Planning Commission tables request for 4,000‑sq‑ft accessory structure at 1216 First Street NE

Faribault City Planning Commission members tabled a three‑part application on May 5 from property owner David Blae seeking permission to build a 4,000‑square‑foot accessory structure at 1216 First Street NE.

Staff told the commission the proposal raises three distinct approvals: a conditional use permit (CUP) to increase the permitted accessory structure size from 864 to 1,080 square feet, a variance to allow the accessory structure to sit in front of the principal dwelling (closer to Highway 60), and variances to permit the full 4,000‑square‑foot structure and an unusual principal‑to‑accessory ratio. Harry Davis, a city planner, said staff "support the condition use permit and the in the first variance for the location of the accessory structure, but not the requests for the size of the accessory structure as well as the relation between principal and accessory uses." He explained staff found practical difficulty supporting the front‑yard placement because of topography, but could not find a unique hardship to justify the size and ratio variances.

During public comment, nearby residents asked about height, driveway access and potential impacts to adjacent lots. A neighbor, Hubers, said the family wants assurances the building will be constructed where shown and that their future home plans will not be adversely affected. The applicant, David Blae, identified himself as the property owner and described the building as personal storage for recreational equipment: "I would just like a building that size for personal use." He also said the proposed structure meets a 16‑foot height limit.

Commissioners debated precedent, aesthetics and code limits. Commissioner Steve said he supported the project overall, adding, "I'd rather see his toys inside and he's got the large lot," while other commissioners emphasized the commission is bound by R1 zoning rules and past practice restricting accessory buildings. Several commissioners asked whether the city should create a separate approach for very large residential lots.

After discussion, the commission voted to table all three resolutions for two weeks so staff can prepare findings and an amended resolution that match the likely recommendations the commission intends to send to City Council. The motion to table passed on roll call (carried 4–2). The item will return to the Planning Commission on May 19; any future recommendation from the commission would then go to the City Council for final action.

The meeting record shows staff will prepare revised findings and an amended resolution to reflect the commission's direction; the commission did not take final action on the CUP or any variance at the May 5 meeting.