 |
AGENDA RECOMMENDATION |
Public Hearings 7.B.
City Council Regular Meeting
- Meeting Date:
- 08/10/2026
Agenda Item:
Resolution approving a variance from Chapter 10, Article V, Division 6, Sec. 10-584 of the Mankato City Code to decrease the front yard setback from the code required 15 feet to 12 feet and; to decrease the corner side yard from the code required 7 feet, 6 inches to 0 feet in the B-1, Community Business District, to allow for an updated façade with new finishes and a new exit door and related foundation (1028 North Riverfront Drive); by request of Dustin Lee.
Recommendation/Action(s):
Adoption of the resolution approving the variances to decrease the front yard setback from the code required fifteen feet (15’) to twelve feet (12’) and to decrease the corner side yard from the code required, seven feet, six inches (7’6”) to zero feet (0’) in the B-1, Community Business Zoning District with the following condition:
- The applicant shall acquire a right-of-way permit prior to issuance of a building permit to address use of the right-of-way during construction.
Summary:
WEB Construction is requesting a variance to decrease the front yard setback from fifteen feet (15’) to twelve feet (12’) and to decrease the corner side yard from seven feet, six inches (7’6”) to zero feet (0’).
The request to decrease the front yard setback is to provide needed updates to the existing building façade and update exterior finishes. The request for the decrease to the side yard setback is to add an additional emergency egress and required stoop.
The uses of the building will remain the same.
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 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 there is reasonable.
The applicant’s proposal for the reasonableness is: “Each variance will be difficult to determine if anything was even done to encroach from the current footprint. The north work will be entirely below grade and the east work will be around 6”.
The proposed location for the egress on the east side is based on the building code requirements for accesses that are a required distance apart from each other. The stoop is required for access from the pedestrian connection to the building. The work being done on the north side is a minor encroachment into the front yard setback in order to update and repair the existing facade. 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 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 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.
The applicant’s proposal to the uniqueness is: “The owner is looking to beautify/upgrade his current facility while maintaining the portions that are structurally sound".
The building was built in 1947. It is a small lot and limits the ability to perform work that would not encroach on any yard setback. The lot is also a corner lot with roads located on both sides. 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 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 line and if it fits within the character of the area.
The applicant’s proposal to essential character is: “This variance is not proposing any significant changes beyond what is currently in place.”
Currently, there is no pedestrian connection on the north side of the building, which will also provide the required egress for the safety of the tenants. The applicant applied for a Certificate of Design Compliance to ensure that the façade upgrades and repair will meet the guidelines for the Downtown Gateway District. It was determined through that review that what the applicant is requesting does honor the essential character of the district. The proposed location for the egress and the façade updates maintains the essential character of the area.
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.
The applicant’s narrative relative to whether the proposal is in harmony with the ordinance is:
“Yes. Applicant is asking for approximately 6” on the east side and allow for a new stoop on the North side for safe egress. It would appear that something should be in place from a previous project. Building dates back over 75 years.”
The intent of the B-1 ordinance and the standard of general applicability is to create a standard for properties and structures. The standard of setbacks is one of many other standards set forth in the code for properties in the commercial business districts. A structure of any kind would need to meet the setbacks that are required on the lot. A front yard setback in the B-1 district is 15 feet and a side yard setback is 3 feet according to Mankato City Code Chapter 10, Article V, Division 6, Sec. 10-584. Because of the adjacency to an existing roadway a hardship is created and limits the space the egress and building repairs. The only option is impeding the setbacks in order to install the requested changes.
The comprehensive plan is also evaluated while reviewing a variance.
The applicant’s narrative response to how the project achieves the comprehensive plan is:
“The plan for the building is cosmetic and updating finishes comply with the current local ordinances. We feel that this will create an instant upgrade to this corridor that many local businesses are updating."
The comprehensive plan addresses properties and their use. The land use designates the zoning district as B-1, Community Business District. The B-1 district is intended to provide for a broad range of retail developments which are adjacent to residential areas. The district will also accommodate office and institutional uses as well as limited light industry.
The variance is not requesting the property to be used in a different manner than its current use. The variance is only requesting the setback be reduced for installing building updates and egress. The variance meets this requirement as the use is not proposed to change.
The request to decrease the front yard setback is to provide needed updates to the existing building façade and update exterior finishes. The request for the decrease to the side yard setback is to add an additional emergency egress and required stoop.
The uses of the building will remain the same.
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 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 there is reasonable.
The applicant’s proposal for the reasonableness is: “Each variance will be difficult to determine if anything was even done to encroach from the current footprint. The north work will be entirely below grade and the east work will be around 6”.
The proposed location for the egress on the east side is based on the building code requirements for accesses that are a required distance apart from each other. The stoop is required for access from the pedestrian connection to the building. The work being done on the north side is a minor encroachment into the front yard setback in order to update and repair the existing facade. 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 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 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.
The applicant’s proposal to the uniqueness is: “The owner is looking to beautify/upgrade his current facility while maintaining the portions that are structurally sound".
The building was built in 1947. It is a small lot and limits the ability to perform work that would not encroach on any yard setback. The lot is also a corner lot with roads located on both sides. 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 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 line and if it fits within the character of the area.
The applicant’s proposal to essential character is: “This variance is not proposing any significant changes beyond what is currently in place.”
Currently, there is no pedestrian connection on the north side of the building, which will also provide the required egress for the safety of the tenants. The applicant applied for a Certificate of Design Compliance to ensure that the façade upgrades and repair will meet the guidelines for the Downtown Gateway District. It was determined through that review that what the applicant is requesting does honor the essential character of the district. The proposed location for the egress and the façade updates maintains the essential character of the area.
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.
The applicant’s narrative relative to whether the proposal is in harmony with the ordinance is:
“Yes. Applicant is asking for approximately 6” on the east side and allow for a new stoop on the North side for safe egress. It would appear that something should be in place from a previous project. Building dates back over 75 years.”
The intent of the B-1 ordinance and the standard of general applicability is to create a standard for properties and structures. The standard of setbacks is one of many other standards set forth in the code for properties in the commercial business districts. A structure of any kind would need to meet the setbacks that are required on the lot. A front yard setback in the B-1 district is 15 feet and a side yard setback is 3 feet according to Mankato City Code Chapter 10, Article V, Division 6, Sec. 10-584. Because of the adjacency to an existing roadway a hardship is created and limits the space the egress and building repairs. The only option is impeding the setbacks in order to install the requested changes.
The comprehensive plan is also evaluated while reviewing a variance.
The applicant’s narrative response to how the project achieves the comprehensive plan is:
“The plan for the building is cosmetic and updating finishes comply with the current local ordinances. We feel that this will create an instant upgrade to this corridor that many local businesses are updating."
The comprehensive plan addresses properties and their use. The land use designates the zoning district as B-1, Community Business District. The B-1 district is intended to provide for a broad range of retail developments which are adjacent to residential areas. The district will also accommodate office and institutional uses as well as limited light industry.
The variance is not requesting the property to be used in a different manner than its current use. The variance is only requesting the setback be reduced for installing building updates and egress. The variance meets this requirement as the use is not proposed to change.