The meeting opened with the contentious issue of a conditional use permit for Midwest Building and Equipment’s proposed outdoor sales lot at the Cannon Falls Mall. Owner Ed Rymer applied for the permit to display high-quality, custom-built sheds in the southwest corner of the mall property. The commission was informed that sheds were already present on the site, raising concerns about their compliance with existing permits. It was clarified that without the permit approval, the sheds would need to be removed.

Key points of discussion included the dual nature of the location as both a storage and sales area, with sales transactions ultimately handled at a different location in Hampton. A critical part of the dialogue centered on the condition of the sales area, with multiple members urging that it be paved to enhance customer experience and comply with ordinances requiring outdoor sales lots to be situated on paved surfaces. Despite some disagreement, the commission reached a consensus to recommend approval of the permit, contingent on the condition that the sales area be paved.

Attention then turned to a public hearing on a variance request for Timber Ridge Estate Lots. The developer sought to avoid the requirement of paving driveways for four lots, citing financial burdens. This proposal sparked concerns from local residents, including Ken Roar and Don Lanning, who voiced apprehension over potential water runoff and the fairness of granting such a variance.

Roar articulated worries about inadequate stormwater management, referencing past issues with runoff that affected his property. He emphasized the need for catch basins to prevent erosion and wash onto adjacent lands. Lanning echoed these concerns, stressing the importance of adhering to local ordinances and questioning the justification for the variance based on financial constraints alone.

The commission scrutinized the developer’s compliance with other ordinance requirements, including land dedication and landscaping plans. It was noted that two park areas were designated within the development, meeting certain land dedication requirements. However, the absence of a submitted landscape plan raised compliance questions.

Throughout the discussion, the commission deliberated on the implications of granting variances based on financial hardship, a point that was met with skepticism. Members expressed reluctance to shift the financial burden of paving to future homeowners, arguing that developers should anticipate and plan for these costs. The commission ultimately proposed a resolution to recommend denial of the variance for gravel driveways.

The meeting also briefly addressed a potential scheduling conflict with the Library Board. However, no immediate action was taken on this matter.