Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sauk Centre council approves Wenninger‑Thornbloom variance; Thomes accessory‑structure request sent back to planning commission
Summary
The council approved a variance allowing a larger garage addition for the Wenninger‑Thornbloom property with conditions and sent Kevin Thomes’ request for a large detached accessory structure back to the Planning Commission for revision after the commission had recommended denial.
Sauk Centre — On March 18, 2026, the Sauk Centre City Council approved a variance for Tyler D. and Brittany J. Wenninger‑Thornbloom that permits an addition to an attached garage exceeding the city’s 1,200‑square‑foot limit, subject to conditions. The council also remanded a separate accessory‑structure request by resident Kevin B. Thomes back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
The council adopted Resolution No. 2026‑15 to allow the Wenninger‑Thornbloom addition after the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. The council required that the existing detached storage building be removed, that roof drainage be directed to the rear of the lot, and that no portion of the garage be used for human habitation. The motion was made by Council Member Scott Kowski and seconded by Council Member Brad Kirckof and passed unanimously.
During public open forum, Kevin Thomes of 1021 Pleasant Street spoke about his pending variance (item 7b). Thomes said he had originally requested permission to build a 40×60 detached accessory structure (2,400 square feet) where the ordinance allows 1,200 square feet; after the Planning Commission denied that request, he asked the council to allow a smaller 40×48 detached accessory structure. The Planning Commission had recommended denial, citing the excessiveness of the request compared with past variances.
Rather than grant Thomes’ request, council members moved to send a revised proposal back to the Planning Commission for additional review and potential modification. Council Member Joe Fuechtmann made the motion to remand; Council Member Kirckof seconded. The motion passed with all council members voting in favor.
Why it matters: Variances change zoning limits on specific parcels and can set precedents for future requests. The Wenninger‑Thornbloom approval included explicit conditions intended to limit potential neighborhood impacts; Thomes’ request was not granted and will return to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
What comes next: The Planning Commission will review any revised application from Thomes and will make a recommendation to the council; any future council action will be publicly noticed.
