Resolution approving variances to increase the allowable maximum ground coverage from 30% to 37% and to decrease the required corner side yard setback from 15' to 8.5' in the R-2, one-and-two family dwelling district; (307 Mound Avenue); by request of Lori Schlueter.

Adoption of a resolution granting a variance to increase the allowable maximum ground coverage from 30% to 37% in the R-2, one-and-two family dwelling district; and granting a variance to decrease the required corner side yard setback from 15' to 8.5' with the following conditions: 

1. The property owner shall apply for a License to Encroach for private use of the existing driveway within Irving Street to Public Right-of-Way prior to submission of a building permit.
2. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit prior to making improvements associated with the proposed garage.
3. Private usage of the public right-of-way, identified as “Irving Street” shall be limited to access purposes only. The parking of vehicles or storage of private property, including but not limited to: construction material, refuse containers, lawncare equipment, and recreational equipment, shall be prohibited, until such time as a License to Encroach is approved by the City of Mankato.
4. If temporary access for construction or any other means is necessary in the public way, the appropriate right of way permit, obstruction permit or others shall be obtained in accordance with City of Mankato standards prior to work occurring. 
5. If new exterior lighting is proposed, it shall achieve Mankato City Code standards. This requires, but is not limited to, full-cut, fully shielded light fixtures. Lighting levels at the property line shall not exceed 1/2-foot candle.
    
6. The City of Mankato Public Works Department is investigating the need for modifications to the Irving Street Right-of-Way, this includes improvements to, vacation of, or retention of existing Irving Street conditions. The property owner shall agree to be a willing petitioner at the time that modifications are made to Irving Street ROW.

The applicant, Lori Schlueter, is requesting a variance from Chapter 10, Article II, Division 4, Sec.10-137 of the Mankato City Code to increase the allowable maximum ground coverage from 30% to 37%, for a total lot coverage of 1,358 square feet in the R-2, one-and-two family dwelling district; and a variance from Chapter 10 Article X, Division 1, Sec. 10-1465 to decrease the required corner side yard setback from 15 feet to 8.5 feet. The property is described as the west 48 feet of Lots 8 and 9, Block 5, Hubbell’s Addition (307 Mound Avenue). 
 
The variance is being requested in order to allow for the construction of a new, 22’ X 25’ detached garage. The garage will be in approximately the same location as the existing garage located on the property which will be demolished. The applicant is seeking a new garage that will be larger to accommodate vehicles and storage. The applicant has stated that the existing garage is in a blighted condition and needs to be demolished and replaced.
 
Access to the proposed detached garage will continue to come from the Irving Street right-of-way, located to the East of the subject property. 307 Mound Avenue is the only property that currently is or has historically utilized this right-of-way for parking and driving purposes. In 1941, what was effectively a private driveway access, was constructed off of Mound Ave in order to serve 307 Mound Avenue within the unimproved Irving Street right-of-way. The applicant does not propose any modifications to the right-of-way area. Due to the exclusive private usage of the Irving Street right-of-way by 307 Mound Avenue and the necessity of the utilization of the right-of-way to access the garage, a License to Encroach must be obtained and held by the property owner of 307 Mound Avenue. This License to Encroach shall be required as long as 307 Mound Ave wishes to utilize the public right-of-way for private driveway purposes. At such time that the Irving Street right-of-way is improved, modified, or vacated, the property owner of 307 Mound Ave shall be a willing petitioner to said improvements.
 
Lloyd and Ruth Greve of 135 Hubbell Avenue provided a letter to Molly Westman of the City of Mankato, stating that they have no concerns with the proposed variance.
 
Minnesota Statute §462.357 Subd. 6(2) allows variances only 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) practical difficulties exist, meaning (a) the property can be reasonably used without the variance, (b) the circumstances are unique and not created by the landowner, and (c) the variance will not alter the essential character of the area.
 
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: “Request is for standard 2-stall garage, which is not unreasonable for a family with two cars, as well as lawn & snow removal equipment. This is consistent with the other properties in the area and in Mankato.”

Staff: Although the garage structure would not meet the code's required setback, the structure itself would not encroach further into the corner side yard setback than the existing garage, nor the primary structure. The uniquely limited lot size does not allow for the construction of a reasonably sized accessory structure due to the 30% maximum building coverage ordinance in the R-2, Zoning District. Accessory Structures, including garages, are permitted and present on most lots within the R-2, Zoning District.

2. Uniqueness - The second factor is that the landowner’s desired use is not possible due to circumstances unique to the property that were 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 the 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 property was developed in the 1940’s on a lot which is well below the standards & only 3,669 Sq. Ft., preventing common & standards garages sized for two vehicles & storage of lawn & snow equipment.”

Staff: The applicant has demonstrated the unique existing physical conditions on the lot, including a lot that is far smaller than the current or previous minimum lot sizes for residential development in the R-2, One- and Two-Family Dwelling District, the presence of existing structures within the required corner side yard, and the unimproved nature of the Irving Street right-of-way.

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 on how the particular building will look closer to the lot lie and if it fits within the character of the area.

Applicant: “Request for 2-stall garage is similar to surrounding properties that include 2-stall garages, storage sheds & other additional buildings. In fact, there are two larger sheds on a nearby property.”

Staff: The neighborhood is primarily residential properties with garages located to the rear of the primary structures, with either alley access or driveways extending past the home. Due to the unimproved condition of Irving Street and the presence of a railroad bisecting the neighborhood, a number of similar unique lots are present within close
proximity of the subject property. Given the existing placement and character of the residential structures within the neighborhood, the proposed garage will be consistent with the essential character of the neighborhood. 

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 in the harmony with the proposal and the intent of the ordinance.

Applicant: “Ordinance was developed with certain lot size in mind to not alter the character of neighborhood. In this case, the overall neighborhood character is not diminished because the lot is very small compared to the norm, where the ordinance was meant to control.”

Staff: The intent of the R-2, One- and Two-Family Dwelling District ordinance is to create a standard for low- and medium-density residential properties and dwellings, including setbacks and densities for primary residential and accessory structures. In this case, given the existing garage’s placement and orientation, the demolition and reconstruction of a larger garage, permitted through the granting of these vacations, would be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance.

5. Consistencies with Uses set forth in the Comprehensive Plan -  City staff has made findings during the evaluation of the variances based on consistency of the proposed use with the comprehensive plan. Use of the lot is not indicated to change with approval of the variances, as a residential garage is already existing on site.

Applicant: “Allowing the variance would still maintain normal, common structures consistent for the surrounding area. The request is to allow for a 2-car garage replacing a single stall. The issue is the tiny size of the lot. We are not requesting an unusual use or size of structure.”

Staff: The comprehensive plan addresses the intent of how the city is planned and the use of the properties in those zones. The land use plan designates the land use as Low Density Residential, with the goal of promoting low-density residential development which provides affordable and lifecycle housing opportunities. The proposed use continues to promote affordability of existing low-density residential development in the City of Mankato. The zoning of the subject parcel is designated as R-2, One- and Two-Family Dwelling District, where accessory structures, like garages, associated with residential dwelling uses are considered accessory uses and are therefore permitted. For these reasons, the proposed use is believed to be consistent with the uses set forth in the comprehensive plan.
 
Staff held an administrative hearing regarding the variance request on September 24, 2025. In attendance at the hearing were property owners, Lori Schlueter and Kyla Schlueter, City of Mankato Planning Coordinator, Molly Westman, City of Mankato Planner, Bennett Hanson, 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.