 |
AGENDA RECOMMENDATION |
Public Hearings 7.B.
City Council Regular Meeting
- Meeting Date:
- 09/14/2026
Agenda Item:
Resolution approving a variance from Chapter 10, Article X, Division 1, Sec.10-1463 of the Mankato City Code to increase the allowable mechanical projection into a required yard from 3 feet to 10 feet in the R-3, Limited Multiple Dwelling District (1422 2nd Avenue); by request of Kody Schendel.
Recommendation/Action(s):
Adoption of the attached resolution.
Summary:
Kody Schendel is seeking a variance from Chapter 10, Article X, Division 1, Sec.10-1463 of the Mankato City Code to increase the allowable mechanical projection into a required yard from 3 feet (3’) to ten feet (10’) in the R-3, Limited Multiple Dwelling, zoning district. The variance is being requested in order to allow for the placement of two mechanical units in the 15.8 foot building setback area.
The property is the location of a recently constructed building that is used for the Wrestling Brotherhood facility, and is addressed as 1422 2nd Avenue. The legal description of the subject site is Lots 3, 4, 5, Block 16, Mankato City, Blue Earth County.
The Mankato City Code allows projection of mechanical units, including air conditioning condensing units, to project into a required yard by 3 feet. The applicant has installed two mechanical units that project 10’ into the required 15.8’ yard area. The applicant is seeking a variance to increase the allowable 3’ projection of the units to 10’.
Variance review
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 character. Affirmative findings by the Council must be made on each of the factors, and economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties.
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 requested variance provides essential HVAC climate control for the facility while utilizing perimeter screening to preserve visual aesthetics and protect surrounding property sight-lines along the alley.”
Staff: Reasonable manner standards for a variance should consider the purpose of the standard, in this case the setback standard. The R-3, limited multiple-family dwelling district, has a purpose of providing for medium-density residential development, and building 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 potential noise issues, 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, noise and environmental management.
In the case of this variance, the request to place mechanical units into the required building setback is reasonable. Having mechanical units to service the lot is reasonable, and, in this case, given the previously granted conditional use permit allowing this operation at this location, and lot’s approved configuration, the proposed placement is reasonable. Because the adjacent property located to the south of the building is a single-family residential house, placing the units on that side of the structure was not ideal because of neighborhood appearance, and the potential noise. Additionally, placing the unit on the northern or eastern side of the subject property, in the front yard areas, could have created a visual conflict for the subject property.
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. 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: “Modern HVAC equipment is a standard and necessary component of operating the facility. Given the fixed interior layout and building placement on the lot, placing the units along the western elevation is the most functional option for site operations.”
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. There is an existing single-family residence located to the south of the subject site, and the applicant desired to minimize visual or potential noise issues by not placing it directly adjacent to an existing one-family dwelling.
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 or unit will look closer to the lot line and if it fits within the character of the area.
Applicant: The applicant’s proposal to essential character is: “Yes. The permanent footprint and location of the existing structure limit outdoor equipment options, creating site constraints that require minor setback relief along the side yard.”
Staff: Features surrounding the subject property are that the area to the south of the subject building, considered the rear yard where there is potentially room for the subject unit, directly abuts a one-family dwelling.
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.
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 for protecting the public interest. These purposes establish the standards for the City’s ordinance. For example, the establishment of setbacks. Considerations can include will deviate from the required setbacks 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; “No. Enclosing the units with a 6-foot screening fence ensures the equipment remains hidden from view, preserving the character and sight-lines of the alleyway and neighboring properties.”
Staff: The purpose and intent of 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 location of the existing one-family dwelling on the southern side/in the rear yard, of the subject building, locating the mechanical units to the west of the structure, in the side yard, will lend itself more to balance and harmony at the subject site.
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: “Yes. The location is dictated by structural geometry, sound mitigation considerations for adjacent land uses, and essential airflow/operational specifications for the mechanical equipment.”
Staff: The comprehensive plan, through the land use plan, addresses properties and their use. The land use designates the zoning district as R-3, limited multiple-family dwelling district. The R-3 district outlines permitted uses and conditional uses within the district and a conditional use permit was granted that allowed the operation of this facility at this location.
Administrative Hearing
Staff held an administrative hearing regarding the variance request on August 26, 2026. The following were in attendance at the hearing: applicant's representative, Nate Myhra, and the applicant, Kody Schendel, City of Mankato Planning Coordinator, Molly Westman, City of Mankato Planner, Bennett Hanson. No additional comments related to the proposal were submitted.
The property is the location of a recently constructed building that is used for the Wrestling Brotherhood facility, and is addressed as 1422 2nd Avenue. The legal description of the subject site is Lots 3, 4, 5, Block 16, Mankato City, Blue Earth County.
The Mankato City Code allows projection of mechanical units, including air conditioning condensing units, to project into a required yard by 3 feet. The applicant has installed two mechanical units that project 10’ into the required 15.8’ yard area. The applicant is seeking a variance to increase the allowable 3’ projection of the units to 10’.
Variance review
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 character. Affirmative findings by the Council must be made on each of the factors, and economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties.
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 requested variance provides essential HVAC climate control for the facility while utilizing perimeter screening to preserve visual aesthetics and protect surrounding property sight-lines along the alley.”
Staff: Reasonable manner standards for a variance should consider the purpose of the standard, in this case the setback standard. The R-3, limited multiple-family dwelling district, has a purpose of providing for medium-density residential development, and building 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 potential noise issues, 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, noise and environmental management.
In the case of this variance, the request to place mechanical units into the required building setback is reasonable. Having mechanical units to service the lot is reasonable, and, in this case, given the previously granted conditional use permit allowing this operation at this location, and lot’s approved configuration, the proposed placement is reasonable. Because the adjacent property located to the south of the building is a single-family residential house, placing the units on that side of the structure was not ideal because of neighborhood appearance, and the potential noise. Additionally, placing the unit on the northern or eastern side of the subject property, in the front yard areas, could have created a visual conflict for the subject property.
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. 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: “Modern HVAC equipment is a standard and necessary component of operating the facility. Given the fixed interior layout and building placement on the lot, placing the units along the western elevation is the most functional option for site operations.”
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. There is an existing single-family residence located to the south of the subject site, and the applicant desired to minimize visual or potential noise issues by not placing it directly adjacent to an existing one-family dwelling.
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 or unit will look closer to the lot line and if it fits within the character of the area.
Applicant: The applicant’s proposal to essential character is: “Yes. The permanent footprint and location of the existing structure limit outdoor equipment options, creating site constraints that require minor setback relief along the side yard.”
Staff: Features surrounding the subject property are that the area to the south of the subject building, considered the rear yard where there is potentially room for the subject unit, directly abuts a one-family dwelling.
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.
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 for protecting the public interest. These purposes establish the standards for the City’s ordinance. For example, the establishment of setbacks. Considerations can include will deviate from the required setbacks 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; “No. Enclosing the units with a 6-foot screening fence ensures the equipment remains hidden from view, preserving the character and sight-lines of the alleyway and neighboring properties.”
Staff: The purpose and intent of 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 location of the existing one-family dwelling on the southern side/in the rear yard, of the subject building, locating the mechanical units to the west of the structure, in the side yard, will lend itself more to balance and harmony at the subject site.
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: “Yes. The location is dictated by structural geometry, sound mitigation considerations for adjacent land uses, and essential airflow/operational specifications for the mechanical equipment.”
Staff: The comprehensive plan, through the land use plan, addresses properties and their use. The land use designates the zoning district as R-3, limited multiple-family dwelling district. The R-3 district outlines permitted uses and conditional uses within the district and a conditional use permit was granted that allowed the operation of this facility at this location.
Administrative Hearing
Staff held an administrative hearing regarding the variance request on August 26, 2026. The following were in attendance at the hearing: applicant's representative, Nate Myhra, and the applicant, Kody Schendel, City of Mankato Planning Coordinator, Molly Westman, City of Mankato Planner, Bennett Hanson. No additional comments related to the proposal were submitted.