[0:28] **Technical Audio**: e [0:58] **Technical Audio**: e [1:28] **Technical Audio**: e [1:58] **Technical Audio**: e [2:28] **Technical Audio**: e e [3:17] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: I'll call to order a City of Cannon Falls City Council meeting for Tuesday, July 23rd. If I could get a roll call, please. [3:32] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Guesmi? [3:33] **Council Member Bill Guesmi**: Here. [3:34] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Groth? [3:35] **Council Member Steve Groth**: Here. [3:36] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Jeppesen? [3:37] **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: Here. [3:38] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Johnson? [3:39] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Here. [3:40] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Kronenberger? [3:41] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Here. [3:42] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Lundell? [3:43] **Council Member Steve Lundell**: Here. [3:44] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Montgomery? [3:45] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Here. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. If I could get an approval of tonight's agenda. [3:57] **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: So moved. [3:58] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Motion from Ryan. Second? [3:59] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Second. [4:00] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Second from Diane. All those in favor, aye? Opposed? Carries. Uh, we will skip public input; nobody's signed up here tonight. [4:03] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Brings us to consent agenda. Consent agenda items may be adopted under one motion as presented or may be removed for discussion and resolution as Council business. Item A: Adjust and correct claims for the accounting period ending July 18th, 2024. B: Meeting minutes for June 18th, 2024 work session. C: Meeting minutes for July 2nd, 2024 City Council meeting. Item D: Approving a tennis court agreement with Cannon Falls School District. Item E: Resolution 2770 accepting a monetary donation of $100 from the Cannon Falls Library Foundation. Item F: Approve the stump grinding quote. Item G: Approve sending vehicles to auction. Item H: Approve drinking fountain repairs. Item I: Resolution 2771 accepting a monetary donation of $8,456 from Goodhue County to the fire department. Item J: Resolution 2772 accepting a monetary donation of $1,200 from the Cannon Falls Fire Department Relief Association to the police department. And Item K: Resolution 2773 accepting a grant of $2,200 from Goodhue County Health and Human Services to the parks department. Is there anything that the Council would like pulled down? Hearing none, I would accept a motion to approve the consent agenda. [5:23] **Council Member Bill Guesmi**: So moved. [5:24] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: I got a motion from Guesmi. [5:25] **Council Member Steve Lundell**: Second. [5:26] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: A second from Lundell. All those in favor, aye? Opposed? Carries. Brings us to Council business. [5:36] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Item A. So, in accordance with the city code, as Mayor, I am challenging our passing of Resolutions 2767, 2768, and 2769 regarding the conditional use permit and variances that were awarded to Dollar General. In the email that was forwarded along to everyone, I'm challenging the City Council's recent approvals because we are not following the guidelines that are currently in place for Cannon Falls. I disagree with allowing multiple variances—the parking stalls and the setbacks—to a project that involves new construction. Dollar General has not proven to me that this project is dealing with any unnecessary hardships or peculiar conditions to the property that warrant an exception to our zoning guidelines. So I cannot support this project as it sits before us. Again, I know we had discussion. A new build—I know we had some people who had come and talked at the county level—I just found that there was not a willingness to compromise from Dollar General, that they only had three building project styles that they could follow and they couldn't make any of them work. And to me, that says that their project and this property don't match. Because I would ask the Council that if this is also a residential zone, if somebody were to buy that land and come to us with a house and their building plan and say "I only have three houses, only three options to build, and I need to ask for something," would we allow that? [7:09] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: So just thought that I would bring this back up, make it the challenge, so that we get a second chance to look at it, think about it, maybe have the discussion again and see if this is something that we want to stop or something that we want to allow to move forward. Any questions or discussion from the Council? [7:26] **Council Member Steve Groth**: No, I agree with you, Mayor. From the start, I've not thought it was a good fit and I don't think we should do it. But that's me. [7:34] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Any other questions from the Council? Uh, first question to our attorney: On the June 18th meeting, we approved the conditional use permit and the two variances. Was that vote negated then, somehow? [7:55] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Council member, the decisions in June were not negated per se. What transpired, and what might be a little confusing in this process, is that the approvals occurred over the course of two meetings. So what transpired in June were motions to approve the CUP and the two variances with also direction to draft resolutions, which would then come back to the Council and did come back to the Council at the July 2nd meeting for consideration and approval. They were in fact approved at the July 2nd meeting. [8:41] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: I was going to say, my packet has them listed as resolutions that we approved. [8:44] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: That may be the case, but that's not the actual actions that were taken. No actions other than motion approvals were taken in June. And this proceeding, this reconsideration, is done under actually not the City Code, it's done by City Charter. And City Charter section 2.05 subdivision 3 specifically references the Council's approval of resolutions, which unquestionably happened at the July 2nd meeting. So the Mayor's ability or authority to invoke the reconsideration process did not arise until the Council actually approved resolutions. Before then, there was nothing to object to because there were no approved resolutions prior to July 2nd. [9:21] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: And on July 2nd, it passed six to nothing. Unanimous. [9:26] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: No, I abstained. [9:27] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: I voted against it? [9:28] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Not on July 2nd. It was a consent agenda. [9:30] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Consent agenda. It didn't get pulled down and got unanimously passed. [9:34] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: So you voted for it on under consent agenda? [9:36] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Correct. But again, that happened on July 2nd. [9:39] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Yes. [9:40] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: And that's what's being challenged. The unanimous 6 to 0 vote is what's being challenged. [9:45] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Yes. So, could you tell us under subdivision three just kind of how this works? It says it needs, "if upon reconsideration five council members vote to approve the ordinance..." Does that mean it takes five of us to like override the challenge, for lack of a better word, the Mayor's objections? [10:11] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: We'll just use the same terminology from the Charter for clarity. Yes, you need actual five votes. [10:17] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Okay. Then somebody—I would like to speak to the issue. Dollar General, and I know Mr. Mayor listened to you, they do have only three building plans. When we were not sure about their first proposal, they went back, dropped the size of the building, rearranged things, talked to the railroad, and came back with a proposal that only needed two variances: the parking, which is actually not a problem. But are they still asking for two variances? [11:27] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Okay, are you going to interrupt the whole time? Well, I... are they still asking for two variances? [11:32] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Yes, that's what I was just saying. The parking and a 13.7 ft setback. Now, on August 2021, the City Council granted a 37-foot variance on somebody who is asking for a lot split and building a brand new home on a vacant lot, which is new construction, new owner. 37-foot variance that the Council granted. May 2024, home destroyed by a fire, so now we've got a new building and they're actually building a larger home than before, needing a almost 30-foot front yard variance setback and a little dinky one in the rear. I'm sure you have lots of examples... [12:30] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: That one more... [12:31] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: One more, go ahead, thank you. The new building... they're again, new owner, same kind of circumstances as Dollar General. Weird lot size, therefore harder to fit things in. But the apartment building that went in had not only a spot rezoning from B2 to R4 or R3, whatever it's called—R4—and then they needed five exceptions to the zoning. They had... the R4 ordinance requires no more than 10% studios, they have 30%. Minimum of 500 square feet for a studio, they had some as small as 480. It can only be three stories tall, we granted them four stories. They did not have the required amount of parking spaces, which you know, may or may not be needed as we said about the same thing. And the density in terms of the footprint of the building on the amount of land it had; they needed technically 1,970,750 square feet, instead they had 132,609. That went through with Mr. Lundell, Mr. Guesmi, Mr. Montgomery voting in favor of these variances for new construction. I'm not saying and in that case we also gave them—we waived the sewer water hookup fees, maybe $129,000. Waived the permit fees, building permit $40,000. Gave them a $3.6 million TIF agreement at 3.75% interest, which means we really aren't going to see much of a tax base from them for 26 years. So this whole thing that somehow two little variances being asked for by Dollar General, with the findings of fact from our attorney saying everything is in keeping, this there is no problem with these variances. So I really am having a hard time understanding why... and I mean, let's be honest, this is the north side of town. We don't have anything there. We don't have much. It's a lot that's been vacant. The building that's there bumps up to the railroad, it probably is almost on the middle of the street. This is somebody who's willing to come in, they haven't asked for a dime, they're going to upfront do all the expenses. What they do do is take a vacant property that's pretty worthless, which is what we said about the Cannonball property, offered to build the business there and add to our tax base and perhaps give those of us in the north side of town a little option on where we can run and pick something up in a hurry. So I really have a hard time understanding the opposition. [15:40] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right. We all heard from Council Member Johnson. I don't think it's fair to compare apples to oranges: housing versus this Dollar General. At the end of the day, it is a new build that is asking for two variances. That's why I'm challenging it. I was disappointed, I did not see the hardship in Dollar General. I did not see the ability for them to compromise to try to find a way to fit. They said, "We've got building style A, B, or C," none of which fit. So square peg, round hole. They're trying to get into a spot. If they can find a different spot in town that works, great. I just don't see this as being a fit following with the city code. Challenging it, I just wanted us to take a second look. After further discussion, I appreciate all the work you did, I still think all those situations are completely unrelated. They're different projects, different location. Housing is a different priority. I think that the community established that. I think the Cannonball apartments have been a major success. They've proven that. So, any other questions, comments, concerns from the Council? [17:09] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: I think they are the same thing and I think that it's disappointing that we aren't working with them. Did anybody call them or work with them on—if we really are that upset? And again, it passed 6 to zero. Did we talk to them about a different location? Did we ask them... "You know, we really do want you here"? But last I heard they had tried to come here before and they walked away from an area because the land was, I was told, too expensive. And this lot, they were more interested in... I think that their building plans and everything would work in those other lots. It was their choice to walk away because they were just looking for a cheaper place. [17:48] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: So, again, so that was the last time. No one talked to him this time. [17:52] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Not that I know of. And do we know what the estimated tax... did they give any idea of how much the tax base would be? [17:59] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: I don't know. I thought I heard $15,000, but I don't know where I got that from. [18:04] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: So is there anything we could compare that to, to make the 15,000... okay. [18:09] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Yeah, I don't remember where I got it from, so it's not a valid number. But I was just trying to understand what type of tax base are we giving up by not allowing this? I do understand the concept of not doing variances for new builds, but I think that we need to make exemptions, which is why we have variances. And that's my opinion. [18:31] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: I get it. I just—not to—but when Randy Rexal came here and said at the county level this stuff doesn't exist. And I think like residential, where I live, my house is close to the property line. If there was something that were to happen, I'd say "Hey, I need to put an addition on this side." I think variances are meant for that. And I know that there are some critics that will say well, rules are supposed to be black and white; that's why there's variances for some of these things. But a new build on land, State Highway, railroad—I did not see the inconvenience or any of these factors that said they couldn't have compromised. And maybe they can come back to the drawing board and compromise on this lot. What I'm saying is asking for multiple variances at this point on a new build, I think deserves a second look. That's why I'm challenging it. That's why it's brought back up. The other part too, and this can lead to further discussion, but maybe as our city, I know if it's codes are parking requirements because that's one of the variances, maybe we need to look at that again. But the thing is we're dealing with it in the here and now because it's in place, it's what we deal with. So if we have to re-evaluate that, happy to do that in the future, but it's what we're dealing with right now and that's a variance that's being requested. So, any other questions or comments from any other Council members? [20:15] **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: I was talking to a banker in town here. He basically thinks that it looks very like Cannon Falls is anti-business. So he's just like, what other kind of ramifications could come down from this? [20:21] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Well, I hope that—again, I think sometimes these discussions turn into bigger things. What's directly in front of us... speculation of if we're open for business, that is completely unrelated to this issue. We are open for business, we're encouraging business. What I'm challenging is this isn't the right fit. [20:39] **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: [A community member] brought the same thing up to me too, that word—this is why there's no new businesses in town. [20:44] **Council Member Steve Groth**: Well, maybe if there was an appropriate size business in that lot, we wouldn't be talking about this. [20:47] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Well, and I would almost challenge too—if what was said before, the Dollar General had looked at previous land, I believe it was on the south side of town near the Community Bank, and they walked away from that because of the lot. They're the ones that walked away from an area and chose to go for one because they thought it was cheaper. And I understand that businesses would try to do that to know what's the best situation for them. But we're not anti-business. We didn't turn them down the first time, they walked away. So there's opportunities to come here. Mr. Lundell, Mr. Guesmi, anything from you? You don't have to, just if the Council has... [21:28] **Council Member Steve Lundell**: I do. I tend to agree with your letter or whatever, your statement. I didn't like the... I think I voted no on the June meeting for the setbacks. I just think like you said, we have these three sizes, that's it. Like "take it or leave it." You know, they're not... what was it, 13 feet? They can find a designer, an engineer, or whatever blueprints to... they could make it work if they really wanted to, I think so. So yeah, I didn't really... I just don't think there was a need for the variance for that, you know. [22:04] **Council Member Bill Guesmi**: Thanks, Laura, for... I did vote for that and not abstain, I don't know what happened if it was in the consent agenda. What I would like to say is, if for some reason they can adjust their darn building and make it fit the variances, there's not a cotton picking thing we can discuss. They can come in through a conditional use, right? Build it, and we can't legally be even discussing whether they can come or not. So I... and I think I asked him, is there any way they can squeeze it down to make it fit without having to come for these variances? And then it gets back that we have A, B, or C. And that's that's always bothered me. I think you can... we have a contractor in the audience now, he knows how to make things fit. If they don't fit, you make them fit. So it can be done, and I don't know why it's the headbutting, why we have to do it this way. And this passed... they all three passed unanimously in Planning? Or just passed? I'm not on Planning so I don't know. [23:23] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Unanimously, yeah. [23:24] **Council Member Steve Lundell**: So it passed... well, with one abstention. [23:27] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: I abstained. [23:28] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: And just, I know we keep saying that they could have come back. Certain businesses have a standard that they have. I mean, it's why they don't have to ask us for money, you know? They've got the little blueprints, they've got three ways they build that keeps their cost down. They don't have to go back and redo blueprints. What's interesting to me is these same type of questions were asked before the apartment building went up. Why couldn't they locate to a place where they didn't have to have all of these variances? Why couldn't they come back and redo their plan? And I think the same thing... you know, they have... you say there's a difference between housing and business, there's not. It's new building, period. Variances are variances, exceptions are exceptions. [24:50] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: I agree. You can't have it both ways. Well, housing and businesses would be different because zoning and also bringing residents in here. We've talked about growth. It was one of our goal settings for the last few years that growing housing... well, our school district numbers, we need to start growing. I think that's been pretty established. But again, trying to keep our eyes on the prize, stay focused on the issue. It's being challenged, it's going to be back for a vote. If there's any other discussion or questions, now's the time. Other than that, I would accept a motion to come to a vote. Does there have to be three separate votes again tonight? [25:34] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Yes, Mayor Montgomery. I would strongly suggest that there are, because they're processed separately in the sense that they have separate standards. And I think Council Member Lundell, you might have hit on the CUP—the standards applicable to a CUP are different from the variance standards, so they need to be done separately and follow their separate procedural requirements. [25:59] **Council Member Bill Guesmi**: Okay. But sorry if you were not done. And remind me, the conditional use permit that did pass 6 to 0 on June 18th, right? [26:15] **Council Member Steve Lundell**: It was just the variances that didn't pass. They passed 3 to 2. Steve abstained from those. I would have known everything but the parking on the June meeting, right? One of them was by accident. [26:27] **Council Member Bill Guesmi**: Right. I'm just not a fan of either. [26:31] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Right. But I'm just trying to clarify. I thought that the conditional use permit passed five to nothing. It was the variances that people had problems with. [26:42] **Council Member Steve Lundell**: Well, Steve abstained, I said no. So it was 4-1 on the conditional use as well. [26:48] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: I don't believe you're correct. The conditional use is slightly different. At that time, it was a three-fifths vote. And we had four out of five with the abstention, so then that passed. And then the variances... the setback variance was more concerning to the Council and resulted... [27:14] **Council Member Bill Guesmi**: Okay, so the CUP was 4 to 1. [27:16] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: That sounds correct, yes. [27:23] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: So with doing the CUP first... I understand what you're saying, but for me, if the variances passed, then obviously the CUP would be fine for me. But I couldn't vote for the CUP without knowing if the variances passed. Does that make sense? [27:42] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: I think he's trying to say that the votes should go in order of the variances individually and then the conditional use permit last. [27:51] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: It's up to the Council. I mean, I don't know. [27:54] **Council Member Steve Lundell**: Well, because if the variance is passed, I don't think we have any legal reason to turn down the CUP. [28:01] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Right. Well, put it this way: if they met the... if they weren't asking for those two variances, would we grant them the conditional use permit? [28:09] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: If they didn't need a variance, yeah. [28:10] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Yes. And then I'm confused. Then they don't need... if they weren't asking variances, then we don't need a CUP? [28:16] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: No, we would. But there'd be no reason... not that there wouldn't be a reason, but you're saying we can't then... then why would it even come to us for a vote? I'm confused. [28:48] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Council Member Kronenberger, excellent question. I think the most reasonable way to proceed is remember that the CUP is a use. It's not a variance, which is dimensional. So I think, in my thinking, the CUP is sort of the first issue because you can't have a variance if you can't have the use. And it's okay and very reasonable if you decide that the CUP is still acceptable; that does not mean you need to also approve the variances, because they serve a different purpose. Right? Okay. And so however, whichever one you want to consider first or last, they're tied together. But you know, you can think practically about the impact of your decision on how this proceeds. Does that help? [29:34] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Yeah. And that's how I understood it too. I mean, we can approve the conditional use and to me they're different, so yes, that helps for me. [29:42] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: I'll also add, it is also incumbent—however this turns out this evening—it would be... it would place the applicant in a position of having to appeal, or accepting and changing, or not appealing if the vote is to affirm or approve the existing resolutions. [30:08] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Okay. All right. With all that discussion, if we're ready, I would accept a motion for vote on the reconsideration of Resolution 2767. And we'll start with the conditional use permit. [30:21] **Council Member Steve Groth**: Can we talk about the conditional use permit? [30:23] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Absolutely. [30:24] **Council Member Steve Groth**: What does that all entail? Like why are we doing all this? What's the function of the conditional use permit, I guess? [30:28] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Council Member Groth, the purpose of the conditional use permit as opposed to variances is to allow a use that's generally compatible with the area and the zone, but requires some additional conditions to ensure that it is consistent and in harmony with the surrounding area. So that's where you're able to put the fence condition on for health, welfare, and safety on the railroad. You have more flexibility when you have a conditional use permit to put those kinds of conditions on. [31:13] **Council Member Steve Groth**: So like the front of the building... I'm trying to think of which street it would be, I'm not very good at streets... is quite close to the sidewalk, isn't it? I'm just asking anyone. [31:27] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Are you looking at the setback on the south side there? Probably, 'cause that was really close, wasn't it? [31:36] **Public Works Director Jed Petersen**: Yeah, I think they pushed the building forward to reduce rail... yeah, to get further away from the railroad. And I don't think they called for a sidewalk on the front side if I recall correctly. [31:54] **Council Member Steve Groth**: I don't think there's sidewalk included in the blueprint that we were given. [32:00] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: No, it doesn't look like it. I'm getting a headshake from Zach. [32:03] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: So if we declined the variance... so if the variances didn't pass and for some reason they decided to make a building that fit, we would have no say. But then we couldn't go back and say "You need to put up a fence." So if we want to say in stuff like the fence, we do need to approve the conditional use even if the variances don't get approved. In my opinion, that's what I'm thinking. [32:46] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Yes, that is a reasonable conclusion. [32:51] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right. So if the conditional use permit passes but the variances don't, they can come back, make it fit without the variances, and the conditional use permit is still valid then? Correct or no? [33:04] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Perhaps. The way we've done this and the way a conditional use permit works is that the approval is tied to the plans that are reviewed and processed through the pre-existing process. So by the time it gets here, we have a set plan. Now, I think if you've got a use that's acceptable, then I think the process we'd have is to go back to the applicant and say "Can you revise your plans?" "Yes, we can. Here's what we can offer." And it still come back to you and you still have to approve a new CUP, but it would be for the same use and you can put those same conditions up. So there would be sort of a reboot in process. So they could eliminate the variances; you would not lose control over the site in terms of the use. [33:55] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Okay. And that's if we approve the conditional use permit? [34:00] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: If you approve the conditional use permit tonight, it is for everything that has been submitted. If you approve the conditional use permit and decide to override or approve the objections or vote not to approve one of those other two resolutions, as a practical matter, they're going to need to start again, but only with respect to the dimensional aspects of the building, not the use itself. I think you're pretty much saying: "Future, come back to me. We're going to approve this use because that would be quite difficult to justify tonight." You'd be willing to approve the use, but next time you won't without some kind of material difference in the plans. [34:31] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right. So when we come to a vote, this will be voted on similar to how it was the first time. It just needs a five-sixths to pass? We're not voting on my objection, we're voting on the exact same issue. So the yays and nays, it's not like double negatives—you're not saying "Yes, I vote for the challenge." You're voting on the issue same as we did in June and July? [35:08] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: That's correct, Mr. Mayor. And I would suggest a roll call vote because it isn't a percentage vote again; it is a five-sixths. [35:12] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right. Any other further discussion or are we ready to come to a vote? [35:16] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: I'm ready. [35:17] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Did someone make a motion? [35:18] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Nope. [35:19] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: So, I would accept a motion to get us to a vote on the reconsideration of Resolution 2767, the conditional use permit. [35:28] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Moved. [35:29] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Motion from Kronenberger. Do I have a second? [35:31] **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: Second. [35:32] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Second from Jeppesen. Roll call vote for all those in favor. [35:46] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Guesmi? [35:47] **Council Member Bill Guesmi**: Abstain. [35:48] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Groth? [35:49] **Council Member Steve Groth**: Is this the conditional use permit? [35:51] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Yes. [35:52] **Council Member Steve Groth**: Okay, I'm going to vote no. [35:54] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Jeppesen? [35:55] **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: Yes. [35:56] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Johnson? [35:57] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Yes. [35:58] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Kronenberger? [35:59] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Yes. [36:00] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Lundell? [36:01] **Council Member Steve Lundell**: Yes. [36:02] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Didn't make it. That brings us to reconsideration of Resolution 2768, the variance for the front setback. If we could get a motion to vote on that. [36:19] **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: I'll make a motion. [36:20] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Motion from Jeppesen. Second? [36:21] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Second. [36:22] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Second from Johnson. And we'll do roll call. [36:25] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Guesmi? [36:26] **Council Member Bill Guesmi**: Abstain. [36:27] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Groth? [36:28] **Council Member Steve Groth**: No. [36:29] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Jeppesen? [36:30] **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: Yes. [36:31] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Johnson? [36:32] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Yes. [36:33] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Kronenberger? [36:34] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Yes. [36:35] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Lundell? [36:36] **Council Member Steve Lundell**: No. [36:37] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Didn't make it. And reconsideration of Resolution 2769, granting variance from parking stall requirements. Motion and a second, please. [36:47] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: So moved. [36:48] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Motion from Johnson. Second? [36:49] **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: Second. [36:50] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Second from Jeppesen. Roll call vote, please. [36:53] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Guesmi? [36:54] **Council Member Bill Guesmi**: Abstain. [36:55] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Groth? [36:56] **Council Member Steve Groth**: No. [36:57] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Jeppesen? [36:58] **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: Yes. [36:59] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Johnson? [37:00] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Yes. [37:01] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Kronenberger? [37:02] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Yes. [37:03] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Lundell? [37:04] **Council Member Steve Lundell**: No. [37:05] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: No. Didn't make it. All right, that gets us to... I think at this point... [37:28] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: If I may interrupt. Absolutely. Because this is a different... we need a final decision on all three applications. And that final decision requires resolutions denying each request to end the 15.99 time for consideration. So I would strongly recommend that you direct the City Attorney to prepare findings and bring them back to the Council for the next meeting. [37:58] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right. If you could please put together the findings after today's votes that will be brought back. Will that be Council business or consent agenda or just on the next agenda? [38:11] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: On the next agenda. [38:13] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right, thank you. Thank you. We're okay as long as it's all right. Chamber of Commerce—we got a chance to talk with Maggie in our work session ahead of time. The Library Board met on July 8th. If anybody would like to comment on that? [38:31] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Yeah, it was not a very exciting meeting. One of our board members resigned due to personal responsibilities. Usage is about the same and yeah, that was it. We got a CCO board update, which is pretty big. [38:52] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: The CCO board is big. All right, so yeah, thank you. Planning Commission, July 8th. [39:02] **Council Member Steve Lundell**: Planning Commission met July 8th and considered a spot rezone for Bessels Rock Church down at the O2 Event Center, and that was denied. Turned them back to... going to come back with more discussion on that, but as of right now, it was denied. That was all that was on there. [39:27] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Can I back in terms of that whole zoning with the religious organization? Wasn't there—and I asked Zach about it too—instead of spot rezoning, in which case then the Event Center wouldn't have legally been able to operate in the building? I guess the question I'd raise for us is, is there a reason why we don't allow religious organizations a conditional use permit in B1/B2 zoning? [40:11] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Is that discussion for a future meeting? Okay, yeah, that's just kind of bringing it up. And I don't know if Zach found any information from other communities. Let's wait till after we adjourn and you guys can address this. EDA, July 11th. Steve, were you... [40:27] **Council Member Steve Lundell**: I was also absent. [40:29] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: I sure do, but I'm not prepared to discuss what we... Amy, can you... oh, she's gone. Neil, is there anything you'd like to add for that? [40:33] **City Administrator Jon Radermacher**: We talked about a sale of a preliminary closing of two more lots. If anybody's been by there, you see that structure of that one house it's up. There's another house, the sticks are going up on the second one, so things are moving along. We have pretty much 10 lots already spoken for. So things are moving on. I think the decision... we found out that people are willing to build some new homes here in Cannon Falls, and which will be good for our schools, right Matt? [41:15] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Yes. [41:16] **City Administrator Jon Radermacher**: How many were in Phase 1 again? [41:17] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: 29. [41:18] **City Administrator Jon Radermacher**: So we got about a third taken already. Good. [41:23] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Yeah. Public Works and Park Board also met on July 11th. I forgot it's summertime. We understand, we understand it's summertime. There's a little bit of... go ahead Jed, and then you got to round the horn. You're the first one, so go ahead. [41:40] **Public Works Director Jed Petersen**: Only? Okay. Public Works Park Board: we went over moving the drinking fountain out of the Vets Memorial because it's just too far to run a water line that's not tied into a sprinkler system. So we're going to move that one down to the dog park. That's in the consent agenda. Approved stump grinding quotes and then couple vehicles sent to auction. We also talked about the active transportation plan that we had the summit here earlier this month. And then we're going to meet again this Thursday with MnDOT and work out a plan, most likely over there in front of the school, to put some paint on the highway and make it easier—or kind of just give a demonstration of what a crosswalk would be over by the school. The plan hasn't totally come together yet, but we just kind of reported on that. [42:50] **Public Works Director Jed Petersen**: As far as my reports now: Hardwood Estates and Timber Ridge both have the road bases down. They're going to be pouring curb later this week, possibly starting tomorrow, for both of them. As Steve said, there's a couple houses going up in Hardwood Estates. Timber Ridge also has a foundation down for a building, so progress is being made there. Fitzgerald, our construction project over here, they finally tied in sewer. I think they finished it late Friday, possibly Monday. You know, tied the sewer in up on Fourth Street and Dakota there. The lift station should be getting... we've been waiting for an electrical meter and the gas service for the generator. That sounds like that should be happening here in the next week, so that lift station should go into service and we can finally take down that sewer bridge. So slowly but surely, we are plugging along on that. [43:52] **Public Works Director Jed Petersen**: John Burch Park: the Blake Burch... delayed another week or so. It sounds like they're going to start mobilizing, coming into town next week. As you can see, third base dugout has got wallport. I'm working with Doug Gurg; we're running there... going to be a little grinder pump for the sewer. We're actually working on that tomorrow. Hannah's Bend: we thought about renaming it "Hannah Swamp," but it is finally drying out. Public Works was able to mow yesterday. We needed to get it mowed so the ground can dry out underneath it; it was just retaining all that moisture. We're hoping the park will probably open up by the end of the month to rentals again for the pavilion. It looks like we're able to clean it up. We are seeking some quotes to get the trees removed from the flood at the different bridges and whatnot; we haven't received quotes back yet. We're also seeking quotes for cleanup, and we are too small; nobody's really interested. So it looks like Public Works will probably do the cleanup for Hannah's Bend and the Vets Memorial. And I already covered active transportation plans. That's all I have, thank you. [45:09] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right, thank you Jed. Zach, anything from you? [45:15] **City Planner Zach**: It's just a reminder that Planning Commission got moved to August 19th and I've already received a couple applications, so should be a full agenda. [45:21] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right, thanks. Brice, Fire Department. [45:26] **Fire Chief Brice Miller**: Yeah, call numbers are slightly ahead of last year. Just as expected, they continue to rise year to year. Our four new hires are enrolled in fire school right now, so that's going well. Laura with the EDA has been helping us a tremendous amount with grants. We currently have a little over $500,000 out there waiting to hear back on, so some fantastic work there. [45:48] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Awesome, awesome, thank you. Lieutenant Berg. [45:51] **Police Lieutenant Berg**: So we have a FunFest coming up. I'm sure somebody will be addressing that, but we're going to be there doing fingerprints with kids from 5:00 to 6:00. And because that's the cruise night, we need to sneak away from FunFest to do some traffic control. Sounds like they're meeting at the high school; they're going to come through town, kind of sounds like the parade route part of the way to downtown. I'm not sure if we're going to go right through FunFest or how that's going to happen, but it'll be cool, I think. [46:16] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: What day was that? [46:17] **Police Lieutenant Berg**: That's going to be Friday the second. Yeah, so then we have Night to Unite. Last I checked, I know we had some phone calls today, but we had three parties signed up. I think we had nine last year. So the more people that want to sign up, the better. Sign up soon so we can get on the list and get a program together on how we rotate through that, getting a police, fire, and an ambulance to each party. But remembering that the goal is for neighbors to meet neighbors. We all had fun at the Fourth of July and the Fair; now we want the neighbors to really get to know each other, 'cause that's what helps our community when people know each other and what the routines are of their neighborhood and what is suspicious to report to us to keep everybody crime-free. [47:20] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Night to Unite, is that August 6th? [47:23] **Police Lieutenant Berg**: That is August 6th. [47:25] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Oh my... I feel like... yeah, it falls on... that's a city council night. I maybe was just discussion, but do any Council members want to be involved in Night to Unite parties? I know we did it maybe a handful of years ago, we maybe even switched our meeting so that we could attend these events with the police force. I don't know if the Council wants to reconsider if we'd ever want to do that in the future, just to be involved in the community. [48:02] **City Administrator Jon Radermacher**: Actually going to offer to sponsor one, but were you? Yeah, well that would require action tonight to switch the date. Neil, would you be opposed to that? [48:11] **City Administrator Jon Radermacher**: No matter what, we got... the next Tuesday is a primary, so you can't have... okay. [48:15] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Oh, can't be the 13th? [48:16] **City Administrator Jon Radermacher**: Not the 12th either. [48:18] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Is it possible to post or just cancel the 6th and have a single meeting in the month of August for the 20th? Or are there things that we need to... [48:24] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Could we start the meeting at like 5:00 so we're out of here by 6-ish? [48:29] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: If it's... I don't have the... we got that, that's right. So then he's got to stay on track. Yeah, right. I know we got to... So Night to Unite, maybe this year it's too late, but maybe Night to Unite we just look at it for next year as something. And then after the meeting is over, if we want to try to make an appearance or something with our Police Department, we could. But it's easier... [48:58] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Sorry, I know you want to earlier. Did want to, 'cause you can always see what's on the agenda and decide if you're showing up. [49:09] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Well, I was thinking happy to earlier. All right, we're just going to leave it as is and then after the meeting we'll see if we can attend, because I know it's suggested that parties end by like nine o'clock or something, sundown. [49:25] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Shelley, anything else you'd like to add? [49:26] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Nothing further, thank you very much for attending tonight. [49:30] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Sara, anything you'd like to add? [49:31] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: I do, I do. All right, just to start, we are going to be starting beginning July 30th to August 13th the filing period to run for City Council. We have two 2-year terms available and two 4-year terms available. So starting July 30th, bring in your $2 to file. [49:46] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Two bucks. Two bucks, thank you Sara. Neil? [49:50] **City Administrator Jon Radermacher**: As discussed at the work session, are we done with work sessions for budgetary reasons and I can move forward with finalizing the preliminary? Or do you guys want to schedule another one? September 15th is the deadline, so we would have to... couple more meetings is all, if you want to talk any more about it. Otherwise, I think we're pretty close. [50:18] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: I think the only thing that we're forgetting is like for... if we're going to have lower the bar cost or restaurant liquor license? [50:29] **City Administrator Jon Radermacher**: Liquor, yeah. Local liquor license. That would be the only other thing I could think of. Will the Council want to meet? We could do that in the fee schedule without a separate work session. That is in January when we do the fee schedule. [51:00] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Oh, or December for January. [51:03] **City Administrator Jon Radermacher**: So if you wanted to do that, and if you lower it... I think if I remember right the total amount is like $27,000. You're not going to zero it out, so it isn't going to create a big void in the budget. But I could reduce it just a little bit in anticipation, but otherwise it won't make that big a void. So you can talk about it in December when we bring it up; you know, we always do a work session for that also. Or maybe you want to wait until after the new group comes in—if there's going to be a new group. I don't know who's signing up and who's not. But we could do it after the fact and then they'll have input too. But we can work on that as we go along. But if that's the only thing that you guys feel is outstanding, maybe I'll put it together and present it to you guys probably the second meeting of August or maybe... I don't know when the first meeting of September is, but it'll be in that vicinity. So, are you all okay? [52:07] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Yep. [52:08] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right, thank you very much. [52:09] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Thanks, Neil. Thanks, Neil. Laura? [52:13] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: I'm good. [52:14] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Lisa? [52:15] **Council Member Lisa Zimmerman**: I'm good. [52:16] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Ryan? [52:17] **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: Good. [52:18] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Derek? No. Diane? [52:21] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: No. [52:22] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Steve? [52:23] **Council Member Steve Groth**: No. [52:24] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: I just want to say thank you to the Council. I know that the process is beginning for trying to find the succession plan for Neil for the next calendar year, and I hope you all filled out that email to get back to SCSC—give them the qualifications or the guidelines of what we're looking for. So the process has started. And I hope everybody had a good Fourth of July. Fourth of July, the Fair was fantastic, the parade dodged all the raindrops. So I hope everybody's enjoying their summer. So unless there's anything else, I would accept a motion to adjourn. [53:08] **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: So moved. [53:09] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Motion from Jeppesen. Second? [53:10] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Second. [53:11] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Second from Diane. All those in favor, aye? Opposed? We're adjourned. Thank you, everybody.