Cottage Grove commission approves front‑yard shed location but denies metal exterior

The Cottage Grove Planning Commission on June 23 approved a conditional use permit and a variance to allow an accessory structure in the front yard at 6255 Hadley Avenue South but denied a separate variance that would have allowed the building’s exterior to be metal.

Max, city planning staff, presented the application for property owner and applicant Al Dressley. The request sought permission to construct a 1,360-square-foot accessory building, bringing the site’s total accessory square footage to 2,340 square feet when combined with an existing 980-square-foot structure. Staff said the property is in the R2 Residential District and referenced City Code Title 11 3 5 f, which allows an exceedance of the 2,000-square-foot accessory limit only when three code criteria are met. Max told the commission the site has natural screening, the proposed building would be about 140 feet from the public right-of-way and the applicant’s proposed setbacks meet the ordinance’s increased-distance requirement.

The application included two variance requests: (1) to place the accessory structure in the front yard rather than behind the principal residence, and (2) to allow metal siding for an accessory structure larger than 200 square feet. Max described practical difficulties related to on-site conditions for the front-yard location — specifically, a septic system and pool/topography that restrict placement behind or to the north of the house — and said the materials variance did not present a practical difficulty under the code.

Applicant Al Dressley, who identified himself at the hearing as the property owner at 6255 Hadley Avenue South, told the commission he has lived on the lot since the mid-1990s, said nearby properties include older metal outbuildings and said the proposed building would be screened from the road. “It’s not gonna be just a plain old shed,” Dressley said, describing planned insulation, windows and decorative elements. He also said he had support from adjacent neighbors and noted an earlier metal barn on a nearby parcel had been permitted in 1997.

Commissioners asked staff about the local legislative history. Max explained that the zoning code language tightened in a 2012 amendment to require accessory structures to “complement the materials and the color palette” of principal dwellings, and that a 2022 rewrite extended that stricter standard throughout residential districts. Commissioners and staff identified at least one pre-2012 nearby permit that allowed metal construction.

In discussion, Commissioner Woodman said he had driven the area and did not expect the proposed building to be visible from the roadway and added, “I do think that there’s room to approve both” the location and materials variances in his view. Several other commissioners, including Commissioner Fisher, agreed the structure would likely be screened, but they said the commission’s legal standard for granting a materials variance — demonstrating a practical difficulty tied to site conditions not created by the owner — was not met. Chair Fraser summarized that city council’s past direction tightened materials requirements and that the commission was bound to follow the ordinance as written.

The commission approved a motion that granted the conditional use permit and the variance to place the accessory structure in the front yard, and that denied the variance permitting metal exterior materials. The motion carried 7-0. The staff report’s conditions and findings were adopted as part of the approval for the conditional use permit and the location variance; the denial for the materials variance was based on the staff findings enumerated in the report.

The commission’s recommendation will go to the City Council at its July 16 meeting for final action.