensive Plans adopted in 2007 and 2024 have called for commercial/residential mixed-use redevelopment on this block. The City’s current Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the need for more housing units in Winona and the proposed variance will facilitate construction of additional housing on upper levels of the proposed development. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES January 15, 2025 PAGE 9 Transparency The City’s current Comprehensive Plan recommends flexibility in development regulations – this is particularly appropriate for construction (such as the proposed development) that is compatible with the character of the surrounding area. As noted above, other historic buildings in the immediate area have 1st floor transparency percentages significantly less than 60% (Courthouse = approximately 32% transparency; Library = approximately 28% transparency; Laird North Building = approximately 30% transparency). Yes, it fits right in with the buildings that are there according to height. 3) Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Height The proposed maximum 65’ height is reasonable for developments zoned MU-DC (Mixed Use Downtown Core) which are buffered from residential zoning by Rights-of-Way (ROW) on all sides. Although there is one property on the block which is still zoned R-3, efforts to purchase this property are ongoing. If and when the property is acquired, it will be incorporated into the surrounding development. Transparency The purpose of the 60% transparency requirement is to promote interaction with the street and vibrant commercial storefronts characteristic of a historic downtown. As stated above, a 60% level of transparency is most important along Winona’s Second and Third Street commercial corridors because it matches and enhances the character of existing buildings with commercial on the first floor. It is less characteristic (and thus of less importance) in areas that are on the edge of downtown such as the location of the proposed development. Yes, proper zoning and good use for the property. 4) Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Height The primary reason for the height variance is the existing residentially zoned property that has not been acquired by the developer. The secondary reason a height variance is needed is due to the R-3 zoned properties on the block to the west. These properties are buffered from the proposed development by the 70’ Washington Street ROW. Additionally, City of Winona Comprehensive Plans have designated this block for commercial/residential redevelopment for almost 20 years. Transparency Again, City of Winona Comprehensive Plans have designated this block for commercial/residential redevelopment for almost 20 years. This block BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES January 15, 2025 PAGE 10 is located on the fringe of the downtown area where a 60% level of transparency significantly exceeds the 1st floor transparency of surrounding historic buildings. Yes, zoning and ordinances. 5) Will the variance, if granted, retain the essential character of the locality? Height The proposed maximum 65’ building height is less than the Courthouse (85’), and similar to the Main Square development (63’) and Masterpiece Hall (54’). Although significant taller than existing residential properties to the west, the increase in height is buffered by the Washington Street ROW. Transparency The proposed 27-35% transparency is similar to surrounding historic buildings. This transparency is balanced by high quality building materials such as stone and brick which are also prominent characteristics of nearby historic buildings. Yes, matches current building which is Main Square East. 6) Are there other considerations for the variance request besides economics? If the findings of questions 3-5 are affirmative this criterion is satisfied. Tom Conway asked about the underground parking entrance and cars coming and going at Washington Street with their lights on and shining at the houses and if it could be addressed. Senior Planner, Carlos Espinosa said it would be looked at during the site plan process. Mr. Espinosa said vehicle glare would be part of the landscaping and screening when reviewing the site plan and the decision would be made as to what kind of landscaping or screening could be put into place. Jim Murphy 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. Senior Planner, Carlos Espinosa mentioned to the Board that variances will now be good for two years instead of one and the applicant would have to still come back for an extension if they haven’t started their project before the two years has expired. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES January 15, 2025 PAGE 11 Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Board, Jon Krofchalk made a made a motion to adjourn, and it was seconded by Aaron Slavey. The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 pm. _______________________________ Chad Sommer, Secretary