 |
MINUTES Mankato Planning Commission September 23, 2026 - 6:00 p.m. IGC - Council Chambers |
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Zehnder called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Commissioner’s Present: Chair Zehnder, Mr. Dieken, Mr. Wilke, Ms. Bigham, Mr. Filipovitch, Mr. Iddings.
Staff Present: Mark Konz-Director of Community Development, Travis Johnson- Permit Technician, Molly Westman-Planning Coordinator, Bennett Hanson-Planner, Brittany Mitchell-Planning & Zoning Administrator.
Chair Zehnder called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Commissioner’s Present: Chair Zehnder, Mr. Dieken, Mr. Wilke, Ms. Bigham, Mr. Filipovitch, Mr. Iddings.
Staff Present: Mark Konz-Director of Community Development, Travis Johnson- Permit Technician, Molly Westman-Planning Coordinator, Bennett Hanson-Planner, Brittany Mitchell-Planning & Zoning Administrator.
2.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Wilke made a motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Filipovitch seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Wilke made a motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Filipovitch seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Dieken made a motion to approve the minutes from August 26th, 2026. Mr. Iddings seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Dieken made a motion to approve the minutes from August 26th, 2026. Mr. Iddings seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
1.
August 26, 2026 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes
4.
OLD BUSINESS
1.
| CY36-26 tabled at August 26, 2026 PC meeting |
Request of Bolton and Menk, on behalf of Kody Schendel of New Hope Board and Lodge and KD2 Properties, LLC, for an amended conditional use permit to allow a building addition and an operational expansion; and for a variance to decrease the rear yard from 66’ to 11.2’ in the R-3, Limited Multiple Family Dwelling District. The variance is being requested in order to allow for a building addition. The property is described as Lots 6, 7, 8 and the westerly half of Lot 9, Block 16 of Mankato City, Blue Earth County (1429 3rd Avenue).
Ms. Mitchell reports that staff submits the following findings:
- The property is currently served by public utilities and the applicant will need to pay SAC and WAC fees based on the expansion to the facility.
- The applicant will need to provide parking based on the additional units and staffing needs. The facility is in proximity to public transit.
- The property is a state licensed facility.
- The proposal does not interfere with or diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity.
- The proposal does not cause undue traffic congestion.
- There are no known historical or architectural resources on the site.
- There are no known natural or environmental features on the site.
- It will not cause a negative cumulative effect and effect on the City as a whole.
- The proposal will not jeopardize the public's health, safety, or general welfare.
- The applicant shall provide a loading and unloading plan for the onsite catering business. Loading and unloading shall not interfere with the operation of adjacent uses.
- Parking shall be provided onsite or within 500 feet for the additional units and staffing. Alternatively, the applicant can seek a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act to allow for parking flexibility.
- The applicant shall provide a photometric plan and fixture cut sheets for any new lighting that conforms to the Mankato City Code.
- The applicant shall provide 24-hour staffing at this location.
- The applicant shall address any safety issues that arise at the facility.
- Any proposed mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the adjacent street frontage and be screened according to Mankato City Code Chapter 10.
- No outside storage shall be permitted on the subject property unless fully enclosed/screened.
- All refuse containers shall be fully enclosed in conformance with Mankato City Code Chapter 10.
- The property is currently served by public utilities and the applicant will need to pay SAC and WAC fees based on the expansion to the facility. Fees can be calculated based on the information below:
- WAC - $602.55xREC (Residential Equivalent Unit)
- SAC - $1,924.52xREC (Residential Equivalent Unit)
- The commercial kitchen shall be used to exclusively supply food for the House of Hope.
Mr. Schendel provided an overview of the services offered by New Hope Board and Lodge and their overall mission, noting that they accept referrals from every county in Minnesota, including self-pay residents and those utilizing state housing support funding.
Mr. Schendel indicated that he had reviewed the staff report and agreed with many of the recommendations. However, he stated that they did not agree with Conditions 4 and 10.
Mr. Schendel requested that the Planning Commission modify these two conditions based on how their facility operates. Regarding Condition 4, he stated that 24-hour staffing is not mandated by their state license, as their program is specifically designed to foster independent living. He indicated that requiring 24-hour staffing would fundamentally change their housing model and would not be financially feasible. He added that they take the safety of their facility and neighborhood seriously. As part of their residency requirements, all individuals must maintain strict compliance with their medical providers’ recommendations. He further explained that the facility maintains oversight without requiring a staff member to be stationed at the front desk 24 hours a day. All locations also have 24-hour video surveillance to help ensure the facilities remain safe and secure.
Mr. Schendel further explained that his team conducts regular, unannounced check-ins multiple times a week to physically verify that house rules are being maintained and followed and ensure residents remain on track. He added that if staff identifies any concerns, they will contact the appropriate professionals or case managers.
Mr. Schendel also addressed Condition 10 regarding the commercial kitchen. He reiterated that New Hope Board and Lodge are separate from House of Hope and stated that they did not agree to restrict the use of the commercial kitchen. He explained that the kitchen provides three nutritional meals per day and is operated by Truffles Catering. He added that Truffles Catering also uses the kitchen to prepare meals for the local Meals on Wheels program and that restricting the kitchen to serving only the New Hope Board and Lodge building would hinder an important community service. He therefore requested that the Planning Commission remove this condition.
Mr. Schendel continued by stating that, aside from the two conditions discussed, they agree with and are committed to the remaining staff recommendations. He stated that they are formalizing a plan to ensure deliveries to Truffles Catering through the alleyways do not interfere with adjacent uses. He added that they will continue working with City staff to apply for reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act regarding parking flexibility.
Mr. Schendel also stated that they would comply with all applicable Mankato City Code requirements, including photometric plans, screening of mechanical equipment, enclosed containers, and enclosed outdoor storage. He indicated that they acknowledge and will pay all required WAC and SAC fees associated with the expansion.
Mr. Schendel concluded by stating that they are passionate about the work they do at New Hope Board and Lodge and that this additional space is a necessary step in continuing to support individuals who are working hard to better their lives.
Mr. Filipovitch indicated that he had several questions for the applicant. He began by asking about the applicant’s objection to Condition 4 regarding the requirement for 24-hour staffing. He questioned the objection based on the applicant’s characterization of the facility as independent living while the application indicated that they were requesting approval for congregate housing.
Mr. Myhra explained that the congregate housing component was modified when the application was resubmitted. He stated that the original request for congregate housing involved each unit in the proposed addition having its own kitchen and bathroom and being designed similarly to a micro-apartment. He explained that, following the changes to the proposal, they returned to a full board and lodge model for the entire facility.
Mr. Myhra further explained that under the revised proposal, the bedrooms in the new portion of the building would include private bathrooms but would have more common spaces rather than individual kitchens. He stated that the revised proposal is therefore not congregate housing, but rather a board and lodge facility operating under the same license held by Mr. Schendel.
Mr. Filipovitch questioned the applicant’s explanation regarding the required number of parking spaces. He noted that the applicant’s previous parking calculation appeared to be based on congregate housing, which requires one-half parking space per unit. He questioned how that calculation would apply if the applicant was now stating that the proposed use was not congregate housing but instead independent living, which would result in a requirement of 1.5 parking spaces per unit.
Mr. Myhra indicated that Mr. Filipovitch’s understanding was correct and stated that they would work with city staff regarding reasonable accommodation that could potentially reduce the required number of parking spaces.
Mr. Filipovitch pointed out that, based on the revised description of the use, the parking calculation provided by the applicant would need to be recalculated from 14 spaces to approximately 54 spaces based on the applicable code requirement. He stated that the applicant could request reasonable accommodation but questioned what specific requirement the requested accommodation would be reduced from. He indicated that if the applicant’s position was that the facility was not a congregate living situation and that they were seeking accommodation from the resulting parking requirement, he could understand the basis for that request.
Mr. Myhra indicated that this was correct and stated that they would request a reasonable accommodation from the requirements of the zoning code.
Mr. Filipovitch then noted that the site plan provided by the applicant identified seven offices and three counselor spaces and questioned the intended use of those spaces.
Mr. Schendel indicated that the spaces would remain empty and would not be converted into additional housing. He added that the spaces were present when he purchased the building from House of Hope three years ago.
Mr. Filipovitch referenced the traffic review report, which noted that individuals convicted of offenses against a person would not be allowed at the facility unless they were classified as chemically dependent and participating in the residential treatment program. He questioned where the residential treatment program would occur if the offices on site were not being used for that purpose.
Mr. Schendel indicated that his staff conducts a screening process remotely and do not utilize office space at the facility for this purpose. He explained that staff conduct background checks and complete other screening work before accepting referrals. He noted that the facility rejects many referrals because they do not meet the required conditions and that this screening process has been in place since 2019.
Mr. Filipovitch clarified that there is no treatment program conducted on site.
Mr. Schendel indicated that this was correct and stated that they are providing housing.
Mr. Filipovitch questioned how many people would be physically present at the facility to prepare and package food and distribute it in connection with the catering business.
Mr. Schendel stated that there are two full-time staff members. He added that their daughter assists with delivering food but was unsure whether she would be considered staff, noting that the business is family-run. He further explained that volunteers will come to the facility to pick up meals for delivery through the Meals on Wheels program but typically would not be on site for more than five minutes at a time.
Mr. Filipovitch questioned whether parking spaces would be needed for the individuals who come to the facility to pick up and deliver the meals.
Mr. Schendel stated that they have sufficient parking available. He explained that, given the type of housing they provide, their clients typically do not have vehicles and rely heavily on public transportation, walking, and biking to get around. He further indicated that, currently, fewer than 20 percent of their residents utilize a vehicle.
Mr. Schendel also indicated that he has reached out to identify additional parking options in the area but has had limited success. He stated that they would be willing to add a stipulation that residents are not allowed to have vehicles on site, which may help eliminate potential parking and congestion issues. He added that, during the three years he owned the building, he has not observed the parking lot being full.
Mr. Filipovitch questioned whether residents are allowed to have guests.
Mr. Schendel indicated that residents are allowed to have visitors during designated visiting hours. He noted that visitors may include caseworkers or probation officers who would utilize parking spaces but typically would not remain on site for an extended period.
Mr. Filipovitch stated that this is the reason for the requirement of one-half parking space per resident, which allows parking for both residents and their guests. He further noted that the caterer would nearly double the number of residents served, from 16 to 38 people, and questioned whether the caterer may need to hire additional staff as a result.
Mr. Schendel stated that the current operation is a standard board and lodge where a catering company prepares meals for the residents throughout the week. He explained that they are proposing to create a more independent living arrangement for residents seeking affordable, independent housing, noting that low-income housing options are limited, particularly for individuals in recovery. He stated that the goal is to provide a safe and comfortable location where residents can live more independently while still having the security of being connected to the board and lodge if they experience difficulties.
Mr. Schendel acknowledged that changes had been made from the original proposal but stated that he believes the proposed arrangement would provide a good option for residents who are seeking greater independence while still having access to the support and security of the board and lodge if needed.
Chair Zehnder questioned the hours during which on-site staff would be present.
Mr. Schendel stated that he is on-site throughout the day during regular business hours. He added that staff conduct random night checks four times per week. He further indicated that, if the proposed addition is approved, they plan to hire a resource coordinator who would be on site full-time and would assist residents at any of their locations.
Chair Zehnder clarified that, under their current operations, they do not have 24-hour staffing on site.
Mr. Schendel confirmed that this was correct and added that they do have 24-hour surveillance.
Ms. Bigham questioned the distinction between congregate housing and limited housing. She noted that the R-3 zoning district limits the number of residents to fewer than 16 and stated that she had understood the limit to be 8.
Mr. Konz indicated that this was part of the modifications to the proposal. He explained that when the application was originally submitted, it included individual units with kitchens and bathrooms that were considered separate physical units. When the applicant returned with the amended proposal, those individual units were modified.
Mr. Konz noted that, when considering the number of people proposed to be served, the facility would accommodate approximately 36 residents. He added that an eight-unit apartment building at the same location could accommodate approximately 40 people. He explained that the proposed use would maintain a similar footprint while limiting the facility to a clinic-type use with shared facilities and a shared kitchen. He stated that this arrangement more closely aligns with the use that was previously approved and is also more consistent with the zoning code.
Ms. Bigham questioned, in relation to the requested variance, whether city staff was recommending approval.
Mr. Konz indicated that city staff were recommending approval of the variance. He explained that a standard R-3 property with a single-family home would typically have a 25-foot setback, while the required setback would be greater for a property that is not a duplex or single-family home. He added that city staff felt it was reasonable to allow the setback to be reduced to the standard 25-foot setback and provide the flexibility requested by the applicant.
Chair Zehnder opened the public hearing for comment.
Reginald Johnson, 1531 N 2nd Street. Mr. Johnson stated that he first came to New Hope Board and Lodge in December of last year and that he came from Howard Lake, Minnesota. He stated that he was looking for a place where he would be supported and indicated that this has been one of the best programs he has been a part of, particularly because of the feeling of being wanted and supported.
Mr. Johnson stated that, when it comes to 24-hour staffing, he feels it is unnecessary and can make residents feel as though they are in prison. He added that 24-hour staffing is necessary during the initial 30-, 60-, and 90-day treatment period, but once residents move on from that stage, they need to feel that they are progressing toward independence.
Mr. Johnson stated that New Hope has provided him with that opportunity, along with several other individuals he can speak for. He added that he is back in school and is grateful for the support the program has provided him. He stated that the community should do whatever is necessary to keep the program and stressed the need for this type of housing to be available in the community. He stated that the program is needed and thanked the New Hope Board and Lodge and the Planning Commission for hearing his comments.
Paul Bassett, 1429 3rd Ave. Mr. Bassett stated that he has lived at the New Hope Board and Lodge since October 24, 2025, and that he was previously at another board and lodge where he was not happy. He stated that he relapsed while at the previous facility and, after completing treatment, met Kody at New Hope Board and Lodge.
Mr. Bassett stated that the difference between the two facilities is “night and day.” He added that when an issue is brought to Kody’s attention, it is addressed, and Kody is always reachable, which he appreciates. He stated that he has built a lot of confidence during his time at New Hope and thanked Kody for that support.
Mr. Bassett stated that he feels he has found a place where he feels safe and that he is excited about the proposed addition. He added that housing is expensive and difficult to find in Mankato. He indicated that 24-hour staffing is not necessary because there is 24-hour video surveillance and stated that he feels safe at the facility.
Ron Goodrich, 1700 3rd Ave. Mr. Goodrich stated that he owns several properties on 3rd Avenue, including his place of business, Goodrich Construction, located at 1700 3rd Avenue, as well as a duplex at 1504 3rd Avenue. He noted that both properties are impacted by two of the projects on the agenda this evening.
Mr. Goodrich stated that he has a high level of comfort with the proposed projects and can speak from the perspective of someone who owns two properties in the neighborhood. He indicated that the current facility has not caused him any issues, which he stated speaks favorably to how the facility is being operated. He added that his understanding is that the proposal would be an expansion of the existing facility, presumably following the same protocols, and he would expect Kody to continue managing the facility responsibly.
Mr. Goodrich stated that, as someone who is also in recovery, he recognizes the need in the community for this type of program. He stated that he is grateful that this opportunity is available and expressed his support for both projects on this evening's agenda. He stated that he feels the projects provide value to the community by offering a safe place for people to recover.
Mr. Goodrich noted that many of the individuals in these programs are already under the supervision of law enforcement and probation officers and that the programs help guide them toward a life of sobriety. He concluded by expressing his support for the project.
Elizabeth Johnson. Ms. Johnson indicated that she would like the Planning Commission to consider the number of police calls associated with Mr. Kody Schendel’s properties, not only the property under consideration but also his other properties throughout the city and stated that she believes this should be taken into consideration.
Ms. Johnson stated that there should be 24-hour support available for residents who need assistance so that someone is available at the residence. She requested that the Planning Commission make 24-hour staffing a requirement of the project.
Ms. Johnson stated that she feels there are many people who come through Mankato because of its location as a crossroads. She expressed concerns about the number of board and lodge facilities operating in the community and stated that she attended the meeting to provide a voice for the community.
Ms. Johnson stated that she lives down the street from the fraternity house that burned down and indicated that there are numerous similar places throughout her neighborhood. She emphasized that she has nothing against the residents and wants to ensure that they are safe and secure and that support programs are immediately available when needed, rather than relying solely on police response, which she noted costs the city money. She also noted that the board and lodge facilities are private businesses.
Ms. Johnson requested that the Planning Commission establish firm guidelines for how the project moves forward and how residents are treated, rather than focusing solely on the building itself.
With no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Filipovitch questioned whether the Planning Commission could approve the request if the parking provision does not meet the requirements of the zoning code based on the expectation that a reasonable accommodation would be granted under the Fair Housing Act, or whether receiving the reasonable accommodation would need to be made a condition of approval. He stated that he expects the reasonable accommodation will be granted but wanted to clarify that the zoning code establishes a specific parking requirement, and the commission is being asked to approve a request that does not meet that requirement.
Mr. Konz stated that he recommends making the reasonable accommodation a condition of approval, requiring the applicant to apply for and receive the accommodation. He also recommended addressing the staffing associated with the kitchen, noting that there are currently two full-time kitchen staff members. He stated that if the number of kitchen staff increases, those parking needs should not be included in the parking spaces covered by the reasonable accommodation, as those spaces should be reserved exclusively for individuals who require the accommodation.
Mr. Konz further recommended revising condition No. 10 to refer to New Hope Board and Lodge rather than House of Hope.
Mr. Wilke asked staff to explain the rationale for Condition No. 10 and why it was included as a condition of approval.
Mr. Konz indicated that the City of Mankato was not made aware that a catering business was operating within the facility. He explained that it was discovered through the review process, and city staff wanted to ensure that the appropriate documentation was provided to justify allowing the commercial kitchen to operate at the facility. He added that, when reviewing the permitted and conditional uses, a catering business is not listed as either a permitted or conditional use. However, he stated that having the kitchen used exclusively in conjunction with a use that is allowed within the zoning district does make sense. He further indicated that continuing the Meals on Wheels operation at the location would be well received, provided there is sufficient off-street parking to accommodate the loading and unloading of products. He noted that having individuals coming in and out of the facility does have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Wilke stated that allowing the current activity to continue makes sense. He questioned Condition No. 4 and asked city staff to address the condition.
Mr. Konz stated that staff received feedback from the neighborhood and an adjacent user, noting that the Salvation Army building that would be a similar use as to this item was approved in the early 2000s, and they were required to have 24-hour staffing for their facility, and they reached out and expressed that they would like for it to be consistent.
Chair Zehnder questioned whether the 24-hour staffing requirement arose from City ordinances and whether it was part of the original Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the operation approved in 1997.
Mr. Konz stated that, when House of Hope applied, its business operation plan indicated that there would be 24-hour staffing. He noted, however, that 24-hour staffing was not made a condition of approval and is not required by the City Code.
Chair Zehnder further questioned whether, regarding the parking requirement in condition no. 2, city staff felt the condition provided sufficient flexibility to reduce the required number of parking spaces per unit while still requiring adequate parking for staff, or whether the condition should be revisited.
Mr. Konz stated that the City of Mankato has provided flexibility regarding parking for other facilities. He noted that the flexibility is not always to the extent desired by the property owner, but accommodation has been made based on factors such as the number of people within a unit or the number of parking stalls provided. He added that the applicant could provide documentation demonstrating that the facility generates less parking demand than a typical apartment building or residential facility based on the type of residents served. He further noted that transit is available to the facility, although it is not located on a fixed route and is a fair distance from one. However, the facility is located within a flex zone, which provides residents with an opportunity to access a fixed transit route.
Mr. Wilke stated that he was comfortable approving the application and was in favor of removing condition no. 4. He also supported amending condition no. 10 to permit the existing catering activity to continue, subject to adequate parking being provided for the catering activity. He noted that there may be additional parking modifications that the Planning Commission would want to consider.
Mr. Filipovitch suggested that approval be conditioned upon the applicant applying for and receiving reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act.
Mr. Wilke made a motion to approve CY36-26 with the following modifications: remove condition no. 4; amend Condition no. 10 to permit the existing catering activities to continue, subject to adequate parking being provided for the catering activity, and to refer to the subject property rather than House of Hope; and amend Condition No. 2 to require the applicant to apply for and receive reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act. Mr. Filipovitch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with the amended conditions.
The anticipated date of City Council action is October 13, 2026.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
1.
| CY42-26 |
Request of Jones Haugh & Smith, with permission of the property owner, Scott Brown, for a final plat review of Metcon Addition, and a conditional use permit to allow a wetland replacement on the subject site. The subject property is described as That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 11, Township 108 North Range 26 West, Blue Earth County.
Mr. Hanson made a clarification statement that, based on modifications to the proposed request discussed today, the applicant has agreed to move forward with maintaining the 66-foot right-of-way width for Evergreen Drive as originally proposed in the approved preliminary plat. As a result of this change, the request has been reduced to a final plat and conditional use permit. The preliminary plat will not be amended at this time.
Mr. Hanson reports that staff respectfully submits the following findings of fact for the requested Amended Preliminary Plat and the Final Plat of Metcon Addition:
- General Requirements
- The site is designed in conformance with the location and width of streets, the general drainage situation, lot sizes and arrangement.
- Concept plans for the future site development show the dedication of a public stormwater pond located within Outlot B.
- The site provides storm drains and stormwater facilities that outlet into the city's stormwater facilities at the rates and volumes allowed by the MS4 permit.
- Three onsite wetlands are shown on the plat. The applicant has requested replacement of these existing wetlands.
- Drainage study information has been submitted to the City Engineer to verify compliance with the City drainage requirements.
- Streets
- The street right-of-way widths conform to the standards outlined in Chapter 10 of Mankato City Code.
- The applicant proposes to construct a new public roadway identified as "Ponderosa Court".
- The applicant proposes to dedicate a portion of the subject property as Right-of-Way for the future extension of “Evergreen Drive”.
- The applicant proposes to modify the existing condition of the adjacent Adams Street Right-of-Way, by constructing a dedicated right turn lane for Ponderosa Court.
- The existing dedicated bike lanes along Adams Street will remain in place.
- Only one private access shall be permitted off of Adams St. The applicant intends to construct a singular shared access for lots 2 & 3. All other accesses will be restricted to Ponderosa Ct or the future Evergreen Dr.
- Outstanding Deferred Assessments are present on the Subject Property.
- Easements
- The preliminary plat provides the standard drainage & utility easements required in Chapter 10 of the Mankato City Code.
- Drainage and utility easements are provided to encompass the full extent of all proposed rear-lot swales to ensure adequate access for drainage conveyance, maintenance, and long-term operation.
- Block Standards
- The blocks within the subdivision were designed for the intended end use as light industrial uses.
- At a future date, Outlot A is intended to be platted into four commercial lots.
- Outlot B will be dedicated as a public stormwater pond.
- Lot Standards
- The lots are designed in conformance with the standards set forth in Chapter 10.
- The lots within the subdivision are intended for light industrial development.
- The concept plan for the industrial areas demonstrates adequate areas to allow off-street parking, loading areas and such other facilities. Further review and consideration will be required for any site improvements proposed at the subject property.
- Public Sites and Open Spaces
- The subdivision has not designated an area for parkland or public open space in the comprehensive development plan.
- The applicant will be required to make a payment-in-lieu of parkland dedication, as the subject parcel has not previously been platted. The amount of this fee will be determined in conformance with Mankato City Code standards and payment will be due prior to or in conjunction with affixing signatures to the Final Plat.
- At this time, payment in lieu of parkland dedication shall not include the proposed Outlot A. Payment in lieu of parkland dedication shall be required prior to affixing signatures to any final plat which defines Outlot A into Lots & Blocks.
Mr. Hanson reports that staff respectfully submits the following findings of fact for the requested Wetland Replacement:
- The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) recommended approval of the wetland replacement plan following the finalization of updates requested at their September 16, 2026, meeting.
- The applicant proposed to permanently impact 0.4314 acres of wetland area.
- Wetland sequencing and replacement plan decisions under Minnesota Rules, Parts 8420.0520 through 8420.0550, are considered as Conditional Uses per Mankato City Code Section 10-1500.
- The proposed replacement site is in the same major watershed and in the same bank service area.
- The request does not interfere with or diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity. The wetlands being removed from the subject development are predominantly classified as seasonal wetlands and the removal of the wetlands from the subject development is not anticipated to interfere with the use of the property in the immediate vicinity.
- The new development will be adequately served by public facilities and services, which is the applicant's stated reasoning for replacement of the wetlands.
- The new development is not anticipated to cause undue traffic congestion, and the removal of the wetlands is necessary in order to construct the necessary street network to serve the proposed development and for reasonable use of the proposed industrial lots.
- The wetland replacement will not cause a negative cumulative effect, when considered in conjunction with the cumulative effect of various special uses of all types on the immediate neighborhood, and the effect of the proposed type of conditional use upon the City as a whole.
- There are no known significant historical and architectural resources associated with the wetland replacement.
- The wetland replacement request complies with Minnesota Rule 8420.
- The request is in keeping with the comprehensive planning policies of the City.
- The proposed wetland replacement will not jeopardize the public's health, safety, or general welfare.
- To the extent known, the development, when considered with the recommended conditions, conforms with all other applicable regulations of the district, and other applicable ordinances.
- The applicant shall dedicate the right of way area for Ponderosa Court according to the size standards as reviewed and approved by the City's engineer.
- The applicant shall execute a subdivision agreement with the City, prior to affixing signatures to the final plat, that outlines the terms of the agreement for proposed and future public stormwater, infrastructure, and utility elements.
- Applicant shall agree to be a willing petitioner for a full roadway improvement of Evergreen Drive for a connection to Madison Avenue if the CSAH 12/Adams St or Ponderosa Court/Adams St intersection results in operational or safety issues.
- A singular private access shall be permitted off of Adams Street. The subdivision shall be served primarily by access from Ponderosa Court and the future Evergreen Drive.
- No parking shall be permitted along the Ponderosa Court roadway and cul-de-sac. The applicant shall install no-parking signage in coordination with City Staff.
- Any boulevard trees impacted by the proposed development shall be replaced per Mankato City Code Standards, at a ratio of 2:1.
- The stormwater pond proposed on Outlot B shall be improved privately and dedicated to the public.
- Development of Outlot A shall only be permitted upon replatting of the Outlot into lots & blocks.
- The existing field entrance and culverts along the north side of Madison Avenue (CSAH 17) shall remain in place for the exclusive purposes of future pond access for maintenance and cleaning by the City of Mankato.
- Applicants shall provide a Drainage and Utility Easement encompassing the full extent of all proposed rear-lot swales to ensure adequate access for drainage conveyance, maintenance, and long-term operation.
- The applicant shall work with Blue Earth County to ensure any necessary approval or permit for the proposed site stormwater discharge has been received prior to work occurring.
- The applicant shall make a payment in lieu of parkland dedication in accordance with the Mankato City Code. Payment shall be provided prior to, or in conjunction with, affixing signatures on the final plat.
- At this time, payment in lieu of parkland dedication shall not include the proposed Outlot A. Payment in lieu of parkland dedication shall be required prior to affixing signatures to any final plat which defines Outlot A into Lots & Blocks.
Mr. Hanson reports that based on conformance with the conditions of the Amended Preliminary Plat, Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat.
Mr. Hanson reports that staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow Wetland Replacement for 0.4314 acres of wetland impacts with the following conditions:
- Wetland replacement shall occur at a ratio of 2:1.
- No wetland impacts shall occur until documentation of the official bank purchase has occurred and has been provided to City Staff in its complete state.
- Applicant shall make any additional requested alterations to the Wetland Replacement Application and return an updated copy to the TEP for review.
Mr. Iddings made a motion to approve CY42-26. Mr. Wilke seconded the motion and passed unanimously.
The anticipated date of City Council action is October 13, 2026.
2.
| CY43-26 |
Request of RJC Rental Properties LLC for a conditional use permit to allow the operation of an Intensive Outpatient Treatment Clinic in the R-3, Limited Multiple dwelling zoning district. The subject properties are described as Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 25, Mankato City subdivision (1618, 1620 and 1622 3rd Avenue).
Ms. Westman reports that staff respectfully submit the following findings of fact.
- The use, a medical clinic, is one of the conditional uses listed in R-3, Limited Multiple Dwelling District.
- The request is in keeping with the comprehensive planning policies of the city as identified uses and policies associated with each use are outlined.
- The proposed use, when considered with the recommended conditions, does not interfere with or diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity.
- The property is currently served by public facilities and services.
- The proposed use does not cause undue traffic congestion.
- There are no known historical or architectural resources associated with the site.
- There are no impacts on natural or environmental features.
- The proposal will not cause a negative cumulative effect, when considered in conjunction with the cumulative effect of various special uses of all types on the immediate neighborhood, and the effect of the proposed type of conditional use upon the city as a whole. The existing street network, pedestrian corridors, access to transit facilities, in conjunction with the proposed conditions of approval outlined herein, are elements to minimize effects on the immediate neighborhood.
- The proposal complies with all other applicable regulations of the district in which it is located and other applicable ordinances.
- The proposal will not jeopardize the public's health, safety, or general welfare, and conditions of approval are outlined here to address operational issues that may present themselves with the proposed use.
- This approval is based on the exhibits, narratives and reports received from the applicant on the parcels addressed as 1618, 1614 and 1620 3rd Avenue. The facility shall be operated according to the Approved Plans as follows:
- Site Plan — Sheet A0, 1618, 1620, 1622 3rd Avenue, dated September 14, 2026.
- Floor Plan — Sheet A1, 1618 3rd Avenue, dated September 14, 2026.
- Conditional Use Permit Narrative, 3 pages, provided September 1, 2026, signed by Christina Rotert, LSW.
- Traffic and Parking Impact Data Sheet, dated and signed on September 1, 2026, by Christina Rotert.
- Any modifications to the Approved Plans must be reviewed and approved in writing by the City Council by way of an amended conditional use permit. If the Approved Plans differ from the written terms and conditions as stated in this Conditional Use Permit, whichever is more restrictive would apply.
- This approval is for only the uses, including the staffing and client capacities, shown in the Approved Plans. Any future expansions, modifications, or the like, to the Approved Plans, will require an amendment to the conditional use permit.
- The properties at 1614, 1618 and 1620 3rd Avenue must remain under the same ownership for access and parking purposes, or a legally recorded easement will be necessary prior to property separation for the shared access routes and parking spaces.
- The future use of the existing building located at 1620 3rd Avenue, where 5 parking stalls are being provided for this use, will be subject to available parking.
- All refuse and recyclable material containers shall meet Mankato City Code standards. If a dumpster enclosure is desired, a construction permit shall be obtained prior to installation.
- The use shall be operated in its entirety within a completely enclosed structure, including all group activities. Exterior operations are prohibited.
- All exterior lights shall meet the Mankato City Code. Fixtures shall be full-cut, fully shielded style. Prior to installation, fixture cut sheets and a photometric plan shall be provided for any new lighting installation for review and approval per City Code requirements.
- Prior to the fabrication, installation or modification of any signage, a sign permit shall be obtained.
- Staffing at the clinic shall be limited to available parking.
- Prior to occupancy, the parking lot shall be striped in accordance with the City of Mankato standard parking plates.
- All appointments shall be pre-scheduled, drop-in clients are prohibited.
- Staff shall be onsite during clinic operations.
- Activities associated with the Intensive Outpatient Treatment Program clinic will be limited to the hours of Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
- Clinic operations will be limited to a maximum of 16 clients at any given time, and the total occupants/visitors will be limited to the available, onsite parking.
- Group sessions shall be staggered accordingly to avoid traffic conflicts during transition periods.
- A plan shall be submitted for review and approval of staff prior to occupancy of the facility, that contemplates onsite loading related to pick-up/drop off of clients, queuing, and site deliveries. The plans should address general site deliveries, and should provide a plan for pick-up/drop-off of clients.
- In-patient or residential components related to the proposed use are not allowed with this approval.
- A complaint hotline/local emergency contact phone number shall be provided prior to occupancy. The emergency contact should be local, and should be able to respond in the event that questions or concerns arise, including off-hours.
- The facility shall be and remain licensed by the State of Minnesota through Minnesota Statute 245G. If licensing ceases or operations change, additional review and consideration of the conditional use permit will be required. A copy of the State-issued license shall be provided to the City prior to occupancy.
Chair Zehnder opened the public hearing for comment.
Ron Goodrich, 1700 3rd Ave. Mr. Goodrich stated that he wanted to address the Roterts as well. He explained that it was his understanding that the facility would operate as a treatment facility in conjunction with the housing component being provided by Mr. Schendel. He questioned whether there would be an advantage to having the two projects located near each other, particularly because some clients may not have vehicles to travel to appointments.
Mr. Goodrich further questioned the licensing process and whether it is an annual process requiring the facility to renew its license each year, at which time the activities and operations would be reviewed.
Mr. Goodrich also stated that he was interested in the mental health component of the facility. He noted that one of his primary concerns was understanding how the facility would address individuals with mental health issues, particularly because some individuals may be considered a danger to themselves or others depending on their condition. He questioned the screening process the facility would use to identify these types of concerns and determine the appropriate treatment for clients.
Mr. Goodrich added that he viewed the mental health component and substance abuse component as two separate issues. He stated that he believes these types of treatment programs provide a benefit to the community. He noted that when House of Hope was in operation, he did not experience any conflicts involving his properties and believed he would have similar experience with the proposed program. He stated that he felt the facility would be an asset to the community.
With no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Ms. Rotert explained that the primary focus of the services would be substance-use treatment and mental health services would not be provided within the building. She added that she has been in contact with an individual to establish a community partnership through which mental health referrals could be made, and her future goal would be to amend the conditional use permit to allow additional services at the property.
Ms. Rotert explained that individuals seeking substance use treatment must complete a chemical use assessment to determine their level of need, which may include residential treatment, outpatient services, or other appropriate programs. A separate mental health diagnostic assessment would also be completed to identify any mental health diagnoses. Together, these assessments help determine the appropriate level of care for each individual entering the program. If an individual's needs exceed the services the program can provide, they will be referred to another program better equipped to meet those needs.
Ms. Rotert further noted that her staff are licensed through the State of Minnesota and receive training to address safety concerns. She acknowledged that situations may not always go as planned but added that her contact information would remain available on the program's website and Facebook page and that business cards were available at the meeting for anyone who needed them.
Mr. Dieken made a motion to approve CY43-26. Mr. Iddings seconded the motion and passed unanimously.
The anticipated date of City Council action is October 13, 2026.
3.
| CY44-26 |
Request of the Planning Agency to review Mankato Development District No. 51 Plan (“Plan”) to determine conformity of said plan to the General Development Plan for Development or Redevelopment of the Municipality as a whole. The subject properties are described as Lots 5 through 12, Block 1, Quarry View Addition subdivision.
Ms. Westman reports that staff submits the following findings:
- The proposed development district conforms to the goals for commercial areas in the Land Use Plan.
- The proposed development district conforms to the locational criteria as listed in the Land Use Plan.
Chair Zehnder opened the public hearing for comment. With no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dieken made a motion to approve CY44-26. Ms. Bigham seconded the motion and passed unanimously.
4.
| CY45-26 |
Request of the Planning Agency to amend Chapter 10 of Mankato City Code related to permitted and conditional uses in the R-3, Limited Multiple-Family Dwelling District and the R-4, Multiple Family Dwelling District.
Ms. Westman reports that the current R-3, Limited Multiple Dwelling District, and the R-4, Multiple-Family Dwelling District, codes outline that "Public housing units, including multiple-family dwelling units" may be considered by way of a conditional use permit.
Conditional use permits are meant to address land-use impacts unique to a use, such as traffic, noise, hours of operation, etc., not the funding source or tenant income of housing. Treating publicly-funded or income-restricted housing differently than market-rate housing of the same type/scale is a distinction based on who lives there, not on any land-use impact.
Singling out "public housing" for discretionary review (when comparable private multifamily housing is permitted by-right or subject only to site plan review) can raise fair housing and disparate-impact concerns, since it functions as a de facto barrier to affordable housing siting.
Extra hearings, timeline delay, NIMBY-driven appeals, and unpredictability for developers/housing authorities, all of which raise costs and discourage production, without providing meaningful land-use protections beyond what standard review can achieve.
As proposed, "public housing units" would be removed as a conditional use permit from City Code Section 10-166 and Section 10-202 and instead, the housing units will be classified under whatever the applicable review process is for comparable housing types (e.g., the same permitted-use category as multifamily/apartment housing).
Chair Zehnder opened the public hearing for comment. With no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Ms. Bigham made a motion to approve CY45-26. Mr. Dieken seconded the motion and passed unanimously.
The anticipated date of City Council action is October 26, 2026.
5.
| CY46-26 |
Request of the Planning Agency to amend Chapter 10 of Mankato City Code in the M-1, Light Industrial District related to cannabis.
Ms. Westman reports that on November 25, 2024, the City of Mankato City Council adopted zoning standards to determine which zoning districts cannabis-related businesses are allowed to operate. With implementation of the ordinance, minor clarifications and updates are necessary for accurate implementation.
As proposed, this amendment clarifies the intent of the 2024 adoption. Specifically, manufacturing, processing, testing, and transportation are proposed to be included as permitted use in the M-1, Light Industrial, and the M-2, Heavy Industrial, zoning districts.
Ms. Westman reports that the proposed amended language was included in the planning commission packet.
Chair Zehnder opened the public hearing for comment. With no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dieken made a motion to approve CY45-26. Mr. Filipovitch seconded the motion and passed unanimously.
The anticipated date of City Council action is October 13, 2026.
6.
MISCELLANEOUS
No miscellaneous items
No miscellaneous items
7.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mr. Wilke moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Filipovitch with all in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm.
There being no further business, Mr. Wilke moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Filipovitch with all in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm.
MINUTES APPROVED.
_______________________________________
Chair, Mankato Planning Commission
_______________________________________
Chair, Mankato Planning Commission