## MANKATO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting May 27, 2026 - 6:00 p.m. ## Intergovernmental Center ## Council Chambers **************************************** Any person speaking to the Commission shall give to the Secretary of the Commission the NAME and HOME ADDRESS of such person prior to speaking. **************************************** ## 1.CALL TO ORDER ## 2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA ## 3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES ## 4.OLD BUSINESS ## 5.NEW BUSINESS 1. ## CY22-26 Request of ISG, on behalf of the owner, Snell Real Estate, LLC, for a final plat review of Snell Addition. The subject properties are described as Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Menard Addition; except a portion of Lot 5, Block 1 (1900 and 1990 Madison Avenue). The anticipated date of City Council action will be June 8, 2026. 2. ## CY23-26 Request of Cherry Creek, Inc, on behalf of the owner, Scott and Charlie Trautman, for a conditional use permit to allow for a modification to the approved subdivision grading plan that will allow the construction of a patio home on a lot that was graded for a walkout basement, requiring fill in excess of 25 cubic yards to be moved into the property. The subject property is described as Lot 3, Block 1, Miller Creek 1st Addition, Mankato (112 Butler Falls Road). The anticipated date of City Council action will be June 8, 2026. 3. ## CY24-26 Request of Bolton and Menk, on behalf of the owner, Old Town Riverfront Properties, LLC., for preliminary and final plat review of Eastwood Energy Center No. 7. The subject properties are described as Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 175, (Blue Earth County PID R010903400026). The anticipated date of City Council action will be June 8, 2026. 4. ## CY25-26 Request of Brad Bass on behalf of Bridgewater Group, Inc., with permission of the property owner, Tom Yenish, for a conditional use permit to repurpose the Motel 6 structure to allow an assisted living/affordable housing with services facility serving elderly and disabled adults in the B-3, Highway Business District, and for a certificate of design compliance for exterior modifications in the Highway Gateway Overlay District. The subject property is described Lot 4, Block 1, Venstar Subdivision, Mankato (1731 Premier Drive). The anticipated date of City Council action will be June 8, 2026. ## 6.MISCELLANEOUS ## 7.ADJOURNMENT ## Planning Commission Regular Meeting 3. ## Meeting Date:05/27/2026 ## Title ## APPROVAL OF MINUTES ## Attachments ## April 2026 Minutes ## MINUTES ## Mankato Planning Commission April 22, 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, Ms. Surdy, Mr. Filipovitch, Mr. Dieken, Mr. Iddings, Mr. Wilke, Ms. Bigham. Staff Present: Mark Konz-Director of Planning and Development Services, Travis Johnson-Permit ## Technician, Brittany Mitchell-Planning Coordinator, Bennett Hanson-Planner, Molly Westman-Planning Coordinator. ## 2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Dieken made a motion to approve the agenda. Ms. Surdy seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. ## 3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Wilke made a motion to approve the minutes from March 25th, 2026. Mr. Filipovitch seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 1.March 25, 2026 Draft Meeting minutes ## 4.OLD BUSINESS ## 5.NEW BUSINESS 1. ## CY16-26 Request of APX Construction, on behalf of 1531 Johnson, LLC., for a planned unit development for the installation of 3 new buildings, that contain a total of 84 residential units, in the R-2, one- and two-family dwelling zoning district. The subject properties are described as Lot 1, Block 2, Campus Cottages, and Outlot A, Campus Cottages subdivision (Blue Earth County PIDs R010920479029 and R010920479030). Ms. Mitchell reports that staff submits the following findings: The request conforms to the requirements set forth in Chapter 10 of the Mankato City Code for the R2 Residential District. 1. The request conforms to the requirements set forth in Chapter 10 of the Mankato City Code for granting a planned unit development. 2. It is in keeping with the comprehensive planning policies of the City.3. It does not interfere with or diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity.4. It can be adequately served by public facilities and services.5. It does not cause undue traffic congestion.6. Ms. Mitchell reports that staff recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: The applicant shall continue to work with City Engineering staff to ensure all conditions are met from the Construction Services Site Plan Review letter dated April 10, 2026. 1. Signage for the development shall conform to Mankato City Code standards and a sign permit shall be obtained for any proposed signage prior to fabrication and installation. 2. All lighting shall conform to the Mankato City Code, including full-cut, fully shielded light fixtures and a photometric plan demonstrating a lighting level of no more than 1/2 foot candle at the property line. 3. All mechanical equipment shall be screened according to Mankato City Code Chapter 10. 4. A City of Mankato rental license for the premise shall be secured prior to occupancy. 5. The landscaping plan shall be submitted and reviewed to ensure code compliance with Mankato City Code Chapter 10. 6. The applicant shall provide a snow removal plan. 7. The applicant shall provide common open space amenities for tenants. 8. Dumpster enclosures shall be fully screened. 9. Ryan Evenson. Mr. Evenson was present at the meeting as part of the development group for this proposal. He provided an overview of the project to the Planning Commission members and was available to answer any questions they had. Ms. Surdy questioned the pricing of the proposed rental units, noting that their location near campus may attract college students. Mr. Evenson stated that the rental rates would be consistent with both average market rates and student housing rates, noting that the two are very comparable in Mankato. Mr. Wilke highlighted a term used by Mr. Evenson during his presentation— “young professionals” and requested clarification, specifically whether the development to the west (College Town) represents a different style of housing than what is being proposed for this project. Mr. Evenson indicated that this proposal differs from the development across the street, noting that it is designed with direct access, limited to only two units, and includes minimal common space. Chair Zehnder opened the public hearing for comment. Sara Nett-Torgrimson, 20401 Pohl Rd. Ms. Nett-Torgrimson was present at the meeting to express concerns regarding traffic control at the access point. She thanked the Planning Commission for considering the item, emphasizing the need for housing in the Mankato community and expressing appreciation for each new unit constructed. She referenced the College Town development located across the street from the proposed project, noting near accidents and one incident that resulted in damage to her vehicle at the turning point. She requested consideration of a stop sign at the driveway to help make potential residents more aware of the families living in the area. Silas Born, 108 Priscilla Ct. Mr. Born was present at the meeting to express concerns regarding the proposed project. He questioned whether the wetland on the site had been thoroughly investigated and raised concerns about the project’s potential impact, particularly related to water runoff. Mr. Born also asked for clarification regarding the term “young professionals” and what that designation specifically means. In addition, he questioned whether the stated rental range of $1,200–$2,000 was an established figure or an estimate. He further addressed traffic concerns, noting that his home is located near the intersection of Tanager and Pohl Road. He referenced multiple near-accident incidents in the area and expressed that traffic safety should be further evaluated. He also questioned the project’s assertion of no traffic impact, stating that approximately 280 residents across three buildings would likely create an impact on traffic along Pohl Road. Brian Maciej, 209 Tanager Rd. Mr. Maciej was present at the Planning Commission meeting as an adjacent property owner. He stated that he supports the need for additional housing; however, his comments focused on whether the proposal meets the standards required for approval as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Mr. Maciej expressed concern that the project does not adequately preserve existing wetlands, noting the removal of mature trees and the existing stormwater retention pond, which would be replaced with smaller plantings. He added that the proposed stormwater management system would be located within the wetlands but would function primarily as infrastructure rather than serving the purpose of natural preservation. He also addressed the compatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhood. He noted that the area is an established R-2 neighborhood consisting of single-family homes, twin homes, and town homes, and that there are no three-story structures in the immediate vicinity. He stated that adding another high-density project could have a negative impact on neighboring properties. While he acknowledged that the project was well-designed, he felt it does not fit within the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Maciej further stated that the proposal is not consistent with the City of Mankato’s adopted land use plan. He explained that the area is designated for medium-density residential use, while high-density development is intended to be limited to the College Town area across Pohl Road. He expressed concern that approval of the project would raise questions about consistency with the adopted plan. Additionally, Mr. Maciej referenced past impacts following the development of College Town, including overflow parking, the implementation of residential parking permits, and increased police activity. He noted that Council Members Laven and Hatanpa, City Manager Arntz, and Director of Public Safety Jeremy Clifton have all previously expressed concerns regarding high-density rental development in this area. He concluded by stating that while Planned Unit Developments allow for flexibility, they also require a clear demonstration that a project will not be detrimental to existing uses and that it provides a tangible public benefit. Mr. Maciej requested that the Commission deny the proposal as submitted or require additional conditions to ensure compliance with applicable ordinances and consistency with the city’s adopted plans. Rich Shermock, 221 Tanager Rd. Mr. Shermock addressed the Planning Commission and referenced the comments previously made by Mr. Maciej, stating that they reflect many of the concerns shared by the neighborhood. Mr. Shermock raised several questions regarding infrastructure and site impacts. He asked whether Pohl Road would be paved, noting that it currently transitions to gravel near the College Town area. He also inquired about the potential addition of sidewalks in the area. He questioned whether the proposed increase in population would create a need for additional park space for children. He also expressed concerns about traffic flow, stating that traffic in the area would likely increase because of the development. He asked whether the intersection of Pohl Road and Tanager Road could be converted into a roundabout or if similar traffic control measures had been considered. Mr. Shermock noted that the proposed site was previously used by the city for snow storage and asked whether that prior use had been considered. He further stated that there appears to be a lack of public support for the project and questioned whether the location was chosen primarily to maximize the contractor’s profit. He also referenced other nearby apartment developments, noting that while they are in the general area, they are not located within established neighborhoods in the same manner as the proposed project. Elaine Lilly, 321 Tanager Rd. Ms. Lilly addressed the Planning Commission to express concerns regarding traffic patterns in the area. She stated that she frequently travels by bicycle and has experienced several near-miss incidents, which have led her to alter her usual routes through the neighborhood. Ms. Lilly expressed hope that a detailed traffic study has been completed to evaluate current conditions and the potential impacts of the proposed development. With no one wishing to speak further, the public hearing was closed. Chair Zehnder inquired whether the City of Mankato has investigated traffic safety issues along this corridor. Mr. Konz stated that several improvements have been made along the Pohl Road corridor, some of which predate the College Town development. He noted that Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) modifications have been implemented further along Pohl Road near Rosa Parks Elementary School. Mr. Konz further stated that, to his knowledge, the City of Mankato has not conducted a formal traffic study at the intersection of Pohl Road and Tanager Road. However, he referenced a memorandum included with the current proposal, which City engineering staff are continuing to review for potential modifications, if necessary. He emphasized that any future improvements would be based on overall area conditions rather than being specific to this project alone. Chair Zehnder asked whether the process is ongoing and if there may be opportunities for modifications in the future. Mr. Konz stated that it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to recommend that staff review traffic conditions in the area and determine whether additional improvements are necessary. Ms. Surdy acknowledged the need for additional housing in Mankato. However, she expressed concern that many recent projects are priced beyond what is generally affordable, noting that rental rates of $1,200 to $2,000 for a two-bedroom unit are excessive. She also raised concerns about the proposed location, stating that while the development may be marketed toward young professionals, it would more likely attract college students, which could lead to increased noise and disruption within the neighborhood. Ms. Surdy further commented that development appears to be expanding outward rather than focusing on higher-density growth in more appropriate areas. She expressed concern about the loss of green space, stating that projects such as this reduce natural areas without providing sufficient park space in return. She concluded by expressing her disappointment with the proposal. Chair Zehnder asked whether it would be appropriate to propose a condition at this time recommending that City staff review traffic conditions in the area in the future. Mr. Konz stated that if the concern is specific to the application and its impact on traffic in the area, it could be included as a condition of approval. However, he noted that if the concern extends beyond this proposal, it would need to be addressed separately outside the current item. In summary, he indicated that it depends on whether the concern is application-specific or related to broader neighborhood conditions. Mr. Wilke stated that he views the issue as a culmination of several projects in the area and does not believe this proposal alone would be the sole cause of increased traffic. He indicated that he would feel comfortable moving the item forward and addressing the traffic concerns as a separate matter. Ms. Bigham stated that she agreed with Mr. Wilke’s comments. She added that a possible condition could include requiring the applicant to participate in 25% of the cost of any future improvements if a safety issue arises. Mr. Konz stated that the only aspect he was not comfortable with was the proposed percentage, noting that it is difficult to determine the appropriate share given uncertainty about how much traffic would be attributable to the development. Ms. Bigham clarified that she was only suggesting a figure for discussion purposes. Mr. Konz added that the city has previously tailored improvement contributions to specific developments but emphasized that applying a percentage can be challenging and should be based on the actual traffic generated by the project. Ms. Surdy stated that the concern appears to be more of a neighborhood-wide issue rather than being directly related to the current item. She felt it would be more appropriate for the city to conduct a study outside of placing a condition on this proposal. Mr. Konz noted that one of the neighborhood’s recommendations included the potential installation of a stop sign at the driveway, adding that this would be project-specific and located on the property. Chair Zehnder asked for clarification on whether the proposed stop sign would be an additional stop sign along Pohl Road or a stop sign at the development’s driveway entrance. Mr. Konz stated that his understanding from the individual who spoke was that the concern related to traffic pulling out of the driveway. Mr. Wilke clarified that the discussion was regarding a single stop sign on the parcel to control traffic exiting the site. Mr. Konz stated that the individual who had spoken was no longer present at the meeting but believed that this was the intent of their comment. Mr. Wilke added that he felt the addition of a stop sign would be reasonable. Chair Zehnder asked whether a separate recommendation from the Planning Commission would need to wait until after the item was concluded and be addressed as a miscellaneous item. Mr. Konz stated that the Commission could suspend the regular order of business and act at that time so that any residents present could hear the proposed condition. However, he noted that such actions are typically addressed under miscellaneous items. Chair Zehnder proposed amending the conditions to include a stop sign at the property’s driveway for exiting traffic. Mr. Wilke asked for clarification on whether Chair Zehnder was making a motion to add the condition and approve the agenda item. Chair Zehnder confirmed that this was correct. Mr. Wilke seconded the motion. Mr. Filipovitch questioned why the proposal to place multifamily dwellings on land zoned R-2 was not presented as a rezoning request. He added that he understands the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is being used as a mechanism to allow the proposed use but questioned why a rezoning request was not included. Mr. Konz stated that the property is approximately 11 acres and that the PUD process allows for flexibility in design and development. He explained that, when evaluating the site, medium-density residential is generally defined as 7–10 units per acre, low-density residential as 1–6 units per acre, and high-density residential as more than 10 units per acre. He noted that the proposed development remains below the threshold for high-density classification, thereby falling within the medium-density designation. Chair Zehnder made a motion to approve CY16-26 with the amended condition. Mr. Wilke seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6–1, with Ms. Surdy voting in opposition. The anticipated date of Council action is May 11, 2026. 2. ## CY17-26 Request of Bolton and Menk, on behalf of the owner, Tripoint Development, LLC., for a certificate of design compliance for the construction of two new structures in the Highway Gateway Overlay District. The subject properties are described as Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 1, River Hills Mall Addition No. 3, (Blue Earth County PID’s R010909426050 and ## R010909426049). Ms. Mitchell reports that staff submits the following findings: The proposed development, including the implementation of the recommended conditions, conforms to the standards of the Highway Gateway Overlay District, as noted under the Mankato City Code 1. Ms. Mitchell reports that staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance with the following conditions: The applicant shall continue to work with City Engineering staff to ensure all conditions are met according to the Construction Services Site Plan Review letter dated April 10, 2026. 1. Submitted finishes shall not be changed without requiring an amendment to the Certificate of Design Compliance. 2. All mechanical equipment shall be screened according to Mankato City Code Chapter 10. 3. Signage for the development shall conform to Mankato City Code standards and a sign permit shall be obtained for any proposed signage prior to fabrication and installation. 4. A loading and unloading plan shall be provided that contemplates deliveries that do not impede parking stalls, drive aisle, egress, ingress or other site conditions. 5. The applicant shall provide a snow removal plan. 6. Dumpster enclosures shall be fully screened. 7. Nate Myhra, Project Manager with Bolton & Menk. Mr. Myhra was present at the meeting to answer any questions from the Planning Commission. Chair Zehnder opened the public hearing for comment. With no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Wilke made a motion to approve CY17-26. The motion was seconded by Mr. Filipovitch and passed unanimously. The anticipated date of Council action is May 11, 2026. 3. ## CY18-26 Request of Bolton and Menk, Inc., on behalf of the owner, M & J Property Holdings, LLC., for a planned unit development for a residential development containing 122 residential slab-on-grade dwellings. The subject properties are described as Lot 1, Block 2, and Lot 1, Block 3, Mesenbrink Subdivision (Blue Earth County PID R010915400007 and ## R010915400006). Mr. Hanson reports that staff respectfully submits the following findings of fact for the requested Planned ## Unit Development: The City of Mankato determined that the proposed project change to the EAW is not a substantial change and will not affect the potential for significant adverse environmental effects that were not addressed in the existing EAW. 1. The development identifies public benefits, which allows for flexibility from the 25% rental density ordinance. 2. The applicant was required to make a $176,193 payment-in-lieu of parkland dedication with platting of Mesenbrink Subdivision. The Parks & Open Space Plan shows the area near the public water as open space, which will be maintained as such. The area will be served by a community park to be located in the Groh Farm Subdivision, which falls in the area delineated by the Parks & Open Space Plan in need of a park. 3. Active deferred assessments apply to parcels R01.09.15.400.007, in the amount of $85,880.23, and R01.09.15.400.006, in the amount of $43,248.29. The aforementioned amounts are exclusive of any accrued interest. 4. The proposal seeks to preserve the unnamed lake wetland basin located on the northerly side of the subject property. 5. 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. 6. The planned unit development satisfies the intent of the City of Mankato ordinance and does not jeopardize public health, safety, or welfare. 7. The development for the planned unit development will conform to the approved development plan; including all proposed covenants, easements, conditions of approval, and other provisions relating onto the bulk, location, and density of permitted structures, accessory structures, parking, and other public facilities. 8. A condition is included with the approval that requires that all land shown on the approved development plan as common open space must be conveyed to trustees provided in the indenture establishing the association or similar organization for the maintenance of the planned unit development. 9. A condition of approval is included for the development of the open space for use of the residents, and no common open space may be put to any use not specified in the approved development plan. 10. Mr. Hanson reports that staff recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: The applicant shall coordinate with Kurt Klinder, of the City of Mankato, to adjust and determine proposed street names and unit addressing. 1. Applicant shall provide planting details with submittal of building permit application. 2. Wetland signage shall be installed along the entire duration of the wetland setback. Wetland signage shall be in place prior to work beginning. No impacts shall occur to the wetlands. 3. Applicant shall provide updated geometry for the proposed cul-de-sac to ensure successful emergency vehicle turning movements throughout the PUD. 4. All proposed private roadways, including cul-de-sac and looped areas, shall be clearly identified as a fire accessway only and shall be clearly designated as no-parking areas. 5. Applicant shall be aware that the development’s rental licenses will be limited occupancy; occupancy will be limited to a family or no more than 2 unrelated adults. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall obtain rental licenses for each unit intended for rental purposes. 6. The applicant shall install private roadway signage to the specifications of the City of Mankato, and the signage shall be installed prior to the issuance of a building permit and shall remain in place and be verified on the final certificate of occupancy. 7. All land shown on the approved development plan as common open space must be conveyed to trustees provided in the indenture establishing an association or similar organization for the maintenance of the planned unit development. Applicant shall submit documentation of said association to the City at the time of request for the first building permit for the development. 8. Applicant shall fully install all proposed infrastructure, including utilities and roadways, as well as proposed landscaping within the PUD, prior to allowing any unit occupancy. 9. Applicant shall clarify their reasoning for the post shown near the rear patio area of the proposed twin home units and provide updated plans with building permit submittal. 10. All proposed improvements shall be subject to the Mesenbrink Subdivision Agreement. The applicant shall delineate and sign wetland and public water setback areas. The city will provide the sign template and signs should be located a maximum of every 50' along the boundary between the private development lots and the wetland. a. The Subdivider agrees to petition for the full access improvement of the intersection of CSAH 12 and Hoffman Road. The Subdivider shall be responsible for the intersection improvement. The Subdivider and City shall determine if the improvement is specially assessed to the lots within the Subdivision or paid by the Subdivider. b. 11. All conditions of approval from the previous reviews and approvals shall continue to apply and remain in place with any future approval. The following conditions are of particular importance: The applicant shall provide a complete draft copy of the proposed property owners association documents and deed restrictions, covenants, and permanent easements or other instruments. The documents shall address, but are not limited to, private streets, private utilities, current and future building envelopes, future additions, and how this will be privately managed. Membership in the property owner’s association shall be mandatory and in accordance with all applicable shoreland standards. The deed restriction shall properly address future vegetative and topographic alterations, construction of additional buildings, and shall ensure the long-term preservation and maintenance of open space in accordance with the shoreland and DNR criteria. a. The applicant will be responsible for all required permitting and authorization for the proposed improvements associated with the natural gas easement. Written authorization from the easement holder acknowledging the proposed development, and providing consent for the proposed improvements. b. The applicant shall have applied for and obtained all necessary Public Waters Work Permit(s) from the Department of Natural Resources, DNR, for the proposed project. c. All wetland banking credits, for the wetlands approved for replacement, shall be purchased prior to any work occurring in the subdivision. d. Applicant shall be subject to utility connection fees.e. The applicant shall be a willing petitioner for any future roadway or intersection improvements to the adjacent portions of 211th Lane. f. Applicant shall provide and preserve a minimum of a 20’ access way around the ponds. The access way shall have a maximum 2% grade slope. g. 12. Remaining portions of Mesenbrink Subdivision not included within the scope of this Planned Unit Development shall still be required to submit for individual Planned Unit Developments prior to 13. development occurring. The applicant shall maintain a complete record of current and future impervious surface coverage and ensure that at no point in the future, the PUDs impervious surface coverage exceeds 25%, per the Shoreland Ordinance. 14. The applicant shall address all Construction Services site plan comments prior to building permit application submittal. 15. Chair Zehnder asked whether these neighborhoods are exempt from sidewalk requirements due to the streets being private. Mr. Konz stated that there is no requirement to construct sidewalks in private areas, noting that the City’s sidewalk and trail map only require sidewalks within public right-of-way. He added that the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is required in this case because the site is adjacent to an unnamed lake and therefore subject to shoreland regulations. Nate Myhra, Project Manager with Bolton & Menk. Mr. Myhra was present at the meeting to answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 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 CY18-26. The motion was seconded by Ms. Bigham and passed by a vote of 6–1, with Ms. Surdy voting in opposition. The anticipated date of Council action is May 11, 2026. 4. ## CY19-26 Request of Brett Skilbred for an amended preliminary plat and final plat review of Quarry View Addition. The subject properties are described as Lots 1-6, Block 24, Germania Park Addition; Lots 1-8, Block 8 & Lots 1-2, Block 9, Columbia Park Addition; and the vacated portion of Lind Street. Mr. Hanson reports that staff respectfully submits the following findings of fact for the requested ## Amended Preliminary Plat and Final Plat: ## General Requirements The site is designed in conformance with the location and width of streets, the general drainage situation, lot sizes and arrangement. 1. A grading and drainage plan has been submitted for review by the public works staff.2. Modifications to the stormwater pond south of the subject property are required and will be coordinated with City Public Works Staff. 3. Proposed plans show individual, per unit, utility services. Because of this condition, the proposed structures are to be reviewed as two-unit townhomes and will be subject to the associated Minnesota Building Code standards. 4. 1. ## Streets The applicant will not construct any new public streets; rather, multiple private driveways will provide access to the development from the completed 8th Avenue. 1. Property is served by Cleveland Street, 8th Avenue, Lind Street, and Harper Street. 2. 2. ## Easements The plat provides the standard easements required in Chapter 10 of the Mankato City Code.1. Standard easements on lots 7, 8, 9A, 9B, 10, 11, & 12, terminate at the bluff line, labeled as "Top of Pit Wall" on the preliminary plat. 2. An access easement for the Cleveland Street quarry access road shall be recorded in3. 3. conjunction with the proposed plat. ## Block Standards The blocks within the subdivision were designed for the intended end use as residential blocks.1. 4. ## Lot Standards The lots within the subdivision are intended for residential use. The lots are designed in conformance with the standards set forth in Chapter 10. 1. The concept plans submitted for the development depict areas for off-street parking within private residential garages and atop residential driveways. 2. The subject property contains two corner lots that have been proposed with extra width/depth to meet code standards. 3. The proposed lot depicts a development that achieves a front yard setback of 25', per the R-3 Zoning District Standards. 4. The proposed project area has multiple lots that contain or abut Environmentally Sensitive Slope Areas. The proposed plat depicts the bluff line as the quarry wall and provides the required setback for structures. 5. 5. ## Public Sites and Open Spaces The proposed subdivision was previously platted as part of Germania Park Addition and Columbia Park Addition. As a result, Parkland Dedication or payment-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication is not required. 1. The proposed subdivision does not create or convey any public sites or permanent open space.2. The applicant has provided a preliminary plat overlayed with the proposed residential development. This development presents a singular lot of open space, Lot 4, which may be developed as a residential lot, as shown. 3. 6. Mr. Hanson reports that staff recommends approval of the amended preliminary plat with the following conditions: The applicant shall verify, at the time of building permit application, that the sanitary lift station located at 2002 8th Avenue has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increased sewage flow from the proposed development. 1. The applicant shall incorporate into the civil plans an increase in capacity for the existing drainage basin located south of the intersection of 8th Avenue and Harper Street. This requirement shall be addressed at the time of building permit application. 2. Applicant shall coordinate with the City Engineer for proposed drainage improvements within the Public ROW. 3. Applicant shall provide an updated Preliminary Plat that displays the labeled bluff line across the preliminary plat in a consistent manner. Future site plans shall depict the bluff line and required setbacks. 4. Applicant shall be aware that the proposed open space, if intended to remain as open space, shall be designated as an Outlot. 5. The applicant shall be aware that a sealed well is located on the site, and any future development should take care not to significantly disturb the well during construction. If improvements are proposed for the sealed well area, the applicant must work with Blue Earth County to determine the steps that must be taken. 6. Safety fencing shall be installed along the property boundary with the quarry. Applicant shall provide a plan demonstrating the proposed fence installation prior to building permit submittal. Safety fencing shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. The applicant shall provide an access easement agreement to be recorded on the property in conjunction with the plat for the portion of the Cleveland Street quarry access road that encroaches into the proposed Lot 1, Block 1. 8. The applicant shall submit an updated grading and drainage plan for review by the Public Works Staff prior to building permit submittal. 9. The applicant shall enter into a subdivider's agreement for any public improvements or improvements located in the public right of way. 10. Water and sewer connection fees shall be charged based on the City of Mankato assessment policy and fee schedule. 11. The applicant will be required to obtain a conditional use permit for any impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. 12. The applicant shall provide supporting hydraulic modeling for the stormwater BMP at the end of 8th Avenue and Harper Street with the building permit application. 13. The development’s rental licenses will be limited occupancy; occupancy will be limited to a family or no more than 2 unrelated adults. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall obtain rental licenses for each unit intended for rental purposes. 14. The applicant shall be a willing petitioner to any adjacent future roadway or sidewalk improvements.15. The applicant shall record the approved Lind Street Vacation with Blue Earth County prior to Council Approval of the requested Final Plat review. 16. Applicant shall address Blue Earth County’s comments on the proposed plat prior to submittal of the preliminary and final plat to Blue Earth County Records for review and recording. 17. The proposed Amended Preliminary Plat shall remain subject to the conditions associated with the preliminary plat and the Vacation of Lind Street, including, but not limited to, the following: The final plat submission shall reflect easements around the subject site in conformance with the Mankato City Code. a. The applicant shall enter into a subdivider's agreement for any public improvements or improvements located in the public right of way. b. The applicant shall provide updated drainage and utility plans conforming to engineering standards and other applicable standards. c. The applicant will be required to obtain a conditional use permit for any impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. d. Water and sewer connection fees shall be charged based on the City of Mankato assessment policy and fee schedule. e. The applicant shall provide supporting hydraulic modeling for the stormwater BMP at the end of 8th Avenue and Harper Street with the building permit application. f. The applicant/property owner shall be responsible for any and all costs associated with re-routing the existing infrastructure to a location that is acceptable to the utility company. g. 18. Proposed project shall remain fully subject to the previously approved conditions of approval associated with previous requests. The applicant is responsible for coordination of utility relocation and is responsible for all costs associated with any said relocations. The applicant is responsible for coordination and granting of any new easements, if deemed necessary, for preservation or relocation of the subject infrastructure. a. The applicant/property owner shall be responsible for any and all costs associated with re-routing the existing infrastructure to a location that is acceptable to the utility company. b. 19. Mr. Hanson reports that based on conformance with the recommended conditions of the preliminary plat, staff recommends approval of the Quarry View Addition final plat. Ms. Surdy wanted clarification that the application included a request to adjust the 25% rental density requirement. Mr. Hanson confirmed that this was correct. Brett Skilbred, Applicant & Nate Myhra, Bolton & Menk. Mr. Skilbred and Mr. Myhra were present at the meeting to answer any questions from the Planning Commission. Chair Zehnder opened the public hearing for comment. With no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Wilke made a motion to approve CY19-26 as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Filipovitch Ms. Surdy moved to add a condition to not include the 25% rental density amendment as proposed. She added that allowing more rentals in that area would not be appropriate. Mr. Wilke asked whether the purpose of the 25% rental density amendment was to provide flexibility in the event the applicant is unable to sell the properties. Mr. Konz confirmed that this was correct. Ms. Surdy stated she does not believe rental housing is appropriate in this area and opposed allowing for the 25% rental density amendment. She referenced prior complaints about the project and expressed that it should be removed from the agenda item. The motion passed by a 5–2 vote, with Ms. Surdy and Mr. Dieken voting in opposition. The anticipated date of Council action is May 11, 2026. 5. ## CY20-26 Request of Southwest Minnesota Housing Partnership for a preliminary and final plat review of Good Counsel Hill subdivision, for a conditional use permit to accommodate more than one building on a single lot on a property zoned O-R, Office Residential, a planned unit development to establish and allow mixed uses within the subject development, and to amend the Institutional Overlay District to allow for an updated campus development plan to include the addition of parking and re-use of existing spaces located within the current structures on the existing campus. The subject property is described as Outlot B, School Sisters of Notre Dame Subdivision, according to the plat thereof on file at the County Recorders Office, Blue Earth County, Minnesota (170 Good Counsel Drive, BE County PID's R010905379005, R010908201007). Ms. Westman reports that staff respectfully submits the following findings for consideration: ## Preliminary and Final Plat ## General Requirements The site is designed in conformance with the existing location and widths of streets, the general drainage situation, lot sizes and arrangement. 1. A drainage study/stormwater management plan was submitted and a condition of approval includes that, with future phasing and infrastructure additions, the applicant will be required to submit plans demonstrating conformance for that phase. 2. 1. ## Streets The street right-of-way widths for the existing local street conform to the standards listed in Chapter 10 of Mankato City Code. An additional right of way area shall be dedicated at the cul-de-sac area that will accommodate a future build-out of this area. A condition is included herein. 1. 2. ## Easements The preliminary plat provides standard easements required in Chapter 10 of the Mankato City Code. 1. 3. ## Block Standards The block within the subdivision is designed around the existing condition, and around the current Outlot B area. 1. 4. ## Lot Standards The lot is designed in conformance with the standards set forth in Chapter 10. 1. 5. ## Public Sites and Open Spaces The applicant will be required to make a payment in lieu of parkland dedication. The amount of this will be in conformance with Mankato City Code standards. 1. 6. Ms. Westman reports that staff respectfully submits the following findings for the Conditional Use ## Permit: The request is in keeping with the comprehensive planning policies of the City as the underlying land use plan identifies this parcel as "Office-Residential." 1. The property contained in the request is part of an existing campus, utilizing shared components with the adjacent campus users. The Phase 1 proposal, providing similar residential and office uses to the previous use, does not interfere with or diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity to a degree greater than the property has historically been utilized. 2. The proposal is currently served by public facilities in a manner consistent with what has historically served the campus. A recommended condition of approval is provided that the applicant continue efforts on utilization of public services as they become available and future phasing is proposed. 3. The proposal does not cause undue traffic congestion as the submission, when considering the conditions of approval, conforms to Mankato City Code criteria for off-street parking and driving areas. The applicant has provided a traffic analysis, which provides full-build conditions. A condition is included herein that addresses agreements for implementation of full-build scenario improvements to address undue traffic congestion with respect to trip generation, site operations and overall traffic impact to the area. 4. The site is not presently a locally designated heritage landmark. However, the applicant has submitted a National Register Questionnaire that outlines historical context and details of the subject site. 5. The site contains wetlands, and they are depicted on the plat. The site contains bluffs and ravine areas, and impacts are not proposed with Phase 1, and future impacts will be regulated by the City of Mankato code. The site contains woodlands, and woodland impacts are not proposed with Phase 1, and future impacts, while not proposed, will be regulated by the City of Mankato Code. 6. It will not cause a negative cumulative effect and effect on the City as a whole. The redevelopment of a currently vacant property, when done with sensitivity to current codes and regulations, will provide a positive cumulative effect on the City as a whole. 7. The proposal will not jeopardize the public's health, safety, or general welfare. 8. Ms. Westman reports that staff respectfully submits the following findings for the Planned Unit ## Development: The planned unit development satisfies the intent of the City's ordinance, when approved with the recommended conditions, and does not jeopardize the public health, safety or welfare. 1. The development of the planned unit development conforms to an approved development plan which includes Phase 1 which includes only the utilization of the existing building, and the existing parking areas. 2. All land shown on the approved development plan as open area will be held by the applicant. 3. Phase 1 is not proposed to impact common open spaces. Future phasing that proposed impacts will be required to submit updated plans for review and approval. 4. The public benefits provided in conjunction with the Planned Unit Development are: Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics and open space. Phase 1 site plans do not impact and of the current open spaces. Future phases will be reviewed separately. 1. A pattern of development which preserves natural vegetation, topographic and geologic features. The proposed Phase 1 does not impact any natural vegetation, topography or geologic features as it utilized the existing campus footprint. 2. Preservation and enhancement of historic and natural resources that significantly contribute to the character of the city. Phase 1 of the proposal preserves structures and a campus that may provide historical significance and no physical building improvements are planned with the project. 3. Use of design, landscape, or architectural features to create a pleasing environment or other special development features. Phase 1 does not make any changes to the current exterior features at the site beyond restriping of existing asphalt areas. 4. Provision of a variety or housing types in accordance with the city's housing goals. Phase 1 of plan does provide a variety of housing types, including workforce housing for moderate-income individuals. 5. 5. Elimination of blighted structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or rehabilitation. Phase 1 provides an adaptive reuse of a currently vacant space. 6. Business and commercial development to enhance the local economy and strengthen the tax base. Phase 1 does not include business and commercial development. Rather office uses are included to allow for a mixed approach to re-use that is similar to the historic use of the property. 7. The efficient use of land resulting in more economic networks of utilities, streets, schools, public grounds, buildings, and other facilities. Phase 1 utilizes existing utilities, streets, schools, public grounds, and other facilities. 8. Ms. Westman reports that staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following conditions of approval: The applicant shall dedicate, on the final plat, the right of way area, according to the size standards as reviewed and approved by the City's engineer, for a cul-de-sac at the terminus of Good Counsel Drive. 1. The applicant shall execute a development agreement with the City, prior to affixing signature to the final plat, that outlines the terms of the agreement for future utility and infrastructure services, including, but not limited to, connection to the city's water service at such future time as a connection may be available. 2. The applicant shall provide and record a woodland conservation easement, or other preservation mechanism allowed by code, on the woodland areas on the subject site. This shall be provided prior to affixing signature to the final plat, and shall be recorded on the property in conjunction with the final plat. 3. The applicant shall pay a payment in lieu of parkland dedication fee for Outlot B in accordance with Mankato City Code. Payment shall be provided in conjunction with affixing signatures on the final plat. 4. The applicant shall provide documentation ensuring the required minimum fire flow is achieved for sprinklered and non-sprinklered/partially sprinklered buildings in accordance with Minnesota Fire Code section 507.3. This shall be provided at the time of building permit submission for review and approval of the fire Marshall, and shall be provided for the current Phase 1, along with any future phasing of the project. 5. Issuance of future building permits will be considered after recording of the official, approved plat. 6. Ms. Westman reports that based on conformance with the recommended conditions of the preliminary plat, staff recommends approval of the Good Counsel subdivision. Ms. Westman reports that staff recommends approval of the planned unit development and the conditional use permit with the following conditions: As future phases are planned and submitted that include campus site improvements, building additions or uses associated with the Institutional Overlay District, a request for an update to the IO campus master plan shall be requested and obtained prior to implementation of any improvements. 1. This approval is for Phase 1 only, which includes Isidore Hall West and East, Theresa Hall and the Chapel and existing parking and infrastructure only. Future phases, site improvements, and building occupancy will require a future submission and approval by way of an amended PUD, CUP and IO master plan prior to building permit submission, usage and/or implementation. 2. Phase 1 approval, limited to the Isidore Hall West and East, Theresa Hall and the Chapel, shall only include areas that the site is able to provide code-compliant parking and emergency vehicle access for and those areas that have a verified off-site parking plan. Based on this submission, a reduction will be required in the proposed usage in Phase 1 to reflect the available code-compliant stalls. 3. Phase 1 approval is limited to the existing code-compliant parking available on the campus, and will be located in Isidore East and West, Theresa Hall and the Chapel areas only. Site improvements, including parking lot or space expansion, addition, or modification is prohibited with Phase 1. Additional site improvements, such as parking lot expansions, may be included in future zoning phasing requests for approval. 4. Parking shall be provided for all proposed Phase 1 uses, and this shall include any guest/visitor5. Parking shall be provided for all proposed Phase 1 uses, and this shall include any guest/visitor units proposed. 5. Phase 1 residential and office uses will be limited to the available, existing onsite, Code-compliant parking. Based on staff's review, this is 113 parking stalls. This will require a reduction in the currently submitted proposed usage for Phase 1. At the time of building permit submission, Phase 1 shall reflect a code-compliant parking plan that shows a proposed Phase 1, and that includes only code-compliant, currently installed parking stalls, and with usage and demand not to exceed the existing code-compliant parking. 6. Scheid Hall and Florian Hall residential uses are not included in the Phase 1 approval. Future phasing requests may include these structures/uses and, at such time, a formalized floor plan and use shall be provided for review and consideration. 7. Prior to occupancy of the structure, the applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy from the City of Mankato Building Official for each of the spaces. Certificate of Occupancies will only be issued for areas included in Phase 1, where sufficient off-street, code compliant parking is provided. Occupancy in all other areas and phases of the campus shall receive zoning approval prior to submission of a building permit. 8. Usage of areas not included in Phase 1 which cannot be served with the current off-street parking stalls is prohibited. 9. Phase 1 approval includes the usage of the chapel space only, and excludes the gym space and the conference room space usage. Based on the findings of the traffic study, the usage associated with the chapel will be limited to 10, daily events per year, and the events shall occur outside of peak operational hours as identified in the traffic study. To track and memorialize compliance with the allowable annual events, the applicant will be responsible for submitting verification of events to the City by way of an annual report, submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department, no later than December 31 of each year. 10. All parking stalls shall be striped in accordance with the Mankato City Code prior to occupancy. 11. The applicant shall fully address the traffic comments on the April 15 Construction Services letter provided to the applicant and, at the time of submission for any future phasing consideration, have a plan that is approved by Construction Services and ready to be implemented for modification of the intersection at North Riverfront Drive and Good Counsel Drive. All future implementation plans shall contemplate improvements prior to commencement of any future phasing. 12. The applicant shall address all comments outlined in an April 15, 2026, from the Construction Services/Engineering Division, letter in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer/Construction Services Division prior to the submission for future phases. This shall include, but is not limited to, letter "M" that involves bringing stormwater outfalls into compliance. 13. The applicant shall provide an open space plan that contemplates the installation of a playground system sized appropriately for the proposed development. The plan shall be provided at the time of building permit submission for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit, and the implementation of the system/open space plan with a playground area shall occur prior to or in conjunction with any requested occupancy of Phase 1. 14. The applicant shall provide documentation ensuring the required minimum fire flow is achieved for sprinklered and non-sprinklered/partially sprinklered buildings in accordance with Minnesota Fire Code section 507.3. This shall be provided at the time of building permit submission for review and approval of the fire Marshall, and shall be provided for the current Phase 1, along with any future phasing of the project. 15. Prior to any residential occupancy at the facility, a rental license will be required for residential units. 16. The applicant shall coordinate with City of Mankato staff regarding water meters and sanitary sewer billing. The city recommends that water meters for all proposed phases be purchased at the start of the project and that each building has its own meter. Upon installation of individual meters for each building, sanitary sewer flat-rate fees will be discontinued and replaced with usage-based billing. 17. The applicant shall provide a plan that outlines how mail delivery will be conducted. The City of Mankato will coordinate with the post office regarding the addressing and building identification. 18. The applicant shall provide a refuse plan for Phase 1. The refuse plan shall provide refuse service that complies with Mankato City standards, including either refuse storage within an existing 19. structure, or the construction of dumpster enclosures that meet the Mankato City Code. If additional exterior lighting is proposed for this phase of the project, a lighting plan shall be provided at the time of building permit submission for review and approval. All lighting shall comply with Mankato City Code including, but not limited to full-cut, fully shielded fixtures and a photometric plan that demonstrates no more than 1/2 foot candle at the property line. 20. Mr. Iddings asked whether Loyola Catholic School had submitted any comments regarding the proposed additions. Ms. Westman indicated that the school had provided comments, including two letters included in the Planning Commission packet. She explained that the first letter was submitted after the initial application, when the project scope was larger. The second letter, dated April 21, supports the staff findings and recommends that the Phase 1 build-out occur only if it complies with Mankato City Code parking standards. Mr. Iddings also asked whether Phase 1 includes the chapel and, if so, whether a shuttle arrangement with the Kato Ballroom is also included. Ms. Westman confirmed that these items were included in phase 1. Mr. Iddings asked whether this would require the Kato Ballroom to pave and stripe its parking lot. Ms. Westman stated that this would be a consideration if there was a conflicting use within that parking lot. Mr. Iddings stated that if a shuttle service uses the parking lot ten times per year, it could raise concerns for the neighborhood. He asked whether a condition could be added requiring the lot to meet the City Code if it is used. Ms. Westman responded that, if the Planning Commission finds it appropriate, a condition could be added requiring the parking lot to be paved. Mr. Iddings moved to add a condition indicating that if they do use a shuttle system, the parking lot use meet the city standards. Mr. Wilke stated that he was not in favor of encumbering a separate parcel not associated with the project and imposing improvement requirements on its owners. He added that the Kato Ballroom is not requesting any action but is instead working cooperatively with the applicant. Mr. Iddings inquired whether, if a shuttle service were implemented and issues arise in the future, those concerns could be brought to the city for resolution. Mr. Wilke indicated that this is typically how the process works, adding that when a property undergoes an alteration and a building permit is submitted, the city reviews any noncompliance with the City Code and identifies what is needed to bring the property into compliance. Mr. Iddings withdrew his proposed condition, stating that he was confident the city could address any future concerns that may arise. Ms. Surdy questioned whether the shuttle service would continue in the future or if planned parking lot expansions would accommodate additional parking needs. Ms. Westman indicated that she believes the intent is that, in the future, as the project evolves and additional parking is added, the city will evaluate potential arrangements—such as additional onsite parking or agreements with other parties—between now and the time a future submission is made. Mr. Wilke noted that the preliminary plat shows expanded parking and asked whether this reflects the Mr. Wilke noted that the preliminary plat shows expanded parking and asked whether this reflects the applicant’s proposed vision for future parking expansion. Ms. Westman confirmed that it does. Mr. Wilke stated that he did not see a parking stall count indicated on the preliminary plat. Ms. Westman indicated that she believes the future buildout includes 358 parking stalls, adding that this would be considered in future phases and may involve potential agreements with adjacent property owners. Chair Zehner questioned the parking calculations for Phase 1. He noted that the 88 stalls for the chapel are already being accommodated by the Kato Ballroom through the shuttle service, reducing the total to 170 stalls. He asked what accounts for the further reduction to 113 stalls and whether it relates to a portion of the office space being excluded. Ms. Westman confirmed that it does. She explained that the applicant proposes 53 residential units at 1.5 stalls per unit, plus five guest stalls, and would limit office use to a square footage consistent with the number of parking stalls available onsite. Mr. Dieken questioned if the fire flow currently meets standards and, if it does not, he questioned if the next phase would then be to connect to city water services. Ms. Westman indicated that a plan included in the Planning Commission packet shows the existing sprinkler coverage within the subdivision, which includes several buildings. She added that, based on discussions with the Fire Marshal, it is unclear whether the current system will be sufficient. Therefore, the conditions are included to ensure adequate fire flow for the proposed structures and to confirm that existing buildings will continue to be properly served in the future. Breanne Kennedy, Consulting Community Engagement and Project Support, Thrive, and Craig Britton, Civil Engineer, Widseth. Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Britton were present at the meeting to answer questions and provide a brief presentation to the Planning Commission. The presentation introduced the Southwest Housing Partnership and its mission, including continuing the legacy of SSND. It also outlined the goals of the project, such as historic rehabilitation and housing, and what it aims to achieve in the future. Lastly, the presenters reviewed the project schedule and provided an overview of the various areas of the property, including plans for individual buildings and potential parking. Ms. Bigham asked whether the stairs connecting the bottom of the hill (N. 4th Street) to the top would remain open to the public. She also inquired about any plans to make portions of the site’s green space accessible to the public or to add a trail. Ms. Kennedy indicated that City staff recommended a fee in lieu of parkland. She added that it is her understanding the stairs are intended to remain open for public use and, although located on private property, are expected to continue being accessible to the public at this time. Jen Theneman, Campus Director of Good Counsel. Ms. Theneman stated that the stairs will remain open. She noted that a “Private Property” sign is currently posted and that an “Enter at Your Own Risk” sign will also be added. She indicated that handrails will be maintained; however, snow and ice removal will not be done. Ms. Theneman added that the stairs are currently in use, along with the broader campus. She explained that maintaining public access is viewed as a safety measure, given that the building is vacant, and that the organization is community-minded and intends to continue offering access. She also noted that the community gardens will continue to operate. Chair Zehnder opened the public hearing for comment. Mark Sands, 670 Thompson Ravine Rd. Mr. Sands was present at the meeting and asked whether the back road leading to the property would be designated as an emergency access route, noting that it had been closed several years ago. He also questioned who would be responsible for the cost if the road were reconstructed or maintained, adding that it is currently in poor condition. Mr. Sands stated that Loyola School students and members of the public use the road as a walking route and asked whether a walking path would be included if the road is improved. He also inquired whether access to the property could be connected to Highway 14 rather than routing traffic down the hill to Riverfront Drive. Reggie Reed, Board of Governors for Crusaders Holdings LLC. Mr. Reed was present at the meeting and spoke on behalf of the owners of Loyola Catholic School. He thanked City staff for their efforts and transparency, particularly given the many changes to the project. Mr. Reed stated that they are not opposed to development of the property but have concerns that require careful consideration. He indicated that the current proposal does not meet City parking requirements and is short by 57 stalls in Phase 1. He added that on-street parking is not available, and that transit options are limited, meaning any overflow parking would likely impact the school. He also noted that there is currently no shared parking agreement between the school and the developer. Mr. Reed stated that the proposal could disrupt daily operations, place enforcement burdens on the school, and create safety risks. He explained that Loyola’s parking and traffic patterns are carefully managed to protect students, and that even minor disruptions could compromise safety—particularly given inexperienced drivers and winter road conditions. He further noted that the proposal is not limited to off-peak events but reflects ongoing residential and office needs, which could increase liability and challenge existing safety protocols. He added that they support City staff’s recommendation to limit development to code-compliant parking and strongly oppose any deviation or reduction in required parking standards for both the current phase and future phases. He asked the Planning Commission to consider the operational and safety impacts associated with the application. Della Schmidt, President/CEO of Greater Mankato Growth. Ms. Schmidt stated that employers continue to emphasize the need for workforce, which is directly tied to housing availability. She noted that Southwest Minnesota Housing Partnership has a strong reputation and a history of successful collaborations addressing regional housing needs. Ms. Schmidt expressed appreciation that the community has the opportunity to partner with such an organization. She added that the reuse of a unique property like this would be highly attractive to both professionals and retirees. Referring to an earlier comment about building out rather than building up, she described this project as an example of creative reuse and posed the question: if not this, then what—and if not now, then when? She emphasized that the property is an asset that should not remain underutilized. She concluded by thanking the Planning Commission on behalf of Greater Mankato Growth for their efforts and stated that the project aligns with the “Transforming Tomorrow Together” initiative. Greater Mankato Growth supports the project. With no one wishing to speak further, the public hearing was closed. Chair Zehnder asked for clarification regarding the road previously mentioned by Mr. Sands, noting his understanding that it would be privately maintained. Mr. Konz confirmed this, stating there is no intention of reopening the road except for emergency access if needed. He added that if the road were ever reopened, it would be at the property owner’s expense, as it is a private road, and no costs would be borne by the public. Mr. Konz also addressed the question raised by Mr. Sands regarding access to Highway 14. He indicated that, due to the proximity of the interchange, access would likely be limited to the existing interchanges. He further noted that, based on typical highway corridor studies and standards, access along highways is generally restricted and drainage is carefully controlled. As such, he would not anticipate direct access to Highway 14 being a viable option for this request. Ms. Surdy inquired about the comments made by Mr. Reed and asked whether there is a requirement for the property owners to implement a security or safety plan to address concerns raised by Loyola Catholic School. Mr. Konz responded that his understanding is that the property owners intend to monitor events held on-site to ensure that parking does not extend onto Loyola Catholic School property. Ms. Surdy stated that she felt it would be beneficial to coordinate with Loyola Catholic School to ensure they are comfortable with the proposed expansion. Ms. Theneman addressed the Planning Commission again and stated that she agreed with the comments made by Ms. Surdy. She noted that discussions between the parties began more than a year and a half ago. Ms. Theneman acknowledged that both parties have experienced security concerns and expressed a shared desire to work collaboratively to address those concerns. Ms. Theneman stated that the parties had previously utilized shared overnight security, which they had hoped to continue; however, the other parties involved elected not to proceed with that arrangement. She added that security cameras are installed on the property and that regular discussions regarding security matters have continued. Regarding parking and driveway safety, Ms. Theneman explained that, as part of the easement agreement, Loyola Catholic School utilizes the streets to facilitate a one-way pickup and drop-off system in front of the school. She expressed uncertainty as to how additional parking would improve the situation, noting that the current arrangement has functioned well and is considered safe so long as the easement allowing one-way traffic remains in place. Chair Zehnder added that it was his understanding that Condition 10, pertaining to the Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit, would address some of the concerns raised by the parties involved. Mr. Filipovitch made a motion to approve CY20-26. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wilke and passed unanimously. The anticipated date of Council action is May 11, 2026. 6. ## CY21-26 Request of the Planning Agency to amend Chapter 10 of Mankato City Code related to parkland dedication fees. Mr. Konz addressed the members of the Planning Commission and stated that the purpose of this item is to review how the City of Mankato administers parkland dedication fees. He explained that Minnesota state statutes allow cities to require either parkland dedication or payment in lieu of dedication through the platting process. Currently, within the community, the fee is based exclusively on the value of the property, with no flexibility for staff to make adjustments. He referenced discussions from a previous agenda item regarding the potential for an easement or park dedication for a trail area, noting that there is very limited flexibility under the current ordinance to accommodate such arrangements. He stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to modify the City’s process for handling payments in lieu of parkland dedication. Mr. Konz indicated that there are several reasons for the proposed changes, including guidance from the City Attorney and the League of Minnesota Cities. He noted that properties often contain unique characteristics, such as bluff areas or wetlands, which may be unbuildable, and that additional flexibility would allow staff to better account for these conditions. In addition, Mr. Konz explained that current Mankato ordinances only allow the use of parkland dedication fees for land acquisition. However, staff have found that other communities structure their ordinances to allow funds to be used for acquisition, maintenance, or construction. He referenced the Mesenbrink subdivision, which was discussed earlier in the meeting, noting that it would generate a substantial park dedication fee based on its acreage. He added that an argument could be made that such fees are not always used in a way that directly benefits nearby property owners, whereas, under the proposed changes, using a portion of the funds for park construction could provide a more direct community benefit. Staff have attached a proposed amendment to the ordinance, which removes the existing language and replaces it with provisions allowing greater flexibility. These provisions include the ability to modify fees based on property conditions, reduce fees when appropriate, and expand the allowable uses of the funds beyond what is currently permitted. Mr. Wilke asked whether the City Council establishes the fee schedule for parkland dedication annually. Mr. Konz confirmed that this is correct and noted that the fee schedule is adopted by ordinance. Ms. Bigham stated that she appreciated the added flexibility included in the proposed changes. However, she expressed interest in allowing additional flexibility beyond fee adjustments, including consideration of alternative park-related improvements or concepts on properties. Mr. Konz indicated that a variety of approaches have been used in the past. On occasion, through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, applicants have been required to provide recreational space on-site. Additionally, when the City of Mankato identifies a property suitable for park dedication, staff may pursue an amendment to the Parks Plan to allow for its acquisition. He added that one of the most recent examples of this approach is what is now Riverfront Park, noting that access to the river has consistently ranked as a high priority during public engagement efforts. Chair Zehnder opened the public hearing for comment. With no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Surdy made a motion to approve the request to amend Chapter 10 of the Mankato City Code related to parkland dedication fees. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dieken and passed unanimously. ## 6.MISCELLANEOUS 1.Request of the Planning Agency to review Chapter 10 of Mankato City Code related to temporary signage ordinances. Ms. Westman reports that staff reviewed ordinances and spoke with staff of other Minnesota cities with the following results: None of the cities reviewed allow the transfer of sign permits between tenants in a multi-tenant1. None of the cities reviewed allow the transfer of sign permits between tenants in a multi-tenant development. 1. Temporary signage is typically restricted in quantity in other jurisdictions. It is common that at any time, no more than 1 temporary sign is allowed per business. 2. Sandwich board ordinances guiding the usage of temporary signage in central business districts were utilized to allow signage on public sidewalks in downtown areas where buildings are placed at, or near, the property lines. 3. Temporary signage durations typically ranged from a total allowable number of days of between 14–90 days and in no case were temporary signs allowed for more than 90 days. 4. Ms. Westman reports that staff recommend that the Planning Agency review the current issues and provide recommendations on the implementation of the following temporary sign ordinance amendments. Based on the feedback of the Planning Agency, a hearing will be conducted at an upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Surdy questioned whether it would be appropriate to allow one sign per frontage. She added that another option could be to base allowance on square footage of the lot, which would result in more signs being permitted on larger lots and fewer signs on smaller lots. Ms. Westman indicated that, during their research, some jurisdictions—such as St. Cloud—use an acreage-based system, where the amount of temporary signage allowed increases with lot size. Ms. Surdy asked whether there had been any discussion regarding lighting on signage, noting that LED strip lighting is sometimes used around signs, and questioned whether regulations should address illuminated signage. Ms. Westman responded that the City’s permanent sign ordinance includes provisions related to lighting; however, similar standards are not currently included for temporary signs. Mr. Wilke asked whether a business placing a sandwich board sign while maintaining five feet of sidewalk clearance would require a temporary sign permit. Ms. Westman stated that there is currently no formal process for those types of signs, and they have generally been allowed to exist without regulation. She noted that the proposed changes would formalize the practice and establish parameters for such signage. Mr. Wilke encouraged the City of Mankato to continue allowing sandwich board signs, noting that they can be critical for businesses. He emphasized the importance of minimizing administrative barriers and avoiding unnecessary permitting requirements that could burden staff or businesses. Ms. Surdy added that local businesses do use sandwich board signs to provide information about daily specials. She stated that regulations should be in place to ensure the signs are not placed in the middle of sidewalks and that distracting lighting is not used. Chair Zehnder questioned whether it would be possible to establish standards that businesses are required to follow without requiring a permit, so that if a sign becomes a safety issue, the City will still have enforcement options. Mr. Konz sought clarification on whether the question was specific to the downtown area of Mankato or the entire city. Mr. Wilke added that he was primarily referring to downtown, including Front Street and other highly walkable areas, noting that such signage may be less appropriate in areas that are not as pedestrian oriented. Mr. Dieken expressed concern with the proposed limit of eight uses per 12-month period and a duration of eight days per use. He stated that he did not believe there should be a restriction on how long the sign can eight days per use. He stated that he did not believe there should be a restriction on how long the sign can be displayed, noting that signage may change based on what is being promoted. He added that signs should always be maintained in good condition, but that time limitations on display should be reconsidered. Ms. Surdy stated that she believed the duration limits could be appropriate depending on the size of the sign. She noted that larger signs, such as letterboard-style signs, should have a limited display period, while smaller signs could potentially be exempt from such restrictions. Mr. Dieken indicated that this was a good point and stated that he agreed with Ms. Surdy’s comments, while reiterating that signage should always be maintained in a presentable condition. Mr. Wilke added that one of the challenges is determining whether a temporary sign that remains in place indefinitely is still considered temporary. He noted that guidance is needed regarding an appropriate timeframe, and that if a sign exceeds that timeframe it may effectively become a permanent sign subject to different requirements. Mr. Dieken responded that he did not disagree but reiterated his concern that the current restriction of eight uses per year may not be beneficial. Mr. Iddings added that the ordinance should include a requirement that signage be maintained, operational, and actively used, noting that without a time limit, signs may be neglected or left on property indefinitely. Ms. Surdy added that she believed a defined timeframe is necessary; otherwise, the sign would effectively become permanent and subject to permanent sign regulations. She also asked whether the proposal would impact political campaign signs. Ms. Westman clarified that political campaign signs would not be affected by this ordinance, as they are regulated under Minnesota Statutes and a separate section of the City of Mankato code. She added that certain temporary signage, such as for nonprofit events, is allowed for limited durations and is exempt from these regulations. Chair Zehnder asked for clarification regarding the requirement that sandwich board signs maintain five feet of clear sidewalk space, noting that this would generally require a sidewalk at least six feet wide to accommodate placement. Ms. Westman confirmed this interpretation, adding that most locations along Riverfront Drive provide sufficient sidewalk width to meet this requirement. Chair Zehnder asked whether staff were seeking a formal motion or simply feedback at this stage. Ms. Westman responded that she was seeking feedback to assist in drafting an ordinance for consideration at the next meeting, which would include a public hearing. Ms. Surdy asked whether the proposal would include banner signs attached to buildings. Ms. Westman confirmed that it would include banners as well as freestanding signs. Mr. Konz stated that historically the regulations have included all non-permanent signage, such as balloons and similar temporary advertising devices. A request was made for the City of Mankato to examine traffic patterns in the Tanager and Pohl neighborhoods. Ms. Surdy indicated that she believed it would be beneficial to evaluate conditions in the area, noting that concerns appear to be ongoing and related not only to the proposed development discussed, but also to potential future development in the vicinity. Chair Zehnder asked for clarification on appropriate wording for a recommendation of this type. Mr. Wilke asked whether a formal motion was required. Mr. Konz stated that a motion would be appropriate and suggested language such as conducting a traffic analysis that includes Tanager, Timberwolf, and Pohl Road. Ms. Surdy asked whether the study area could be described as the Tanager and Pohl corridor. Mr. Konz responded that he would recommend limiting the study area to avoid expectation of a broader corridor analysis, suggesting a boundary within approximately 500 to 1,000 feet of the Tanager and Pohl Road intersection. He added that staff could deploy traffic counters; however, collected data may not meet warrant thresholds. He noted that while warrant criteria may not be met, that does not preclude identifying potential operational or safety concerns. He further stated that engineering staff should evaluate the results and determine appropriate responses based on the findings. Ms. Bigham asked whether additional development was anticipated to the south. Mr. Konz clarified that city limits do not extend beyond the property discussed, noting that the roadway is paved up to the city boundary and transitions to gravel within Mankato Township. He emphasized that the study should be limited to the City of Mankato jurisdiction. Mr. Wilke made a motion to approve a traffic analysis of the intersection of Tanager, Timberwolf, and Pohl Road, and to report back any findings or recommendations as appropriate. Chair Zehnder questioned whether the study area should include a defined buffer, such as within 500 feet, or whether the intersection alone was sufficient. Mr. Konz recommended including at least a 500-foot radius and extending the study to the city limits to ensure coverage of relevant access points, including nearby driveways, discussed during the meeting. He also suggested considering nearby intersecting streets to the north and east, as well as the area near the elementary school. Mr. Iddings noted that new developments often generate concerns and that a defined study area can be helpful in addressing them. Mr. Konz added that timing may be affected by the academic calendar, noting that Minnesota State University, Mankato would soon be on summer break, which could impact traffic patterns and the timing of data collection. Ms. Surdy stated that she supported conducting the study when the university is in session, adding that with the elementary school schedule, September may be an ideal timeframe. Mr. Konz stated that staff would attempt to conduct the study as soon as feasible but would continue to monitor conditions if timing is delayed. Mr. Wilke made a motion to approve a traffic analysis in the area as determined appropriate by City staff. Ms. Surdy seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. ## Housing Questions Mr. Wilke questioned whether it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to review the latest housing study and referenced the possibility of having Nancy Bolkema attend a meeting to provide additional insight. Mr. Konz indicated that this would be possible; however, he suggested scheduling it during a meeting with a lighter agenda to allow for focused discussion. He noted that, according to the study, the goal is the construction of approximately 600 housing units per year over the next ten years. He added that approximately 250 units were approved during the current meeting and, although several items were approved, the city is not yet halfway to the annual target. Mr. Wilke asked about two projects that involved flexibility within the rental density ordinance. He stated that he would like to better understand the process and considerations involved in granting such flexibility to ensure alignment on when and why those accommodations are made. Mr. Konz explained that the original intent of the rental density ordinance was to protect existing low-density neighborhoods and prevent excessive rental concentrations in both established areas and new development areas. He referenced the Lincoln Park, Highland Park, and Tourtellotte Park neighborhoods, noting that these areas had previously expressed concerns regarding rental density. He further stated that when an application requests flexibility outside the rental ordinance, it should be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a land use issue and then forwarded to the City Council for final consideration. Mr. Konz added that, in the case of the Quarry View site, the applicant is seeking additional flexibility to support housing targeted toward low to moderate-income populations, ensuring the site can be effectively developed for that intended use. ## Updates Mr. Konz reported to the Planning Commission that the Melvin family (located at 2015 5th Ave) had commented at the previous month’s meeting on several improvements that still needed to be completed in the Germania Park area. He stated that City of Mankato Construction and Engineering Services staff have been working to monitor those concerns, including areas where pooling has occurred, as well as reviewing nearby alleys for potential improvements. He noted that staff had not been able to complete significant corrective work due to weather conditions; however, staff were on site that morning and have been working with both contractors involved in the project to identify and address any issues. ## 7.ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mr. Wilke moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Surdy with all in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 pm. ## MINUTES APPROVED. _______________________________________ ## Chair, Mankato Planning Commission Planning Commission Regular Meeting5. 1. ## Meeting Date:05/27/2026 ## Title ## CY22-26 Request of ISG, on behalf of the owner, Snell Real Estate, LLC, for a final plat review of Snell Addition. The subject properties are described as Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Menard Addition; except a portion of Lot 5, Block 1 (1900 and 1990 Madison Avenue). The anticipated date of City Council action will be June 8, 2026. ## Applicant The applicant is ISG, on behalf of the property owner, Snell Real Estate, LLC. ## Request The applicant has requested the review of Snell Addition final plat. ## Location The subject properties are addressed at 1900 and 1990 Madison Avenue, and are legally described as Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Menard Addition; except a portion of Lot 5, Block 1. ## Existing Land Use The property is the location of Snell Motors and the Snell Motors Carwash. ## Zoning The properties are zoned B-3, Highway Commercial District. ## Environmentally Sensitive Areas There are no known environmentally sensitive areas on the site. ## Public Utilities The subject site will continue to be served by public utilities. ## City Code The City Code pertaining to the B-3, Highway Business District, may be viewed at the following link. https://library.municode.com/mn/mankato/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH10LAUSDE_ARTVCODI_DIV8HIBUDI ## Site Plan Review Comments The Site Plan and Traffic Review Committee met on May 12, 2026, and submitted the following comments. The applicant shall be aware that the stormwater charge will be recalculated upon review and approval of the final plat. Applicant Response: Thank you, noted. 1. The applicant shall be aware that the City’s Critical Link Sidewalk Plan identifies a sidewalk along the west side of Haefner Drive. Future reconstruction of Haefner Drive will require installation of the sidewalk unless the City Engineer determines the sidewalk to be infeasible. Applicant Response: Thank you, noted. 2. If not already completed, the applicant shall log into the City’s online portal and submit the notification fee payment. Applicant Response: Thank you, noted. 3. The applicant shall be aware that if separate ownership of either parcel is anticipated in the future, additional review and consideration will be required. Applicant Response: Thank you, noted. 4. Signage at each site shall conform to the applicable standards based on any new or revised frontages. Applicant Response: Thank you, noted. 5. Any proposed modifications to existing site or building conditions shall trigger the requirement that all off-street parking and driving surfaces on the subject property be hard surfaced within one year of the proposed work occurring. Applicant Response: Thank you, noted. 6. If not already done, the applicant shall log into the online portal and make notification payment. Applicant Response: Notification fee was paid on 05/12/2026. 7. ## Review ISG, on behalf of the owner, Snell Real Estate, LLC, is requesting a final plat review of Snell Addition. The subject properties are described ISG, on behalf of the owner, Snell Real Estate, LLC, is requesting a final plat review of Snell Addition. The subject properties are described as Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Menard Addition; except a portion of Lot 5, Block 1(1900 and 1990 Madison Avenue). The applicant is seeking a final plat review for Snell Addition, a 10.23 acre subdivision. The intent of the replat is to amend the existing property lines of the three current parcels to better coincide with the location of current structures. The plat consists of one block that contains two lots: Lot 1, which is 9.15 acres that contains the current dealership building and parking lot areas, and Lot 2, which is 1.07 acres that contains the current car wash structure and associated areas. Standard city and private utility easements in conformance with Mankato City Code Chapter 10 have been provided where feasible. A private access agreement has been provided allowing for continued vehicle access from Haefner Drive to the dealership and car wash properties. The intent of this easement is to ensure continuous private access for both proposed lots if the lots were to ever be sold and operated on a separate basis. The noted easement is 30ft across centered on the proposed property line between lot 1 & lot 2, so that a 15-foot easement is maintained on each side of the property line. The access easement location is not intended to correspond with any physical improvements to the property, as the easement lines up with the existing private driveway surfaces. ## Findings Staff respectfully submits the following findings of fact: ## General Requirements The site is an existing commercial complex and changes to the existing development are not proposed at this time.1. Because site improvements are not currently proposed, a drainage study has not been submitted to verify compliance. If future site modifications occur, a drainage plan will need to be submitted. 2. The site provides existing storm connections.3. ## Streets The street right-of-way widths are in line with the existing street right-of-way widths. No changes are proposed. 1. Future reconstruction of Haefner Drive will require the installation of the sidewalk unless determined by the City Engineer that the sidewalk is infeasible. 2. ## Easements The plat provides the standard easements required in Chapter 10 of the Mankato City Code where currently feasible.1. ## Block Standards The blocks within the subdivision were designed for the intended end use as a commercial lot.1. ## Lot Standards The lots within the subdivision are intended for commercial uses and are designed to accommodate the existing use of the site. 1. ## Public Sites and Open Spaces Because the property was previously platted, no parkland dedication is due at this time.1. ## Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the final plat with the following conditions: Any revised or new signage at each site will need to conform with the applicable standards based on any new/revised frontages.1. Any proposed modifications to existing site or building conditions shall trigger the requirement that all off-street parking and driving surfaces on the subject property be hard surfaced within one year of the proposed work occurring. 2. Any future reconstruction of Haefner Drive will require the installation of a sidewalk along its west side, as identified in the City's Critical Link Sidewalk Plan, unless the City Engineer determines installation to be infeasible. 3. ## Attachments ## General Location Map ## Aerial final plat final plat w/ aerial ## Easement Exhibit Easement agreement This inf or ma ti o n is to be us ed f o r re fe re nce purpo se s o nly . The City o f Ma nka to do es no t gua rante e ac cura cy o f the ma ter ia l c o nta ine d he rei n a nd is no t res pons ible f o r mi sus e o r mis inte rpreta tio n. % ## Date: March 2026 Author : ## General Location Map This inf or ma ti o n is to be us ed f o r re fe re nce purpo se s o nly . The City o f Ma nka to do es no t gua rante e ac cura cy o f the ma ter ia l c o nta ine d he rei n a nd is no t res pons ible f o r mi sus e o r mis inte rpreta tio n. % ## Date: March 2026 Author : ## Aerial Map • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ## L = 55. 6 0 ## R = 6 8 6 4 4 . 9 4 • • = 0 •• 0 24 7 " ## CBr g = ## S 89••3 7 ' 3 2 ## W ## C.=5 5 . 60 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7 4 . 5 5 3 0 5 . 4 7 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ## SE Corner Lot 5, Block 1 ## Menard Addition ## POB Exception ## S. Line - Lot 5 0 ## SCALE IN FEET 60120 ## DETAIL 1"=20' ## SEE DETAIL ## LEGEND ## Iron Monument Found ## Indicates 1/2" Dia. Iron Monument ## Set With Plastic Cap Marked ## By ISG, PLS No. 61565 to be set before time of recording ## Indicates 1/2" Dia. Iron Monument ## Set With Plastic Cap Marked ## By ISG, PLS No. 61565 ## Indicates Mag Nail Set ## Access Control Line Orientation of this bearing system is based upon the plat of Menard Addition. ## FINAL PLAT FOR REVIEW ## INSTRUMENT OF DEDICATION KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Snell Real Estate, LLC , a Minnesota limited liability company, owner of the following described property: Lots Three (3), Four (4) and Five (5), Block One (1), Menard Addition to the City of Mankato, according to the recorded ## plat thereof, Blue Earth County, Minnesota ## EXCEPT That part of Lot 5, Block 1, Menard Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, City of Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minnesota, described as: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence South 89 degrees 26 minutes 30 seconds West along the south line of said Lot 5, a distance of 46.49 feet; thence North 39 degrees 44 minutes 22 seconds East, a distance of 60.17 feet to the easterly line of said Lot 5; thence southerly a distance of 46.53 feet along a nontangential curve to the right having a radius of 440.74 feet, a central angle of 6 degrees 02 minutes 57 seconds and a 46.51 foot chord which bears South 9 degrees 55 minutes 50 seconds East to the point of beginning. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as SNELL ADDITION and does hereby dedicate to the public, for public use, the drainage and utility easements as created by this plat. In witness whereof said Snell Real Estate, LLC , a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this _______ day of ___________________, 20_____. ## Signed: Snell Real Estate, LLC __________________________________________ State of ____________________________ County of ____________________________ This instrument was acknowledged before me on _______________________, 20_____ by ________________________________, _______________________, of Snell Real Estate, LLC , a Minnesota limited liability company. __________________________________________(sign) __________________________________________(print) ## Notary Public ___________________________ ## My Commission Expires ________________ ## SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, Ryan E. Kotthoff, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been or, will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this _______ day of ___________________, 20_____. ___________________________________________ ## Ryan E. Kotthoff, Licensed Land Surveyor ## Minnesota License No. 61565 ## State of Minnesota ## County of Blue Earth This instrument was acknowledged before me on _______________________, 20_____ by Ryan E. Kotthoff, Licensed Land Surveyor. ___________________________________________ ## Kent A. Hays ## Notary Public, Minnesota ## My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2030 ## MANKATO PLANNING COMMISSION Be it known that on this _______ day of _____________________, 20_____, the Planning Commission of the City of Mankato did duly review this plat of SNELL ADDITION. ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Chair Person Secretary ## CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MANKATO, MINNESOTA This plat of SNELL ADDITION, was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Mankato, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this _______ day of ___________________, 20_____, and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Mayor Clerk ## TITLE OPINION I, Kimberly A. Literovich, Licensed Attorney, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that the owners as indicated hereon represent all ownership interest in the land encompassed by this plat. ___________________________________________ ## Kimberly A. Literovich, Licensed Attorney ## BLUE EARTH COUNTY PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES I hereby certify that there are no delinquent taxes and/or delinquent special assessments, that the current taxes have ben paid and that the transfer has been entered on the land described herein on the _______ day of ___________________, 20_____. ___________________________________________ ## Blue Earth County Property and Environmental Resources Director ## COUNTY RECORDER, BLUE EARTH COUNTY, MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this plat of SNELL ADDITION was filed in the office of the County Recorder for public record on this _______ day of ___________________, 20_____, at _______ o'clock _____.M. and was duly filed in Book _______ of Plats, page _______, as Document No. ______________________. ___________________________________________ ## Blue Earth County, County Recorder ## SW 1/4 SEC. 10, TWP. 108, RGE. 26 ## (NOT TO SCALE) ## Blue Earth County, Minnesota ## S89°36'08"W 380.02 ## L = 5 5 . 6 0 ## R = 6 8 6 4 4 . 9 4 ## Δ = 0 ° 0 2 ' 4 7 " ## C . ## B r g = ## S 8 9 ° 3 7 ' 3 2 " ## W ## C . = 5 5 . 6 0 ## N45°03'51"W 140.81 ## L = 1 5 2 . 1 0 ## R = 3 1 0 . 7 2 ## Δ = 2 8 ° 0 2 ' 5 1 " ## S27°51'56"E 110.20 ## S00°10'55"W 555.55 ## N89°36'08"E 445.11 ## N00°10'55"E 855.37 ## N89°36'08"E 218.00 ## N59°53'19"E 85.00 ## N00°10'55"E 136.02 ## S39°54'00"W 60.33 ## L = 1 1 7 . 0 1 ## R = 4 4 0 . 7 4 ## Δ = 1 5 ° 1 2 ' 4 1 " ## Utility Easement ## Per Menard Addition ## 1" Iron Pipe ## 1/2" Iron Pipe ## 1" Iron Pipe ## 1" Iron Pipe ## 1" Iron Pipe ## 1" Iron Pipe ## 1/2" Iron Pipe ## PLS 19789 ## 1/2" Iron Pipe ## PLS 19789 ## 3/4" Iron Pipe 84.95 25.25 ## Utility and Access Easement ## Per Menard Addition ## Utility and Access Easement ## Per Menard Addition 2 1 ## BLOCK 1 855.28 (plat) 445.00 (plat) 10 10 10 10 10 ## Drainage & Utility Easement ## Drainage & UtilityEasement 10 1010 74.55 305.47 10 10 ## Drainage & UtilityEasement ## Drainage & UtilityEasement 20 ## L = 4 6 . 6 4 ## R = 4 4 0 . 7 4 ## Δ = 6 ° 0 3 ' 4 5 " ## C . ## B r g = ## S 0 9 ° 3 7 ' 2 2 " ## E ## C . = 4 6 . 6 1 ## S89°36'08"W 46.49 ## N39°54'00"E 60.33 ## L=46.53 Δ=6°02'57" ## C.Brg=S09°55'50"W C.=46.51 (deed) ## SE Corner ## Lot 5, Block 1Menard AdditionPOB ## Exception ## S. Line - Lot 5 ## E'ly Line - Lot 5 N39°44'22"E 60.17 (deed) S89°26'30"W (deed) 10 10 10 0 ## SCALE IN FEET 60 120 ## DETAIL 1"=20' ## SEE DETAIL ## LEGEND ## Iron Monument FoundIndicates 1/2" Dia. Iron Monument ## Set With Plastic Cap Marked ## By ISG, PLS No. 61565 to be set before time of recording ## Indicates 1/2" Dia. Iron Monument ## Set With Plastic Cap Marked ## By ISG, PLS No. 61565 ## Indicates Mag Nail Set ## Access Control Line Orientation of this bearing system is based upon the plat of Menard Addition. ## FINAL PLAT FOR REVIEW ## SNELL ADDITION ## JOB # 33975 DATE: 4/21/26 ## INSTRUMENT OF DEDICATION KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Snell Real Estate, LLC , a Minnesota limited liability company, owner of the following described property: Lots Three (3), Four (4) and Five (5), Block One (1), Menard Addition to the City of Mankato, according to the recorded ## plat thereof, Blue Earth County, Minnesota ## EXCEPT That part of Lot 5, Block 1, Menard Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, City of Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minnesota, described as: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence South 89 degrees 26 minutes 30 seconds West along the south line of said Lot 5, a distance of 46.49 feet; thence North 39 degrees 44 minutes 22 seconds East, a distance of 60.17 feet to the easterly line of said Lot 5; thence southerly a distance of 46.53 feet along a nontangential curve to the right having a radius of 440.74 feet, a central angle of 6 degrees 02 minutes 57 seconds and a 46.51 foot chord which bears South 9 degrees 55 minutes 50 seconds East to the point of beginning. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as ## SNELL ADDITION and does hereby dedicate to the public, for public use, the drainage and utility easements as created by this plat. In witness whereof said Snell Real Estate, LLC , a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this _______ day of ___________________, 20_____.Signed: Snell Real Estate, LLC __________________________________________ State of ____________________________ County of ____________________________ This instrument was acknowledged before me on _______________________, 20_____ by ________________________________, _______________________, of Snell Real Estate, LLC , a Minnesota limited liability company. __________________________________________(sign)__________________________________________(print) ## Notary Public ___________________________My Commission Expires ________________ ## SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, Ryan E. Kotthoff, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been or, willbe correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this _______ day of ___________________, 20_____. ___________________________________________ ## Ryan E. Kotthoff, Licensed Land SurveyorMinnesota License No. 61565 ## State of MinnesotaCounty of Blue Earth This instrument was acknowledged before me on _______________________, 20_____ by Ryan E. Kotthoff, Licensed Land Surveyor. ___________________________________________ ## Kent A. HaysNotary Public, MinnesotaMy Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2030 ## MANKATO PLANNING COMMISSION Be it known that on this _______ day of _____________________, 20_____, the Planning Commission of the City ofMankato did duly review this plat of ## SNELL ADDITION . ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Chair Person SecretaryCITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MANKATO, MINNESOTA This plat of ## SNELL ADDITION , was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Mankato, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this _______ day of ___________________, 20_____, and said plat is in compliance with theprovisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Mayor Clerk ## TITLE OPINION I, Kimberly A. Literovich, Licensed Attorney, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that the owners as indicated hereon represent all ownership interest in the land encompassed by this plat. ___________________________________________ ## Kimberly A. Literovich, Licensed Attorney ## BLUE EARTH COUNTY PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES I hereby certify that there are no delinquent taxes and/or delinquent special assessments, that the current taxes have ben paid and that the transfer has been entered on the land described herein on the _______ day of ___________________, 20_____. ___________________________________________ ## Blue Earth County Property and Environmental Resources Director ## COUNTY RECORDER, BLUE EARTH COUNTY, MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this plat of ## SNELL ADDITION was filed in the office of the County Recorder for public record on this _______ day of ___________________, 20_____, at _______ o'clock _____.M. and was duly filed in Book _______ of Plats, page _______, as Document No. ______________________. ___________________________________________ ## Blue Earth County, County Recorder ## SW 1/4 SEC. 10, TWP. 108, RGE. 26 ## SITE ## VICINITY MAP ## (NOT TO SCALE) ## Blue Earth County, Minnesota ## N ## NW 1/4 ## SW 1/4 ## NE 1/4 ## SW 1/4 ## SE 1/4 ## SW 1/4 ## SW 1/4 ## SW 1/4 Adams St. Haefner Dr. Madison Ave. Lake Rd. ## MN TH No. 22 ## Fern ## EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Easement Agreement (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this ___ day of __________, 2026, by Snell Real Estate, L.L.C., a Minnesota Limited Liability Company (the “Company”) as both Grantor and Grantee hereunder. ## RECITALS A. WHEREAS, The Company is the owner of certain real property located in the City of Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minnesota, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Snell Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof (hereinafter referred to as "Snell 1”); and B. WHEREAS, The Company is also the owner of certain real property located in the City of Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minnesota, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Snell Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof (hereinafter referred to as "Snell 2”); and C. WHEREAS, The Company, acting as both grantor and grantee under this Easement Agreement, desires to establish mutual easements for access purposes over and across portions of the respective parcels, such that each parcel benefits from access rights across the other, for the beneficial use of both Snell 1 and Snell 2 parcels. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the Company agrees as follows: 1. Grant of Easement. The Company, hereby establishes for itself, its successors, and assigns, for their use, and use by their respective agents, employees, tenants, contractors, customers and invitees (“Permittees”), mutual and respective perpetual, non-exclusive easements for access purposes over and across the following described portions of Snell 1 and Snell 2 (the "Easement Area"): 4902-2795-1522, v. 1 a. Legal Description of Easement Area: All that part of Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, Snell Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, City of Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence South 27 degrees 51 minutes 56 seconds East (assumed bearing) on the east line of said Lot 2, a distance of 15.01 feet; thence South 59 degrees 53 minutes 19 seconds West, 88.39 feet; thence South 89 degrees 36 minutes 08 seconds West, 214.70 feet; thence North 00 degrees 23 minutes 52 seconds West, 30.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 36 minutes 08 seconds East, 206.75 feet; thence North 59 degrees 53 minutes 19 seconds East, 81.61 feet to the east line of said Lot 1; thence South 27 degrees 51 minutes 56 seconds East on said east line, 15.01 feet to the point of beginning. 2. Purpose of Easement. The Easement Area shall be used solely for access purposes, including ingress and egress by vehicles, as necessary for the benefit of the Company, its successors, assigns, and permittees. 3. Easement Area Maintenance and Repair. All maintenance, repair, improvements, replacements, and snow plowing to or for the Easement Area shall be completed (or arranged to be completed) by the Company, and successor owners of Snell 1. The Company, and successor owners of Snell 1, shall keep and maintain the Easement Area in good operating condition, and in a good state of repair, and in a manner that will ensure the provision of safe access for all Users and emergency vehicles. All maintenance, repair, replacements, and improvements of the Easement Area shall be performed in accordance with the standards set forth in applicable local ordinances, any other applicable statutes and laws, and generally accepted maintenance practices. The maintenance and repair obligations shall include but not be limited to the following: (a) Driving Surface. Maintaining the asphalt surface in a smooth and evenly covered condition, including without limitation, replacement of base, resurfacing, and seal coating; (b) Debris and Snow. Periodic removal of all debris, refuse, ice and snow, to the extent necessary to keep the Easement Area in good, clean and safe condition; and (c) Damage or Destruction. If the Easement Area is damaged or destroyed by any cause whatsoever, whether insured or uninsured, the Company, and successor owners of Snell 1, shall repair or restore the Easement Area with all due diligence. 4. Sharing of Maintenance and Repair Costs. All costs and expenses incurred by the Company, and successor owners of Snell 1, in performing its duties under Section 2 shall be allocated by the Company, and successor owners of Snell 1, and borne by Snell 1, with Snell 2 contributing its apportioned share. 4902-2795-1522, v. 1 5. Non-Interference. Use of the Easement Area by owner of Snell 1 or owner of Snell 2 shall not unreasonably interfere with use of the Easement Area by the other owner for access purposes. 6. Binding Effect and Covenants Running with the Land. This Agreement and the easements granted herein shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Company and its successors and assigns. 7. Merger Not Intended. Common ownership of any part of the subject parcels shall not cause this Agreement to be extinguished by operation of merger. 8. No Public Dedication. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to be a gift or dedication of any portion of the Easement Area to the general public, or for any public use or purpose whatsoever. No rights, privileges or immunities of any Party hereto shall inure to the benefit of any third-party person, nor shall any third-party person be deemed to be a beneficiary of any of the provisions contained herein. 9. Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder for Blue Earth County, Minnesota. 10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 11. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable, the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, but each remaining term and provision shall be valid and enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 12. Amendment or Modification. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement, any of the rights and easements created hereby may be terminated or amended only by a written instrument and duly executed by the Company its successors, or assigns. 13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the Company with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, representations, or understandings, whether written or oral. [Signature Pages to Follow] 4902-2795-1522, v. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Agreement to be made of as of the day and year first above written. ## GRANTOR AND GRANTEE: Snell Real Estate, L.L.C. By: ___________________________ Name: ________________________ Title: _________________________ ## ACKNOWLEDGMENT ## STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. ## COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of_______, 2026, by ______________ of Snell Real Estate, L.L.C., a limited liability company under the laws of Minnesota. ____________________________________ ## Notary Public ## THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: ## Kimberly A. Literovich ## Blethen Berens ## 100 Warren Street, Suite 400 ## Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 345-1166 ## Planning Commission Regular Meeting 5. 2. ## Meeting Date:05/27/2026 ## Title ## CY23-26 Request of Cherry Creek, Inc, on behalf of the owner, Scott and Charlie Trautman, for a conditional use permit to allow for a modification to the approved subdivision grading plan that will allow the construction of a patio home on a lot that was graded for a walkout basement, requiring fill in excess of 25 cubic yards to be moved into the property. The subject property is described as Lot 3, Block 1, Miller Creek 1st Addition, Mankato (112 Butler Falls Road). The anticipated date of City Council action will be June 8, 2026. ## Applicant The applicant is Cherry Creek, Inc., on behalf of the property owner, Scott and Charlie Trautman. ## Request The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow for a modification to the approved subdivision grading plan that will allow the construction of a patio home on a lot that was graded for a walkout basement, requiring fill in excess of 25 cubic yards to be moved into the property. ## Location The subject property is described as Lot 3, Block 1, Miller Creek 1st Addition, Mankato (112 Butler Falls Road). ## Existing Land Use The property is the location of an existing undeveloped residential lot. ## Zoning The property is zoned R-1, One-Family Dwelling District. ## Environmentally Sensitive Areas The site includes environmentally sensitive areas, including slopes/bluffs as well as a wetland, creek/freshwater pond that traverses the western portion of the subject lot. The applicant provided Survey & Site Plan depicts the Bluff Line and 10' bluff setback. Provided plans do not depict the wetland boundary or 16.5' wetland boundary setback. ## Public Utilities Public utilities are available to the subject property from Butler Falls Rd with private connections to the lot. A stormwater main & outlet with riprap is present along the southern property boundary that drains the surface water of the surrounding area into the adjacent creek. ## City Code Mankato City Code Chapter 10, Article II, Division 3, relating to R-1, One-Family Dwelling District standards can be found at this link: https://library.municode.com/mn/mankato/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH10LAUSDE_ARTIIREDI_DIV3OMIDWDI Mankato City Code Chapter 10, Article X, Division 2, Sec. 10-1499 related to Environmentally sensitive areas - slopes can be found here: https://library.municode.com/mn/mankato/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH10LAUSDE_ARTXSTGEAP_DIV2SPPRAPSPPECOUS_S10-1499ENSEARLO Mankato City Code Chapter 10, Article XI, Division 3, relating to Conditional Use Permits can be found at this link: https://library.municode.com/mn/mankato/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH10LAUSDE_ARTXIADEN_DIV3COUSPE Mankato City Code Section 10-1498. relating to Substantial Land Alteration can be found at this link: https://library.municode.com/mn/mankato/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH10LAUSDE_ARTXSTGEAP_DIV2SPPRAPSPPECOUS_S10-1498SULAAL ## Site Plan Review Comments The Site Plan and Traffic Committee reviewed the request at their May 12th, 2026 meeting and the following comments were provided. The applicant subsequently replied, as shown in the italics: The applicant shall provide a plan showing existing and proposed vegetation and ground cover, per Mankato City Code Sec. 10-1498. c. 7. Applicant: "See Attachments A-1, A-2 & A-3 of photos and renderings showing existing ground cover and the proposed site development.” a. All proposed work shall remain a minimum of 16.5’ from the previously delineated wetlands. No work shall occur within the required wetland buffer. The required site plan shall clearly indicate the delineated wetland and demonstrate that the proposed Page 2 improvements meet the required wetland setback requirements. Applicant: "See comments and supporting documents from Nate Myhre of Bolton & Menk (Attachments B-1 & B-2)" b. The applicant shall install permanent code-compliant wetland signage along the wetland setback boundary prior to any work occurring on site. Applicant: "So noted and will install signage prior to construction beginning." c. For the duration of any construction activities on site, the bluff shall be physically represented on the property to ensure no impacts occur to the bluff area. Applicant: "Bluff Line is already staked (See Attachment “E” Photo of existing staking)” d. The applicant shall be aware that maintenance of the property located between the retaining wall and adjacent lot will fully be the responsibility of the property owners. Applicant: "So noted and contractor will communicate this responsibility to the property owners." e. It is the expectation of City Staff that the applicant continues to work with City of Mankato Engineering/Construction Services Staff to ensure the proposed development plans achieve the goals of the applicant within the bounds of the Mankato City Code. Applicant: "It is fully the intent of Cherry Creek to continue to work with the City of Mankato Engineering / Construction Services Staff to ensure the proposed developments are adhered to followed." f. The applicant shall obtain written approval from the adjacent property owners if encroachments are necessary for the construction and installation of any of the proposed work. Applicant: "Submitted (See attachment “C”)" g. If not already done, the applicant shall log into the online portal and make notification payment. Applicant: "Completed"h. Applicant shall provide a geotechnical report/memorandum signed by a Professional Engineer that provides recommendation for placement, compaction and stabilization of the proposed fill material. Applicant: "See attachment “D” that was provided with the original submittal documents signed by licensed engineer Mr. Chris Arlandson, specific the use of Superior Walls Foundation. It should be noted that additional recommendations have been requested from Mr. Phillip Bailey of Braun Intertec. They will be forthcoming after a soil boring request has been performed and analyzed. The results of which will be submitted to the city engineer when they become available." i. Erosion control and turf establishment plan shall be provided with building permit application. Applicant: "Acknowledged"j. Proposed grading contours extend into 30’ Drainage and Utility easement on the south side of the property; please clarify if that is indeed the case and if existing drainage pipe, apron, and rip rap area are going to be modified. Provide clarification on plan sheets included with building permit application. Applicant: "See Comments from Mr. Nate Myhre k. of Bolton & Menk (Attachment B-1)". Bolton & Menk Response: "The drainage pipe. concrete apron, and rip rap were installed with the improvements of the development of Miller Creek. These improvements are located within the drainage and utility easements. No changes or modifications are being planned in the area of the easement and the existing improvements. This plan was reviewed by the City Engineer for compliance." ## Review Cherry Creek, Inc., on behalf of the owner, Scott and Charlie Trautman, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a modification to the approved subdivision grading plan that will allow the construction of a patio home on a lot that was graded for a walkout basement, requiring fill in excess of 25 cubic yards to be moved into the property. The subject property is located at 112 Butler Falls Rd and is legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Miller Creek 1st Addition, Mankato, MN 56001. Mankato City Code Section 10-1498. (Substantial land alteration) requires that a Conditional Use Permit be obtained where the excavation, grading, and filling of any land would result in the movement of earth and materials in excess of 25 cubic yards and would significantly change the existing ground contour and existing drainage, or cause flooding or erosion. Per Section 10-1498, Subd b, a conditional use permit would not be required for subdivisions or development projects with an approved grading/drainage plan, which would typically apply to the subject property, as Miller Creek 1st Addition has an approved grading & drainage plan on file with the City. But the approved grading & drainage plans on file with the City differs from the proposed scope of work, as the approved plans state that the subject property was designed for a walk-out or look-out structure only. As the applicant proposes to construct a slab-on-grade single-family home, substantial modifications to the ground contour/grading of the lot would be required for the proposed home style. Additionally, these grading alterations would notably alter the drainage condition of the lot and differ from the proposed drainage condition depicted in the approved Miller Creek 1st Addition drainage plan. Because of these circumstances, the conditional use permit requirement is requested to allow for construction of the proposed single-family dwelling in the manner desired by the applicant. The subject property is currently a vacant residential lot with a stormwater main with riprap. The applicant intends to develop a single-family dwelling on the subject property and has provided plans with that intent in mind. The applicant provided Site & Grading Plan shows significant alteration to the existing ground contours, which the applicant intends to accomplish by bringing a substantial amount of fill. The proposed grading changes will notably impact the existing site drainage. The proposed drainage (indicated as standalone arrows on the plan), shows that the proposed development will drain the eastern portion of the property to Butler Falls Road, and the central and western portions of the property to the Drainage & Utility Easement areas along the south & west property boundaries. The proposed concept plan & exterior rendering shows a proposed 2,214.3 Sq. Ft. slab-on-grade single-family home with a 669.8 Sq. Ft. attached garage, front stoop, and elevated rear yard deck. Additionally, a two-tiered retaining wall is shown along the north-west dwelling boundary with steps. This retaining wall is proposed in order to ensure that the proposed site drainage remains onsite and does not impact adjacent residential lots. Note that maintenance of the subject property located between the retaining wall and adjacent lot will fully be the responsibility of the property owners. The applicant has provided written permission from the property owner of the adjacent property to allow Cherry Creek, Inc. and its subcontractors, temporary access through adjacent lots in order to complete the proposed onsite development. Of note, the site includes environmentally sensitive areas, including slopes/bluffs as well as a wetland (a creek/freshwater pond) that traverses the western portion of the subject lot. The applicant provided Survey & Site Plan depicts the Bluff Line and 10' bluff setback and shows that the proposed plan conforms with this setback. During construction of proposed site improvements, the bluff shall be physically represented on the subject property to ensure no impacts to the bluff area shall occur as a result of the proposed project. Provided plans depict the estimated wetland boundary of the creek along the western extent of the subject property. A 16.5' wetland boundary buffer/setback must be maintained from the edge of the wetland boundary; within said buffer area, no work shall occur to prevent any impact to said wetland. Because of the presence of the wetland, the applicant shall be required to install code-compliant wetland signage along the wetland boundary prior to work occurring on site. This shall be done to ensure that no impacts occur on the adjacent wetland. The applicant has provided a narrative, stating that they acknowledge that the property was developed to accommodate the construction of a walk-out basement unit, and that, however, the property owners desire to build a slab-on-grade patio home instead. The applicant states that they understand this proposal will require more fill than allowed through building permit approval. The narrative states that the grading plan developed by Bolton & Menk shows the proposed water flow indicators showing that all rainfall will remain on the existing property and no tree removal or grading to be done in the bluff area. The applicant also notes that the content of the exterior rendering, specifically the plantings and retaining walls, are conceptual at this point, as no specific selections of materials or plants have been made by the owners. The applicant has actively been working with staff over the previous months. It is the expectation of staff that the applicant continues to interact with City Staff to ensure the proposed development plans achieve the goals of the applicant within the bounds of the Mankato City Code. ## Findings Staff respectfully submits the following findings of fact for the Conditional Use Permit: Mankato City Code Section 10-1498. (substantial land alteration) requires that a Conditional Use Permit be obtained where the excavation, grading, and filling of any land would result in the movement of earth and materials in excess of 25 cubic yards and would significantly change the existing ground contour and existing drainage, or cause flooding or erosion. The proposed development results in the filling of land beyond 25 cubic yards and significantly alters the existing ground contours of the site. 1. The request is in keeping with the comprehensive planning policies of the City, as the proposed use, a single-family residential dwelling, is not contemplated to change and is in keeping with the low-density residential use, as designated in the City of Mankato’s Zoning Map and Land Use Plan. 2. The proposal does not interfere with or diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity.   3. The primary structure will be served by public facilities and services. 4. The proposal does not cause undue traffic congestion as no changes are proposed to the density of the property or the public street system. 5. There are no known historical or architectural resources on the site. 6. The site contains bluff and wetland areas as natural or environmental features on the site. With the recommended conditions, it is intended that impacts to these areas will be avoided and minimized. 7. It will not cause a negative cumulative effect and effect on the City as a whole. 8. 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. 9. The proposal will not jeopardize the public's health, safety, or general welfare.10. The applicant has provided a signed approval form from the adjacent property owner, Richard Wethe, to allow Cherry Creek Inc. and other employed subcontractors, access through the adjacent residential lots during construction of the home. 11. The applicant has made a request to Braun Intertec to provide additional geotechnical report information. The results of their geotechnical analysis will be provided to the City Engineer once completed. 12. ## Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit with the following conditions: The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any work occurring on site. 1. The applicant shall install permanent code-compliant wetland signage along the wetland setback boundary prior to any work occurring on site. Applicant shall coordinate with City Staff to ensure signage installation compliance. 2. All proposed work shall remain a minimum of 16.5’ from the previously delineated wetlands. No work shall occur within the required wetland buffer. 3. For the duration of any construction activities on site, the bluff shall be physically represented on the property to ensure no impacts occur to the bluff or bluff setback area. 4. Maintenance of the property located between the retaining wall and adjacent lot will fully be the responsibility of the owners of the subject property.5. An erosion control and turf establishment plan shall be provided with building permit application.6. The applicant shall continue to work with City of Mankato Engineering/Construction Services Staff to ensure code compliance throughout the entirety of the development process. 7. ## Attachments ## General Location Map ## Aerial ## Site Plan & Grading Plan ## Survey with Plans ## Exterior Rendering - Rear Yard ## Exterior Rendering - Overhead ## Narrative ## Photos of Rear Yard ## Backfill Narrative ## Permission to Enter Adjacent Property ## Site Plan Comments Responses This inf or ma ti o n is to be us ed f o r re fe re nce purpo se s o nly . The City o f Ma nka to do es no t gua rante e ac cura cy o f the ma ter ia l c o nta ine d he rei n a nd is no t res pons ible f o r mi sus e o r mis inte rpreta tio n. % ## Date: May 2026 Author : ## General Location Map This inf or ma ti o n is to be us ed f o r re fe re nce purpo se s o nly . The City o f Ma nka to do es no t gua rante e ac cura cy o f the ma ter ia l c o nta ine d he rei n a nd is no t res pons ible f o r mi sus e o r mis inte rpreta tio n. % ## Date: May 2026 Author : ## Aerial Map >> >> >> >> ## CB ## C ## RIP RAP ## BUTLER FALLS ROAD ## 10' BLUFF SETBACK ## BLUFF LINE ## BLUFF LINE ## 25' REAR YARD SETBACK ## 6' SIDE YARD SETBACK ## 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK ## 10' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT ## 30' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT 15.0' 985 990 995 982 983 984 986 987 988 989 991 992 993 994 996 996 996 997 997 990 995 988 989 991 992 993 994 996 996 996 997 997 997 998 998 985 984 986 987 30.0' 6.0' 15.2' 83.7' 990 989 988 ## S 68°54'59" E 171.57 ## N 20°55'38" E 100.00 ## N 68°54'59" W 169.06 ## S 10°06'05" W 49.71 ## N 33°57'54" E 52.52 ## 7:1 SLOPE ## 4:1 SLOPE ## 3:1 SLOPE ## 7:1 SLOPE ## GARAGE ## GARAGE FLOOR ## ELEV.=999.20 ## HOUSE ## MAIN FLOOR ## ELEV.=999.20 ## PROPOSED ## DECK ## PROPOSED ## DRIVEWAY ## 4.5% SLOPE 998.7 998.7 996.2 996.2 998.7 998.7 ## TOP NUT ON THE ## HYDRANT ## ELEV.=998.87 998.7 ## 3.0' HOLD DOWN FROM ## TOP OF FOUNDATION ## **NO GRADING OR TREE CLEARING ALLOWED IN THE BLUFF AREA** 996.7 996.7 ## RETAINING WALL 998.7 998.5 992.0 996.3 ## CREEK (WETLAND) ## CREEK (WETLAND) ## DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT ## 1960 PREMIER DRIVE ## MANKATO, MN 56001 (507) 625-4171 ## R H:\CHERRYCR_PR\25X141594000\CAD\C3D\141594V_SITE_4.dwg 5/19/2026 7:05 AM ## ©Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2026, All Rights Reserved ## JOB NUMBER:FIELD BOOK:DRAWN BY: ## FOR: ## PROPOSED GRADING PLAN ## MANKATO, MINNESOTA ## LOT 3, BLOCK 1, MILLER CREEK 1ST ADDITION ## 112 BUTLER FALLS ROAD ## CHERRY CREEK, INC. 25.141594.000 ## NPM ## R ## SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION _______________________________ ## Michael M. Eichers ## License Number 46564 I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. __________ ## Date 11/26/2025 ## AND OFFSETS AS SHOWN. ## SET AT BUILDING CORNERS ## INDICATES FLAGGED NAILS ## INDICATES DRAINAGE ## DIRECTION. ## MONUMENTS FOUND. ## INDICATES IRON PIPE 1000.00 ## INDICATES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION ## (PROPOSED GRADES ARE BASED FROM THE ## WENCK ASSOCIATES APPROVED GRADING PLAN) ## SCALE IN FEET 02550 ## HOUSE ELEVATION DATA: ## -HOUSE TYPE = SLAB ON GRADE ## -LOT TYPE = WALKOUT/LOOKOUT ## -BASEMENT WALL HEIGHT = NA ## -PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. = 999.20 ## -PROPOSED TOP OF BLOCK ELEV. = 999.20 ## -PROPOSED LOWEST FLOOR ELEV. = 999.20 ## -LOWEST FOUNDATION OPENING ELEV. = 999.20 ## NOTES: ## -DRIVEWAY SLOPE = 4.5% ## TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATA PROVIDED BY ## MADSEN LAND SURVEYING. SURVEY DATA ## COLLECTED ON NOVEMBER 21, 2025. ## REVISED GRADING PLAN May 19, 2026 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SURVEY, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. ## BEN MADSEN, L.S. 50875 DATE: 12-15-2025 ## FOR: GARY RUDOLPH ## FILE NO. 25330 ## SURVEYED BY: K.V. DRAWN BY: K.V. ## COORDINATE SYSTEM: 0 10 20 1" = 20' ## BLUE EARTH COUNTY(2011 ADJ) PAGE: 1 of 1 ___________________ ## MONUMENT FOUND OR SET PREVIOUSLY ## MONUMENT SET, 1/2" X 24 CAPPED REBAR (507) 235-3780 ## 318 EAST BLUE EARTH AVENUEFAIRMONT, MINNESOTA 56031 ## SURVEY OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, MILLER CREEK 1ST ADD., ## CITY OF MANKATO, BLUE EARTH COUNTY, MINNESOTA ## WWW.MADSENLANDSURVEYING.COM ## BOUNDARY LINESECTION/BLOCK LINEROAD RIGHT OF WAY LINE ## FENCE LINE ## SET HUB & TACK ## SET SPIKE AT BUILDING CORNER ## R ## I ## P ## R ## A ## P ## N 6 8 ° 5 4 ' 3 5 " ## W ## N 3 3 ° 5 7 ' 2 8 " ## E ## N 1 0 ° 0 7 ' 1 4 " ## E ## S 6 8 ° 5 4 ' 3 1 " ## E 3 1 . 4 3 1 3 7 . 6 3 ## N 2 0 ° 5 5 ' 3 8 " ## E 1 4 3 . 8 2 2 7 . 7 6 ## N 3 3 ° 5 7 ' 2 8 " ## E ## S 2 0 ° 5 5 ' 3 8 " ## W ## N 2 0 ° 5 5 ' 3 8 " ## E 4 3 . 7 8 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 2 . 5 8 ## S ## U ## R ## V ## E ## Y ## T ## R ## A ## V ## E ## R ## S ## E ## L ## I ## N ## E - - 5 2 . 5 2 - - - - 4 9 . 7 1 - - - - 1 6 9 . 0 6 - - - - 1 7 1 . 5 8 - - ( ## P - 1 6 9 . 0 6 ) ( ## P - 4 3 . 7 8 ) - - 1 0 0 . 0 0 - - 5 6 . 6 7 1 7 . 0 0 2 2 . 0 0 2 9 . 0 0 1 2 . 4 7 4 . 2 9 1 2 . 4 7 2 . 7 1 2 4 . 7 1 8 . 2 3 2 . 5 0 9 . 8 3 2 . 5 0 2 3 . 6 7 5 . 0 0 1 2 . 0 0 4 4 . 0 0 1 0 ' ## U ## T ## I ## L ## I ## T ## Y ## E ## A ## S ## E ## M ## E ## N ## T ## WATER CURB BOX ## F ## L ## A ## T ## C ## U ## R ## B ## F ## L ## A ## T ## C ## U ## R ## B 6 ' 1 5 . 3 3 ' 2 5 ' ## B ## U ## I ## D ## L ## I ## N ## G ## S ## E ## T ## B ## A ## C ## K ## L ## I ## N ## E ## B ## U ## T ## L ## E ## R ## F ## A ## L ## L ## S ## R ## O ## A ## D ## N ## L ## I ## N ## E ## L ## O ## T 3 , ## B ## L ## O ## C ## K 1 ## S ## L ## I ## N ## E ## L ## O ## T 3 , ## B ## L ## O ## C ## K 1 ## B ## L ## O ## C ## K 1 ## W ## L ## I ## N ## E ## L ## O ## T 3 , ## B ## L ## O ## C ## K 1 ( ## P - 1 0 0 . 0 0 ) ( ## P - 1 7 1 . 5 7 ) ( ## P - 5 2 . 5 2 ) ( ## P - 4 9 . 7 1 ) ( ## P - 1 0 0 . 0 0 ) ( ## P - 1 0 0 . 0 0 ) ## PROPOSED ## GARAGE ## 669.8 SQ FT ## FOUND IRON PIPE 6 0 ' 6 0 ' ## E ## A ## S ## T ## E ## R ## L ## Y ## L ## I ## N ## E ## O ## F ## D ## R ## A ## I ## N ## A ## G ## E ## A ## N ## D ## U ## T ## I ## L ## I ## T ## Y ## E ## A ## S ## E ## M ## E ## N ## T ## T ## O ## P ## O ## F ## B ## L ## U ## F ## F ## L ## I ## N ## E ## S ## U ## R ## V ## E ## Y ## T ## R ## A ## V ## E ## R ## S ## E ## L ## I ## N ## E ## SURVEYORS NOTE: THE WESTERLY PART OF THE LOT 3, BLOCK 1, IS AFFECTED ## BY WET LAND, HOWEVER THE ## WET LAND IS NOT DELINEATED WITH ANY DOCUMENTATION. ## FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ## SURVEY THE WET LAND IS NOT SHOWN. THIS NOTE IS TO A ## DVISE ANY PERSON REVIEWING ## THAT THIS LOT IS AFFECTED BY WET LAND, PLEASE INQUIR ## E SAID WET LAND LOCATION FROM ## CITY OF MANKATO ZONING OR GIS/MAPPING. ## P ## A ## T ## I ## O ## S ## T ## O ## O ## P ## H ## E ## A ## D ## W ## A ## L ## L ## LOT 3 ## 16504 SQ FT ## 0.38 ACRES ## 2214.3 SQ FT ## HOUSE ## LOT 2 ## LOT 4 ## WATER CURB BOX ## T-PED ## ELECTRIC STUBS 6 ' ## B ## U ## I ## L ## D ## I ## N ## G ## S ## E ## T ## B ## A ## C ## K ## L ## I ## N ## E 3 0 ' ## B ## U ## I ## L ## D ## I ## N ## G ## S ## E ## T ## B ## A ## C ## K ## L ## I ## N ## E 1 5 ' ## U ## T ## I ## L ## I ## T ## Y ## E ## A ## S ## E ## M ## E ## N ## T ## A ## N ## D ## B ## U ## I ## L ## D ## I ## N ## G ## S ## E ## T ## B ## A ## C ## K ## L ## I ## N ## E 1 5 ' ## U ## T ## I ## L ## I ## T ## Y ## E ## A ## S ## E ## M ## E ## N ## T ## L ## I ## N ## E 1 5 . 3 3 ' 3 0 ' ## P ## R ## O ## P ## O ## S ## E ## D ## D ## R ## I ## V ## E ## W ## A ## Y 3 2 . 1 9 ' ## PROPOSED 1 4 ' 5 8 . 0 6 ' 9 8 5 9 9 0 9 9 5 ## F ## O ## U ## N ## D ## I ## R ## O ## N ## P ## I ## P ## E ## C ## A ## T ## C ## H ## B ## A ## S ## I ## N ## F ## O ## U ## N ## D ## I ## R ## O ## N ## P ## I ## P ## E ## F ## O ## U ## N ## D ## I ## R ## O ## N ## P ## I ## P ## E ## REV 11-05-2025 - ADDED NOTE AND LABLE FOR D&U EASE ## MENT ALONG WESTERLY SURVEY TRAVERSE LINE ## REV 12-15-2025 - UPDATED LAYOUT TO NEW PLANS ## R ## E ## V ## I ## S ## I ## O ## N ## T ## A ## B ## L ## E ## N ## U ## M ## B ## E ## R ## D ## A ## T ## E ## R ## E ## V ## I ## S ## E ## D ## B ## Y ## D ## E ## S ## C ## R ## I ## P ## T ## I ## O ## N ## SHEET: ## SCALE: ## D ## R ## A ## W ## I ## N ## G ## S ## P ## R ## O ## V ## I ## D ## E ## D ## B ## Y : ## DATE: 4/21/2026 ## C h a r l i e & ## S c o t t ## T r a u t m a n 1 1 2 ## B u t l e r ## F a l l s ## R d ## M a n k a t o , ## M ## N ## CHERRY CREEK, INC. 1650 TULLAMORE STREETMANKATO, MN 56001PHONE: (507) 386-1699 ## P r o j e c t ## S i t e : 1 1 2 ## B u t l e r ## F a l l s ## R d ## M a n k a t o , ## M ## N 5 6 0 0 1 ## SCALE: ## 1/8" = 1 FT ## DRAWN BY: ## R ## E ## V ## I ## S ## I ## O ## N ## T ## A ## B ## L ## E ## N ## U ## M ## B ## E ## R ## D ## A ## T ## E ## R ## E ## V ## I ## S ## E ## D ## B ## Y ## D ## E ## S ## C ## R ## I ## P ## T ## I ## O ## N ## SHEET: ## SCALE: ## D ## R ## A ## W ## I ## N ## G ## S ## P ## R ## O ## V ## I ## D ## E ## D ## B ## Y : ## DATE: 5/18/2026 ## C h a r l i e & ## S c o t t ## T r a u t m a n 1 1 2 ## B u t l e r ## F a l l s ## R d ## M a n k a t o , ## M ## N ## CHERRY CREEK, INC. 1650 TULLAMORE STREETMANKATO, MN 56001PHONE: (507) 386-1699 ## P r o j e c t ## S i t e : 1 1 2 ## B u t l e r ## F a l l s ## R d ## M a n k a t o , ## M ## N 5 6 0 0 1 ## SCALE: ## 1/8" = 1 FT ## DRAWN BY: Cherry Creek Inc. ## 1650 Tullamore St, Ste 100 ## Mankato MN April 24, 2026 ## Conditional Use Permit Request This is a request for a conditional use permit required by City Code Section 10-1498. This code states that if the proposed grading results in moving more than 25 cu yds of fill that deviates from the original grading plan submitted and approved. ## Legal Description: ## Address: 112 Butler Falls Rd Lot 3, Block 1, Miller Creek 1st Add., City of Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minnesota Specific Alteration Required and Reason: This property was developed with the intent to accommodate the construction of walk out basement concept home. However, the owners wish to build a slab on grade patio home instead. Although this is a deviation from the original design of this development, it is not unique, in that there are two homes on this same creek bed already built just the street in the cul-de-sac that are also slab on grade patio homes. As was the case with the other homes that are already built, this type of construction will require more fill than is allowed in the code. We have submitted a grading plan developed by Nate Myhra at Bolten & Menk to Cory Bienfang, City of Mankato Engineer, for his approval. Per his last communication with us, we have met all his concerns about proper drainage and grading requirements. We have attached the following documentation to support this request: 1. Map showing existing topography developed by Madsen Surveying a licensed surveyor in the ## State of Minnesota 2. Map showing proposed grading plan developed by Nate Myhra of Bolten & Menk showing all alterations that are proposed and water flow indicators showing that all rainfall will remain on the existing property and no tree removal or grading to be done in the bluff area. 3. 3-D renderings of the proposed home and grading as called for in the proposed grading plan. All plantings and retaining walls are conceptual at this point as no specific selections of materials or plants have been made by the owners. Page 1 ## 1650 Tullamore Street, Suite 100 ## Mankato, MN 56001 507.386.1699 ## CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESPONSE NARRATIVE May 14, 2026 All responses written in red below: Please provide a written plan review response letter, with the comment and your response, along with any required additional submittals no later than Monday, May 18, 2026 by end of day. The responses should be provided to Bennett Hanson, copied here, who will be preparing the staƯ report for this item. CY23-26 Request of Cherry Creek, Inc, on behalf of the owner, Scott and Charlie Trautman, for a conditional use permit to allow for a modification to the approved subdivision grading plan that will allow the construction of a patio home on a lot that was graded for a walkout basement, requiring fill in excess of 25 cubic yards to be moved into the property. The subject property is described as Lot 3, Block 1, Miller Creek 1st Addition, Mankato (112 Butler Falls Road). a. The applicant shall provide a plan showing existing and proposed vegetation and ground cover, per Mankato City Code Sec. 10-1498. c. 7. See Attachments “A-1, A-2 & A-3 of photos and renderings showing existing ground cover and the proposed site development. b. All proposed work shall remain a minimum of 16.5’ from the previously delineated wetlands. No work shall occur within the required wetland buƯer. The required site plan shall clearly indicate the delineated wetland and demonstrate that the proposed Page 2 improvements meet the required wetland setback requirements. See comments and supporting documents from Nate Myhre of Bolten & Menk (Attachments B-1 & B-2) c. The applicant shall install permanent code-compliant wetland signage along the wetland setback boundary prior to any work occurring on site. So noted and will install signage prior to construction beginning. d. For the duration of any construction activities on site, the bluƯ shall be physically represented on the property to ensure no impacts occur to the bluƯ area. BluƯ Line is already staked (See Attachment “E” Photo of existing staking) e. The applicant shall be aware that maintenance of the property located between the retaining wall and adjacent lot will fully be the responsibility of the property owners. So noted and contractor will communicate this responsibility to the property owners. f. It is the expectation of City StaƯ that the applicant continues to work with City of Mankato Engineering/Construction Services StaƯ to ensure the proposed development plans achieve the goals of the applicant within the bounds of the Mankato City Code. It is fully the intent of Cherry Creek to continue to work with the City of Mankato Engineering /Construction Services StaƯ to ensure the proposed developments are adhered to followed. g. The applicant shall obtain written approval from the adjacent property owners if encroachments are necessary for the construction and installation of any of the proposed work. Submitted (See attachment “C”) h. If not already done, the applicant shall log into the online portal and make notification payment. Completed i. Applicant shall provide a geotechnical report/memorandum signed by a Professional Engineer that provides recommendation for placement, compaction and stabilization of the proposed fill material. See attachment “D” that was provided with the original submittal documents signed by licensed engineer Mr. Chris Arlandson, specific the use of Superior Walls Foundation. It should be noted that additional recommendations have been requested from Mr. Phillip Bailey of Braun Intertec. They will be forthcoming after a soil boring request has been performed and analyzed. The results of which will be submitted to the city engineer when they become available. j. Erosion control and turf establishment plan shall be provided with building permit application. Acknowledged k. Proposed grading contours extend into 30’ Drainage and Utility easement on the south side of the property; please clarify if that is indeed the case and if existing drainage pipe, apron, and rip rap area are going to be modified. Provide clarification on plan sheets included with building permit application See Comments from Mr. Nate Myhre of Bolten & Menk (Attachment B-1) Planning Commission Regular Meeting5. 3. ## Meeting Date:05/27/2026 ## Title ## CY24-26 Request of Bolton and Menk, on behalf of the owner, Old Town Riverfront Properties, LLC., for preliminary and final plat review of Eastwood Energy Center No. 7. The subject properties are described as Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 175, (Blue Earth County PID R010903400026). The anticipated date of City Council action will be June 8, 2026. ## Applicant The applicant is Bolton and Menk, on behalf of the owner, Old Town Riverfront Properties, LLC. ## Request The applicant is seeking the preliminary and final plat review of Eastwood Energy Center No. 7. The proposed plat creates a one block subdivision with three new lots, where one large lot is presently located. Lot 1 is 8 acres; Lot 2 is 4.40 acres and Lot 3 is 6.0 acres. ## Location The property is currently addressed as 1751 Energy Rd. ## Existing Land Use The land is currently vacant. ## Zoning The property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial District. ## Environmentally Sensitive Areas The Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map indicates that there are no known environmental conditions on the property. Blue Earth Pond South is located to the east of the subject property. ## Public Utilities City services have been extended to the site via connections to Energy Drive. Records show that there are only two sets of sewer and water services to the subject property. The applicant will need to connect for the third identified property. ## City Code The City Code pertaining to the M-1, Light Industrial District may be viewed at the link below: https://library.municode.com/mn/mankato/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH10LAUSDE_ARTVIIINDI_DIV3LIINDI ## Site Plan Review Comments The Site Plan and Traffic Review Committee met on May 12, 2026, and submitted the following comments: The applicant shall be aware that the address will be as follows: ## Lot 1: 1731 Energy Drive 1. Lot 2: 1751 Energy Drive (existing address) 2. ## Lot 3: 1761 Energy Drive 3. a. If not already done, the applicant shall log into the online portal and make notification payment. b. The applicant shall provide a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) as part of future Site Plan submittal. The applicant shall coordinate with the City Engineer the scope of the TIS based on combined estimated trip generation for the proposed land uses. c. The applicant shall provide a detailed drainage report for the development as part of future Site Plan submittal. This report may include, but not limited to, impervious coverage calculations, water quality volume required and provided, rate control for pre-and-post construction, etc. This is consistent with City Codes and Grading Manual requirements. d. The applicant shall be aware this falls under the Common Plan of Development rules and regulations for stormwater. e. The applicant shall provide a replacement plan for the existing stormwater BMP on the southeast corner of concept lot 3. What is currently provided must be replaced. f. The applicant is aware of the existing stormwater basin to the east of the subject parcels and understands that the basin can support the project to pre-2005 rainfall and design standards. If the applicant chooses to utilize or claim some stormwater compliance to be achieved through the existing pond, compensatory storage and treatment will need to be provided on subject properties to retain and treat differential runoff between 2005 and development year standards. In lieu of this requirement, g. properties to retain and treat differential runoff between 2005 and development year standards. In lieu of this requirement, the applicant may choose to provide all site stormwater treatment onsite. The applicant shall be aware that City records appear to show only two sets of sewer and water services to the subject property. h. The plat shall reflect the wetlands that have been investigated on the site. Alternately, the applicant shall provide the NOD demonstrating that no wetlands were found on the subject site. i. The applicant shall provide an easement or other documentation for the stormwater pond area and the shared access drives for the subject property. j. ## Review The applicant, Bolton and Menk, is seeking the preliminary and final plat review of Eastwood Energy Center Number 4. The parcel was previously registered as a land survey in 2023 and at the time identified parcel lines and setbacks. The proposed plat creates a one-block subdivision with three new lots, currently reflected as 1 lot on the registered land survey. Lot 1 is 8 acres; Lot 2 is 4.40 acres and Lot 3 is 6.0 acres. The developer wishes to create a three-lot plat to create new building sites for two identified future tenants that meet the zoning requirements for use. Blue Earth County Pond South is located to the east of the development. Stormwater will need to be handled on site for each building constructed. The concept plans do reflect ponding for both identified tenant build-outs. The applicant will be required to submit a traffic study at time of permitting. ## Findings Staff submits the following findings: ## General Requirements: The site is designed in conformance with the location and width of streets, the general drainage location, lot sizes and arrangement.1. A drainage study is being prepared and will be submitted to verify compliance with the City drainage requirements2. The site will need to conform to the Common Plan of Development rules and regulations for stormwater. Applicant shall continue working with the City Engineer on design and requirements. 3. The uses identified conform to the zoning types of the parcels. 4. ## Streets: The street right-of-way widths conform to the standards listed in Chapter 10 of the Mankato City Code.1. The proposed subdivision does not contain any new public streets. 2. ## Easements: The proposed preliminary plat provides the standard easements required in Chapter 10 of the Mankato City Code.1. ## Block Standards: The blocks within the subdivision were designed for the intended end use as industrial lots. 1. ## Lot Standards: The lots within the subdivision are intended for industrial development. The lots are designed in conformance with the standards set forth in Chapter 10. 1. The concept plan for the industrial areas conforms to the minimum lot size requirements.2. ## Public Sites and Open Spaces: The applicant is not required to make a park dedication as the property was previously platted.1. ## Recommendation Staff recommends approving the preliminary and final plat with the following conditions: The applicant shall continue working with city staff regarding site design, drainage, and storm water management. 1. The applicant shall submit a traffic impact study for each buildout at the time of building permit. 2. The applicant shall provide an easement for the stormwater pond area and the shared drives for the subject property. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay water and sewer connection fees. 4. The applicant shall submit a plan reflecting that the wetlands have been investigated on the site. Alternately, the applicant shall provide the NOD demonstrating that no wetlands were found on the subject site. 5. ## Attachments ## General Location Map ## Aerial Map ## Preliminary Plat ## Final Plat ## Concept Plan ## Site Plan Response Letter This inf or ma ti o n is to be us ed f o r re fe re nce purpo se s o nly . The City o f Ma nka to do es no t gua rante e ac cura cy o f the ma ter ia l c o nta ine d he rei n a nd is no t res pons ible f o r mi sus e o r mis inte rpreta tio n. % ## Date: May 2026 Author : ## General Location Map This inf or ma ti o n is to be us ed f o r re fe re nce purpo se s o nly . The City o f Ma nka to do es no t gua rante e ac cura cy o f the ma ter ia l c o nta ine d he rei n a nd is no t res pons ible f o r mi sus e o r mis inte rpreta tio n. % ## Date: May 2026 Author : ## Aerial Map ## C D.N.R. SAKATAH SINGING HILLS TRAIL ## L ## ENERGY DRIVE 1 ## 8.00 ACRES 3 ## 6.00 ACRES 2 ## 4.40 ACRES ## BLOCK 1 80.00 80.00 565.00 15.72 236.63 281.00 723.42 809.33 48.77 262.50 78.10 ## L=32.64 ## R=100.00 ## Δ=18°42'07" ## S 70°48'19" W 202.13 ## N 16°28'51" W 517.63 ## N 16°08'33" W 580.72 ## N 73°51'27" E 544.88 ## S 54°31'24" E 207.53 ## S 35°28'36" W 195.00 ## S 54°31'24" E 300.11 ## S 35°33'57" E 389.37 ## S 00°09'37" W 359.06 ## S 89°30'26" W 517.89 ## PERMANENT DRAINAGE ## & UTILITY EASEMENT ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## CLVT ## S ## H ## S ## S ## D ## H ## C ## D ## S ## S ## S ## CO ## CLVT >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ## D ## D >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ## S > > > ## S > > > > > ## S > > > > > ## S > ## S ## S l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ll l ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## BENCH MARK ## TOP NUT HYDRANT ## ELEV.= 1011.16' ## BENCH MARK ## TOP NUT HYDRANT ## ELEV.= 1008.73' ## BENCH MARK ## TOP NUT HYDRANT ## ELEV.= 1011.42' ## BENCH MARK ## TOP NUT HYDRANT ## ELEV.= 1010.56' ## NO ## PARKING ## ENVENTIS ## NO ## PARKING ## NO ## PARKING ## BENCH MARK ## TOP NUT HYDRANT ## ELEV.= 1008.90' ## POWER ATHLETICS ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## BITUMINOUS ## BITUMINOUS ## BITUMINOUS ## EDGE OF WATER ## EDGE OF WATER ## EDGE OF WATER ## EDGE OF WATER ## CHAINLINK FENCE ## CHAINLINK FENCE ## BITUMINOUS ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## ENERGY DRIVE ## BITUMINOUS ## ENERGY DRIVE ## BITUMINOUS ## ENERGY DRIVE ## BITUMINOUS ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## H ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## H ## C ## 1960 Premier Drive ## Mankato, MN 56001 Phone: (507) 625-4171 H:\OLDTOWRP_PR\26X143058000\CAD\C3D\143058_V_PLTF.dwg 4/27/2026 12:11 PM ## ©Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2026, All Rights Reserved ## FOR: ## DRAWN BY:FIELD BOOK:JOB NUMBER: ## PRELIMINARY PLAT ## MANKATO, MINNESOTA ## TRACT B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 175 ## OLD TOWN RIVERFRONT PROPERTIES, LLC ## 26X.143058.000 ## NPM ## R ## R ## SCALE IN FEET 0100200 ## EASTWOOD ENERGY CENTER NO. 7 ## (MINNESOTA COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM - ## BLUE EARTH COUNTY ZONE - HARN NAD83 - 1996) ## BASIS OF BEARINGS ## LOT LINES ## RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ## BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING ## LOT LINES AND BEING 10 FEET IN ## WIDTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY ## LINES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ## ON THE PLAT. 5' 5' 10' ## LINES ## EASEMENT ## & UTILITY ## DRAINAGE ## (SHOWN AS PER THE PLAT OF CIRCLE ## SEVEN SUBDIVISION.) ## SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION _____________________________________ ## Michael M. Eichers ## License Number 46564 I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ________________ ## Date 04/27/2026 ## UTILITY & SITE DATA All Zoning, Setback, and Flood Zone information was obtained from the City of Mankato Code. For detailed zoning information and specific interpretation of code requirements, contact the City of Mankato. ## ZONING: ## Subject property - M-1, Light Industrial District ## SETBACKS: ## Front Main and Accessory Building 30 feet ## Parking or Storage Areas15 feet ## Side Main and Accessory Buildings 15 feet Parking or Storage Areas 6 feet ## Rear Main and Accessory Building None ## Parking AreasNone Lot Area = 7,000 sq.ft. Lot Width (minimum) = 100 feet Max. Ground Coverage by all Structures = 75% ## C D.N.R. SAKATAH SINGING HILLS TRAIL ## L ## ENERGY DRIVE 1 ## 8.00 ACRES 3 ## 6.00 ACRES 2 ## 4.40 ACRES ## BLOCK 1 80.00 80.00 565.00 15.72 236.63 281.00 723.42 809.33 48.77 262.50 78.10 ## L=32.64 ## R=100.00 ## Δ=18°42'07" ## S 70°48'19" W 202.13 ## N 16°28'51" W 517.63 ## N 16°08'33" W 580.72 ## N 73°51'27" E 544.88 ## S 54°31'24" E 207.53 ## S 35°28'36" W 195.00 ## S 54°31'24" E 300.11 ## S 35°33'57" E 389.37 ## S 00°09'37" W 359.06 ## S 89°30'26" W 517.89 ## PERMANENT DRAINAGE ## & UTILITY EASEMENT ## FIELD BOOK:JOB NUMBER:DRAWN BY: ## BOLTON & MENK, INC. ## THIS PLAT PREPARED BY ## OFFICIAL PLAT COPY ## EASTWOOD ENERGY CENTER NO. 7 ## 26X.143058.000 ## R ## SCALE IN FEET 0100200 H:\OLDTOWRP_PR\26X143058000\CAD\C3D\143058_V_PLTF.dwg 4/27/2026 12:15 PM ## LEGEND ## CENTRAL ANGLE ## RADIUS LENGTH ## ARC DISTANCE ## INDICATES ## INDICATES ## INDICATES ## Δ=90°00'00" ## R=100.00' ## L=100.00' ## CHORD LENGTHINDICATESC=100.00' ## CHORD BEARINGINDICATESCB=N 90°00'00"E ## BASIS OF BEARINGS ## (AS PER THE FINAL PLAT OF REGISTERED ## POINT OF CURVATUREINDICATESPC ## POINT OF TANGENCYINDICATESPT ## LAND SURVEY NO. 175) ## POINT OF REVERSE CURVEINDICATESPRC ## PENDING FINAL REVIEW ## FINAL PLAT ## LEGEND ## 3/4" IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET ## MARKED BY LIC. NO. 46564 ## MONUMENT FOUND ## Horizontal Datum: HARN 1996 County Coordinate System ## LOT LINES ## RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ## BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING ## LOT LINES AND BEING 10 FEET IN ## WIDTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY ## LINES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ## ON THE PLAT. 5' 5' 10' ## LINES ## EASEMENT ## & UTILITY ## DRAINAGE ## INSTRUMENT OF DEDICATION KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT: Old Town Riverfront Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, owner of the following described property: Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 175, according to the plat thereof on file and of record with the Blue Earth County Registrar of Titles. Containing ??? acres. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as EASTWOOD ENERGY CENTER NO. 7 and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use the drainage and utility easements as created by this plat. In witness whereof said Old Town Riverfront Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this _______ day of ____________________ , 2026. ## Old Town Riverfront Properties, LLC _____________________________________ By: Ryan Evenson, Manager. ## NOTARY CERTIFICATES ## State of Minnesota ## County of Blue Earth The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ____________ , 2026 by Ryan Evenson, Manager of Old Town Riverfront Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company. _____________________________________ _________________________ , Notary Public ## Notary Public-Minnesota ## My Commission Expires __________________ ## SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, Michael M. Eichers, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this ________ day of _________________ , 2026. _____________________________________ ## Michael M. Eichers, Licensed Land Surveyor ## Minnesota License No. 46564 ## State of Minnesota ## County of Blue Earth The foregoing Surveyor's Certificate was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________________ , 2026, by Michael M. Eichers, a Licensed Land Surveyor. _____________________________________ ## Nathan P Myhra, Notary Public ## Notary Public-Minnesota ## My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2028 ## APPROVALS Be it known that on this the ____ day of __________ , 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Mankato did duly review this plat of ## EASTWOOD ENERGY CENTER NO. 7. __________________________ _____________________________________ Chair person: Secretary: Be it known that on this the ____ day of ___________ , 2026, the City Council of the City of Mankato did duly approve this plat of EASTWOOD ## ENERGY CENTER NO. 7. __________________________ _____________________________________ Mayor: Clerk: ## TITLE OPINION I, _________________________ , Licensed Attorney, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that the owner as indicated hereon represents all ownership interest in the land encompassed by this plat. _____________________________________ ___________________ , Licensed Attorney ## TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT I hereby certify that there are no delinquent taxes and/or delinquent special assessments, that the current taxes have been paid and that the transfer has been entered on the land described herein on the _____ day of __________________ , 2026. _____________________________________ ## Taxpayer Services Director ## REGISTRAR OF TITLES I hereby certify that this instrument was filed in my office for record on this, the ____ day of _______________ , 2026, at ___o'clock, _.m., and that it was duly recorded on __________ Plats, Number ___________. _____________________________________ ## Registrar of Titles (04-27-2026) ## C D.N.R. SAKATAH SINGING HILLS TRAIL ## L ## ENERGY DRIVE 1 ## 8.00 ACRES 3 ## 6.00 ACRES 2 ## 4.40 ACRES ## BLOCK 1 80.00 80.00 565.00 15.72 236.63 281.00 723.42 809.33 48.77 262.50 78.10 ## L=32.64 ## R=100.00 ## Δ=18°42'07" ## S 70°48'19" W 202.13 ## N 16°28'51" W 517.63 ## N 16°08'33" W 580.72 ## N 73°51'27" E 544.88 ## S 54°31'24" E 207.53 ## S 35°28'36" W 195.00 ## S 54°31'24" E 300.11 ## S 35°33'57" E 389.37 ## S 00°09'37" W 359.06 ## S 89°30'26" W 517.89 ## PERMANENT DRAINAGE ## & UTILITY EASEMENT ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## CLVT ## S ## H ## S ## S ## D ## H ## C ## D ## S ## S ## S ## CO ## CLVT >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ## D ## D >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ## S > > > ## S > > > > > ## S > > > > > ## S > ## S ## S l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ll l ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## E ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## BENCH MARK ## TOP NUT HYDRANT ## ELEV.= 1011.16' ## BENCH MARK ## TOP NUT HYDRANT ## ELEV.= 1008.73' ## BENCH MARK ## TOP NUT HYDRANT ## ELEV.= 1011.42' ## BENCH MARK ## TOP NUT HYDRANT ## ELEV.= 1010.56' ## NO ## PARKING ## ENVENTIS ## NO ## PARKING ## NO ## PARKING ## BENCH MARK ## TOP NUT HYDRANT ## ELEV.= 1008.90' ## POWER ATHLETICS ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## BITUMINOUS ## BITUMINOUS ## BITUMINOUS ## EDGE OF WATER ## EDGE OF WATER ## EDGE OF WATER ## EDGE OF WATER ## CHAINLINK FENCE ## CHAINLINK FENCE ## BITUMINOUS ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## ENERGY DRIVE ## BITUMINOUS ## ENERGY DRIVE ## BITUMINOUS ## ENERGY DRIVE ## BITUMINOUS ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## CONCRETE ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## H ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## H ## C ## ENERGY DRIVE ## PERMANENT DRAINAGE & ## UTILITY EASEMENT ## PROP. PHASE 1 ## BUILDING ## 36,195 SF ## 15' BUILDING SETBACK, TYP. ## 6' PARKING SETBACK, TYP. ## 6' PARKING SETBACK, TYP. ## 15' BUILDING SETBACK, TYP. ## 15' PARKING SETBACK, TYP. ## 30' BUILDING SETBACK, TYP. ## 9', TYP. 44' ## 20', TYP. 240.5' 150.5' 43 46 30' 80' 158.75' 24' 30' 84' ## FUTURE PHASE 2 ## CONSTRUCTION ## 50,000 SF ## WB-67 - Interstate Semi-Trailer ## ENERGY DRIVE 16 15 16 16 15 15 18 ## 6' PARKING SETBACK, TYP. ## 15' BUILDING SETBACK, TYP. ## 15' PARKING SETBACK, TYP. ## 30' BUILDING SETBACK, TYP. 26' 22' 20' 20' 20' 30' 35' 30' ## 5', TYP. ## 9', TYP. ## 20', TYP. 19' 9' 18' 30' 65' 120' 27' ## 6' PARKING SETBACK, TYP. ## 15' BUILDING SETBACK, TYP. 30' 30' ## 24' ADDITIONAL ACCESS ## WB-67 - Interstate Semi-Trailer ## PROPROSED ## BUILDING ## 40,000 SF ## 1960 Premier Drive ## Mankato, MN 56001 Phone: (507) 625-4171 H:\OLDTOWRP_PR\26X143058000\CAD\C3D\143058_V_PLTF.dwg 4/28/2026 11:47 AM ## ©Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2026, All Rights Reserved ## FOR: ## DRAWN BY:FIELD BOOK:JOB NUMBER: ## CONCEPT PLAN ## MANKATO, MINNESOTA ## TRACT B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 175 ## OLD TOWN RIVERFRONT PROPERTIES, LLC ## 26X.143058.000 ## NPM ## R ## R ## SCALE IN FEET 0100200 ## EASTWOOD ENERGY CENTER NO. 7 ## (MINNESOTA COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM - ## BLUE EARTH COUNTY ZONE - HARN NAD83 - 1996) ## BASIS OF BEARINGS ## LOT LINES ## RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ## BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING ## LOT LINES AND BEING 10 FEET IN ## WIDTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY ## LINES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ## ON THE PLAT. 5' 5' 10' ## LINES ## EASEMENT ## & UTILITY ## DRAINAGE ## (SHOWN AS PER THE PLAT OF CIRCLE ## SEVEN SUBDIVISION.) ## SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION _____________________________________ ## Michael M. Eichers ## License Number 46564 I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ________________ ## Date 04/27/2026 ## UTILITY & SITE DATA All Zoning, Setback, and Flood Zone information was obtained from the City of Mankato Code. For detailed zoning information and specific interpretation of code requirements, contact the City of Mankato. ## ZONING: ## Subject property - M-1, Light Industrial District ## SETBACKS: ## Front Main and Accessory Building 30 feet ## Parking or Storage Areas15 feet ## Side Main and Accessory Buildings 15 feet Parking or Storage Areas 6 feet ## Rear Main and Accessory Building None ## Parking AreasNone Lot Area = 7,000 sq.ft. Lot Width (minimum) = 100 feet Max. Ground Coverage by all Structures = 75% 1 ## Mitchell, Brittany ## From:Nate Myhra <Nathan.Myhra@bolton-menk.com> Sent:Monday, May 18, 2026 7:36 AM ## To:Westman, Molly; Mitchell, Brittany ## Subject:FW: Site Plan comments - ZONE-0026-26; ACTION NEEDED This Message has originated outside your organization. ## Good morning Brittany & Molly, I have reviewed the site plan review comments and provide responses for all items listed below. Please see notes in red. Please let me know if you need anything additional. ## Highest Regards, ## Nate M ## Nate Myhra ## Survey Project Manager | Senior Associate Bolton & Menk, Inc. (507) 508-9106 ## From: Westman, Molly <mwestman@mankatomn.gov> ## Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 3:49 PM ## To: Nate Myhra <Nathan.Myhra@bolton-menk.com> ## Cc: Mitchell, Brittany <bmitchell@mankatomn.gov> ## Subject: Site Plan comments - ZONE-0026-26; ACTION NEEDED *** WARNING: This email is from outside the company. Proceed with Caution*** Good day. Your zoning item was reviewed by the internal Site Plan and TraƯic Advisory Committee and the comments are below. Please provide a written response letter, with the each comment below and your response, along with any required additional submittals no later than Monday, May 18, 2026 by end of day. The responses should be provided to Brittany Mitchell, copied here, who will be preparing the staƯ report for this item. Caution: Think Security – This email originated from an external source. Be cautious with any links or attachments. 2 CY24-26 Request of Bolton and Menk, on behalf of the owner, Old Town Riverfront Properties, LLC., for preliminary and final plat review of Eastwood Energy Center No. 7. The subject properties are described as Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 175, (Blue Earth County PID R010903400026). a. The applicant shall be aware that the address will be as follows: - Noted 1. Lot 1: 1731 Energy Drive 2. Lot 2: 1751 Energy Drive (existing address) 3. Lot 3: 1761 Energy Drive b. If not already done, the applicant shall log into the online portal and make notification payment. – Notice Fee’s are paid. c. The applicant shall provide a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) as part of future Site Plan submittal. The applicant shall coordinate with the City Engineer the scope of the TIS based on combined estimated trip generation for the proposed land uses. - Noted d. The applicant shall provide a detailed drainage report for the development as part of future Site Plan submittal. This report may include, but not limited to, impervious coverage calculations, water quality volume required and provided, rate control for pre-and-post construction, etc. This is consistent with ## City Codes and Grading Manual requirements. - Noted e. The applicant shall be aware this falls under the Common Plan of Development rules and regulations for stormwater. - Noted f. The applicant shall provide a replacement plan for the existing stormwater BMP on the southeast corner of concept lot 3. What is currently provided must be replaced. - Noted g. The applicant is aware of the existing stormwater basin to the east of the subject parcels and understands that the basin can support the project to pre-2005 rainfall and design standards. If the applicant chooses to utilize or claim some stormwater compliance to be achieved through the existing pond, compensatory storage and treatment will need to be provided on subject properties to retain and treat differential runoff between 2005 and development year standards. In lieu of this requirement, the applicant may choose to provide all site stormwater treatment onsite. - Noted h. The applicant shall be aware that City records appear to show only two sets of sewer and water services to the subject property. – Noted. Owner will provide civil design with the private site designs for the planned utility connection. i. The plat shall reflect the wetlands that have been investigated on the site. Alternately, the applicant shall provide the NOD demonstrating that no wetlands were found on the subject site. – Noted j. The applicant shall provide an easement or other documentation for the stormwater pond area and the shared access drives for the subject property. - Noted Moving forward with the complete submission of these items, the request will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on Wednesday, May 27 at a meeting starting at 6:00 when a public hearing will be held. The planning commission recommendation will then be forwarded on to the City Council for final action during their meeting on June 8, 2026. ## Sincerely, ## Molly Westman ## Planning Coordinator ## City of Mankato ## 10 Civic Center Plaza ## P.O. Box 3368 ## Mankato, MN 56002-3368 3 Office: (507) 387-8571 Fax: (507) 388-7530 ## Planning Commission Regular Meeting 5. 4. ## Meeting Date:05/27/2026 ## Title ## CY25-26 Request of Brad Bass on behalf of Bridgewater Group, Inc., with permission of the property owner, Tom Yenish, for a conditional use permit to repurpose the Motel 6 structure to allow an assisted living/affordable housing with services facility serving elderly and disabled adults in the B-3, Highway Business District, and for a certificate of design compliance for exterior modifications in the Highway Gateway Overlay District. The subject property is described Lot 4, Block 1, Venstar Subdivision, Mankato (1731 Premier Drive). The anticipated date of City Council action will be June 8, 2026. ## Applicant The applicant is Brad Bass on behalf of Bridgewater Group, Inc., with permission of the property owner, Tom Yenish. ## Request The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow the repurposing of the Motel 6 structure into an assisted living/affordable housing with services facility serving elderly and disabled adults in the B-3, Highway Business District, and a certificate of design compliance to allow exterior modifications in the Highway Gateway Overlay District. ## Location The subject property is located at 1731 Premier Drive and is legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, Venstar Subdivision, Mankato, MN 56001. ## Existing Land Use The property is currently in operation as a 66-unit "Motel 6" hotel. ## Zoning The property is zoned B-3, Highway Business District. ## Environmentally Sensitive Areas There are no known environmentally sensitive areas on the subject property. ## Public Utilities The property is currently served by public utilities. ## City Code The Mankato City Code related to B-3, Highway Business District zoning criteria, can be found in Chapter 10, Article V, Division 8, as linked here: https://library.municode.com/mn/mankato/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH10LAUSDE_ARTVCODI_DIV8HIBUDI The Mankato City Code related to the Highway Gateway Overlay District, criteria can be found in Chapter 10, Division 9, as linked here: https://library.municode.com/mn/mankato/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH10LAUSDE_ARTVCODI_DIV9GTGAOVDI_SDIVHGHIGAOVDI ## Site Plan Review Comments The Site Plan and Traffic Committee reviewed the request at their May 12th, 2026 meeting and the following comments were provided. The applicant subsequently replied, as shown in the italics: Applicant shall provide additional information on the proposed social and recreational spaces. The applicant shall clarify how interior resident social space will be provided; will the dining space be utilized as the primary social activity space? Applicant: Primary interior residential social space will be provided for residents in the Social space/living room provided on the second floor off of the elevator and also the dining space on the first floor. 1. The applicant shall provide additional clarity of the proposed exterior amenities in the form of a concept plan. Applicant: A concept plan has been created to identify amenities provided in the exterior outdoor activity area. Amenities include outdoor seating with tables and chairs under a Gazebo, raised garden plots, an added sidewalk for accessibility, and a patio area. A partial privacy fence will be added for additional aesthetic value. 2. a. The applicant shall clarify resident access to the proposed commercial kitchen. Applicant: Residents have access to food 24/7. Residents will be provided a refrigerator and a Microwave in each living suite. Staff will accommodate any resident needing access to the commercial kitchen. Will residents be able to utilize the space, or will it be strictly limited to professional staff? Applicant: Residents have access to food 24/7. We have staff on 24/7 to assist with these needs and getting residents something, as needed. Residents have the right to access food at any time. This right may be restricted in certain circumstances if necessary for the resident's health and safety and if documented in the resident's service plan. 1. b. The applicant shall clarify the intent of the sidewalk shown along the north boundary of the parking area; will the sidewalk be installed as a part of this project? Applicant: The sidewalk shown on the north boundary has been removed. It WILL NOT be installed as a part of this project. Additional sidewalk areas have been installed to exterior recreational space for increased accessibility. c. The applicant shall clarify the manner in which they intend the proposed future storage & maintenance building to be reviewed. Any proposed future building shall meet Mankato City Code, including the Highway Gateway Overlay Standards. Either the applicant shall provide plans for review at this time, or it shall be removed from the proposed site plan. Applicant: Proposed future storage and maintenance building will meet Mankato City Code, including Highway Gateway Overlay Standards. Applicant will provide plans for review when completed which meet all building and design requirements. Applicant requests that the future storage building be approved as a part of this conditional use permit. d. The proposed exterior “outdoor activity area” privacy fencing shall conform with Mankato City Code. A fence permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any fencing. Applicant: A proposed fence will conform to Mankato City Code. A permit will be obtained prior to installation of the fence. All proposed mechanical equipment will be fully screened from Public ROWs. e. Gazebo shall be installed with a separate building permit and shall conform to Mankato City Code accessory structure standards.   Applicant: A separate building permit will be obtained for Gazebo and Gazebo will conform with Mankato City Code. f. The applicant shall fully screen any existing or proposed mechanical equipment from Public ROWs. Applicant: Applicant shall show proposed exterior smoking area on their proposed plans. g. The applicant shall show proposed exterior smoking area on their proposed plans. Applicant: A designated smoking area has been identified on the north-east corner of building and concept plan. h. If not existing, bicycle parking achieving Mankato City Code standards will be required. Based on the number of off-street automobile spaces, a minimum of four off-street bicycle parking stalls shall be provided on site. Applicant: An off-street (4) bicycle rack has been added to the concept plan on the south-east corner of the building on a concrete pad. i. If the applicant intends to modify the existing exterior lighting, a Photometric Plan and Lighting cut sheets shall be provided that confirm compliance with full-cut, fully shielded fixture requirements and other applicable Mankato City Code standards. Applicant: There will be NO modifications to existing lighting plan j. If any existing landscaping will be modified or removed as part of this project, the applicant shall provide a landscaping plan that demonstrates conformance with Mankato City Code. Applicant: There will be NO modifications to existing Landscaping plan. k. Applicant: There will be NO modifications to existing Landscaping plan. The applicant shall be aware of the proximity to fire station No. 2, where regular siren and truck checks take place as well as the properties proximity to Highway 22. The applicant shall be responsible for addressing any resident noise concerns. Applicant: Applicant will address noise concerns to all residents. l. The applicant shall be aware that no fixed City bus route runs down Premier Drive, but that residents of the property may still remain eligible for the City’s Paratransit / Mobility Bus Service. Applicant: Applicant will continue to assist residents in transportation needs including City’s Paratransit/Mobility Bus service. m. The applicant shall be aware that no outside storage shall be allowed. Applicant: Applicant is aware that no outside storage shall be allowed and that is why applicant has requested that a future storage building be included in this conditional use permit application. n. The applicant shall be aware that all amenity spaces must be completed prior to unit occupancy. Applicant: Applicant is aware. o. The applicant shall provide a snow removal and storage plan. Applicant: A snow removal and storage plan has been added to updated concept plan. p. Note: The proposed site plan only shows 77 off-street parking stalls (rather than 78) due to a drafting error on the north side of the parking lot. Applicant: Applicant has made correction on updated concept plan. q. The applicant shall be aware that the utility account will change from a taxable account to a non-taxable account. Applicant: Applicant IS aware r. The applicant shall be aware that, due to the proposed change in use, a full code review for compliance with all applicable Minnesota Codes will be required. Plans submitted at the time of building permit application shall be signed by a licensed architect. Furthermore, a separate permit for the outbuilding will also be required. Applicant: Applicant IS aware s. The applicant shall consult with the Mankato Post Office regarding how mail delivery will be handled. Applicant: Applicant has added an internal mailbox on updated concept plan for each suite inside the vestibule. The postmaster will be made aware of this change. t. The applicant shall be aware that if the canopy clearance height were to be lowered below 14.6’, public transit will not be able to drive under canopy. Applicant: There will be no modifications to the existing canopy clearance height. u. If not already done, the applicant shall log into the online portal and make notification payment. Applicant: Payment has been submitted online. v. Please add dimensions for parking stall striping and access aisles. The standard plate for parking lot striping requirements is on the City’s website for reference. The standard plate is called “Parking Standards” and the number is 2700A. If parking stalls are shown to be non-compliant with current standards, they shall be updated to conform to code. Applicant: Parking dimensions have been added to the updated concept plan and do comply to conform to code. w. The applicant shall agree to be a willing petitioner for any future sidewalk network improvements along the east side of Premier Drive including, at such time as the sidewalk is constructed, a connection to the building is developed within the site. Applicant: Applicant agrees to be willing partitioner. x. The applicant shall be subject to SAC & WAC fees based on the City of Mankato assessment policy and fee schedule. Applicant: Applicant is aware. y. The applicant shall confirm no revision to the existing sanitary and water service is required. Applicant: There will be NO revision to existing Sanitary and Water service. a`. Additional to the Site Plan Comment Responses, the applicant has provided the following note: "On the second floor we have expanded the existing social space. We have added the gazebo and raised garden plots, bike rack, smoking area, and snow removal plan. The dimensions for the parking were added to the plan in addition to the removal of the sidewalk on the north boundary. We did add additional sidewalk to access gazebo and garden plots. I have provided two (2) concept plans for your review. 1 includes the proposed future storage /maintenance building. 1 does not include future store/maintenance building. I would like the planning commission to be aware of this and potentially approve the storage/maintenance building as a part of this conditional use permit with the understanding that any certified plans must be submitted for review prior to an permits to be granted or approvals. I will let you make the call, otherwise we can come back again once we get a better understanding of how much storage we may need." ## Review The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow an Assisted Living Facility in the B-3, Highway Commercial, zoning district, and a Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior façade changes in the Highway Gateway Overlay District. The applicant is proposing to utilize the current three-story Motel 6 hotel building located at 1731 Premier Drive to provide affordable residential housing with assisted living services on the property. The proposed business is identified as "Bridgewater", which provides assisted living care and similar services within Blue Earth County. Motel 6’s current 66 hotel room units will be modified into approximately 60 affordable housing units (shown as 63-units) to serve disabled adults and the elderly. In order to modify the existing hotel, interior changes to the facility will include the addition of a licensed commercial kitchen and dining facilities to provide meals and eating spaces for residents, as well as a separate 2nd-floor social space. The provided narrative explains that the suites within the building offer a larger living area for residents not found in traditional congregate housing settings, that suites range in size, and that they can be easily adapted to provide for changes needed whilst aging in place. The applicant attests that the physical condition of the property is exceptional, as a less than 10-year-old building. They state, due to this exceptional condition, reuse of the hotel into an assisted living facility would be compatible and highly cost-efficient. The applicant intends to broadly maintain the existing mechanical equipment, air exchange units, elevator, fire alarms and automated sprinkler systems, as well as the flooring, interior paint, fixtures, and furnishings. The applicant explained that they traditionally provide furniture and bedding for their tenants, and that the condition of the existing furnishings would align well with this practice. The applicant has indicated that the facility will be a "Congregate Care Facility" / "Assisted Living Facility". Mankato City Code Section 10-2 defines "Congregate Housing" as: "a residential facility for four or more elderly persons (aged 60 years or older) within which are provided living and sleeping facilities, meal preparation, laundry services, and room cleaning. Such facilities may also provide other services, such as transportation for routine social and medical appointments, and counseling. The term "congregate housing" may also be referred to as an assisted living facility", which appears to apply to the proposed reuse of the subject property. The facility will provide board and lodge, nursing, and activities of daily living within a smoke-free facility. The applicant attests that they intend to provide the following list of services at the proposed assisted living facility: (EW) Elderly Waiver, (CADI) Community Access for Disability Inclusion Waiver, 24-hour care givers, on staff nursing services, 24-hour on call nursing services, pendant call light system, 3 meals and 2 snacks per day, and assistance in activities of daily living (ADL’s), Including but not limited to: ## Dressing, Bathing, Grooming, Toileting, Walking, Transfers, and Mobility Assistance ## Medication Management ## Diabetic Care- Insulin Assistance and Glucose Monitoring ## Basic wound care, CPAP/BIPAP Assistance ## Weight and Vital Checks Safety and Wellness checks as needed ## Dedicated space for: PT/OT/Speech Therapy ## Daily in-house Activities program including Scheduled Community Outings Transportation Management (Note: the applicant may utilize the City's Paratransit/Mobility Bus service) ## Laundry & Housekeeping In order to reuse the existing hotel for Congregate Housing (aka an Assisting Living Facility), the applicant proposes to modify the existing interior spaces to better suit the intended use. On the first/ground floor, the applicant proposes to remodel the shared common spaces and staff spaces. This will involve demolishing the existing restrooms, vending area, and two existing hotel suites in order to construct a commercial kitchen and resident dining space. The proposed 1st floor shows 16 resident suites/units, a unisex bathroom, a commercial kitchen with a walk-in freezer & dry storage, an open dining space, large laundry room, office spaces, a lobby area, and an entry vestibule with a per-suite mailbox area. Resident suites/units are shown to largely remain in their current state, with a singular small living/sleeping space and a full bathroom. No kitchen space will be provided within the units themselves, but each suite will contain personal refrigerators and microwaves. Notably, the applicant states that residents will have 24/7 access to food, as the 24/7 staff will assist with the residents' food needs per the parameters of the residents service plan. Access to the upper floors will continue to be provided with an elevator and two stairwells. The second and third floors are largely similar layouts. The second floor is proposed to contain 22 residential units, as well as a small laundry room and newly designated social space. The existing second floor layout will be modified to remove a suite and an office space, which will be converted into the aforementioned social space. The third floor will primarily remain as, and is proposed to comprise 25 residential suites and a small office space. Exterior modifications include removal of the current Motel 6 marquee and replacement of the current red color of the building with brown. In addition, the applicant intends to provide a partially enclosed outdoor green space on the subject property, which will be designed and built to include privacy fencing, raised garden beds, and a gazebo with tabled seating areas. A separate outdoor designated smoking area will be provided off the north-east corner of the building. The existing property includes a covered front entry / vehicle loading area, perimeter and interior landscaping, a trash enclosure, and a private sidewalk network. The private sidewalk network has an existing connection to the public trail along Highway 22 as well as a private connection to the sidewalk network for the property located to the south (known as "The Paw"). The applicant proposes the addition of a sidewalk along the north side of the existing parking lot to provide access into the private outdoor green space. There are no plans to connect to the public sidewalk network on the western side of Premier Drive and no sidewalk exists along the eastern portion of Premier Drive, within this area. City of Mankato staff noted that mid-block pedestrian crossings create safety concerns, hence why, at this time, CitysStaff do not recommend that a private sidewalk be installed to serve this connection. In the future, if sidewalk network improvements occur along the east side of Premier Drive, the applicant has agreed to be a willing petitioner and to provide a private connection to said sidewalk for residents. The existing onsite parking lot provides 78 off-street parking stalls (including 3 accessible parking stalls; excluding truck parking). The existing truck parking area will be utilized for snow storage until such time that the applicant seeks to construct a maintenance and storage building on that portion of the subject property. Existing landscaping will remain and continue to provide screening for the parking areas. An existing refuse enclosure is located within the property and existing exterior lighting will be retained as is. The existing refuse enclosure is constructed of colored rock-faced CMU & EverGrain composite boards mimicking weathered wood. Additionally, any existing or proposed ground-level mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from public ROWs. For the purposes of calculating off-street parking requirements, the proposed use would continue to be defined as "Congregate Housing", which requires one-half space per dwelling unit. With a proposed unit count of 60, only 30 off-street parking stalls would be required, although the actual 63-unit count would require 32 off-street parking stalls. The existing/proposed 78 off-street stalls (including 3 accessible parking stalls; excluding truck parking), exceed the minimum parking requirement. The existing truck parking area will be utilized for snow storage until such time that the applicant seeks to construct a maintenance and storage building on that portion of the subject property. Bicycle parking achieving Mankato City Code standards will be required. Based on the number of off-street automobile spaces, a minimum of four off-street bicycle parking stalls shall be provided on site. The applicant proposes to install a 4-stall bicycle rack on a concrete pad near the south-east corner of the building, just off the trail connection. The existing Motel 6 monument sign located along Premier Drive is intended to be reused by the proposed facility. Sign permits will be required prior to installation, and all signage must comply with Code standards. The applicant has provided a narrative. Within this narrative, the applicant states that they currently provide 100% waivered services in Blue Earth and Nicollet County. The applicant intends to be licensed through the Minnesota Department of Health as an Assisted Living Facility. They assert that they will only provide permanent housing options and will not provide transitional housing at this property. They also note that all residents and employees must have a background study prior to residency or employment within the organization. ## Certificate of Design Compliance: The subject property is located within the Highway Gateway Overlay District and alterations to the building facades are proposed. Exterior work will be limited to removal of the current Motel 6 marquee and repainting of the current red portions of the building with a neutral brown color. Existing exterior elevations consist primarily of EIFS, and the applicant does not propose any modifications to the exterior finishes at this time. ## Use: The subject property is located within the B-3, Highway Business District. The current use of the property as a hotel is considered a Permitted Use in the B-3 Zoning District, but the proposed Congregate Housing use is not listed as either a permitted or conditional use in the B-3 Zoning District. The applicant has attested that the proposed use is of the same general character as a multifamily development, as the use is similar in manner to other high density residential developments. In the B-3, such residential uses are considered Conditional Uses, but are subject to specific standards, as outlined in Mankato City Code Section 10-659. Mankato City Code allows, with a Conditional Use Permit, for "Other commercial and residential uses determined by the planning agency to be of the same general character as the permitted and conditional uses above and found not to be detrimental to existing uses and to the general public health, safety, and welfare". The applicant has provided the following statement describing how they believe the proposed Assisted Living Facility is of the same general character as a multifamily use in the B-3 Zoning District: "The recent building of Multifamily Housings near the subject property has created a residential hub that is growing rapidly. The increased volume of residential activity in and around the property offers a multifamily environment that our residents can thrive from. The area surrounding the parcel are properties with local business’ providing individual based services. The nearby businesses are focused on personal use and geared towards personal activities such as pet services, personal storage options, shopping, and convenience options such as Kwik Trip. Our residents can directly benefit from the surrounding services offered nearby. Bridgewater will offer a community-based service which will complement the neighborhood for seniors who may need assistance. The property lends itself to provide affordable housing options for individuals needing Assisted Living. Location is close to healthcare, emergency services, transportation services, local shopping and entertainment/restaurants, and multifamily neighborhoods. Location provides good local employment opportunities for health care employees offering both part time and full time (long term care) career opportunities". Note that, if the proposed Congregate Housing use is to be considered to be of the same general character as multifamily (apartment) uses in the B-3, the City of Mankato may determine that the proposed project be subject to the additional standards outlines in Mankato City Code Section 10-659. This proposal seeks consideration for a conditional use permit allowed based on the determination that the proposed use is of the same general character as other conditional uses allowed in the B-3 zoning district. ## Change in Use: Due to the requested change in use, a full code review for compliance with all applicable Minnesota Codes will be required and plans submitted at the time of building permit application shall be signed by a licensed architect. Additionally, the existing utility account will change from a taxable account to a non-taxable account, they will be subject to SAC & WAC fees based on the City assessment policy and fee schedule, the applicant will need to coordinate with the Mankato Post Office for mail delivery services, and existing parking areas will need to be reviewed for code compliance (Including ADA standards) and updated if necessary. ## Letters of Support: The applicant has provided two letters of support for the proposed project from Blue Earth County Staff. These staff include Erika Sletten, Blue Earth County Human Services Supervisor and Lynnsey Standahl, Blue Earth County Adult & Disability Services Supervisor. Both County staff attest that the proposed Assisted Living Facility targeting low income and disabled individuals is greatly needed and that completion of the proposed project would directly benefit the residents of Blue Earth County. In line with these statements, the City of Mankato 2025 Comprehensive Housing Needs Analysis underpins the testament that the proposed facility supports a specific housing needed within the Greater Mankato Area. ## Tentative Future Site Improvements: The applicant noted that in the future they intend to construct a storage and maintenance building to be located in the area of the existing truck parking stalls. The applicant acknowledges the code requirement that no outside storage would be permitted on this property, hence why they intend to construct enclosed storage in the future. The proposed building is only in the preliminary stage at this point in time, so the applicant has worked with City Staff to separate this proposed structure from the current request. If the applicant intends to construct an accessory structure in the future, it shall be reviewed independently for conformance with the B-3 and Highway Gateway Overlay Standards, which require any said structure to be materially complementary to the primary structure. ## Findings Staff respectfully submits the following findings of fact for the Conditional Use Permit and the Certificate of Design Compliance: The proposed use, an Assisted Living Facility (also known as congregate housing), is of similar character to other uses listed in the B-3 district. Apartments, which are also multifamily dwellings in nature, are conditional uses within the B-3 zoning district, and thus this proposal is considered a conditional use. 1. The request is in keeping with the comprehensive planning policies of the City as the underlying land use plan identifies this parcel as "Commercial", and in said land use district, residential uses similar in character to this use are identified in Code as a conditional use. 2. The proposal does not interfere with or diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity. The applicant proposes only minor modifications to the exterior of the structure and the proposed alteration of use type should not fundamentally differ from the existing use. 3. The primary structure will continue to be served by public facilities and services, and no utility service provider changes are proposed with this proposal. 4. The proposal does not cause undue traffic congestion. No changes are proposed to the public street system or private parking/driving areas. The applicant has attested that no significant change with respect to trip generation, site operations and overall traffic impact to the area shall occur with the proposed reuse of the subject property. 5. There are no known historical or architectural resources on the site. 6. There are no known natural or environmental features on the site. 7. It will not cause a negative cumulative effect and effect on the City as a whole.8. The proposal will not jeopardize the public's health, safety, or general welfare. 9. 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. 10. The property is located in the Highway Gateway Overlay District and proposes exterior modifications to the existing structure. 11. The building elevations conform to the guidelines of the Highway Gateway Overlay District. The proposed project presents no modification to the exterior materials of the existing structure, only removal of signage and repainting of some surfaces. Existing exterior finishes include primarily EIFS, glass, and metal. All sides of the building visible to the public will be treated consistently with quality materials and finishes. 12. In the event that any future storage and maintenance building is proposed, it shall be excluded from this CUP / CDC review process and thus shall be independently reviewed for conformance. 13. ## Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Design Compliance with the following conditions: Any proposed future storage & maintenance building shall meet Mankato City Code standards. As the applicant has not provided sufficient review materials prior to Planning Commission review of the request, the originally proposed future storage & maintenance building must be reviewed separately from the current request. 1. Any proposed future storage or maintenance building on site shall conform to the standards of the Highway Gateway Overlay District, including exterior finishes which are complementary to the exterior finishes utilized on the primary structure. 2. The proposed exterior “outdoor activity area” privacy fencing shall conform with Mankato City Code. A fence permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any fencing. 3. The gazebo shall be installed with a separate building permit and shall conform to Mankato City Code accessory structure standards. 4. The applicant shall obtain a sign permit for any desired site signage prior to fabrication and installation.5. The applicant shall fully screen any existing or proposed mechanical equipment from public right-of-ways. 6. Bicycle parking achieving Mankato City Code standards will be required. A minimum of four off-street bicycle parking stalls shall be provided on site. 7. Due to the proposed change in use, a full code review for compliance with all applicable Minnesota Codes will be required. Plans submitted at the time of the building permit application shall be signed by a licensed architect. 8. The applicant shall agree to be a willing petitioner for any future sidewalk network improvements along the east side of Premier Drive. At such time as a sidewalk is constructed, a private sidewalk connection to the building shall be developed within the site. 9. Applicant shall coordinate with City of Mankato Construction Services Staff to determine code conformance of current accessible parking stalls. Any modification deemed necessary to achieve ADA compliant stalls shall be performed prior to unit occupancy. Additionally, any parking area shown to be non-compliant with current Mankato City Code standards, shall be updated to conform to code. 10. If the applicant intends to modify the existing exterior lighting, a Photometric Plan and Lighting cut sheets shall be provided that confirm compliance with full-cut, fully shielded fixture requirements and other applicable Mankato City Code standards. 11. If any existing landscaping will be modified or removed as part of this project, the applicant shall provide a landscaping plan that demonstrates conformance with Mankato City Code. 12. No outside storage shall be allowed on the subject property. 13. All amenity spaces shall be completed prior to unit occupancy.14. The applicant shall be subject to SAC & WAC fees based on the City of Mankato assessment policy and fee schedule. 15. ## Attachments ## General Location Map ## Aerial ## Site Plan ## Floor Plans ## Exterior Rendering ## Narrative ## Letters of Support - BEC ## Site Plan Comments Responses This inf or ma ti o n is to be us ed f o r re fe re nce purpo se s o nly . The City o f Ma nka to do es no t gua rante e ac cura cy o f the ma ter ia l c o nta ine d he rei n a nd is no t res pons ible f o r mi sus e o r mis inte rpreta tio n. % ## Date: May 2026 Author : ## General Location Map This inf or ma ti o n is to be us ed f o r re fe re nce purpo se s o nly . The City o f Ma nka to do es no t gua rante e ac cura cy o f the ma ter ia l c o nta ine d he rei n a nd is no t res pons ible f o r mi sus e o r mis inte rpreta tio n. % ## Date: May 2026 Author : ## Aerial Map ## Bridgewater of Mankato Bridgewater of Mankato is family owned and operated by Brad and Heather Bass. Services have included Adult Foster Care, Adult Day Care Services, Dementia care, Ventilator Care, Independent Housing with Services, Assisted Living services and Senior Cooperative Housing developments throughout MN and WI. Brad and Heather have provided senior services in Blue Earth County for nearly 30 years. ## SUMMARY: We intend on purchasing the Motel 6 located at 1731 Premier Dr Mankato Mn 56001. Our proposal is to expand our current operations in Mankato and repurpose the Motel 6 ‘s current 66 units to approximately 60+ aSordable housing units to serve the elderly and disable adults. Motel 6 is Currently ZONED B-3. We are requesting a conditional use permit to provide aSordable residential housing with services and assisted living services on the property. A licensed commercial kitchen and dining center will be added to provide meals, in addition to an outdoor greenspace on the interior of the property. We are also requesting a Certificate of Design Compliance for the exterior color changes to the building. We will be removing the Motel 6 Marquee and color scheme (RED) to a more neutral residential brown to match neighboring structures and developments. We will re-use the existing monument sign to identify Bridgewater. Bridgewater will provide board & lodge, nursing, and activities of daily living. We currently provide 100% waivered services with an increasingly higher demand in Blue Earth and Nicollet County. We will be licensed through the MN Dept. of Health as an Assisted Living Facility. We oSer permanent housing options, we do not provide transitional housing. All residents and employees must have a background study prior to residency or employment within our organization. Na#onal Criminal Database check, Na#onal Sex Offender Registry, MN BCA (Bureau of Criminal Apprehension), and also a MN State Court check. ## Criminal Check w/MN State Court: ## SSN Trace ## OFAC Watchlist ## National Sex Offender Registry (50 State) ## National Criminal SuperSearch* ## MN BCA Criminal Check ## MN State Court (87 county) ## Criminal Check w/Evictions and MN State Court: ## SSN Trace ## OFAC Watchlist ## National Sex Offender Registry (50 State) ## National Criminal SuperSearch* ## MN BCA Criminal Check ## MN State Court (87 county) ## National Court Evictions ## Services Provided: ## (EW) Elderly Waiver ## (CADI) Community Access for Disability Inclusion Waiver 24 Hour Care givers ## On StaS Nursing Services 24 Hour on call nursing services Pendant call light system 3 meals and 2 snacks per day Assistance in activities of daily living (ADL’s) Including but not limited to: ## Dressing, Bathing, Grooming, Toileting, Walking, Transfers, and Mobility assistance ## Medication Management ## Diabetic Care- Insulin Assistance and Glucose Monitoring ## Basic wound care, CPAP/BIPAP Assistance ## Weight and Vital Checks Safety and Wellness checks as needed ## Dedicated space for: PT/OT/Speech Therapy ## Daily in house Activities program including Scheduled Community Outings ## Transportation Management ## Laundry & Housekeeping ## Smoke Free Facility Condition of the Property The condition of the property is exceptional. The cost per unit to repurpose the existing space vs to build new is 50% less in todays’ building market. Motel 6 is less than 10 yrs old. It is energy eSicient and fully up to code with the highest life safety options – all mechanicals, air exchange units, elevator, fire alarms and automated sprinkler systems are in pristine condition. The interior flooring, paint, fixtures, and furnishings are like new and have been very well maintained. Many elders who we serve do not have good furniture or bedding which we traditionally will provide. The suites within the building oSer a larger living area for residents not found in traditional congregate housing settings. Suites range in sizes and can be easily adaptable to provide for changes needed while aging in place. Outdoor greenspace areas will be designed and built to include privacy fencing, gardens, sitting areas with a Gazebo, and picnic tables. Designated smoking areas will be provided. Why we feel this can meet the B-3 conditional permit use The recent building of Multifamily Housings near the subject property has created a residential hub that is growing rapidly. The increased volume of residential activity in and around the property oSers a multifamily environment that our residents can thrive from. The area surrounding the parcel are properties with local business’ providing individual based services. The nearby business’ are focused on personal use and geared towards personal activities such as pet services, personal storage options, shopping, and convenience options such as Kwik Trip. Our residents can directly benefit from the surrounding services oSered nearby. Bridgewater will oSer a community based service which will complement the neighborhood for seniors who may need assistance. The property lends itself to provide aSordable housing options for individuals needing Assisted living. Location is close to healthcare, emergency services, transportation services, local shopping and entertainment/restaurants, and multifamily neighborhoods. Location provides good local employment opportunities for health care employees oSering both part time and full time (long term care) career opportunities. ## Bridgewater Group Inc ## Site Plan Comments Response: 5/19/2026 a. Applicant shall provide additional information on the proposed social and recreational spaces. 1. The applicant shall clarify how interior resident social space will be provided; will the dining space will be utilized as the primary social activity space? Primary interior residential social space will be provided for residents in the Social space/Living room provided on the second floor off of the elevator and also the Dining space on the first floor. 2. The applicant shall provide additional clarity of the proposed exterior amenities in the form of a concept plan. A concept plan has been created to identify amenities provided in the exterior outdoor activity area. Amenities include outdoor seating with tables and chairs under a Gazebo, raised garden plots, and added sidewalk for accessibility and patio area. A partial privacy fence will be add for additional aesthetic value. b. The applicant shall clarify resident access to the proposed commercial kitchen. Residents have access to food 24/7. Residents will be provided a refrigerator and a Microwave in each living suite. Staff will accommodate any resident needing access to the commercial kitchen. 1. Will resident be able to utilize the space or will it be strictly limited to professional staff? Residents have access to food 24/7. We have staff on 24/7 to assist with these needs and getting residents something, as needed. Residents have the right to access food at any time. This right may be restricted in certain circumstances if necessary for the resident's health and safety and if documented in the resident's service plan. c. The applicant shall clarify the intent of the sidewalk shown along the north boundary of the parking area; will the sidewalk be installed as a part of this project? The sidewalk shown on the north boundary has been removed, it WILL NOT be installed as a part of this project. Additional sidewalk areas have been installed to exterior recreational space for increased accessibility. d. The applicant shall clarify the manner in which they intend the proposed future storage & maintenance building to be reviewed. Any proposed future building shall meet Mankato City Code, including the Highway Gateway Overlay Standards. Either the applicant shall provide plans for review at this time or it shall be removed from the proposed site plan. Proposed future storage and maintenance building will meet Mankato City Code, including Highway Gateway Overlay Standards. Applicant will provide plans for review when completed which meet all building and design requirements Applicant requests that the future storage building be approved as a part of this conditional use permit. e. The proposed exterior “outdoor activity area” privacy fencing shall conform with Mankato City Code. A fence permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any fencing. A proposed fence will conform with All proposed mechanical equipment will be fully screened from Public ROWs. Mankato City Code. A permit will be obtained prior to installation of fence. f. Gazebo shall be installed with a separate building permit and shall conform to Mankato City Code accessory structure standards. A separate building permit will be obtained for Gazebo and Gazebo will conform with Mankato City Code. g. The applicant shall fully screen any existing or proposed mechanical equipment from Public ROWs. Applicant shall show proposed exterior smoking area on their proposed plans. h. The applicant shall show proposed exterior smoking area on their proposed plans. A designated smoking area has been identified on north east corner of building and concept plan. i. If not existing, bicycle parking achieving Mankato City Code standards will be required. Based on the number of off-street automobile spaces, a minimum of four off-street bicycle parking stalls shall be provided on site. An off street (4) bicycle rack has been added to the concept plan on the southeast corner of the building on a concrete pad. j. If the applicant intends to modify the existing exterior lighting, a Photometric Plan and Lighting cut sheets shall be provided that confirm compliance with full-cut, fully shielded fixture requirements and other applicable Mankato City Code standards. There will be NO modifications to existing lighting plan k. If any existing landscaping will be modified or removed as part of this project, the applicant shall provide a landscaping plan that demonstrates conformance with Mankato City Code. There will be NO modifications to existing Landscaping plan. l. The applicant shall be aware of the proximity to fire station No. 2 where regular siren and truck checks take place as well as the properties proximity to Highway 22. The applicant shall be responsible for addressing any resident noise concerns. Applicant will address noise concerns to all residents. m. The applicant shall aware that no fixed City bus route runs down Premier Drive, but that residents of the property may still remain eligible for the City’s Paratransit / Mobility Bus Service. Applicant will continue to assist residents in transportation needs including City’s Paratransit/Mobility Bus service. n. The applicant shall be aware that no outside storage shall be allowed. Applicant is aware that no outside storage shall be allowed and that is why applicant has requested that a future storage building be included in this conditional use permit application. o. The applicant shall be aware that all amenity spaces must be completed prior to unit occupancy. Applicant is aware. p. The applicant shall provide a snow removal and storage plan. A snow removal and storage plan has been added to updated concept plan. q. Note: The proposed site plan only shows 77 off-street parking stalls (rather than 78) due to a drafting error on the north side of the parking lot. Applicant has made correction on updated concept plan. r. The applicant shall be aware that the utility account will change from a taxable account to a non-taxable account. ## Applicant IS aware s. The applicant shall be aware that, due to the proposed change in use, a full code review for compliance with all applicable Minnesota Codes will be required. Plans submitted at the time of building permit application shall be signed by a licensed architect. Furthermore, a separate permit for the outbuilding will also be required. ## Applicant IS aware t. The applicant shall consult with the Mankato Post Office regarding how mail delivery will be handled. Applicant has added an internal mail box on updated concept plan for each suite inside the vestibule. The post master will be made aware of this change. u. The applicant shall be aware that if the canopy clearance height were to be lowered below 14.6’, public transit will not be able to drive under canopy. There will be no modifications to the existing canopy clearance height. v. If not already done, the applicant shall log into the online portal and make notification payment. Payment has been submitted online. w. Please add dimensions for parking stall striping and access aisles. Standard plate for parking lot striping requirements is on the City’s website for reference. The standard plate is called “Parking Standards” and the number is 2700A. If parking stalls are shown to be non-compliant with current standards, they shall be updated to conform to code. Parking dimensions have been added to the updated concept plan and do comply to conform to code. x. The applicant shall agree to be a willing petitioner for any future sidewalk network improvements along the east side of Premier Drive including at such time as the sidewalk is constructed a connection to the building is developed within the site. Applicant agrees to be willing partitioner. y. The applicant shall be subject to SAC & WAC fees based on the City of Mankato assessment policy and fee schedule. Applicant is aware. z. The applicant shall confirm no revision to the existing sanitary and water service is required. There will be NO revision to existing Sanitary and Water service.