 |
AGENDA RECOMMENDATION |
Public Hearings 7.A.
City Council Regular Meeting
- Meeting Date:
- 12/08/2025
Agenda Item:
Ordinance amending various sections of Chapter 10 related to variances and a motion approving summary publication.
Recommendation/Action(s):
At the October 22, 2025, meeting, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the amendments to the ordinance pertaining to variances and a motion approving the summary publication of the ordinance.
Summary:
The City of Mankato is requesting to amend multiple sections pertaining to variances within Chapter 10 of the Mankato City Code. The amendments are to align variance standards in the City Code with State Statute.
Minnesota State Statute allows for a body called “the Board of Adjustment and Appeals” to hear application requests for variances and grant said variances if they meet the legal standards. For the City of Mankato, the City Council acts as the board of adjustment and appeals. With their review of a variance, the City Council may impose conditions as long as they are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). For example, the Council may require that a fence installed through a variance be softened by landscaping to lessen the effect of the nonconforming location, or that an encroaching addition be built of similar materials to the existing structure.
Two commonly introduced factors that cannot be considered when reviewing variances are, economic factors and neighborhood opinion.
The State Statute explicitly notes that economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties, meaning that a property owner's claim that they require a variance because they have incurred substantial costs, or that they would not receive expected revenue without the variance, cannot be considered as a factor for approval.
Neighborhood opinion alone cannot be considered when reviewing practical difficulties, meaning that the City Council’s tasks are limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the three-factor test. That does not mean that residents cannot provide important facts to assist the City Council in their assessment of these factors, but it does mean that unsubstantiated opinions or reactions to a request do not serve as a legitimate basis for a determination.
The amendment provides consistency between city and county land use authorities and allows for clear conditions that may be imposed on the variance, if those conditions are directly related to, and are roughly proportional to, the impact created by the variance. The amended statute also led to the renaming of the “undue hardship” standard to “practical difficulties”, whilst retaining the three-factor test of reasonableness, uniqueness, and essential character.
The Practical Difficulties standard must now apply when considering variances; all three factors must be satisfied in order to grant a variance under state statute.
The City’s role in the variance process is rather different from the typical zoning ordinance authority. When considering a variance application, the City exercises its “quasi-judicial” authority to evaluate the facts against the legal standard set forth in the state statute. After evaluation, the City may grant the variance, only if said application meets the legal standard.
The three factors (practical difficulties) that make up the legal standard are as follows:
Reasonableness:
The reasonableness factor requires that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. To meet this factor, the property owner must prove that they intend to use the property in a particular reasonable way, but does not have the ability to do so under the rules of the City Ordinance.
The reasonableness factor refers to the specific reasonable use intended by the property owner, meaning that even if the property owner may be able to use the property in a different reasonable manner without the need for a variance, the reasonableness factor may still be met.
For example, if the variance application is for a garage to be built closer to the side property line than the zoning district setback ordinance allows, the focus of the reasonableness factor is whether the request to construct the garage at the proposed location is reasonable.
In the City’s application of the reasonableness factor, they must ask whether the proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner.
Uniqueness:
The uniqueness factor necessitates that the property owner’s circumstances are unique to the property and not caused by action of the property owner. The uniqueness of the property generally relates to the physical characteristics of that particular property, meaning the characteristics of the land and not those of the property owner or their personal preferences. In particular, the State Statute states that economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties.
For example, when considering whether the proposed use meets the uniqueness factor, the focus of the City’s review is whether there is anything physically unique about the property in question. As Environmentally Sensitive Areas have typically been the most common uniqueness factor for properties in the City of Mankato, this may often present itself as properties with ravines, wetlands, or woodland areas.
Essential Character:
The essential character factor stipulates that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality in which it is located. Through this factor, the City contemplates whether the proposed modification to the subject property would differ in scale, place, or manner from the surrounding area and thus be inconsistent with the essential character of the neighborhood.
For example, in Mankato, it is common for low-density residential neighborhoods to have garages. If a property without a garage located in such a neighborhood needed a variance in order to construct said garage, this may very well meet the essential character factor; most properties have garages in the neighborhood and adding another garage would be consistent with the essential character of the neighborhood.
Aside from a review of the “practical difficulties” of a variance application, variances can only be granted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Because of this, variances in the City of Mankato are reviewed with the understanding that they must meet all five of these components in order to be granted by the City Council.
The Proposed Amendments
The current Mankato City Code defines a greater number of standards than what the statute outlines. By amending the City's variance ordinances, the ordinance would better reflect the process for reviewing variance applications against the legal standards set forth in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. The sections proposed to be amended are as follows:
Minnesota State Statute allows for a body called “the Board of Adjustment and Appeals” to hear application requests for variances and grant said variances if they meet the legal standards. For the City of Mankato, the City Council acts as the board of adjustment and appeals. With their review of a variance, the City Council may impose conditions as long as they are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). For example, the Council may require that a fence installed through a variance be softened by landscaping to lessen the effect of the nonconforming location, or that an encroaching addition be built of similar materials to the existing structure.
Two commonly introduced factors that cannot be considered when reviewing variances are, economic factors and neighborhood opinion.
The State Statute explicitly notes that economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties, meaning that a property owner's claim that they require a variance because they have incurred substantial costs, or that they would not receive expected revenue without the variance, cannot be considered as a factor for approval.
Neighborhood opinion alone cannot be considered when reviewing practical difficulties, meaning that the City Council’s tasks are limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the three-factor test. That does not mean that residents cannot provide important facts to assist the City Council in their assessment of these factors, but it does mean that unsubstantiated opinions or reactions to a request do not serve as a legitimate basis for a determination.
The amendment provides consistency between city and county land use authorities and allows for clear conditions that may be imposed on the variance, if those conditions are directly related to, and are roughly proportional to, the impact created by the variance. The amended statute also led to the renaming of the “undue hardship” standard to “practical difficulties”, whilst retaining the three-factor test of reasonableness, uniqueness, and essential character.
The Practical Difficulties standard must now apply when considering variances; all three factors must be satisfied in order to grant a variance under state statute.
The City’s role in the variance process is rather different from the typical zoning ordinance authority. When considering a variance application, the City exercises its “quasi-judicial” authority to evaluate the facts against the legal standard set forth in the state statute. After evaluation, the City may grant the variance, only if said application meets the legal standard.
The three factors (practical difficulties) that make up the legal standard are as follows:
Reasonableness:
The reasonableness factor requires that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. To meet this factor, the property owner must prove that they intend to use the property in a particular reasonable way, but does not have the ability to do so under the rules of the City Ordinance.
The reasonableness factor refers to the specific reasonable use intended by the property owner, meaning that even if the property owner may be able to use the property in a different reasonable manner without the need for a variance, the reasonableness factor may still be met.
For example, if the variance application is for a garage to be built closer to the side property line than the zoning district setback ordinance allows, the focus of the reasonableness factor is whether the request to construct the garage at the proposed location is reasonable.
In the City’s application of the reasonableness factor, they must ask whether the proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner.
Uniqueness:
The uniqueness factor necessitates that the property owner’s circumstances are unique to the property and not caused by action of the property owner. The uniqueness of the property generally relates to the physical characteristics of that particular property, meaning the characteristics of the land and not those of the property owner or their personal preferences. In particular, the State Statute states that economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties.
For example, when considering whether the proposed use meets the uniqueness factor, the focus of the City’s review is whether there is anything physically unique about the property in question. As Environmentally Sensitive Areas have typically been the most common uniqueness factor for properties in the City of Mankato, this may often present itself as properties with ravines, wetlands, or woodland areas.
Essential Character:
The essential character factor stipulates that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality in which it is located. Through this factor, the City contemplates whether the proposed modification to the subject property would differ in scale, place, or manner from the surrounding area and thus be inconsistent with the essential character of the neighborhood.
For example, in Mankato, it is common for low-density residential neighborhoods to have garages. If a property without a garage located in such a neighborhood needed a variance in order to construct said garage, this may very well meet the essential character factor; most properties have garages in the neighborhood and adding another garage would be consistent with the essential character of the neighborhood.
Aside from a review of the “practical difficulties” of a variance application, variances can only be granted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Because of this, variances in the City of Mankato are reviewed with the understanding that they must meet all five of these components in order to be granted by the City Council.
The Proposed Amendments
The current Mankato City Code defines a greater number of standards than what the statute outlines. By amending the City's variance ordinances, the ordinance would better reflect the process for reviewing variance applications against the legal standards set forth in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. The sections proposed to be amended are as follows:
- Mankato City Code Chapter 10, Article XI, Division 5- Variances.
- What the code does: Defines the procedures and standards for Variances granted within the City of Mankato.
- Reasoning: The current code defines a greater number of standards that must be met in order to grant a variance than those allowed for per State Statute. This should be updated to reflect the three practical difficulty factors, harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and consistency with the comprehensive plan.
- Mankato City Code Chapter 10, Article XII, Division 6- Variances.
- What the code does: Defines the general conditions which the City Council must ensure are met to grant a variance for the basic improvements required for platting properties in the City of Mankato.
- Reasoning: Just like with Division 5, the current code defines a greater number of standards that must be met in order to grant a variance than those allowed for per State Statute. This should be updated to reflect the three practical difficulty factors, harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and consistency with the comprehensive plan.
- Mankato City Code Ch. 10. Article I, Sec. 10-2.- Definitions.
- What the code does: Defines the term “Variance” for Chapter 10 of the Mankato City Code.
- Reasoning: The current variance definition uses the term “undue hardship.” This should be updated to reflect the use of “practical difficulties” in state statute.
- Mankato City Code Sec. 10-1700. - Administration and enforcement.
- What the code does: Defines the standard that the zoning administrator must meet to grant administrative variances from the monument sign requirements.
- Reasoning: The current code uses the term “valid hardship”. This should be updated to reflect the use of “practical difficulties” in state statute.
- Mankato City Code Sec. 10-440. - Urban design guidelines.
- What the code does: Details the requirements that must be met in order for the Site Plan Review Committee or Planning Agency to grant or recommend variances from the Urban Design Guidelines for Commercial Districts.
- Reasoning: The current code uses the term “practical hardships”. This should be updated to reflect the use of “practical difficulties” in state statute.
- Mankato City Code Sec. 10-940. - Urban design guidelines.
- What the code does: Details the requirements that must be met in order for the Site Plan Review Committee or Planning Agency to grant or recommend variances from the Urban Design Guidelines for Industrial Districts.
- Reasoning: The current code uses the term “practical hardships”. This should be updated to reflect the use of “practical difficulties” in state statute.