Resolution approving a variance from Chapter 10, Article VIII, Division 1, Sec.10-1059 of the Mankato City Code to increase the number of units in a building from 4 to 5 in the Shoreland District (Lots 17-22 Block 5 Groh Farm Subdivision); by request of KJ2 Properties.

Adoption of a resolution granting a variance to increase the number of units in a building from 4 to 5 in the Shoreland District with the following condition:

1. The plans as approved shall be implemented. Any further changes or deviations will require additional review and approval. 

KJ2 Properties is requesting a variance from Chapter 10, Article VIII, Division 1, Sec.10-1059 of the Mankato City Code to increase the number of units in a building from 4 to 5 in the Shoreland District.

The property is described as Lots 17-22, Block 5, Groh Farm Subdivision, and the subject parcels are currently addressed as 3120, 3122, 3124, 3126, 3130, 3132, 3134, 3136, 3200, 3202, 3204, 3206, 3210, 3212, 3214, 3216, 3220, 3222, 3224, 3226, 3230, 3232 Bassett Drive and 1120, 1124 Fraser Lane.

The property was originally platted in 2021 as Groh Farm Subdivision. In the original plat, these lots were each stand-alone lots approximately 193 feet deep by 148 feet wide. The lot’s R-3, Limited Multiple Family Dwelling zoning designation, allows up to eight dwelling units in one building on the subject lots, so long as the lot area, maximum ground coverage, and other criteria in the zoning ordinance are achieved.

In November 2022, the City of Mankato adopted an ordinance, O-2022-1114-16, which created a Shoreland Overlay District. As a result of these new shoreland standards, the lots included with this variance request are now classified as Shoreland due to their being located within 1,000 feet of a public water, Unnamed basin 0700700 (#07-71W), which has a shoreland classification of “Natural Environment”. This public water feature is the large wetland complex located to the south approximately 900' from the subject parcels.

As the lots included with this variance request were existing at the time of the adoption of the November 2022 shoreland ordinance, the Code considers them legal nonconformities and allows that they are able to continue.    

On January 5, 2023, the property owner recorded a common interest plat, Common Interest Community (CIC) Number 121, and an Echo Pines Townhomes declaration, which was signed on December 12, 2022, which placed 4 units on each of the subject underlying lots that were platted with the Groh Farms Subdivision. CIC plats are not reviewed by the City, rather they are handled privately by the property owner.

On December 22, 2025, the property owner executed a Severance Agreement dissolving the previously platted common interest community. Again, these private actions were not reviewed by the City.

Now, the applicant desires to increase the number of units allowed on these subject lots from the previously CIC platted 4 units, to 5 units per building.  

Because the subject property is located in the Shoreland District, the proposed change is reviewed alongside the Department of Natural Resources (DNR); a variance should be considered to make the proposed unit change.

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 must be reviewed 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: “We believe the variance will allow us to use the property in a reasonable manner. The property will be consistent with the other properties located in the R-3 zoned areas.”
Staff: Reasonable manner standards for a variance should consider the purpose of the standard, in this case the density standard. The applicable State of Minnesota’s SONAR, Statement of Need and Reasonableness, standards outline that the need for density standards in shoreland districts is, “to control the long term total density of dwelling units and people in each shoreland area. This is needed to prevent overcrowding of development on land which can lead to declines in property values, degradation of groundwater by sewage systems, excessive removal of vegetation, and accelerated soil erosion.”

Because of the applicant’s self-created CIC, the density of the subject lots was initially determined to be 4 units. However, in the absence of the applicant’s CIC, the density of dwelling units and people in the shoreland area could be up to 8 units on the subject lots based on the underlying zoning code and the legal non-conformity status. Therefore, staff finds that an increase in the density to 5 units on the existing underlying lots is reasonable and will not further overcrowd the lots from what would be allowed on the underlying parcel without the existence of the CIC.

The density standard is designed to address degradation of groundwater by sewage systems. This proposal will be connected to the public utility sewer system in a manner similar to the previous proposal, so there is no proposed increase or change in the expected degradation caused by sewage systems.

The change in density will not change the previously allowed removal of shoreland vegetation, the purpose of which is, partially, for nutrient infiltration. The naturally occurring shoreland vegetation on the lot will not change from the original proposal.

However, in increasing the density, the unit and construction type will allow a decrease to the overall impervious surface area of the proposed developments. In the shoreland district, impervious surface limits are, in part, intended to limit nutrient-laden flows into surface waters and retain the lot for nutrient filtration. The proposal will further that effort and, with the change in unit and construction type, the impervious surface on the site is decreased from 50.7% to 40.1% on Lots 18–22 and from 42.1% to 31.4% on Lot 17. Thereby, staff further finds that a decrease in impervious surface and increase in open areas resulting from the change in unit type may benefit the stormwater and nutrient flows to the public water basin.

In summation, staff finds that the proposed variance does not undermine the purpose of the shoreland ordinance, given the current legal non-conforming designation of the parcels, the continued connection to a public sewage system, no change in the removal of shoreland vegetation, and a decrease in the overall site impervious conditions and an increase in the overall open space on the subject parcels.  

Uniqueness — The second factor is the difficulties faced by the landowner 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 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 to this district.  

Applicant: The applicant’s proposal for the uniqueness is: “We believe the circumstances are unique to this property as the property was impacted by the adoption of the shoreland overlay district in 2022, after the original plat was approved and the zoning was applied. If the shoreland ordinance was not placed on this property, no variance would be needed for this project.”

Staff: Staff’s review of the unique circumstances relate to the status of legal non-conformity. With the absence of the CIC, the applicant would be able to construct up to 8 units on the subject parcel.

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 building will look closer to the lot lie and if it fits within the character of the area. Additionally, in the shoreland district, essential character evaluation may include changes in how water flows over and/or through the site and potential impacts to water quality, habitat, vegetation, bluffs or appearance from the water.

Applicant: The applicant’s proposal for essential character is: “We believe the variance will maintain the essential character of the neighborhood. The new 5-plex buildings will be constructed of the same type of materials as the surrounding homes.”

Staff: Features surrounding the subject property are other residential properties, including 4-plexes on the lots directly to the west of these subject parcels. The proposed 5-plexes will be consistent in residential character, as they are also multiple-family dwelling structures. The structures will not be out of scale, out of place, or inconsistent with the surrounding area.

Furthermore, while an increase in density is proposed, changes in the footprint related to the proposed 5-unit building style are planned to decrease the impervious coverage of the subject site, which will benefit the flow of water over and through the site. Impacts to water quality, habitat, and vegetation may benefit the public water because of the decrease in impervious coverage and the increase in open areas. Changes in appearance of the area from the water will be relatively unaffected. 
 
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 shoreland regulations for protecting the public interest. These purposes are derived from Minnesota Shoreland Rules, which establish the standards for the City’s ordinance. For example, the establishment of density standards within the shoreland district. Considerations may include: Will deviating from the required density on this property undermine the purposes 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 as follows: “We believe the variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. When the property was platted back in 2021, the property was zoned R-3. The R-3 zoning ordinance allows for up to 8 units in one building (assuming the lot could meet all lot size and structure coverage requirements). The proposed plan does conform with the R-3 zoning code. Each lot could support an 8-unit building.”

Staff: The purpose and intent of the Shoreland Overlay District is to provide standards, as the uncontrolled use of shorelands in the city affects public health, safety, and general welfare by contributing to the pollution of public waters and impairing the local tax base. The Standards aim to regulate the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of public waters and, thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands and provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. Staff finds that, given the reduction in footprint of the building, including the reduction in imperious coverage, and the increase in open area, the proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance.

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 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: “We believe the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The property was platted in 2021 and zoned R-3 to allow for up to an 8-unit building. The plan is to construct a 5-plex building on each lot.  Under the original zoning designation, the use would have been allowed, and no variance would be needed.”

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 within the district as dwellings, including multiple family dwellings, not to exceed eight units in one building or on one lot. Furthermore, the City’s underlying land use plan for these properties identifies them as “High Density Residential.” For this reason, the proposal achieves the criteria in the City’s officially adopted comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Further, the City’s Strategic Plan aligns the City’s philosophy, vision, and values. Goal 1 in the 2025 – 2029 City of Mankato Strategic Plan, provides that the outcome is to create diverse types of housing. The action outlined in said plan is the review and update of the development code to reduce barriers to housing development. While the intent is not to remove the shoreland standards, the consideration of a variance in this unique circumstance, reduces the barrier for the construction of additional, diverse housing units within the City of Mankato. 
 
Administrative Hearing
Staff held an administrative hearing regarding the variance request on January 28, 2026. The following were in attendance at the hearing: Applicant representative, Nate Myhra of Bolton & Menk, Kevin Johnson and Dominic Gilman of Complete Construction, Alec Pietz of Bolton & Menk, 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, 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 an overview of the proposed variance. No additional comments related to the proposal were submitted.