Resolution approving a variance from Chapter 10, Article II, Division 3, Sec.10-97 of the Mankato City Code to decrease the front yard setback from 30 feet to 0 feet in the R-1, One-Family Dwelling District, to allow for the construction of an accessory structure; and motion approving a license to encroach (405 Ridgewood Street); by request of Brian and Tricia Sarff.

Adoption of the resolution approving the variance to decrease the front yard setback from thirty feet (30') to zero feet (0') in the R-1, One-Family Dwelling District with the following conditions:

1. Prior to construction, a City of Mankato building permit shall be obtained.
2. Prior to, or in conjunction with, the construction of the accessory structure, the applicant shall obtain a license to encroach for the placement of the shed in the right-of-way area.

Motion approving LIcense to Encroach. 

Brian and Tricia Sarff are seeking a variance from Chapter 10, Article II, Division 3, Sec.10-97 of the Mankato City Code to decrease the front yard setback from thirty feet (30’) to zero feet (0’) in the R-1, one-family dwelling, zoning district.

The property is located at 405 Ridgewood Street and is legally described as the east 120’ of Ridgewood Street, lying north of Lot 28, Sunset View Addition, and lying south of Lot 97 and Vacated Alley, Oak Knoll, according to the plats on files and record with the Blue Earth County Recorder.

Mankato City Code requires that all lots provide setbacks from the property line to any structures, including a setback of an accessory shed structure. The required setbacks are determined based on the zoning district. The subject property is zoned R-1, one-family dwelling zoning district, and the proposed use is an approximately 12’ X 16’ accessory shed. The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from thirty feet (30) to zero feet (0).

The lot is bordered on the north by a platted, unimproved street. A water line is currently located within the right of way, and is located approximately 13.5’ from the proposed location of the shed.

The rear yard and the eastern side yard consist largely of bluff areas.

As proposed, the accessory shed is located over the property line and encroaching into the unimproved right-of-way area by approximately 6 feet. Because the shed is proposed to be located over the property line and in the unimproved right-of-way, the applicant is also seeking a license to encroach for the portion of the shed located on the public area.

In May 2026, the applicant applied for a petition to vacate the unimproved street right-of-way area. The application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant due to the presence of the existing water line and the future potential for the necessity to locate a stormwater line through the right of way area.       

Practical Difficulty Analysis:
The applicant submitted their responses to the five questions pertaining to the statutory threshold for considering and granting variances.

When considering the variance, three factors should be considered to address practical difficulties; reasonableness, uniqueness, and essential. Affirmative findings by the Council must be made on each of the factors, and economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties.

1. 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 there is reasonable.

Applicant: The applicant’s proposal to the reasonableness is: “The proposed shed does not change the residential nature/use of the parcel.  The proposed shed location would not be out of place given the lack of street and surrounding natural environment.”

Staff: Reasonable manner standards for a variance should consider the purpose of the standard, in this case the setback standard. The R-1, a one-family dwelling district, has the purpose of providing low-density residential housing, and front yard setbacks generally provide visibility and safety along streets, consistent neighborhood appearance, separation between buildings and roads, and possibly provide areas to absorb rainwater, reduce runoff, and accommodate landscaping and/or trees. Minimum setbacks provided in the Code are intended to balance individual property use with broader public interests such as safety, infrastructure, neighborhood appearance and environmental management.  

In the case of this variance, the request to place an accessory structure in the front yard is reasonable given the circumstances on the lot. Having an accessory structure for the storage of personal items necessary to maintain the lot is reasonable, and, in this case, given the lot’s unique configuration, the proposed placement is reasonable. Because the adjacent front yard right-of-way is not improved with a street, the visibility and safety along the street, the neighborhood appearance, the separation between buildings and road, and the environmental features, which are typically those items impacted by setbacks, will not be impacted by this proposal.   

2. Uniqueness — The second factor is the landowner’s problem 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 personal characteristics or preference of the landowner. For example, 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 that distinguishes it from other nearby properties. In the case of properties in the shoreland, the presence of a wetland, steep slope, or valuable vegetation is not considered unique for this district.  

Applicant: The applicant’s proposal to the uniqueness is: “1. Though there is a platted street right-of-way abutting the north/front side of our property, there isn't a present (or known future) traffic use for the right-of-way.  The current right-of-way contains turfgrass, a short asphalt driveway (both maintained by us), and some wooded area which is connected to Rasmussen Woods. On its surface, the right-of-way looks and functions as our front yard. The existing house is constructed at the 30-ft building setback line, so there is no room for a structure behind the required setback line. 2. Our backyard is a heavily wooded bluff, essentially a part of Rasmussen Woods.  We have no direct neighbors to the north, east, or south of our property.  There is limited flat space on the south side of the house and no way to construct a shed according to bluff setback requirements and/or causing environmental impacts.”

Staff: Staff’s review of the unique circumstances confirms that there are unique circumstances that apply to the property that are not caused by the property owner. The entire southerly and easterly sides of the property are bluffs and woodland areas. These environmentally sensitive features are further regulated in Mankato City Code where, among other things, structures are prohibited. Additionally, standard lots have front yards that lie adjacent to an improved street right of way. In this case, the adjacent platted street right of way area is unimproved.

3. Essential Character — Under this factor, consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise consistent 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: “The proposed shed would be constructed in what is an unconventional right-of-way functioning as the only flat part of our yard. There is a 12-inch water main in the right-of-way and the shed would be located a safe distance away from it to allow unimpeded maintenance by the city.”

Staff: Features surrounding the subject property are that the area in front of the house, the area perceived to be the front yard, is a platted, unimproved right-of-way. While there is an underground water main within the right-of-way, the proposed accessory shed will not be out of scale. For all intents and purposes, discerning whether this area is right of way, or private property, is likely very difficult to a casual observer. The 12’ 16’ accessory structures will not be out of scale, out of place, or inconsistent with the typical low-density residential neighborhood accessory structures, and will continue to need to conform to the underlying Code standards.

In addition to the three-factor practical difficulties, city staff have made findings during the evaluation of the variance relating to the harmony with the proposal and the intent of the ordinance, and consistency with the comprehensive plan.

4. Harmony – Considering a variance request is a balancing test that requires weighing the need of an individual property owner against the purposes of the ordinance regulations for protecting the public interest. For example, the establishment of density standards. Considerations could include will be deviating from the required density on this property undermine the purpose and intent of the ordinance? Why or why not?

Applicant: The applicant’s narrative relative to whether the proposal is in harmony with the ordinance is; “Although the proposed shed will be closer within the front yard setback, there will still be reasonable separation between the proposed improvements and adjacent right-of-way, property lines, and public utilities. The proposed project will improve the current setback encroachment.”

Staff: The purpose and intent of front yard setbacks include for things such as visibility and safety along streets, consistent neighborhood appearance, separation between buildings and roads, and possibly provide areas to absorb rainwater, reduce runoff, and accommodate landscaping and/or trees. Minimum setbacks provided in the Code are intended to balance individual property use with broader public interests such as safety, infrastructure, neighborhood appearance and environmental management.  

Staff finds that given the unimproved nature of the adjacent street right-of-way, the proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance.

5. Comprehensive Plan — The comprehensive plan is also evaluated while reviewing a variance. The comprehensive plan establishes a framework for achieving the city’s vision for the future. Comprehensive plans typically may establish community goals and policies, and the variance request must be considered with these goals and policies in mind.   

Applicant: The applicant’s narrative response to how the project achieves the comprehensive plan is: “This project will not change the nature/use of the R-1 parcel.  There are no known plans to extend Ridgewood St. to the east down the steep bluff and into Rasmussen Woods.”

Staff: The comprehensive plan, through the land use plan, addresses properties and their use. The land use designates the zoning district as R-1, One Family dwelling district. The R-1 district outlines permitted uses within the district as one-family dwellings, which typically may include accessory structures to accommodate the dwelling. Further, the City’s underlying land use plan for this property identifies as “Low Density Residential.” For this reason, the proposal achieves the criteria in the City’s officially adopted comprehensive Land Use Plan.

Administrative Hearing:
Staff held an administrative hearing regarding the variance request on July 22, 2026. The following were in attendance at the hearing: Applicant representative, Brian Sarff, 405 Ridgewood, Josh Williams, 320 St. Andrews Drive (in attendance as an applicant representative for a separate variance), City of Mankato Planning Coordinator, Molly Westman, City of Mankato Planner, Bennett Hanson. City Staff explained the criteria for evaluating the variance for conformance with MN §462.357 Subd. 6 and gave an overview of the proposed variance. No additional comments related to the proposal were submitted.

An application for the License to Encroach has been submitted to the City of Mankato. Staff has reviewed the application and determined that the application is sufficient to proceed with recommendation to approve the License to Encroach.