Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends variance to rebuild accessory structure at 11250 East French Lake Road
Summary
The Dayton Planning Commission recommended approval of a variance allowing the owner of 11250 East French Lake Road to rebuild an accessory structure larger and taller than the current principal dwelling after the prior shed was destroyed by fire; commissioners cited the missed 180‑day statute as a practical hardship and voted 4–0 to forward the recommendation to City Council.
The Dayton Planning Commission on a unanimous 4–0 vote recommended that the City Council approve a variance allowing a property owner at 11250 East French Lake Road to rebuild an accessory structure that would exceed the height of the principal dwelling. Staff told commissioners the existing accessory structure was lost in a September 2024 fire and the owner had missed the Minnesota statutory 180‑day window to apply for a permit to restore a nonconforming structure.
Staff presented technical details: the proposed replacement would have the same footprint as the previous structure (46 feet by 64 feet, or about 2,944 square feet) and a median roof pitch height of roughly 25 feet 2 inches compared with the house’s median roof pitch of about 19 feet. Staff said the property is guided low‑density residential but zoned A‑1 (agriculture); impervious surface limits in A‑1 are computed as 10% of parcel area and staff does not expect the proposal to increase impervious coverage beyond the allowed amount.
Why it matters: Dayton’s zoning code limits accessory building height to the principal dwelling height in A‑1 districts, a rule that staff said may produce inconsistent outcomes between agricultural and residential districts. Staff recommended approval if the commission concluded the three‑part variance test was satisfied and asked that the commission direct staff to consider an ordinance amendment to align accessory‑structure standards across district types.
Commissioners focused on the practical hardship: staff and several commissioners cited the statutory 180‑day provision that allows property owners to apply for a permit after a fire only within a narrow window. One commissioner said rebuilding after a fire, dealing with insurance and demolition, often makes meeting that deadline impractical; another noted the accessory structure’s footprint and setbacks matched the previous building and would not be overbearing from the street.
The property owner, speaking during the public hearing, described insurance delays and the difficulty of deciding exact replacement dimensions while dealing with the aftermath of the fire. Neighbor Tim Zibekowski testified in favor of the variance, saying pole barns are common in the neighborhood and he had supported the original structure decades ago.
Commissioner Brown moved to recommend approval and Crossland seconded; the motion passed 4–0. Staff said the commission’s recommendation and a resolution noting the 180‑day hardship will go to City Council for final action on June 24.
