Yeah, I remember. >> We've got two copies of the ordinance. One's got a bunch of lines to it. >> I wasn't on the planning commission that I'm a substitute. So, >> it has no lines. >> I had to recap myself with all the the paperwork here. That's why I was asking
him what parcel is uh what's being excluded. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, if we don't agree with those >> Yeah, I have I have the iPad at home, but I just hate using them. I I do like the the laptops more where the keyboards are bigger, big hands and
>> All right, whatever. 10 seconds, Diane. 10 seconds. >> Only like two seconds now. >> Okay. >> Oh, sure. Sure. >> Yeah. March 9th, 2026 meeting of the planning commission of the city of Canon Falls
will come to order. Roll call. >> Uh Diane Johnson >> here. >> Douglas >> here. >> Nats here. Chad Johnson >> here. >> Noach >> here. >> Who's making the >> This thing is >> Oh,
>> I just I won't touch it. Okay. Uh, approval of the agenda which you have before you. >> Motion to approve. >> No move. Second. >> Second. >> Isaac second. All in favor? I >> I
>> nay. All moved. Approval of the minutes from the January 12th meeting. >> Motion to approve. Chris moved. >> She has seconds. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? I
>> I >> oppose. Nay. >> So moved. >> Do we have public input is an attend is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the planning commission. The public input will be no
longer than 30 minutes in late in length and each speaker will have no more than three minutes to speak. Speakers may address topics relevant to the governance of the city. Speakers must sign up in advance and provide their name, address, and topic they intend to
address. Comments must be on topic, respectful, pertinent to the city business, and adhere to the applicable data privacy rules. Any speaker that violates these rules will be asked to sit down. And if the speaker refuses to comply, they may be removed from the
hearing. Speaker shall not address topics that are the subject of a public hearing. All such comment shall be made at the public hearing. Planning commission will not generally act on issues raised by the public input, but may choose to schedule consideration the
item on a further agenda. Mr. Hoffman. >> Thank you. Just push it. >> There we go. All right. Thank you for uh giving me a chance to speak tonight. Uh first, I appreciate how hard people have worked
on this. In the narrative, there are lots of good explanations of what happens in certain cases, but none of those explanations are captured in the proposed ordinance amendment itself. The amendment is still wide open to interpretation. I think the whole narrative should be
incorporated into this ordinance. One example is monitoring equipment. In the narrative, it speaks to setting up and taking down this equipment and that it will be handled by city staff and the fair board has agreed to assist in this process. I respectfully ask to have
citizen involvement in this as well. If you're looking for a citizen to be involved, I'd be happy to assist. I feel having a citizen in this role is very important because I don't feel the city or the city administrator has had the citizens best interest at heart throughout this whole process. Nothing
frustrates me more than being dismissed. And that's the way I feel a lot of this has gone. People don't get to tell me something isn't a big deal just because they don't think it's a big deal. And finally, what happened to in in the ordinance, what happened to being able to take all
three summer holidays? I thought there was going to be some considerations on to allow citizens to enjoy at least one long summer weekend. Thank you. >> Thank you. Hi, Erin McMahon from Hoffman Street. Um, I have a handout from Kurt Bicil.
He's got church uh board duties tonight. John said I could hand those out. And I also have a handout of my own. Thank you very much. >> This goes with my I'm speaking tonight to formally establish on the administrative record
the position of a coalition of concerned property owners. While we note the fair association has operated here since 1915, the families comp compromising comp excuse me, the families comprising our small working group hold a profound continuous
investment in the welfare of this city, representing well over 120 years of dedicated civic service to Canon Falls. We remind the commission that during the December 5th public input session hosted by Izzy, the community feedback was 100%
opposed to allowing amplified motorized events. Following that mandate, Kurt and I entered the recent ad hoc meetings hopeful and in good faith. Yet, we are disappointed. Our substantive feedback regarding the
enforcement was excluded. This draft reveals, this amendment draft reveals a structural bias granting the fair association legislative exemptions while offering no binding enforcement protections for residents health and property values.
Section 152.825 of this draft states that the purpose of the fairground district is to quote protect the public health, welfare, and safety of the community end quote. The actual text of this amendment directly contradicts this
mandate. We must stop treating amplified motorized events as mere nuisance. Environmental noise is increasingly recognized by the medical community as a severe quantifiable hazard to human biology. In the short time we had before this
meeting, I pulled together a handout summarizing the peer-reviewed medical data on this, the one I handed out. I ask that you review the science rather than simply taking my word for it. If you look at the handout, you'll see listed categories: acoustic profiles and
health impacts for motorized sports, outdoor concerts, and community ballparks. I included ballparks to address recent comparison of the noise from John Burch Park to the noise of motorized events at the fair property. Equating a community
ballpark to a motorized racetrack is a completely baseless comparison designed to minimize the need for clear enforcement policy. Because the impacts are so severe, when the fair association requested a text amendment and conditional use permit to explicitly allow motorized racing in
late 2024, our neighborhood initiate the state's environmental assessment worksheet or EAW petition process. The state requires 100 signatures from Minnesota residents to trigger an evaluation of these exact environmental risks. We gathered over 100 signatures
in less than 24 hours. However, by advancing the city drafted zoning amendment now, the city is actively circumventing our petition petition for formal environmental review. You are moving to codify a health hazard before the state can even assess it.
Furthermore, this city has a fiduciary responsibility to enforce state law. This draft proposes setbacks as small as 30 to 40 ft yet explicitly leaves noise enforcement to administration discretion. State law mandates a strict 60 dB limit
at our property lines. A tractor pull generates well over 100 dB. Basic physics dictates that 100 dB of engine noise cannot physically dissipate to legal limits across a 30-foot setback. The math fails before the engine even
starts. Issuing permits mathematically guarante guaranteed to violate state c state law creates unnecessary unnecessary liability. The discretionary enforcement policy forces residents to act as unpaid and
unpaid regulatory body and during multiple illegal events before inter intervention, an unacceptable abdication of municipal duty. We recognize the fair association as is a legacy institution, but if their
survival relies on high decibel amplified events, the city must take a stand. You cannot prop up a private entity by sacrificing your own citizens health and safety. We formally request the commission reject this amendment amendment today
and mandate proactive predictive noise mo modeling to guarantee legal compliance before any further action is taken. Thank you. the public input session. Nobody else has signed up. So that will be done. We
will move on to the discussion and action item on our agenda. Ordinance amending Canon Falls City Code related to the Canon Valley Fair. Izzy. >> Yes. So we have the fair ordinance
amendment today. Uh we first saw this back November 10th when we introduced the ordinance again and then we met again in December when we just had that discussion only meeting. Uh that meeting was when we put together or decided to put together the ad hoc group. Um on
your memo you had the list and timeline of every time we've met since then and and um and whatnot. So that's all provided to you. Um, so you guys have all been provided all the information from the memo and countless emails and
narratives um and whatnot. So I will kind of leave it up to you guys for any discussions or any questions that you have for John and I. >> You want to explain the two different >> Yep. So the first one in your packet without the red lines um that is the
recommended um ordinance by staff. the one with the red lines um includes changes from the fair board. So just a couple changes um in the red red ink. It's the second ordinance in your packet. >> Thank you.
I was just going to ask was someone going to read Kurt's letter that Aaron gave us. We're just going to hand it out >> it. So it is so we have we have this this will go into the packet as as information received for the meeting is
because this the public forum is not a public hearing. There's no requirement that this be read aloud but it is information that has been received and it will go into the the record for for this meeting.
>> Thank you John. Okay I'll open it up. Uh we have the ordinance proposal as recommended by our staff. We have a another one that was presented by the fair board. We have uh
obviously have public input that we have also received. >> Yeah. >> Questions, comments? Oh, I had I had some uh on the um complaint procedures. It says the city receives a noise
complaint. Monitoring will occur at the next similar event. >> Just say you're on the no noise enforcement procedures. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Which John, do you want to clarify the difference between the two? >> Uh yes. Thank you, uh chair. So the
ordinance um is the is specifically the action that we're addressing tonight. The the um what is being prevented or presented as recommended. Um then we also presented you what the changes that are being requested by the fair and their fairgrounds and their attorney.
the enforcement uh policy or noise enforcement procedures information that is derived from the code and what we have as uh staff to enforce noise rules
um and specifically in regards to how we would enforce this for the fairgrounds in the first year. So those the it this also applies to anything that could be generating noise that we would uh any sort of events or activities not just the fairgrounds. This is um actions that
we can take for you know concerts at a at a park or some other things that are happening in which noise could become a problem. So it's not necessarily just about the fairgrounds. It is uh citywide. The focus on the fairgrounds
is just recognizing that uh what has happened in the past regarding the racetrack and how we're moving forward and trying to operate that uh we wanted to take extra attention in this first year for sure to ensure that any new or
any of the activities from the past. we monitor, ensure that they meet the compliance standards, um, and, uh, make sure that there's a way to address how we would receive complaints and then what actions we would take to to address
them. So, the action of the the or the enforcement procedures is not necessarily something that has to be is is voted on here by the planning commission or or simply um addressed. It's it is they are two separate things.
Uh the enforcement free can be uh direction uh discretion to uh the administrative staff because that's how it is written into the code for the enforcement purposes. However, um input from council or planning commission in
terms of these uh what is here can you know be incorporated. So, uh, one of the ideas potentially that came up today, uh, in discussion was can this be brought forward and approved and I and I would say that it's something that we
could have it confirmed from the council u, at the next meeting along with this so that it is part of again part of the record. It's part of the effort from the council to ensure that hey we are directing we are ensuring that staff is going to you know follow through with this enforcement procedure. What is the
procedure for filing a noise complaint? Because if we have to act on it, because we use the words will and not may act, like what? So, in regards to events at the at the fairgrounds, like if they have say a demolition derby and we
receive a complaint from the that event, the next time they have a demolition derby, we would have to go through the procedures to ensure how are you going to mitigate or if it didn't if it didn't meet exceed the thresholds, we would monitor. So, the complaints are in case
we are not monitoring the sound. So we have we don't have the sound equipment out there in place. Then the next time they host event, we would ensure that the monitoring croin is out there. >> But how how do they file a complaint >> that address that to any and the city offices? It's stressed to the city
administrator. >> So if they just call like I know before there was police officers that were involved like people were coming. >> Yeah. So it is not it's not a live act. These complaints aren't in expected to be a live action. Oh, we hear loud noise and we want you to go and shut them down
if they're that we're they're told to us after the fact so that the next time we have the ability to to monitor and ensure that they're not perpetually exceeding the noise standards. So we, you know, in my conversations with the fair board, there's been a lot of been a
lot of discussion over the last well over a year in my u time in the city about this like we are really trying to find a way that we can work together. The fair board has talked to us about wanting to ensure this monitoring is taking place that if we do exceed those
limits that those are activities that we they then understand should not be done would not be done unless there were ways to to mitigate that and ensure that it could you know be brought down. So this you know sound studies and requests are certainly something that's capable.
Understanding how much they cost or what goes into those is is not something I I have information today. >> Okay. The next thing is the the flowchart with yeah um >> permitted noise amplified permitted no amplification.
Um usually amplification would mean you know like speakers plugged in or something. >> Yeah. >> If things are just not amplified but considered loud and you get a complaint is that something >> it's anything we're anything that can add to the noise
of the neighborhood is is amplifying. the motorsports being an example of that. >> So if there's 10,000 people there a a nonspeakered concert, choir concert or something like
that, that certainly could raise the noise levels to the extent where we'd want to be able to monitor. >> Okay. But the event itself doesn't necessarily, >> you know, >> Yeah. So that's an example of something that it we know there's no speakers but
you know should we monitor it anyways or is there you know they generated a lot of noise from from that event the next time they want to do something similar to it if a complaint was addressed then we could you know by by this practice we
could monitor that event ensure that it meets the compliance. I yeah, I don't know. I just kind of see like, okay, if their events get bigger and they get more successful and they draw a larger crowd and maybe they don't have amplification, um, if the crowd itself is loud because
they're bringing a lot of people into the town, >> it it >> that could be loud and now all of a sudden we need monitoring. I I don't know. >> Just throwing some ideas what I see around it. the the effort of the enforcement is to identify the times in
which monitoring should take place would take place. If it didn't take place, if an you know complaint or something happened that we miss that chance that the next time we would be able to to be able to address it
and this goes to if we have consecutive events in which they you know still exceed that then we would work towards prohibiting those events in the future. Okay. And I I started bringing it up earlier. There was five that are being
reszoned to the fair zone proposed and then two that are not. Is there any reason why the other two aren't or is I mean because if even if they wanted to store stuff on those other off-site areas now, >> they couldn't. >> I do have the aerials now available and
those are are wooded parcels. They're very small. They're not anything that they have developed right right now. So if they were to develop it, you we'd have to come back here for reasonzoning >> if they were going to develop it and use it for fairground purposes. Yes.
>> All right. Just curious >> on that. >> Is that you ask, you know, if you can recognize by the chair? >> Okay. And and Chad, I'm having a hard time when you just keep looking at John, but so you're asking about not all of
the parcels that the fair association owns are being reszoned. >> In the in the Yes. In the ordinance amendment, per our uh conversations and what we've talked about with the fair, they are not petitioning to have every
parcel they have reszoned. There are two small parcels um you know 5212 uh 120080 which is just west of Floyd Street uh
north. It is entirely wooded. It's a you know quarter block parcel and then another small sliver which isn't even served by a street. It um it's off a rightaway. It's the same 521200010. Um it's just a like would be very small
>> then would retain their R2 zing. >> They would retain their R2 zoning. They there's a potential looks like you know if the if they could be served by rightway they could be you know potentially developed for residential use. >> So did you want to comment?
>> I I can if you guys want me to. >> I mean but that was your proposal not to have those zoned. >> We didn't want to change them because it also keeps a buffer between the houses that are there >> for the woods instead of letting >> Okay.
>> benefiting people for now you won't have that extra area. Okay. >> So, other comments, questions, observations from the commission. >> Yes. I'd like to follow up with that or that I added here to that flowchart that
we were just on. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. This one here. the I don't understand when you go down to the bottom of permitted noise amplified where it says standard exceed again then activity will be prohibited goes up to prohibited section
>> events will not be allowed violations will move to violation procedure step three I guess I don't get it if it says events will not be allowed in prohibited >> yep >> where do we get violations why why would there be violations >> that would be if they have a prohibited activity that they do an prohibit
prohibited activity or event that they host regardless of or in in violation of the ordinance. So, they run a micro sprint car race on there, it immediately goes to the $1,000 fine >> and then >> Okay. But I don't understand why we
would even allow that to happen if we said events will not be allowed. They are prohibited >> because it's uh yeah, we're not prohibiting it. We don't want them to do it and people will still break the law. So if somebody breaks the law, this is
our our our ham part of our hammer to enforce that that law. >> Would that be the thousand? >> That'd be the thousand dollar per per Yeah. per occurrence for it. So if they're >> okay >> running multiple races, that's each one of them. If they have an event that goes three days of that, each day is
potentially a $1,000 fine. Those get certified to taxes. Again, we we go through the the process of um they would be potential if they don't pay their properties. So this is that's that's just that's not the expectation here. I just want to be clear in our
conversations with the fair board with all of this. That is not how they want to operate. That is not we're not writing them a path forward just to pay for these events to let them do that and break the law. That is not what we're trying to do. This is if we go back to
the scenarios what that kind of got us here where the city told them to not do something and and the fair operated and did it anyways. Now, there's a lot to that that history and story of people that you weren't involved in it. You know, I don't think anybody in this room
was directly involved in in how that operation went down. So, but in the future, if you know there's actors in place that are going to choose to at the fair board, I don't believe that to be true. I trust what I've in the conversations that I've had with them
that they want to follow these rules that if they don't, this is how we can move that process along to go to the larger fines and penalties. >> Other observation comment from
>> you want to go or who's gonna go? >> Ferlin, can I ask you a few questions? Um, do you have any idea what you know regardless of how it affects the the residents? You know, I'm talking peak decibel level of any autocross event,
demo derby, snowmobile races, any of that stuff. Do you have any of that data or information? If you were to measure it right at the track, what's a what's a motorbike register at sound level? 100 dB, 105. Do you know any of that or
>> Okay. We did have a >> Yeah, please come to the mic. So, >> we did have a uh decimal meter when they were doing the go-kart racing and stuff. Everything that we were reading from on
top of the hill wasn't blowing. We might have been over a little bit, but when you take the time frame that the ones that went over were racing, it went to broke what the state noise
level is. You you know what I mean? It's like if you break it for a small period of time in an hour, >> right? >> But >> but as far as it went over, probably it was around 75, but then we had people up in the neighborhood in their garages at 100. M
>> that's that's kind of contradictory to you know I guess what we observed with the monster trucks right cuz we we have that data and and it it broke that >> right >> that sound barrier >> but then when we looked at that data too is and I've said it to John but it's not
what we want to do right >> but when you looked at that data the daytime it didn't do it the evening one did it but they were two identical shows what what amplified it so bad on at a night show versus a day And so was there something going on? Was
the system didn't work the first time or did it >> more people? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> That's that's all I >> Okay. Yeah. Because I was going to say I think the reality is we really don't have the data. >> There there is no data. The only way we're going to get it is what we have set up right now.
>> Right. So this is going to bleed into and I I guess I don't need anything else from you if you want to sit down. Thank you. Um, so I guess I'm just going to go at it here, but um,
I guess from a legal standpoint, as far as we understand it, right now, the fair cannot do anything the way that the zoning is set up, like they don't have a legal basis to stand on. Is that correct? Until something like this passes.
>> Madam Chair, members of the commission, Scott Lansman, city attorney. Um, that's what got us to this point is that there was questions about whether or not there's possibly non-conforming uses. Um, there was um some questions about um
then how the our regulations and controls that we have. And so that got us to the point where we wanted to set up the guidelines and rules that you can see that are in front of you. And that's so you're right about that. >> Okay. So, and I'm just going to ask your professional opinion here because I did
a little research last night and I found Minnesota State Rule 730.0030. It's part of the MNPCA noise analysis whole packet you can find online. Says any municipality having authority to regulate land use shall take all
reasonable measures within its jurisdiction to prevent the establishment of land use activities listed in noise area classification one, two, or three. residentials noise area classification one in any location where the standards established in part 7030.0040
that's below here that just kind of establishes what those levels are and whatnot. It's my interpretation. So it says we set these land use activities in any location where those standards are established in part whatever will be violated immediately upon establishment of land
use. So basically my understanding, my interpretation of that law is we are not allowed and and we should not be able to pass something that we we knowingly would knowingly violate those noise rules. And I could be incorrect there.
So if you take a look at the proposed um ordinance at uh where is it on page three, one of the conditions, remember these are permitted uses. Yeah. >> Um qu uh section five or number 5C5
provides that a motorsport event must comply with all applicable city and story state noise laws, rules and regulations. So that is what then gets us into the monitoring so that they can
do certain events, but if they're exceeding those levels, they have to bring them back into the right level. If they don't, then they're in violation of the the ordinance itself. So the the way that I read this, it says we have the authority to regulate this land use and
we need to prevent the establishment of land use activities listed in these classifications and they should not be violated when we establish these land uses. >> So knowing that what we have in front of us, do we think that this is legal? Because we don't have the data in front
of us. I don't know how much a motorcycle or an autocross and I have a hard time sitting here knowing that monster trucks broke it and then we're going to sit here and say we'll let snowmobiles go by in the winter and we don't know.
>> So >> I think that's some of the frustrations that perhaps maybe some of the locals feel. We're allowing us to to run these tests in real time and we just don't know. So if your question is based on this rule, can the city pass
this ordinance based on what it says right here and there and and then the policy that will be used to enforce it? The answer is yes. Um the any political issues I'll leave up to the planning commission itself.
>> Okay. We're not knowingly passing something that we know is going to violate it. We're assuming everything that is on the up and up here. I just have a hard time again I have a hard time seeing what we've seen with the track and then the monster trucks
and then seeing other things similar classification that no offense Ferlin you don't have the data and I I know I put you on the spot and if you have the data I'd welcome it but we just don't know and I think that's where I have a hard time with this and and I and and no
offense administrator we we talked about previously you Well, we can do a quick back of the hand calculation and say, you know, this this modeling says it's it's not going to exceed 65 dB at this location. I just I'm not seeing that when I do my research online. And and
from what I can tell in the packet based off an example of 70 dB, you know, 200 feet away, you're still receiving, you know, mid60 decel levels. I just don't see it when you exceed that 100 decel level. And I know none of that's in front of us, but that's the research I
did. And I'm I'm just having a hard time connecting the dots, I guess. So, >> and I think Isaac wants to chime in, right? >> No, I was I was just gonna say I I I agree. I mean, part of my hesitancy with this is the very fact that we're having to go through all these
procedures, right? Like if we were to pass this and if they were to run their five events come next year or this year, I suppose. And we're going to be, you know, recording all that and doing all these things to ensure that they m maintain, you know, noise levels.
My assumption is we're doing that because we have doubts that they will. And then we put together a pretty detailed, you know, procedure that, you know, once said noise levels are, you know, out of whack, you know, and here's
here's now the route we're going to go down. It's like, okay, well, you can't do that event again. Well, the problem with that is the event's already taken place, right? And so the residents have already endured set event that, you know, we're we're discussing today to figure out if if if that's something
worthwhile doing. So I yeah, I mean I I agree based on the fact that we don't have a lot of data. I don't know how comfortable I am to run it a year to where those residents are essentially, you know, the ones that really are gonna going to be rolling the
dice to see how successful this is or isn't, right? Um >> can I can I piggyback on that quickly? I I think and one of my thoughts today in reviewing this was, you know, that that piece of land, regardless if it was the fair being there or an
outside entity trying to do an event center there, we would require, you know, just like we did with the data center, we required some sort of environmental analysis at a minimum. And here we're allowing it to happen with this ordinance before we
either do a study, a noise study or an environmental study or anything to benefit the city, the the citizens there, I guess, unfortunately. And I just don't see us doing this for any other entity. And you know, >> I think the difference there is the
fair's been here. they've been around where the data center and other large projects that would be coming in whether it be an Amazon warehouse like those would be new and so it's we're really just taking we want them to do what they've been doing for 100 years and don't try any of the racing stuff like
stop it micro sprint's bad >> but unfortunately I think we're back to square one because of how things progressed and we found out that it was potentially not legal and they bit off more than they could chew and made
people upset and it's not great and it's not fun to talk about it and we've gone over it for a good two years. We ran on the same thing. It's uh it's frustrating but I I think that's I mean unfortunately I think we're just that's how I see it. We're back at square one
and if it was any other event center going in we would we would pick this thing apart and say you know just like Aaron brought up you know we're going to allow this you know the setback's only 40 feet. What if the fair wants to do something close closer? You know, >> yeah, we have stuff in here that says,
well, well, the citizens, we have to do all this stuff to to prevent it, but if if there was a data-driven approach, I think I'd be a lot more comfortable passing this, I guess. >> So, may I offer the a point? I mean the purpose of drafting of ordinances and
laws are to try to you know build to prevent activities that we we don't want to see. So you have speed limits right? You have you know 55 mph is the speed limit that you determine for for a zone because it's a speed in which you
can travel safely. Do people always drive 55 miles an hour or do they exceed the limits? If you didn't have a speed limit of established anywhere and people drove whatever speed they want, would you have ability to enforce them and penalize them if they drove 75 miles an
hour? It's it's it the per the purposes of the enforcement side is to give you the actions that when things do go wrong, you have something to do about it >> versus before. >> I can tell you we also have speed limits to for the safety of the public. John,
and my my opinion is these these folks >> don't want to see that. They don't want to see racing. They don't want to see those things. I don't I don't want to see a law enacted and and see if the fair is going to follow it or not, you know. >> And the noise laws and standards are there to protect the health and safety
of of people that are in Minnesota. And that's why they're >> correct. And I think it's our duty to make sure that that stuff is followed from day one instead of seeing if it happens in year one or year two. And there's there's data out there. I did a quick research on whether or not
someone can do noise modeling that that data exists that that ability to do that exists. >> Mhm. >> And it's been required in other racetrack anything. And I know it's sorry we're not doing racetrack but it's you can do that. We can we can ask for
that I guess. So, >> Madam Chair, um you can correct me if I'm wrong because I I don't have the complete history on it, but I believe that the issue of whether or not motor the motor, you know, problem with
the motorized racing, I don't think that specifically has been fleshed out to to a conclusion of whether can or cannot happen. I I believe that it created this issue we have and then the idea was with was with
this is we have competing land uses and let's find a way so that we can bring one of the land uses in control so that it helps out the residential neighborhood. Um, and so that I think is the speed limits analogy that the
administrator is bringing up is that we put those speed limits there to have a because you're going to use a road for traveling on. You go back and forth. You put the speed speed limit on there, say 30, so that you can control that and you
have the police there to make sure that people are following that speed limit. And that's think of what we're doing here as activity that's going on. Without it, if
they let's say we get to a conclusion, let's say it's litigated, let's say the courts say, "Yeah, they can go ahead and do it." Well, then there's no controls. That's the kind of the risk that you have. Plus, you're looking at a use and you're trying to come to a conclusion without having to get to that point or
come to a resolution or trying to get to that point. And so, that's what this ordinance does. It puts up the rules for the use of the property, trying to find a way so that they best work together because that that racing
is happening. There is a use of that property. But both but with the conversations I'm that the minister has had with the fair and with is that they want to try to come under some rules but they just want to know what can we do with our property and that's what's happening here.
I and I if I can chime in too. Um it it seems that that some of the the problem here is being these events that are now being permitted the especially the motor
sports events but perhaps also outdoor concerts and things. The concern is the violation would happen to the detriment of the neighbors before We actually then said that type of event
can't happen. I guess my question is is there such a way with any given event that wants to happen there to do some to have some kind of a thing that said this is what you know the sound level is it falls within state
guidelines or it doesn't. I mean is there a proactive way? I guess if I I understand what uh Commissioner Nobach is is asking is if we can mandate that they do noise modeling for any in in light of the events that we suspect
might be that we'd put the sound monitoring equipment up for in advance of those events that they would have to provide noise modeling to show us that they don't believe it would exceed that that threshold from the point in which the noise is generated to the boundary
it crosses the NAC1 standard. And I I I don't have an answer to that in terms of knowing I I know it exists. I know we it it's out there. >> I I struggle with that ask because I know it costs money, right? And you
know, according to Ferllin's record that that's just probably money you don't have. And I that's why I have a hard time with with it. You know, I don't somebody's got to pay for it if you want to do it. And I I I hate to enact it for that case, I guess. And
I don't know. I just can't, again, in good conscience, I can't sit here and say, "Well, we know a monster truck failed and we don't know what these activities are going to do." And you stare at a Minnesota rule that says, you know, it's your responsibility
to make sure that doesn't happen on your watch. And I that's how I interpret it, I guess. that I mean at worst case that's the special events right that's five five times >> no motorized in the ordinance
recommendate recommendations that we have it's five limited motorized events special events that have no specific quantity limits what the fair board is has asked and I the justification behind
that is if we can comply with everything soundwise is there should there be a limit to how many events that they they could have just an arbitrary limit. So that's that's why their proposal was what what their justification around
that proposal and that change. So, do you I guess to me it's the simple question right now is do you mandate something to be monitored or done in advance of an event taking place that we suspect is going to bump up against the
limits potentially exceed them or is it an afteract moni monitor during the event with notice afterwards and corrective measures if to prevent that from happening again? How could you even monitor certain events ahead of time
because not all races are the same like the mic when the you know they did two of the same exact events the same things and >> different results. >> Yeah. I mean I've been to concerts where I'm just like oh my god that was way too loud. And then you go to other ones and
you can talk to people. >> So I mean it's kind of hard to say without they should already be following whatever the noise standard is. If it's a hundred from a certain distance, they that's when they test their microphones or they have a concert out there like you say, "Hey, no, that's too loud. Turn
it down." And then they know and then your crowd's going to be loud, but hopefully people are having fun. If you kill it entirely, won't be anything. I guess what I have a problem with is that as Chris was talking about, okay,
so we monitor this and we let and we do it all and we get it all done. The problem is the town's people will be listening to this all year until we finally say, "Oh, guess it was too loud. They have to suffer through that for the whole time where if we have the restrictions at the beginning, they
don't do the restrictions, it's done." I mean that allowing all these other things to say, oh, you get this and you'll pay 300, you'll pay a thousand, you'll pay all this. Set the restrictions up front as they were saying, moni get the monitoring set up and if it surpasses it, none of these,
oh, you get three more tries. It's like, sorry, you knew what the restrictions were. We're done. And that that puts it the fair then knows. It's not one of these things where they go, yeah, maybe we can do. No, it's going to be they they know where they have to be and they can monitor it themselves and we'll have
this set up. Yeah. I I I want to reiterate I don't think the intent of the draft of the enforcement policy was that we would let them operate and exceed the noise standards all year round. It was based on each event. The
monitoring equipment would be then an sent up, analyzed. we'd get a report back and we'd know and prior to them, you know, running the in a similar event, then they wouldn't be notified in advance. So, we would ensure that if it
did exceed, they're either prevented from doing that again or they show us some noise modeling that's going to prove that oh, these with these mitigation measures, we can we believe that this event could, you know, not exceed those noise levels at that at
that point in threshold. That's that is what I guess the intent when we we drafted that policy. It isn't about no, you can pay the fine and just keep doing it so long as you pay the fines. That was never the expectation. If they're if
it's perpetually violating this law, again, we still reserve the ability to, you know, require a cease and desist because they're violating an ordinance in which we've, you know, told them they're doing, you know, these are the things you can't do. You know, I could even get behind uh
tougher enforcement on that. Instead of the 3,000 starting at 300, we could start at a thousand and you do it again. 3,000 and done. >> Well, there's a cap. There is a cap on on the on the law with the misdemeanor. So, $1,000 is the I think the stat. Yeah.
>> Okay. Start with a thousand. >> Yeah. Or Yeah. Or 30 days in jail. >> So, we're going to start arresting the board members. >> I don't know. But >> let let me just what you just said John if I could ask clarification. So say we hold event A
>> and in reviewing the sound monitoring it it exceeded whatever the standards are. We send the letter that said that event exceeded it. they come back and and if they want to reddo that same event again, it would be up to the event
organizer to give us the studies that verify that it will be under the threshold that >> this is where I think the noise this in in my enforcement I think this is where that noise modeling would be required. So we know this event is so back to Mr.
Nobach's point we know that event exceeded it. So, show us what you're going to do to mitigate because that that is a process too in the state statute is that they do ask for if you have something that does violate, show proof if you want to continue doing that use that you can mitigate this and not
exceed the so sounds uh the noise standards for those classification areas. So, if they can prove that and show us that justification, then they, you know, then we could run that event again. Again, we'd want to monitor it. We wouldn't want to just let them let
them do it, assume that it's not going to break it and all of a sudden, well, we messed up on that one. We should have monitored. Wanted to put in place the opportunities where if there is that chance and risk that we monitor and verify after, you know, to ensure that
if it did, we something either needs to be corrected or the that activity isn't going to take place again. >> I got a question about the monitoring. All right. So, let's just say we got monitoring in place. Do you have one, two, three different areas where you're monitoring? >> The monitoring would be done at the
closest proximity from the to a residential that NAC1 threshold on fair property yet, but right up against the boundary. So NAC1 is where residential property starts. So >> I I know in the past we did I think two two spots before. There wasn't there one
at the pool. >> We did we moved the same monitor equipment to two different locations during the same Okay. >> Yeah. Um, okay. >> It depends on we would and again the monitoring equipment is what MPCA provides because then they can run the analysis on it and provide us the report
of whether it met the standards or not. Since they have those mechanisms in place with the monitoring equipment that meets all the standards of the state enforcement procedures, that's what we've ch choosing to, you know, at this time recommend for to use for implementation.
>> They have a certain deadline to get their equipment. So like say >> they've usually an event three months. >> Yeah. They're they're comfortable with giving, you know, if we have a give them a week notice in advance. We and it's in St. Paul. Um I mean we can it's about a half an hour drive, we can easily run up
and grab the monitoring equipment, bring it down, set it up for the event >> and bring it back to them to get analyzed. >> Okay. We would like to do as well a pre- monitoring to establish the base level just to ensure that we know does this
you know is this area right now at the NAC1 standards or is it does it exceed it without any sort of activity happening on the fair today? >> Um well with that the gentleman today public input brought up you know can there be citizen involvement in that? is
there typically or could we you know they want to and these are the people that matter us the most and if they know hey we're we're doing it we're actually setting it up we're putting it out there and this these are the results data driven like you know like it wasn't tampered
with like they get to see it set up >> I think there's there's definitely some important things to understand too about the equipment it it doesn't take there's no cameras so it's not taking any video of what's actually happening. It doesn't actually play back to you the recording,
you know, the sounds that it's it's taking it. It's it's it's calculate it's capturing decibel levels. So, it's not so you're not like able to reinterpret the data and say, "Hey, this was a truck on the highway versus a car in the in the demo pit." Um, you know, so we'd
want to it. So, evaluating the surroundings and environment of what's happening during that that time where that recording is happening is valuable information. So, you know, for people to tell us like, "Hey, we know the sound monitoring equipment is running for this hour." Um, we happened to recognize that
a, you know, bunch of motorcycles came rolling down and parked in Hannah's Bend for a big motorcycle gathering, which had nothing to do with the fairgrounds. And that's why during that activity, that's why it peaked the decibel readings. That would be valuable
information to know if you know because the MPCA folks aren't gonna be able to tell that. >> They just give us the data. >> They're just going to give us the report back. >> How does that work in regards to a noise violation in the sense to where you know if they were having a motorized type
event and you know you got an engine rev right and now it's peaked right and now it comes back down to a nominal level. >> I mean does that count as a violation? >> No. So it's it's so there's the L10 and the L50 calculations. So the L10 is that
if you have a uh decibb that exceed s during the daytime decibels that exceed 65 dB for 10% of an of a of an hour. So 6 minutes of an hour. So a combined spike of those over 65 dB crossing that
threshold. That's the first category for an NAC1 daytime violation. or it's the L50 which is if you have over 60 dB for a 30 minute period of uh exceeding that that level. So if you have, you know, it
say it's it's just a long race, but it's a constant 75 decel hum coming across that boundary that could exceed the >> So in theory, they could have a multi-day event, right? That's essentially the
same event, but it's running three days and one of those days they could have hit a violation where the other two they were fine. How would we classify that? Well, the moni you'd want to monitor during the entire or the the periods of all the
activities going on. >> Well, okay. So, but what I'm asking is if they have like a three-day type event >> and and on day one we everything reads fine, right? And then day two >> we're off. They they have a violation.
Day three everything runs fine. What do we qualify that? Do we come to them and say that event you went outside the the spectrum on that? we got to talk about >> that would yeah if any moment of that event it was there what you know do you have any information to tell us why that happened so that you're mitigating it
for the next time um so say day two was a different classification car versus day one and three well day one and three were fine so we know day two was the problem don't do the classification car in day two like it so those those could
be considered in in terms of like that you the response of mitigation that that's what could be considered if it you know we're wanting to allow to permit it. >> And then in that same that same example, right? If the residents came to us and they said that for the whole 3-day
period they were, you know, in violation, I assume we're not taking that, you know, we're not taking a whole lot of >> Yeah. like that that doesn't as far as we're concerned, as far as as far as the
city's concerned, we're strictly looking at that data regardless of whatever those citizens up there, >> you know, the citizen the citizen complaints are to ensure that. So, say we monitored. >> Mhm. >> And we believe that the monitoring data showed everything was in compliance, but
yet we still got complaints. then we still monitor the next future event because the perceive the perception of the neighbor, you know, people in the neighborhood is that it exceeded it. >> I I think that then warrants verifying whether or not it still does it in the
future. That's that's why I brought up earlier if it it should be changed to may in that wording for will we monitor it if we know okay it's been good it's been good >> honestly that's why I included the word will >> because I I wanted to ensure that they
they see hey if we file a complaint to this and we there was an event actually happening it's you know we can't file complaint and there was no ever nothing ever took place >> but if there was an event happening then yeah we had the data from the previous one, but we're going to monitor again
because it was they somebody in the neighborhood perceived that it was it was loud. It's worth verifying. >> I don't know that is city resources money to time to set it up. >> The equip Yeah. >> Does it cost to rent the equipment? >> It's not no cost.
>> MPCA charges us nothing. So, it's just the time that we're taking to set it up and if we are the ones hauling it up back and forth, MPCA and the time for the monster trucks volunteered to even bring it down and and pick it up for us. >> Um, we do have weekly uh activities in
which, you know, staff are going to St. Paul. We have samples that we have to drop off for wastewater treatment. I travel through St. Paul, you know, twice at least twice a week. I mean, there's there's ways we can we can do that without expending. someone lodges a complaint. Is it kind of like where like
how for public input you'll say, "Hey, my name, my address, something like that where like we know who's doing it. I can't just, you know, write a script that would just generate a 100 complaints and send them in and say every event you got >> we're still any complaint driven even
regardless if it's for this, we're we're we're assessing the validity of that complaint." >> Okay. So if it's just a random bot >> generated complaints, we would do our best to assess like is this legitimate or not? >> Yeah. Just wondering like when they do
the complaint, you put your address, so you know, okay, the same person or is it it's it's clearly like there is a noise issue. It's it's relatively to me it's irrelevant of if it's a specific h home
in the neighborhood or if it's anybody that you know wanted to file a complaint in the city and there's a legitimate chance that it it happened we still >> it would be except for we will enforce action. So whenever you will do something >> the will is the monitoring.
>> Yeah. you will be monitoring and that means they >> and again that's back to my conversation with the fair board of they're not opposed to us doing the monitoring >> that my ferlin could you nod to is that for that's true that's in our
conversations we've had they're not opposed to us doing the monitoring so I don't think we're providing we're creating any hardship on anybody by monitoring >> just to clarify so when we say we're doing the monitoring city of canifal is doing the monitoring so we're taking >> requesting Um yeah, we're requesting
>> but we're taking on that that expenditure of monitoring to ensure this fair adheres to noise levels. >> Again, equipment is no cost to the city provided to us by N MPCA. MPCA will do the analysis to us and return that at no
cost no cost to us. the cost of which that there is anything to the city is on either if we're going to pick up the monitoring equipment and deliver it back to MPCA to be addressed which is in St. Paul which you know as I was just
mentioning is either something that we could accommodate within existing activities that are already happening. I don't foresee this to be >> a prohibitive cost to the city >> to do the monitoring that on that method. Now, if there's some requirement that we have to go
purchase our own monitoring equipment, have our own study taken somewhere else to have data analyzed, that's a different story >> to to that effect. I mean, is the MPCA going to be amanable to handing us equipment every every weekend? If if
that's the case, are we my understanding from my conversation with the representative at MPCA was they did not have a problem with it. >> All right. All right, I'd like to move away from that a little bit and go to page two. The top says motorsport event.
The second one shows crossed out areas. That was where I guess the fairground went through and said, "No, we're not going to deal with this." But when you go to the one that the city supposedly has approved, it just says the total days in which a motor sport activity can take place. That's pretty ambiguous.
That could be 20. It could be one. From what I understand, three was the one that seemed to be the town's people's when we had the meetings accepted. But I don't think I'm going to I wouldn't go for this where it says a total days which of motorsport activity
can take place is nothing. They can just put in anything they want. They can have a week, they can have two weeks. So that needs to be adjusted. >> That's a definition. Um that's not in so that defines what a motor that >> that isn't what
>> a motor voter. Okay. So, so say they have a So, we're Oh, let me This does require some explanation. So, when we were in our uh one of our conversations, we were talking about the activity. So, like a demolition derby and a demolition
derby activity is the cars actually bang, you know, going around the track banging into each other. The demolition derby event which may take place over multiple days incorporating multiple activities of that event is so we we tried to distinguish the
two. So we said the activity is is the actual movement of the vehicles. The event is the time in which that it starts to it stops to put together to say they can have five events. They can't exceed more than three days each in a in a year. So that
>> so that isn't what that says. I mean that's what the first one says. It says an event not exceeding three consecutive days in which any motorsport activity may and then it goes the total days in which a motorsport activity can take place. >> Flip it back to the one. >> Okay. So it then it goes down into page
three where it's permitted motorsport events. Uh so number two they can last more than three consecutive days. And number three they may hold up to five motorsport events annually. >> Okay. So this that's the limit. So this
is ambiguous. This one we should put in there. Okay, I get it. I get it. >> That makes sense. >> It's there to define distinguish what an event is versus a motorsport activity. >> Okay, so C2 is the one we should be looking at on page three. >> Correct. >> Not the the the first part where you see
on on page one, those are all definitions. So those are all trying to distinguish what these things are that are going to be referenced later on in the code. >> Okay. Then the next one I had was right below it C3 number three. The Canon
Valley Fair Association may hold up to five motorsport events annually. Then provided, however, that the city council may allow additional motorsports events on request. >> Yes. >> I guess what I'm doing as I'm sitting here, I went into the meetings with the towns people and with with the fair board and everything else. And
you know, we tried to set a definitive number and I don't like the fact that the city council or the fair board can come up and say, "Hey, I got two or three more I want to do." and the city council just approves it. I think that we should stick to a number of five events. That's it. That should be more
than sufficient besides the fair. I'm assuming we're talking about that gives them six events >> for the season. >> And the thing we were trying to get away from too is having it on every holiday, but that wasn't brought up in this, I guess. So,
So you're saying on C3 you would like to have that >> the second part of that struck? >> Yes. >> Okay. And and I I I just have another question on on four C4 where it defines the hours
11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. And I know occasionally things can dribble over like 5 minutes, but >> yeah, >> if it gets to be 10:00 at night and it's still going on, >> uh, are the police empowered to actually shut it down then at that point because
it's exceeded the time limit? I mean, whereas with like any party >> it is with Yeah, it is. It's the same in that time frame that time frame rules are the same enforcement mechanism. So that's a whole another area of the code in which law enforcement can be sent to
address to you know prevent any any use of outside of you know the allowable times. So again back to the activity of the demo derby is limited capped at 9:00. The demo derby event since it
starts on Friday and ends on Sunday you know is not we're not saying like they're running that derby during all hours of those three days. another effort to try to distinguish. >> Okay. Um
I know I've heard a couple concerns about not being able or about passing something without knowing exactly whether or not any of these given events would exceed allowable thresholds. Um
we've also heard a proposal to strike the second half of C3 Um, where are we in terms of what would we'd like to do besides keep meeting?
I you know, it is it is one of those things where it sounds like it would be cost prohibited to either the event organizer or to the city to have some kind of a I can't I keep forgetting the term
>> noise modeling. >> No noise modeling thing prior to an event being held unless the actual organizers of the event already have that information and are willing to provide it to us ahead of time. But I'm
not sure that all of these organizers would have that information. And you know, and there again, I'm not sure if we put that as a requirement if that would inhibit the ability to even
do any of these events. >> I guess if you're asking for someone to make a motion if we should pass this or not, I I'll make that motion. >> Well, no. I actually I'm not sure we're quite ready, Tim. I appreciate that. I >> felt like that's where you were going. No, I I'm trying to find out what >> there's any other issues within the
ordinance that we have questions with or we might want to do to make it so that the members of the commission >> could recommend action to the city council being we are not the final word.
Um and I so I don't know if they're if we want to put in something about doing the sound stuff as part of before an event can come they have to provide that study to the town or if that's
going to become un you know too burdensome on terms of prohibiting anybody from having any event. Um if we want to say okay, our recommendation would be to limit the uh
motor sports events to no more than you know outside of the fair time no more than five events annually. I'm okay with striking out the part where the city council may allow more upon request. I mean, that could always be amended later or brought up if they
want to add it later. Seems like it might just be slowing the process down. So, Brian brought up a good point. So, >> okay. >> There's anything else. >> Okay. What is Okay. Thank you, Chad. Obvious. >> I mean, I I don't mind if you want to strike that out. I I guess my bigger
concern is we're essentially looking to approve something where kind of like you know Chris had brought up we don't have any of the data and so we kind of want to run it and see you know what what ends up being successful what
you know what won't you know go beyond the noise ordinances what will I just I'm I don't I'm not really comfortable with that considering we got residences out there. I feel like we got a hundred years of data. Like they were only here because they did the micro sprints and they ignored the city when it was asked
to be shut down. Um a lot of the events they've done for years before and they've been doing them at other fairs. So if we use that as a baseline that this hasn't been brought up before and then if something does violate it. So that hundred years is my baseline.
I hate to tell you Chad, but there haven't been motorized vehicles for hundred years. >> Well, they've been allowed to go. That's true. That's not true. They they have existed. I I think I I think I already called him out on that once. They I never motorced since the 1800s. So,
>> but not not the kind of my point my point is more so I I don't care what has been done in the past. Like, we're we're in the present, right? and >> the citizens that live there today are saying this is a problem, right? And we had some data from last year, right,
that showed that it went above those those levels, right? And so I I guess that that's where I, you know, >> those events aren't allowed. >> Okay, we can say that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that those events won't take place. insured. We have a little a
chart here that'll dictate how we go about handling that. But again, those are the individuals that are going to pay the price for that, >> right? And >> so I I guess if I can >> Well, and here's my point, right? I I feel as though the city like with this
is we're the ones kind of doing all the work to to kind of make this work for the fair, which I'm not necessarily opposed to, but again, you know, I I feel like there's some onus on the fair to bring the data themselves. And if if there's a financial hardship, well,
that's >> that's kind of where I'm at. >> That's not my issue. >> That's that's kind of how I feel, too, unfortunately. Sorry, John. Like I I go back to I would ask anybody else going into that property to do this to to do something like that and I know it costs money and I hate to do it to the fair. I
I it sucks. I don't want to. But like that's how I would treat any other facility that tried to do something like this. I I'm I'm going to make a comment. It's not any sort of objection to the noise modeling and and finding a solution regarding that. But I do want to ask like is there is there belief or
concern still that they're just going to ignore if we're going to pass this and they're just going to ignore it? >> No, I I I don't think they're blatantly going to ignore it. But I think, you know, I think there's some sense of common sense to where if you have those type of events down there, it's it's
pretty likely it's not going to be successful. And and that's where that's where my hiccup is is I'd have a lot more confidence in letting this go through if we had the data to prove that, you know, these events, they're kosher. Like we can we can run them. Like we we have run them. We and and
from a noise level issue, right? Like we're in compliance. Even if the residents didn't like the noise, as long as it was in compliance with whatever the state requires, that's fine. But we don't have any of that. Essentially, we're we're looking to approve this for this year and Canon Falls is going to
sit down there with with noise monitoring equipment and say, "Oh, that one you broke. Try and try and fix it for next time." And all the while you got residents up there that are paying the price for it. That's what I'm not comfortable with. So,
>> so at at I guess in my if I'm trying to like practically apply this to hypothetically say this happened, they they run an event, we monitor it, we get the results back that they did it that or that exceeded the rules. That was the
one event and then we're telling them that they can't do it again and they don't do it again. John, we're we're we're again like you have to understand that one event is affecting the residents in that area that have been coming at us for well over a year now
saying they don't want it. And and that that's fine, right? that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get what they want, but if we have evidence from some of these events in the past, which it sounds like we do with the monster truck rallies that that has shown and demonstrated they've gone over those levels, like we need to take that
seriously and rather than just like, okay, well, you know, that was that last year, but we're going to try and make this work for the fair and do our best to kind of fit some of the the residents's voices inside of here. I just I I don't to Chris's point I feel
like any other business and we've done it. Any other business that comes to us with sort of requests that are outside the norm because I feel like this is a little bit we're we're always typically putting the onus on said business to prove your case. Like show us the data
and then we can work with you. And if if you can't then the answer is no. So, I'm hearing from some of you that we would somehow like to amend this to basically require any permitted motor sport events or special
events with amplification have the noise monitoring study prior to that event taking place. How do I >> Well, let me just let me just see you. I know maybe not you, but is that kind of what Isaac
>> I I think that's kind of where the rubber meets the road. And I guess two things before we do that, I guess, >> city attorney, does does that put us at any more legal risk at all, including something like that, or does it put us at any is that too much?
Are we overbearing as a I don't think we are, right? Uh, Madame Chair, members of the council, or I'm sorry, commission. Um, didn't mean to elevate you, but uh, it's been a good discussion. The, um, with regard to conditions that you may
have in a zone and and the requirements that you have, it is whether or not it's there's a rational basis for that determination or those conditions you have on there. that's irrational basis means you have one good reason for putting it out there and that would be
the the test for it. Whether or not it's a practical sense that I'll leave up to the commission and and staff but um conditions as I said can be if you state a good reason for it um typically it's
it's permissible and defensible. >> Okay. Thank you. I have no idea how you get say they want to do a concert next week. How do you get an idea of, you know, the crowd that will actually show up for it because the
crowd will be loud too and and if it's super successful like, well, you can't do that again. And they even now I'm not going to allow you to do anything. Chad, I think some of it deals with um you know, you you can do a study saying,
hey, this this type of activity is 100 decel levels and how does that noise dissipate over this geography? They have the technology to do something like that. So, it doesn't have to be specific. You know, you you could take a decel if you're worried about a concert.
You could say, "Hey, the average concert does 90 dB at this level and and for this many minutes, and then how would that look 400 ft from here? How would that look 600 feet from here?" Um, again, it's out there. It's I I would assume it's not cheap. I don't know.
Have you looked at anything like that, Ferlin? Do you have any idea how much something like that costs? >> Yeah. >> The only question I have for you guys How do we mow our yard up there? Because we're going to break decimals with boners because everybody in the neighborhood that mows with a gas mower
breaks decimals to the next neighbor. I mean, that's what we're saying here because I think they'll be able to mow up there without doing study on that. That's going to tell you that them decibels are too high to cross that border. I mean, we got to use
>> Okay, just Yep. We're not We're supposed to keep the conversation up here unless we're asking for >> Well, I did I called >> factual information. So, assume um we really need to decide something tonight. Um
>> Well, that's what I want to ask you real quick. Does that So, we have to make a decision for the city council to make a decision. We have to we have to decide whether we vote to recommend it as it is, deny it as it is, amend it, or table
it for table postpone it to the next planning commission meeting. I I I'm assuming the council could take it up whether or not we did anything or but anyway so I I think you we basically
we either prove it as it is amend it and approve it postpone it or just plain deny it or you know recommend to the council. >> Oh I I hear people up here keep bringing up it's for the citizens the citizens.
the citizens that live in the area, but a lot of them have been part of this process, right? You mentioned earlier you've been going to meetings where the fair, the city, and citizens would meet. So, I was under the impression that everyone kind of came together already
and established the baselines. Now, there were some things that have changed on here, but the three parties kind of agreed this is like a starting point at least. >> Yeah. If I can provide context to that like the the end result of our of our
meetings was not a full consensus. We did not reach you know consensus on this ordinance between the neighborhood groups and the you know representatives of planning commission that were about that in that in the adock committee. those messages, the the input that we
did receive in those meetings was brought forward and tried to, you know, be incorporated and addressed not just with the code itself, but with the enforcement policy because that was in my interpretation of what was discussed.
that a big the biggest component was whether or not they were going to violate the noise standards and how were we going as a city going to enforce and ensure that they would not violate the noise standards. So that was the why
incorporating that, putting it down in writing and having it as a policy that everyone could see as and we could actually enforce was our efforts to incorporate that prime kind of input
from >> and I and I think in enforcing it if it's violated is very clear here and and that's good. I think what some of the concern from some of the commissioners is we would prefer
not to have an event that's going to violate it in the first place. >> Right? >> In which case that noise impact study to require that from the event organizer prior to the event being scheduled seems to be what we're
asking for. Chris, I don't see her. >> Who >> I'm I'm just trying to think. But yes, >> I guess at some level, who's going to be responsible for reviewing that and then confirming the noise modeling or denying
it would be my my ask? I mean I mean >> Well, what constitutes a study? >> Well, I was going to say I mean it it goes through an engineering firm. a study like that goes through an engineering firm is stamped by some sort of professional.
>> I don't I don't have the knowledge >> it to the city administrator's office. Then when we get the request or event schedule from the fair, there's demolition derby concert uh other activity outside of the fair
week. Here's our noise modeling studies. Izzy look at it and say, "Oh, yep. They stamped off by an engineering firm. They they're okay with it." or oh, you didn't include it. So, that one you can't do. Is that until you get it until you supply that
for us? >> I mean, I >> And that would just be for the motorized stuff. >> Well, that'd be for the things that, you know, are >> Yeah. >> You think are going to be potential to
violate the noise standards? they have a harness racing event like is that we're going to require them to do a noise study for that where they're the horses are just going around or >> I mean to me that doesn't make sense. I
mean, I I guess it sounds it sounds like it's it's a lot, and I know it sounds like it's a lot, but if that's the type of activities that they want to do on this area of land, I I think that it has to go through a study. >> So, is that now and in perpetuity for
every event here and so forth, or is it just do it for this, you know, anything? they want to run tractor poles and they have a study that says here here's a max tractor pole event and or here's an average tractor pull event or >> what have you and and they prove through
that study that that's allowable then what are we to say that that that study's garbage I you know >> right yeah >> I mean and obviously if if we did this um you know then like three tractor pull
events could probably use the same study Um, and we would, you know, we could still do the sound monitoring if there was, you know, we had complaints that said, "Hey, that tractor pull is way too loud." Uh, you know, that we could put
up the sound monitors for the next one to make sure it's okay. But um at least that would allow us to be more proactive in terms of um having a three-day event where
you just get a major headache all three days. And knowing that it would never be allowed again is some comfort, but doesn't do anything to relieve my headache on the second day. And the thing is, it doesn't help the fair. I
mean, if they're going to put something in that's going to why would they want to put something on that they'll never put on again? They're there to make money. So, if they can find something that will work for the constituency and themselves, they're going to make money and they can continue to do it. So those are the things that I think should be
looked at is we want to see the fair succeed but you know they should want to see it succeed too by bringing in the proper programs. Let me ask another thing. If if we were
to amend this to includes a a noise modeling requirement, does that have to have a another public hearing or is that okay within Okay, so I'd refer that one to you. >> Uh madam chair, members of the
commission, the public hearing was for the ordinance itself. Modifications and changes that you do here as long as it's when the subject matter are fine. So that wouldn't set us back, you know, another month and a half to go through
everything with public hearing. So, um, is this something we would like to ask the staff to work on and then bring us back a clean compet copy or is it something we could >> I don't want to um I would rather see
it, you know, go through the way kind of has been worked on. But >> I mean I kind of maybe to your point I mean I think this needs to see its end at some point right we need to >> the fair needs to know what they are
going to be held to and whatnot. Is there a way that we can attach this rider and send it to council or does it have to sit in front of us? You could make you can make a motion to whatever amendments you want to make tonight so long as as you said are within the
subject matter of the ordinance can be can be brought forward as the recommendation from the planning commission to the city council. >> Right. So would somebody then if if we want to make an amendment and there might be two if we want to also drop that second
>> half of number three to add the noise modeling requirement for both C and G G having amplified noise. >> Do we or so adding another bullet point? So, you
know, anywhere between 1 through five or six for item C and then one through four or five for item G. the same language that the event is required to provide noise modeling
showing. >> So, sorry I I I feel like it's it might be an overreach to ask for noise modeling for weddings, celebrations, social gatherings, those sort of things. I mean,
>> I think amplified noise was the key there because I don't think like the art fair would have to >> right >> even >> Yeah. I'm I'm just >> or did we saying they give has to give us 30 days notice on any event they hold
like uh um you know the um Lion's Father's Day >> or whatever they have. >> Hate to make runon sentences but you could just add it to number one.
So, it's clear that it's tied to the amplified noise for special events and that it's tied to motorsports events along with the notice. So, notice and noise modeling showing that it complies with all local
and state noise standards. >> I'd be comfortable with that. >> Okay. And then do you want to is it better to have two separate amendments if we want to strike the >> second half of number three? >> Depends on if it's going to get two two different sets of votes,
>> I guess. >> Okay, we'll do two separate. >> If everybody would vote on it all, you know, if if everyone was going to vote all in the same way for both amendments being incorporated in there, then you could include them as one. But if >> Well, it's we'll do it real simple.
We'll do. Okay. So, would somebody like to move to amend the proposed ordinance um to include the noise modeling as John stated? >> Sorry, Diane, say that again.
>> Okay. Would somebody like to amend the ordinance which doesn't have a number yet to include the noise modeling requirement on C and G?
G noting that it would to events with amplified noise. >> Yeah. So C can I can I offer a suggestion to it? So C1 would be an addition.
Um I don't know if it's just a comma and uh Canon Valley Fair Association notice including description schedule event at least 30 days prior to the motor short event >> somewhere with in like including description noise modeling to
show compliance with noise standards and schedule the motor sport event at least 30 days prior prior to the start of the motorsport event. We do, you know, include number five, so there's some redundancy there, but
>> and then the same addition in G1. >> So that would be amending both C1 and G1 >> to include >> the noise modeling. And then we would define what noise modeling the standard of noise modeling would be. >> Yes.
>> I don't >> that would be in our definition page. >> I don't know what that is today, but as a recommendation to the council to add that definition, I guess. >> John and commission, do you guys need me anymore? I got >> Yeah. Sorry. Go. I I was just going to
ask you real quick that that gate on the west side during events. That's one of Kurt's concerns. Have did you guys talk about that at all? title never be used under >> Okay, thanks >> for not open. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Hey, so are clear on this? >> You want me to try? You want me to try? I can try. >> All right. Uh motion to amend current amendments uh in C1 G1 including the fair
provide sound studies before events >> noise modeling >> for the motorized right >> C1 and G1 >> sound modeling. >> Yeah. >> Noise modeling. >> Yeah. and >> and a definition >> and to include a definition
>> and to recommend to the council to include a definition of >> so the noise modeling >> noise modeling. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So Isaac made that motion. Is there a second? >> The alternative is they get nothing. Right.
>> Is what? The alternative is we're >> No, we're just >> No, you're just talking about the This is just about the ordin or the amendment right now. >> Amendment to the ordinance. >> So, if this fails, it doesn't kill the whole thing. It just is. >> And before I second that, how does this get brought up to council with that definition, I guess, is my concern. Um,
>> draft it and send it >> and discuss it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, uh, >> can can I just add the word professional noise study? >> Yes. that that would be my my only thing
because I will not be here at the next council meeting and I don't know if that would be part of the definition or not. So just trying to professional noise study would be my recommendation there. >> Um Madam Chair, members of the
commission, two ways that this could be brought up and it's it'll be I would say staff's discretion. One is to provide a um modified ordinance with those changes or is to have the staff report saying this is what the planning commission wanted to add in. Either way, the the
the city council will be informed of what the recommendation was. >> I would mo motion or it'd be my preference to to have a modified ordinance and not uh study points or whatever. Here's what we wanted. >> Step report. >> Yep.
So the modified ordinance would be the amendment process >> that >> Yes. >> Yeah. What you're doing right now is you're ask you're asking that the proposed ordinance that's in front of you is to have you're voting to have that change to it with that that
provides the direction to staff to make that change. What I was informing is that I I have seen uh seen it done two ways. There's always a report that says the planning commission re is the recommendation of the planning commission or this is what was discussed so that to help better create the record
and inform the council. Um there may you know staff can make that staff usually makes a decision of whether or not to amend the the document itself or to provide two versions or to or and or to have the staff report provide what was done or what was requested or because
this is at this point is a motion to modify what is going to be recommended. >> I I guess I'm a nay on that one because I think it's government over a motion. I haven't yet. >> Oh, I thought he seconded it.
>> No, I I was clarifying the clarify the >> word professional in there. Professional noise modeling too. >> So, is that a second or no second? >> That would be my second. >> Okay. So, >> it has been moved and seconded to
>> Does it have to get approved again? He changed it. >> It's been moved and seconded >> to modify the ordinance to include in C1 and G1 professional
noise modeling requirement. I said that kind of right. >> Yes. And and again, madam chair, members of the commission, this is not an approval of the ordinance itself. It's just to modify the language in there.
And you'll at the end of this process, >> yes, >> there will be an then whether or not there will be a motion to approve or not approve the recommendation. >> Okay. So now we're just voting on >> adding noise modeling >> add. Yeah. The modification of the
amendment, not on the total amendment itself, just the >> modification. It's been moved. It's been seconded. >> Is there any further discussion? You can unpic >> now I say nay. >> Okay. Well, I have discussion that
>> that was part of the discussion that you have. Yeah. Okay. Then all in favor of modifying the ordinance as stated say I >> I >> oppose. Nay. >> Nay. >> Thank you. One nay.
Now, do you want to also modify the ordinance and C3 to remove the allow additional motor sports events? >> Brian, you were the one that proposed that. >> Yes. >> I make the motion. >> Okay.
>> To remove this move provided, however, that the city council may allow additional motorsports events upon request. >> So, Brian moves that we modify C3 Is there a second? >> Second. >> Isaac seconds. Is there discussion on
removing the second half of C3? >> If not, all in favor of that modification say I. >> I. >> I. Oppose. Nay. Passed. Now,
are we ready to vote on recommending or denying this ordinance to as modified to the city council for their consideration? So my the only thing I have left was what I asked Ferlin if we add a rider under E parking or something
like that to just say you know Westgate cannot be used except out or only during fair or can we put it somewhere during the fair definition because that was a citizen concern about people
going around up there after hours. >> That would be under what Chris? So it was either it would either be under e parking or wherever we define the fair. >> But if it's one of those things, >> I guess I I don't have a problem with
them using it because it also could be a safety like not so much coming into that one road on Hannah's bend. It's kind of >> if they do road construction or something like that, it could >> if it needs to be used, it can. It doesn't sound like they want to and they
haven't. It's just one of those things where it's there's no direct path up to 19 from there. So you're going through residential areas and people come out of those events >> if you will. I you know what have you. So I I do see the residential concern. >> The the same problems over there by
Hannah's Ben too. They come in there's just there's houses on both sides of the entrance. So I can see them just it they they also want to charge for people to come there. So if they're charging people to park they're going to have a controlled flow. >> Yeah. Oh, >> but Ferland also said they don't
wouldn't use it outside the fair anyway, so I have no problem putting that in writing. >> Okay. Where did you want to insert that, Chris? >> Uh, I I guess I'm looking to see if we add something like that. Does that make this go back to the whole reset and and
where's the best spot to put that? >> We were just having a discussion so you better make if you couldn't mind repeating. So, if we added that, you know, one of the concerns I see here is, you know, hey, the west the west entrance should be closed off and and Ferland even said that they wouldn't use
it outside of fair hours. So, could we close the west gate entrance for these special events or these events or put a rider in here somewhere that says only during the fair can we use the west west access road?
Well, I I I typically in in access points when you do close them down in situations like this, what I've seen is that it has to be open at least for emergency access. Um I think that I think what your your comment is to close it down for the
uh public use during event events. >> Yeah. Anything outside of typical fair use. >> Yeah. I mean similar to as we discussed other conditions as long as there's a
rational basis for those conditions then it's legal but you know the practical sense again and and the policy behind it is up to um the commission and staff. >> Yeah. I' I'd say if you're gonna do something like that, you you have to say
the other road has to be available because you can't just they have one way in right now and they have that as like a backup and so if they're doing work on that road by hand has been there and nobody can get through and the other way
and you know there needs to be access. So it you could say the primary way of the event must be this way and the other should only be used in emergency situations or when available. The other way is not available. I don't know how
some however an attorney would write that but >> seems seems fair. >> I'm pretty sure that if we do a major reconstruction on Hannah's Bed Road that the fair is not going to schedule an event during that time. >> We >> I mean well I >> it might not line up with their
schedule. Well, but at the same time, it's going to be very difficult to help people get there. >> Here, can can we do something that says outside of fair fair hours and emergencies only, the Westgate shall not be used or something that simple?
>> You're talking 9 to 11 or just the uh the days of the fair, the five, six days of the fair, >> the seven days of the fair or whatever. >> That would address their concern, I guess. So Chris is proposing that we
modify the ordinance to include uh the west gate will not be used except outside of days of the the fair and for
emergencies >> will just be special events, right? That that's what that is. Like that the fair doesn't qualify as a special event. >> Yeah. So it just it won't be used for special events. >> Yeah. Outside of emergency personnel. >> Oh yeah.
>> Or something to that effect. >> Easier to say will only be used during fair time. >> West end. Just that's the only time that that'll be open. >> Yeah. Whatever's easier to say in writing. I guess that's the effect. >> I I just see a problem if we decided a
road project has to happen and well we don't care about >> we can make exceptions. There's exception to come up. But this is to this is to essentially ensure that the majority of these instances are negated rather than the you know the minority of of of issues potentially coming about
which I'm sure the residents can can live with. But I think this is to Chris's point protect against >> what Kurt had made mention in here to where it's a safety concern for that that neighborhood. >> Right. I'm I'm just saying if you're gonna write in that they can't use it.
Yeah. You should say it can't be the primary way if if there's no other way to get in there and they have an event going. Well, I guess that's the way because the road's tore up or if it's flooded down there >> and if the things happen they need to be
able to use it if they want to >> and it doesn't have to be the primary way. The primary way is blocked you can use it. >> So what we're saying is that want to modify the ordinance to
say the the west gate can uh can only be used during the regular fair and only if the Hannah's Ben Road is >> I decible I don't
>> um I I think we can simplify this. Uh I I think you should it it goes along the lines of the only times you can use they can use the west gate is the fair and emergencies.
So you're >> I mean can can we put it under permitted accessory uses or is that not the right spot? >> No, >> it's more like a or >> would you just add it to like after G
>> general district restrictions regulations. So adding I think yeah it's if it's just in the general district regulations and number three that the west entrance can only be used for the annual Canon Valley
fair and emergency uses >> is is there I I do I have a question is there any need to have some flexibility so that determined by the city of access eastern access is limited >> that's fair that's what I was asking fair >> yeah so I your first part which was
free >> can only be used >> um for fair fair times in other times it's for um emergency >> access or city vehicles or whatever >> the other would be but or also be can
used as determined necessary by the city engineer or city administrator when the eastern access is limited so I think because I think the issue what I'm hearing is that it's not just construction construction. There may be something else going on. >> Floods may, you know, maybe uh
>> there was a big storm and a tree fell down and you haven't got out there yet and people need to get out and they can't. >> Yeah, >> you don't want them stuck there. But that's could also qualify as emergency. But I think that by proving it when it can only be used other times it has to be emergency
um SL you know emergency access. Um, >> well, I think it could just be a simple car accident at 5 miles an hour and now they're blocking the road and people got to go. >> And that's why I think that I just said city engineer because that's if it's a project or
um do we want it limited to city administrator or do you need to say city staff? A city administrator can always delegate. So >> yeah, >> I'd say city inter city staff when the eastern access is limited. that could be further defined, but that's a good starting spot. I feel
comfortable with that. So, I would make a motion to add that, I guess. >> Okay. So, between Chris and Chad, do you have the or do you have the amendment? >> John's writing it down. >> I think John's writing it down. Um,
>> was it under number three there, John? >> Yeah. And I so I think the addition would be added to yes section three which is of the code section 152 354.
>> Let's see if we got >> where am I looking or is it Mr. So on on page five >> determined. >> Yeah. >> Page five section three amendment. >> That way it could lead the discretion. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. So here's what I drafted.
So for se 152.354 under F new addition of three west entrance can or the west entrance can only be used during the Canon Valley fair for emergency purposes or when city engineer or city administrator determine
access can be permitted. And I I should say if this is approved, there's an amendment um prior when prior to going to council, we may um have to modify our language a little bit, but it'll it'll be within that
>> context. Yeah. Okay. >> That I would make a motion to >> Oh, Chris. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Isaac seconds. >> Okay. Waiting for you, Chad. All right.
>> Modification on the west entrance as >> John explained it that might be slightly modified >> prior to the council meeting. >> Is there further discussion on this? All in favor? I >> I
>> I oppose nay. >> So moved. Any other modifications? Okay. Then are we ready to vote on
recommending the modified three times ordinance to the city council for their consideration? >> So that action would be the resolution. Correct. Is he? >> Oh yeah. Pardon me. I've got that marked somewhere in here too. >> Taking the council so they can't just
add more willy-nilly. So this would be planning commission resolution 2026-02 approving the many modified the three times modified ordinance amending city code relating to the Canon Valley Fair.
You see that towards the end of your packet. Would somebody like to make that motion approving or they make the motion to approve the resolution approving the ordinance as modified? >> Motion to approve.
>> Chris moves. Is there a second? >> Yeah, I'll second it. >> Add seconds. Is there any further discussion? All in favor? I >> I >> opposed. Nay. >> So moved. Uh
I there is no further um action required tonight. The next meeting of the planning commission will be on April 13th. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn.
>> Is it moves? Is there a second? >> Second. >> Brian seconds. All in favor? I >> I nay. She moved.