Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Wow, that works. The September 14th, 2026 meeting of the Planning Commission of Cannon Falls will come to order. Roll call.

Diane Johnson here. No back here. Douglas here. Nance here. Chad Johnson.

The agenda is before you. Are there any additions, subtractions or motion to approve?

Motion to approve agenda.

Your second second. uh... moved by no box second by c johnson all in favor i i i i was made so moved we have the minutes from the august seventeen meeting which we received ahead of time whether any corrections or noticeable changes to the minutes motion to approve their second to approve second Move by Novak, second by Notts. Further discussion? All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. So moved. There is no public input. So we will move to the public hearing and discussions part of the agenda. The first one is a variance for setback minimums in R4 high density residential district. Izzy.

All right, so this application came in, so it's a variance for front and side yard setbacks. It's in the R4 high density district, noting that within the R4 district, single family homes go by the R3 setback standards. The purpose of the variance is for a new single family home. An existing home is being demolished, new home going in its place. The new home would like to maintain the original and existing setbacks and that is due to extreme grade changes on the property. Those pictures were provided to you in the packet. So they do have a uniqueness on their property and environmental factor which is granting of a variance to maintain those setbacks. I just want to note, so the front would be technically 4 feet, the side would technically be 10. The right-of-way is very large on this corner lot. So from the property line to the curb, it would actually be about 34 feet in the front and about 40 feet on the side. Just the actual setback for the property is that 4 and 10. But the actual space and land in front of the home is still greater than normal setbacks within all residential districts. So just please note that. So variance is for that front setback. Maintain the original for the new home and the side setback. um, along the street there. Um, so pretty simple variance, um, for the new home here. Again, original home being demolished, new home in its place, existing footprint there. Um, so with the variance, we do hold a public hearing. Um, so open and close that and then have any discussion by the commissioners.

Okay. We will open the public hearing for the variance setbacks, uh, at 632.

Would any...

I don't want that. Okay. Anybody like to speak besides my phone? Going second time, anyone like to speak? Going for the third time? If not, I will declare the public hearing closed at 6.33 p.m. Discussion from commissioners.

I like it. They're reinvesting in the community, putting a house up there, and if we've got to work with them, let's do it.

I second Chad.

Motion? No issues. Okay. Motion to approve as written.

C. Johnson moves. Is there a second?

Second.

Not seconds. To approve the various setbacks recommended to the council. Any further discussion? All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. So moved. We will move on to number two, conditional use permit for residential and non-residential uses within the same building in the B1 Central Business District.

all right so this next item is both a conditional use permit and a variance so within the b1 central business district so your main downtown area non-residential and residential uses are allowed within the same building with a conditional use permit so an application came in from dennis flom so he has the flom insurance agency so Flom insurance is our commercial use and then it's proposed to be an apartment unit also within the building So that is our residential use the purpose of the two land use approvals so we need a conditional use permit to have non residential and residential uses within one building and then the variance allows for the apartment building to be on the same floor and as the commercial use. So just to give you an idea of why. So we have the farm insurance building and then the rear portion of their building faces the parking lot. So there's no visibility back there. There's no foot traffic that goes on the rear side of that building there. So actually the original tenant within the rear portion of the property actually moved to a different location downtown due to the lack of visibility. just weren't seen, they couldn't get any customers. So that original tenant actually moved to a quarter property on 4th Street there for more visibility. So that back portion of the building isn't the best suited for commercial use. And so the applicant would like to put an apartment building on the rear portion of that building. And I just wanna note the apartment unit would have Exclusive entrances, exits, they would have their own everything on the rear of the building there. So no entrance from the front, it'd be private on the rear abutting the parking lot side of the building there. So technically there's two public hearings that we have to hold so one for the conditional use permit which allows those two uses within the same building and be one and then a variance to allow the apartment to be on the same floor as Flop insurance in this case, so we'll open and close both of those and then we can take any questions Thank You Izzy will open the public hearing on the conditional use permit first at

638. Would anybody like to speak to that? Would anybody like to speak? Any comments? Going once, twice, three times. I will close the public hearing at 637. Commissioners?

I got a question. When I look at the map, I'm not So how big is the apartment plan to be? Is it going to be 500 square feet or?

It's just one unit small.

I don't know how big those buildings are. It's

We do have Dennis Flom here tonight if you wanted to ask him questions.

Is that really pertinent to our?

Well, I'm just curious. Is it like, are we adding a studio or is it like, because those buildings are long, wide.

I mean, our decision is whether or not we can allow variants for it to be business and. Well, they provided the map, so I just, I don't know what that is. Yeah.

So are we supposed to be discussing right now or should we open and close the next portion based off our agenda?

We can go to the next one. Then we need to vote on them separately.

OK, OK, OK. Well, I guess I do have a couple things here. I find it interesting that we're gonna pass a conditional use permit and then we're gonna slap a variance right on top of that. That seems pretty abnormal to me. And I just see right now the way that our downtown's constructed, we don't allow it currently and it seems like it's been pretty strict and I could see it being one of those things where if we did allow it, perhaps it could happen again if there's a business that goes, if someone buys a storefront goes out of business and then you have apartments down there, um, you know, and then you start to lose service space for the public. I guess that's kind of my concern right now.

And chair, if I could just comment. So there, there are, um, near the downtown. So art org does have some residential units that do enter off of the main level. So ground level.

And is that part of the same zone area?

Yeah, I mean, it's part of downtown. So it is something where you do have entrances to apartments that are on ground level. Even the apartment that I lived in, I mean, I had to enter at ground level to go upstairs to the unit. Right, upstairs.

And the conditional use permit says that we're allowing it to happen on that premise, but the residential has to be upstairs.

Yeah. And in this instance, it's not, but I don't know if they have conditions are where it's located. But it's segregated and it's not facing a storefront.

CHRIS RODGERS. And I think when I was reading it, I looked and thought, it's one of those unique situations where you've got an area that doesn't front 4th Street, so it can't get any real traffic on it. And, you know, Sue's Garage, you know, has the same problem. She's at least on the corner, so there's more visibility, but when you get over to the Flum Building, it's kind of just cut off. Sure. You know, and at some point, if they ever knock out the wall and make one huge business that goes all the way back, that might be different, but... If we restrict the use, I guess, to only business when it has no opportunity for business to really succeed there, which is why I kind of lean towards saying this should be OK. But I'm open to other ideas.

I'm okay with it. I was more curious are we is it gonna they have to get some type of thing I think it's 500 feet so for like the smallest apartments that we allow and just is it meeting that criteria and if it is that's Okay, I just don't know how to read the feet and that that's a very valid question if there's a is a Requirement for minimum square feet for an apartment building

500, okay.

And it's meeting it. It's big enough to be the 500? Or do they need a separate? Okay, that's fine. That's all I was trying to do.

Do they have to have any dedicated parking spaces on the back or anything like that for this resident or Airbnb, whatever it ends up being?

Yeah, it's right on the city parking lot there that they would be able to utilize. And then there's the winter parking spaces for apartment units that they are able to park in in the winter.

I'm assuming for the winter parking stuff, for the other apartment people downtown, they get to use that one area across from the winery.

There's actually, I think, two rows. The west-facing row and the south-facing row are dedicated for winter parking.

Other questions or concerns?

I just see it could it could come back to bite us in the butt if there's other Stores that closed downtown or you know, what's stopping someone from coming on 4th Street saying I don't have a Business to put in here and I want to put you know apartments here And we're kind of setting precedence to set that up I guess so I Think that's a fair concern

If it's on the back side of the building, I don't see it being a problem. The front side being business, strict historical area. And then the back side, I mean, they up above have been, they used to be businesses too, but that's been many years ago. There was a bowling alley. Didn't last. I'll make a motion to pass it in this discussion we want to keep discussing.

You want to do that with the caveat that it meets the 500 square foot minimum? Oh, it has to.

That's why I was just wondering if it doesn't, then we have to meet here again for another one. So as long as it meets it.

Come on, come up to the... You can shed light on this.

All right. Hello? Hello, sir. It would fall under 500 square feet. Okay. And I can, whatever confirmation you need for that, I can get it, or you can come and step it off.

No, I assume it would if, you know, I just didn't want to waste your time and come back up here, oh, we didn't think about it. No. Okay. It fits that, yeah. Thank you. Any other questions?

Did you say it falls under or over? Under or over. Yeah. Because under is a problem, I believe, right? It's 20 by...

2530 I Mean yeah, and I don't have the exact measurements on you, but I knew I needed them I would yeah go up there and get him.

I don't know.

We'll just be back here next meeting I Would I prefer not to do that yeah? We got that schematic did he yeah, I mean yeah, I I had it up, actually, when I was looking at it.

I have it up as well. I was doing some of the math on the measurements. Looks like there's an open space that I don't see measured. And everything else that you had listed, you were at 441 square feet, roughly. And that space looks about, I mean, it looks about as big or bigger than the bathroom, which was about 40 square feet. So you're going to be really close. So we need to be at 500? It needs to be 500 or more for efficiency based on the code.

All right, that's good to know. There's an additional square footage that we could find because there's a false wall there would add, get over there very easily.

Okay.

And then there's an arch wall where it was the original sweet shop going down to the bowling alley, and then everything from that false wall back would be well over 500 square feet. If you need to dock down a wall, we can do that. And that was also where we could probably put another egress. We're going to have one egress in the hallway, another egress, and we're going to add two windows.

Okay. Yeah, so I think based on the planning commission, it's ensuring that we're not having to follow through and do a variance for something else. So when those building plans come in, as long as we ensure that the square footage exceeds 500 square feet, we should be able to approve that administratively without having to bring it back to the planning commission.

So does that mean we have to come back?

No.

Good.

No.

Well, you'll have to talk to John, though.

Thank you. So just for clarity, just to try to make sure everybody understands. So tonight, the approvals are for the conditional use to allow a residential space in the downtown district. The variance is to allow it to be on the ground floor. What we're discussing for potential of the square footage would come when he applies for the actual building permit to do that. If that building permit and the size of the apartment was under 500 feet, well, then we'd need to work with them to ensure that, one, do we have no more room that we could add to this apartment to ensure that it meets the minimum standard of 500 feet? If we do, then we can take care of that administratively. We don't need to bring this back to the Planning Commission to make some sort of variance exception to that rule. So if what he's saying is that, oh, if this is approved and he's able to do that, he can modify the space to make it an apartment, he's going to modify the space to ensure that it meets 500 square feet minimums.

CHRIS JERRAM, Thank you. CHRIS JERRAM, Thank you. CHAD, YOU'VE MADE THE MOTION, CORRECT? YEAH. IS THERE A SECOND?

SECOND.

SO BRIAN SECONDS. AND IT IS TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL USE WITHIN THE SAME BUILDING IN THE B1. IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE.

ALL IS NAY. So moved. Move on to number three, variance to allow residential use on the first floor of a building within the B1 central business district. We will open the hearing at 6.48. Izzy's already combined comments on both. Is there anybody who would like to speak?

Keith Myers, I own two buildings downtown. I just have a question. So if this goes through as a variance and I want to put something downtown, do I have to get a variance also for the same first level so it's not just wide open? If I have the Chicago Eds building now, if I want to put an apartment in there, do I need a variance for that building itself?

For main level, a ground level apartment? For main level, okay. An upstairs apartment?

Right, so I'm just saying is, I understand Dennis' situation where he's got a back-facing property, but if I have a fourth street-facing property, I need that variance to get that apartment building or to put an apartment in? Or does it open that up?

No, and I think that's what Chris was referring is, we really don't want people to get the feeling that we just can turn all of 4th Street into apartment buildings, you know, first floor apartments.

Right.

This, the back area that didn't seem to lend itself to commercial space seemed to warrant maybe a variance, an exception.

Sure, yep. Does that make sense? Nope, that's my question, yeah. Okay. Thank you, appreciate it.

Thank you. Other comments, input?

So you're still planning on keeping we got to introduce yourself first that Dudley floating and I have a business downtown Or a building I don't have no business anymore, but So just to clarify that you you want to keep those storefronts still commercial business, right? Okay. Yeah, that's what I just want to make sure that I don't think Chris kind of hit on that where you don't want to turn it all into residential and And then the business area dies. So that's all I need. Thank you. CHRIS JERRAM.

Thank you. You didn't bring us any pizza. MIKE BOYLE.

He doesn't have a business.

CHRIS JERRAM. I know. He could have stopped by. Any other comments? If not, we will close the public hearing at 6.51. Further discussion by commissioners? This is to allow the residential use on first floor.

Just to clarify, because I think we're having some questions, but my understanding is this is sort of a unique situation in the sense to where with a flum, that side of the building hasn't lended itself well to any business that's been in there. And so we keep getting businesses that maybe start up, and it doesn't work, so they move out. And so essentially, he's saying, well, OK, tried that. It didn't work. So can we just have somebody move in there's apartment? Whereas with Mr. Myers, his example is Chicago's Ed. If that came to us, the likelihood would be we would probably deny that, because that's a front-facing business. We would probably argue, you have foot traffic. your reasons wouldn't align with flum's reasons correct my my line of thinking is correct in the sense of each each case is unique in when it comes to us and then we can evaluate based on what's presented if you can see it from the main street or so yeah that probably would be a business yeah the back side and upstairs that's presidential did izzy did you

Yeah, I just want to add a variance has to have, you have to have some sort of uniqueness and hardship in order to get a variance. So it can't just be a financial reason to approve a variance. You have to have some sort of hardship or uniqueness on a property. Like the first variance that you approved He has an environmental hardship on his property with that grade change where he can't physically meet those setbacks. With Flom, there's zero visibility, zero foot traffic on this building where commercial use isn't really doable there.

Izzy, does this variance in CUP live with the property? Or if Dennis, Mr. Flom, sells the building, does it die then?

The variance in the CUP will run with the land.

Other questions, concerns, comments? If not, is there a motion to recommend approval to city council on variance to allow residential use on the first floor?

Motion to approve.

Second. Motion by not. Second by C. Johnson. Further discussion? All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, nay.

Nay.

It carries with one nay. And that takes us now to, and there are no more public hearings, so we move on to item number four, Cannonball 2, Development Stage and Rezoning. We had postponed this from the last meeting. We had a work session where we talked about things we'd asked to explore last time. Izzy, do you want to make any comments?

Procedurally, this was tabled, so there should be a motion to remove it from the table.

Ah, got it. Is there a motion to remove this, to untable it?

So moved.

Motion by Novak. Is there a second?

Second.

Next by Knotts. All in favor, aye. Aye. Okay, no opposed. Now we can discuss, correct?

Uh, does he want to introduce what we went over in the work session?

I'll just introduce for our audience here. So we have a rezoning ordinance and the development stage approval for Cannonball 2, which is an apartment complex. So the development stage is step two of the planned unit development process out of three. So we have approved the concept plan. Now we're onto the development stage, which is a little higher level than the concept. From there, we would move to final plan. With Cannonball 2, we do need to rezone the proposed property. So we'll be rezoning from B2 to R4, which is high density residential. Like Diane stated, we had a meeting in August for the planning commission where the item was tabled. We then just last week on September 8th, held a work session just to provide more information to the commissioners, answer any questions, get more clarity on the project. So we brought it back tonight to make a motion on the development stage and the rezoning. From the development stage, if it's approved, we would move to final stage, which is very high level plans, architectural plans, whatnot, to move the project forward. So tonight we will have one motion for the development stage for the PUD and one for the rezoning ordinance from B2 to R4.

Questions, comments while I try to find those places in my packet?

Uh, I guess one of the things I hit on the work session that makes me comfortable moving forward is that we already have a template with cannonball one there. I mean, it's successful. Laura was at the work session. It's full. Um, there's obviously demand for it. So kind of a no brainer for me. I think obviously there's concerns, but it makes sense.

I think, uh,

Laura convinced me with her testimony from the surrounding businesses, especially the Gemini because I used to work in manufacturing for the temp agencies when I was younger. I know a lot of those guys, when you get out of school, you're just trying to find a job and you need a place to stay. There's not a lot of housing for young, newly graduated, off to college, coming home for the summer kind of guys.

and was that work session televised or not no yeah yes it was it was public yeah i just want to know because there was i mean there's a lot of support there from you know marathon gas station subway mcdonald's businesses picked up since that new apartment went in there's employees living there that's those are all great things for our community one

Point of fact, it's the building owner of Subway.

Sure. Yep, building owner. And Best Buy Liquor, I believe, also submitted something. Thanks, John.

So we have two votes.

Yep, we'll do one for the development stage for the planned unit development and one for the rezoning ordinance.

So is there any more comments, discussions on... either of those two. Then is there a motion to approve the resolution, is it 2026-18, recommending approval of the developmental stage for Cannonball 2?

So moved. Yeah.

Moved.

Yeah, I'll make a motion to do it.

Did Chris move?

Yeah, he did.

Okay. Chad, you're second?

Second.

Okay. Motion by Novak, second by C. Johnson. Any more discussion? All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. So moved. Second is to rezone property from... HIGHWAY BUSINESS TO R4 HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

MOTION TO REZONE.

SECOND. OKAY. MOTION BY NOTTS, SECOND BY NOVAK TO REZONE FROM B2 HIGHWAY TO R4 HIGH-DENSITY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

I don't think it's safe, but I think, as John discussed, we have plans in the works with the county to try to get something over there. So hopefully we can do that too as things progress.

All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. So moved. Which... Now, I lost my agenda. Anyway, we'll move on to the last item of business, which is the final plat for the track proposed development.

all right so we've received an application for final plat for the cannon falls technology park final plat we approved the preliminary plat back in october of 2025 the final plat has been submitted in substantial conformance with the preliminary plat only major Difference, just clerical, the plat is split into two separate plats. So one for Dakota County, one for Goodhue County. That does not change content of the final plat at all. It is purely for recording purposes and taxation purposes. So that is the only minor change for the plat there. Otherwise, in conformance with the approved preliminary plat. And I'll allow for discussions.

And so, again, it's two separate motions, one for Exhibit A and one for Exhibit B?

It should just one motion. One.

They're combined together.

Both counties on the same resolution.

Um, I guess I had, uh, two questions. The first one is, um, you know, the landscaping was part of this and I think it was committed to 25% landscaping, especially on that Northern section. When do you guys intend on building that berm? Is that prior to landscaping that, or is that after final construction?

They agreed before.

Yeah, I just want to clarify that.

Thank you, Chair, Commissioner. So the intent is it would be most likely prior, you know, obviously following approval, and then we would want to establish the landscaping on that berm.

So that would be the intent. Perfect, okay. And then the only other thing that stuck out to me was, you know, in this traffic study, it talked about work hours and arrival times. It did mention something from 4 to 7, but construction hours won't allow you to start outside work before then.

Yeah, off the top of my head, I don't recall the exact hours. We would, of course, you know, that is all in the PUD, which is, of course, separate from the final plan. But we would work with the city, the city engineers, city attorneys to make sure that we're in compliance.

Yeah, just as a matter of point of clarifying, we do have, you know, already approved PUD plans, development agreement plans. So, like, the questions about the landscaping, the berms, utilities, and other things are already defined here. in large part in those other agreements. So this is primarily saying, as the land meeting the legal descriptions of where these boundaries are gonna be, you're splitting it into, and the Dakota side, two lots, and then I think the Goodhue side is one lot, so that we're establishing the legal boundaries that define these roughly 250 acres with this final plat, which is what was originally presented in the preliminary plat. our other agreements do dictate on when and how other things are going to be. So you may have seen in other final plats that there's more defined utility plans or other, other things there that was established in the, in the development agreements. So those things are going to be coming with other, other site plan approvals and developments. So, yeah.

Yeah. John makes a good point. This is not the last time that you're going to see this. This is really a perfunctory approval. It's just really a mechanical approval so that we can record the plat itself. There will be a site plan review stage as we get closer. And that's when we will have more of those details, the detailed landscaping utility and the site design. And the truth is there may be a couple of different stages.

Yeah. Nope, I was just reading the traffic report, so thank you. And then Izzy, John, nothing substantially changed other than dicing out those plants, right?

No, just clerical for Dakota and Goodhue.

Yep, okay.

And... Those need to be finalized before. But for this commission tonight, that would not be typical to have it at this point. That would come with the final plan. So I think what, Diane, we were saying is this would be normal to not have those at this point.

So is that where you decide if the sewer is going on the right side of the street or the left side of the street? You look at your overall plan?

Yes, that's exactly the time, yes. And those pieces are in the works, so we have been in conversations with their engineers in moving those plans along higher percentages of completeness. So we're at a point where now we feel more comfortable with the locations so we can start working on acquiring those easements.

Okay.

And then the attorney had also mentioned, and I just bring this up so we know about the signatures on the documents, which was.

So Madam Chair, members of the commission, one of the things with regards to the plat is some parts of the plat that you see right now may change prior to recording of the final plat. For instance, the signature blocks may change, will change. What happens is, At least for me, under the statutes, I provide a review of title, and then from there, I review the plat, and I already have, and I think it's in the packet, provided an opinion of what needs to be done. The counties also will do their review prior to, before it's recorded, and may require some changes, but all those are done after approval, and they're a condition of approval, or a condition of the final plat being recorded. between city staff and myself, we will make a second.

Douglas seconds. Any further discussion? All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. So moved. I mean, I've lost my agenda. When's the next planning commission?

Next planning commission is October 12th. Next city council is September 15th.

Any other business? If not, a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Second. Second. Second. Moved by Hillbox. Second by Knott. All in favor? Aye. Opposed, nay. So moved.