Resolution denying a request for a variance from Section 10.13, Subd.6.C. of the Mankato City Code to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 15.2 feet in order to construct a 26’ X 29.5’ attached garage addition (129 Uriah Court). 

Adoption of a resolution denying the request for a variance with the following findings: 

1. The use allowed by the variance is a reasonable use.
2. The necessity of a variance does not arise out of uniqueness of the lot. Other options exist to achieve the addition while being within the code requirements. The lot was platted in 2004 and currently meets Mankato City Code standards. The cul-de-sac shaped lot is similar to other cul-de-sac lots near the subject property. There are also no wetlands, slopes, or woodlands on the lot, which may reduce the amount of buildable land.
3. The variance does not achieve the essential character as other surrounding single-family dwellings and garages meet the required setback standards in the city code and, this structure would, instead, allow a continuous structure to extend closer to neighboring lot lines, disrupting the character of the neighborhood.
4. The variance is not in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. The R-1 One-Family Dwelling District standards state setbacks for the dwelling and detached accessory structures that need to be met and was intentionally adopted for that zoning district.
5. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan as the land use is “low density” and R-1, One-Family Dwelling District. The applicant is not requesting that the use of the property as a single-family dwelling changes.  The applicant is requesting flexibility from the setbacks in the R-1, District.

The property owner is requesting a variance from Section 10.13, Subdivision 6, of the Mankato City Code, to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 15.2 feet in the R-1, One-Family Dwelling District. The variance is being requested in order to construct a 26’ x 29.5’ garage addition. The property contains a single-family dwelling with an attached garage. The applicant is requesting a larger attached garage to store vehicles and indoor spaces to maintain the vehicles. The proposed garage addition will be 26’ x 29.5’ and will extend from the eastern wall of the existing garage. The proposed garage addition will be accessed through the current garage. Along with the surveyed site plan, the applicant submitted their response to the five questions set forth in the League of Minnesota Cities Land Use Variance. 

According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: (1) The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance; (2) The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and (3) The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties, which is measured by meeting ALL of the following: 

a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls;
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and
c. The variance will not change the essential character of the area.

Case law exists in which the courts find that if the record upon which the decision is made does not contain evidence supporting that practical difficulties exist, or doesn’t demonstrate alignment with the comprehensive plan or the intent of the Ordinance, then the variance should not be approved.  

Practical Difficulties Analysis:

1. Reasonableness- This factor means the landowner's desired use of the property is reasonable. For example, if the variance application is for a building that does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable.

Applicant: The applicant’s proposal to the reasonableness is: “Yes, the attached garage we wish to build would use the property more reasonably than any alternative detached garage options we may have. An attached structure would have a smaller footprint and blend into the existing house and garage more. If a detached structure were to be built, it would require substantially more materials and impervious surfaces to be used. The attached structure is more responsible use of materials and resources, including energy efficiency that would be lost by having overhead doors on the front and back of the house garage and on the front of the detached garage. These extra doors would require access to a detached structure to the backyard.”

Staff: The proposed approximately 767 square foot attached garage addition is considered a part of the dwelling, and therefore is required to be in conformance with the dwelling setback from the rear property line 25 feet. It is subject to Section 10.13, Subdivision 6C of Mankato City Code, which states: “Rear Yard Setback. 1. Dwellings. A minimum of twenty-five (25) feet.” Although the new use would not meet the setback, the use itself is a reasonable use for the property.

2. Uniqueness- The second factor is that the landowner’s desired use is not possible due to circumstances unique to the property that was not caused by the landowner or by the landowner’s desire to do something the code does not allow. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property, that is, to the land, and not personal characteristics or preference of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building encroaching into a setback, the focus factor is whether or not there is anything physically unique to the property, for example, sloping topography or wetlands.

Applicant: the applicant’s proposal to the uniqueness is: “Yes, the lot shape and existing structures make it impossible to put up a detached garage in a useable size for vehicles while still allowing access for motor vehicles. We would be unable to access a detached structure in the backyard with a car/truck without having to drive on to adjacent properties. An attached addition would allow this to happen.”

Staff: Staff’s review of the lot showed that it was platted in 2004 and is a conforming lot according to Mankato City Code, Chapter 10.13, Subdivision 4. Minimal Lot Area. Lot standards in the R-1 One-Family Dwelling District minimal lot area is 7,000 square feet. The subject property’s area is approximately 10,657 square feet according to the City’s GIS data. While it is a cul-de-sac lot, this is not unique to other cul-de-sac lots throughout the city as, in order to get around the radius of the circle, lots are subject to odd shapes and are not the typical “rectangle” shaped lots. There are also no known physical characteristics on the property that would impact the available building area.  Additionally, the property owner has alternatives on the property to get the larger garage. The applicant has stated that the options are not cost efficient, however, according to State Statute 462.357, subd.6 “Economic consideration alone cannot create practical difficulties.” For these reasons, there are not unique circumstances arising out of the lot pertaining to the variance request. There is also the possibility of other options on the property to build a larger garage while meeting the required setbacks other than the detached accessory structure. As a result, the difficulty does NOT arise out of uniqueness of the lot and, therefore, the variance does not meet the legal standards.

3. Essential Character- Under this factor, the Council should consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the area. For example, when thinking about the variance for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to the lot lie and if it fits within the character of the area.

Applicant: The applicant’s proposal to essential character is: “Yes, the addition planned would be built in a way that the style/color/materials will match or blend in with the existing home. There are no views that construction would block. The attached structure would be more visually appealing and would be more modest than an alternative detached structure would be.”

Staff: The other single-family homes have attached garages that all meet the standards set forth in the code for the zoning district in regard to setbacks. Though the addition will be similar in appearance to the rest of the dwelling itself, the fact remains that there will be a structure closer to the lot line than any other attached addition in the area and are not consistent with the essential character of the neighborhood/zone as required by the legal practical difficulties standard. 

4. Harmony with the Intent of Zoned Area as set forth in the Ordinance: In addition to the three-factor practical difficulties, city staff has made findings during the evaluation of the variance on the harmony with the proposal and the intent of the ordinance and consistency with the comprehensive plan.

Applicant: The applicant’s narrative relative to whether the proposal is in harmony with the ordinance is; “Yes, the attached garage is being requested so we can park, work on, and store additional vehicles in an enclosed garage instead of leaving them in the driveway or having the rent storage facilities to store them. It is for personal use. I would be allowed to have a structure similar to size or larger in a location even closer to the property lines than I am proposing if it wasn’t attached.”

Staff: The intent of the R-1 ordinance is to create a standard for properties and dwellings, including space of continuous structures from lot lines. The standard of setbacks is one of many other standards set forth in the code for dwellings in the low-density residential district. An attached addition would need to meet the setbacks that are required for the dwelling on the lot. A detached accessory structure’s setback is 3 feet according to Mankato City Code Chapter 10.13 Subdivision 6E. There are other ways to expand the existing garage and be in conformance with Mankato City Code or choose to add a detached accessory structure that meets the requirements for setbacks and will look different than other homes and may obstruct views of others.

5. Consistencies with Uses set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.

Applicant. The applicant’s narrative response to how the project achieves the comprehensive plan is: “Yes, according to the comprehensive plan, the property is low density residential, and the request is consistent with the characteristics of this classification. We are not going to be using this garage for any business purposes. There will be no living quarters added to the addition. There is no request for an ADU. We would not be requesting to build any closer to the public walkway adjacent to the property.”

Staff: The comprehensive plan addresses the intent of how the city is planned and use of the properties in those zones. The land use designates the zoning district as R-1, One-Family dwelling district. The R-1, One-Family dwelling district allows for residential use such as additions to the principal dwelling and the use of an attached garage. The variance is not requesting the property to be used in a different manner than residential use. The variance is only requesting the setback to be reduced for an attached garage. The variance meets this requirement as the use is not proposed to change.

Staff held an administrative hearing regarding the variance request on August 28, 2024. In attendance at the meeting were property owners, Shawn Griffiths and Denise Schweim, contractor, David Miller, City of Mankato Planning and Zoning Administrator, Molly Westman, City of Mankato Planner, Sydney Deprenger, and Director of Community Development, Mark Konz. Staff explained the criteria for evaluating the variance for conformance with MN §462.357 Subd. 6. No additional comments related to the proposal were submitted, but the applicant did reaffirm the reasons for the request.