Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Standalone Garages topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends keeping standalone garages restricted; council asks staff to draft flexible options
Summary
The planning commission recommended no change to code that treats garages as accessory structures. Councilors heard public comment and directed staff to draft language (possible CUP/variance paths and definitions) for future consideration.
The Fergus Falls planning commission recommended preserving the city’s current code that treats garages as accessory structures, and the City Council asked staff to prepare draft language that could allow limited exceptions.
Clarbec, the planning commission staff liaison, reported the commission studied standalone garages in residential zones over three meetings and a subcommittee, compared other cities’ rules and conducted outreach. The commission concluded it would not change the code that requires a primary structure on the same lot or adjacent ownership for a standalone garage to be allowed.
Councilors probed outreach and public input; Clarbec said at the planning commission hearing one constituent spoke against changes and two supported them and the commission had received a letter from Habitat for Humanity. Council members raised concerns about properties that are substandard or non‑buildable and noted examples of vacant lots with garages and sales complications. One councilor said allowing case‑by‑case review with design standards could address situations where a shed or properly built garage would be preferable to leaving a lot vacant.
During public comment, resident Jason Burns said he owns two non‑adjacent lots and "would be interested in putting a garage over there" to store equipment and possibly a small office, urging a conditional‑use pathway so owners are not forced to build a house. John Burns and other neighbors described similar situations and recommended variance or CUP options for properties with constraints.
Councilors discussed options including a conditional use permit on a case‑by‑case basis, design standards (concrete floor, construction standards), and limiting neighbor veto via the CUP process. The council moved to send the item to staff (Ralph) to draft wording that would allow consideration of standalone garages or CUP pathways rather than a blanket change at this time; the motion carried by voice vote.
Next steps: staff will draft potential ordinance language, including definitions for structures (tiny homes, barns, shops), and return to the council or planning commission for review.
