 |
AGENDA RECOMMENDATION |
Public Hearings 7.D.
City Council Regular Meeting
- Meeting Date:
- 02/09/2026
Agenda Item:
Resolution approving a variance from Chapter 10, Article X, Division 2, Sec.10-1500 (e) of the Mankato City Code to reduce the required setback from a wetland from 16.5 feet to 5 feet for the purpose of constructing a sidewalk (905 South Victory Drive); by request of APX.
Recommendation/Action(s):
Adoption of a resolution granting a variance to reduce the required setback from a wetland from 16.5 feet to 5 feet for the purpose of constructing a sidewalk with the following conditions:
- The applicant shall provide redundant Best Management Practices for perimeter protection between the sidewalk construction and the wetland.
- The applicant shall submit a permit to work in the right-of-way prior to any construction activity related to the sidewalk.
- The applicant shall schedule a BMP pre-inspection prior to construction activity beginning on the side.
- The applicant shall submit plans for review and approval prior to construction of the sidewalk. Plans shall demonstrate conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
- The sidewalk shall be constructed in conformance with the approved sidewalk plan. Any modification shall be approved in writing prior to implementation.
Summary:
APX Construction Group is requesting a variance to reduce the wetland setback from 16.5 feet to 5 feet for the purpose of constructing a sidewalk in the area between Victory Drive and the wetland next to Evenson Subdivision. The proposed sidewalk is 5 feet wide and will provide a connection from the proposed apartment complex to the sidewalk network at the intersection of Victory Dr. and Stadium Rd.
Mankato City Code states that impervious surfaces shall maintain a 16.5-foot setback from the boundary of a wetland. The setback shall be maintained with naturally occurring vegetation.
Evenson Subdivision was reviewed and approved at the December 8, 2025, City Council meeting. As part of the approval, the City Council resolution contained conditions requiring the applicant to apply for a license to encroach and a variance to place the sidewalk within the public right-of-way.
The applicant submitted their responses to the five questions set forth in the League of Minnesota Cities Land Use Variance.
When considering the variance, three factors to establish the practical difficulty threshold should be considered; reasonableness, uniqueness, and essential character.
Reasonableness — This factor means the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. 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 a the proposed location is reasonable.
The applicant’s proposal to the reasonableness is: “Yes, the proposal to add a pedestrian walkway enhances the safety of local residents as well as providing a route around the wetlands. Without this walkway, the residents of the proposed apartment complex would, more than likely, walk through the wetlands, leading to the degradation of these natural habitats.”
The proposed location for the sidewalk is the result of exploring other locations, but determining none were feasible based on extenuating circumstances such as traffic, wetlands and site conditions. Stadium Road is a county road; Blue Earth County determined that a sidewalk along this portion of road would not be safe for pedestrian use. The proposed sidewalk runs parallel to Victory Drive and at the intersection of Victory Drive and Stadium Road there is a public sidewalk connection. Due to the nature of the property and the requirement for connection to public sidewalk and transit, the variance is reasonable.
Uniqueness — The second factor is the landowner’s difficulty due to circumstances unique to the property that were not caused by the landowner. 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 there is anything physically unique to the property, for example, bluffs or wetlands.
The applicant’s proposal to the uniqueness is: “Yes, there are circumstances that are unique to this property. The existing wetlands that border the property on the west and north sides of the site minimize any access that residents would have to access the adjacent roundabout and its related pedestrian walkways.”
The environmental conditions and location bordering a county road, create a challenge in placement for pedestrian connections. After exploring other potential locations, it was determined that with the site conditions, this location was the most feasible for a sidewalk. Crossing the wetland at the most direct connection point would likely require direct wetland impacts as compared to wetland setback impacts. Staff has determined that the property is unique and valid for a variance.
Essential Character — Under this factor, 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 structure will look closer to the lot line and if it fits within the character of the area.
The applicant’s proposal for the essential character is: “Yes, this variance will maintain the essential character of the locality. The developed properties at the remaining three corners of the roundabout intersection all include multi-family dwellings. The addition of this sidewalk along Victory Drive will provide a pedestrian route to the roundabout area and subsequently to the neighboring developments along existing pedestrian routes.”
Currently, there is no pedestrian connection for the development or adjacent properties. The sidewalk will be constructed to meet city standards while adding the benefit of safety. The applicant is being conscientious to match the existing conditions and install a sidewalk that mirrors the surrounding connections. The proposed location for the sidewalk maintains the essential character of the area.
In addition to the three-factor practical difficulties, city staff have 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.
The applicant’s narrative relative to whether the proposal is in harmony with the ordinance is: “Yes, the variance being requested is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. This property has been approved by the City, through a Conditional Use process, for multi-family residential use. It stands to reason that the Mankato residents that inhabit this property will desire to walk / bike to local parks, adjacent neighborhoods, retail services, college campuses, etc. This pedestrian route will offer a safe and dedicated path for people to traverse this local area.”
A setback for a wetland is 16.5 feet according to Mankato City Code Chapter 10, Article X, Division 2, Sec. 10-1500. The limited ability to construct the sidewalk is based on the minimal amount of space between the Victory Drive pavement and the wetland. The proposed option encroaches only on the wetland setback, not the wetland, in order to install a safer pedestrian connection.
The comprehensive plan is also evaluated while reviewing a variance.
The applicant’s narrative response to how the projects achieves the comprehensive plan is: “Yes, the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan, now modified through the appropriate process by the city to allow for multi-family construction on the subject site, will connect local residents along the proposed pedestrian route.”
The comprehensive plan addresses properties and their use. The land use designates the zoning district as B-3, Highway Business District. The B-3 district is intended to provide sites for a range of commercial developments. A recent amendment to the code made multi-family developments a conditional use. The variance is not requesting the property to be used in a different manner than commercial/multi-family use. The variance is only requesting the setback be reduced for installing a pedestrian connection. The variance meets this requirement as the use is not proposed to change.
Variance Hearing:
Staff held an administrative hearing regarding the variance request on January 28, 2026. The following were in attendance at the hearing: applicant's representative, Alec Pietz of Bolton & Menk, Property owner, Ron Goodrich, City of Mankato Planning Coordinator, Molly Westman, City of Mankato Planner, Bennett Hanson, City of Mankato Planning Coordinator, Brittany Mitchell, City of Mankato Director of Community Development, Mark Konz, Shawn Meschke of APX Construction, Nate Myhra of Bolton & Menk, Kevin Johnson and Dominic Gilman of Complete Construction, and Mary Miller an owner at Evergreen Trail commercial condos. City Staff explained the criteria for evaluating the variance for conformance with MN §462.357 Subd. 6 and gave a prompt overview of the proposed variance. No additional comments related to the proposal were submitted.
Mankato City Code states that impervious surfaces shall maintain a 16.5-foot setback from the boundary of a wetland. The setback shall be maintained with naturally occurring vegetation.
Evenson Subdivision was reviewed and approved at the December 8, 2025, City Council meeting. As part of the approval, the City Council resolution contained conditions requiring the applicant to apply for a license to encroach and a variance to place the sidewalk within the public right-of-way.
The applicant submitted their responses to the five questions set forth in the League of Minnesota Cities Land Use Variance.
When considering the variance, three factors to establish the practical difficulty threshold should be considered; reasonableness, uniqueness, and essential character.
Reasonableness — This factor means the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. 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 a the proposed location is reasonable.
The applicant’s proposal to the reasonableness is: “Yes, the proposal to add a pedestrian walkway enhances the safety of local residents as well as providing a route around the wetlands. Without this walkway, the residents of the proposed apartment complex would, more than likely, walk through the wetlands, leading to the degradation of these natural habitats.”
The proposed location for the sidewalk is the result of exploring other locations, but determining none were feasible based on extenuating circumstances such as traffic, wetlands and site conditions. Stadium Road is a county road; Blue Earth County determined that a sidewalk along this portion of road would not be safe for pedestrian use. The proposed sidewalk runs parallel to Victory Drive and at the intersection of Victory Drive and Stadium Road there is a public sidewalk connection. Due to the nature of the property and the requirement for connection to public sidewalk and transit, the variance is reasonable.
Uniqueness — The second factor is the landowner’s difficulty due to circumstances unique to the property that were not caused by the landowner. 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 there is anything physically unique to the property, for example, bluffs or wetlands.
The applicant’s proposal to the uniqueness is: “Yes, there are circumstances that are unique to this property. The existing wetlands that border the property on the west and north sides of the site minimize any access that residents would have to access the adjacent roundabout and its related pedestrian walkways.”
The environmental conditions and location bordering a county road, create a challenge in placement for pedestrian connections. After exploring other potential locations, it was determined that with the site conditions, this location was the most feasible for a sidewalk. Crossing the wetland at the most direct connection point would likely require direct wetland impacts as compared to wetland setback impacts. Staff has determined that the property is unique and valid for a variance.
Essential Character — Under this factor, 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 structure will look closer to the lot line and if it fits within the character of the area.
The applicant’s proposal for the essential character is: “Yes, this variance will maintain the essential character of the locality. The developed properties at the remaining three corners of the roundabout intersection all include multi-family dwellings. The addition of this sidewalk along Victory Drive will provide a pedestrian route to the roundabout area and subsequently to the neighboring developments along existing pedestrian routes.”
Currently, there is no pedestrian connection for the development or adjacent properties. The sidewalk will be constructed to meet city standards while adding the benefit of safety. The applicant is being conscientious to match the existing conditions and install a sidewalk that mirrors the surrounding connections. The proposed location for the sidewalk maintains the essential character of the area.
In addition to the three-factor practical difficulties, city staff have 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.
The applicant’s narrative relative to whether the proposal is in harmony with the ordinance is: “Yes, the variance being requested is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. This property has been approved by the City, through a Conditional Use process, for multi-family residential use. It stands to reason that the Mankato residents that inhabit this property will desire to walk / bike to local parks, adjacent neighborhoods, retail services, college campuses, etc. This pedestrian route will offer a safe and dedicated path for people to traverse this local area.”
A setback for a wetland is 16.5 feet according to Mankato City Code Chapter 10, Article X, Division 2, Sec. 10-1500. The limited ability to construct the sidewalk is based on the minimal amount of space between the Victory Drive pavement and the wetland. The proposed option encroaches only on the wetland setback, not the wetland, in order to install a safer pedestrian connection.
The comprehensive plan is also evaluated while reviewing a variance.
The applicant’s narrative response to how the projects achieves the comprehensive plan is: “Yes, the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan, now modified through the appropriate process by the city to allow for multi-family construction on the subject site, will connect local residents along the proposed pedestrian route.”
The comprehensive plan addresses properties and their use. The land use designates the zoning district as B-3, Highway Business District. The B-3 district is intended to provide sites for a range of commercial developments. A recent amendment to the code made multi-family developments a conditional use. The variance is not requesting the property to be used in a different manner than commercial/multi-family use. The variance is only requesting the setback be reduced for installing a pedestrian connection. The variance meets this requirement as the use is not proposed to change.
Variance Hearing:
Staff held an administrative hearing regarding the variance request on January 28, 2026. The following were in attendance at the hearing: applicant's representative, Alec Pietz of Bolton & Menk, Property owner, Ron Goodrich, City of Mankato Planning Coordinator, Molly Westman, City of Mankato Planner, Bennett Hanson, City of Mankato Planning Coordinator, Brittany Mitchell, City of Mankato Director of Community Development, Mark Konz, Shawn Meschke of APX Construction, Nate Myhra of Bolton & Menk, Kevin Johnson and Dominic Gilman of Complete Construction, and Mary Miller an owner at Evergreen Trail commercial condos. City Staff explained the criteria for evaluating the variance for conformance with MN §462.357 Subd. 6 and gave a prompt overview of the proposed variance. No additional comments related to the proposal were submitted.