Residents urge pause on 84‑unit Campus Cottages PUD; council approves with conditions

An 84‑unit planned unit development called Campus Cottages drew sustained neighborhood opposition at the Mankato City Council meeting on May 11, where residents urged a delay for further traffic and habitat study before council approval.

Residents from Tanager Road and nearby streets told the council the proposed three‑building apartment complex — sited on an 11.66‑acre parcel that staff said includes roughly 4.6 acres of wetland — would create concentrated housing next to single‑family homes. "It is apartment complex of 84 units in 3 buildings. It does not comply with our 2 permitted uses of low to medium density residential developments," said resident Rich Shermock, who asked the council to reject or at least postpone the proposal until a traffic study is completed while the college is in session.

Why it matters: neighbors and speakers argued that calculating density using the site's gross acreage understates the on‑buildable‑land intensity, producing a much higher lived density on the parcels where buildings will be located. "When evaluating on that buildable footprint, the practical intensity is approximately 21 units per acre," neighborhood speaker Brian Macchi told the council and asked staff to weigh practical intensity, not just gross acreage.

Staff response and conditions: Community Development Director Kans told the council the city's code requires density be calculated on net acreage as written and that the applicant used clustering to preserve wetlands rather than impact them. Staff said no building would exceed the R2 district height limit of 35 feet, the developer proposes earth‑tone finishes, and the project includes 138 on‑site parking stalls, bike racks and outdoor amenities. A sidewalk on the Pole Road frontage is included in the approval and staff committed to a neighborhood traffic analysis that will evaluate speed, volumes and non‑motorized users; city staff expect to present that study in August or September.

Enforcement and remaining concerns: Speakers repeatedly asked how the developer will prevent student renters and enforce occupancy restrictions; staff said a two‑unrelated‑residents standard is a feature of R2 zoning and that market pricing, not code alone, often determines tenants. Residents also pressed how off‑site parking for events would be handled; staff said the conditional approach limits off‑site parking for chapel events to 10 times per year and requires the applicant to notify the city and adjacent property owners if agreements change.

Council action and next steps: After questions from several council members about sidewalks, wetland buffers and parking contingency plans, Council Member Mettler moved and Council Member Lavin seconded approval of the PUD; the motion passed on a recorded unanimous vote. The council's approval authorizes the planned unit development under the conditions described; any future phase or mitigation that changes parking or site layout must return for additional review.

The project remains subject to final engineering, the traffic analysis due later this summer and any required state wetland permitting processes.