[1:00] Brian Douglas: The Monday, December 8th, 2025 meeting of the city of Canon Falls Planning Commission will come to order. Roll call. [1:00] Sara Peer: Johnson. [1:00] Diane Johnson: Here. [1:00] Sara Peer: Douglas. [1:16] Brian Douglas: Here. [1:16] Isaac Naatz: Naatz here. [1:16] Jesse Fox: Fox here. [1:16] Chris Nobach: Nobach here. [1:16] Brian Douglas: The agenda is before us. Are there any additions, corrections? [1:31] Chris Nobach: Uh, motion to approve agenda. [1:31] Brian Douglas: Moved by Nobach. Is there a second? [1:31] Jesse Fox: Second. [1:31] Brian Douglas: Second by Fox. Any further discussion? All in favor of approving the agenda say I. [1:31] Commissioners: I. I. [1:31] Brian Douglas: Nay. So moved. Approval of the minutes. [1:48] Brian Douglas: Another short document. Uh, the minutes from the November 10th, 2025 meeting. [1:48] Chris Nobach: Uh, motion to approve. [1:48] Brian Douglas: Nobach moves to approve. Is there a second? [1:48] Isaac Naatz: Second. [1:48] Brian Douglas: Second by Naatz. Any further discussion? [2:06] Brian Douglas: All in favor? [2:06] Commissioners: I. [2:06] Brian Douglas: Oppose. Nay. So moved. There is no public input. So we will move on. There are no public hearings. We have one thing on the agenda and it is discussion only. No action. Uh, ordinance amending Canon Falls city code relating to the Canon Valley Fair. Turn over to Izzy. [2:33] Izzy Carlson: Okay. So today is just more discussion on the fair ordinance. I'll just kind of recap. So, I gave you all the documents and then the summary from Friday where we kind of had a public input open forum for residents to come in and share their thoughts and ideas um on the proposed ordinance. We had a pretty good turnout um that day. So, a lot of time put towards that. Um and overall, I'll just kind of do some overarching themes. A lot of it was we like the fair as it is during the 4-day normal event. Um in terms of camping and outdoor storage, there was quite a bit of opposition to that. Um many people felt that the ordinance was too ambiguous as it is written right now. Um they were worried about planning the ordinance for future um councils, future commissions, future fair boards. So, keeping that in mind, um, wanting to ebb and flow with that. [3:37] Izzy Carlson: Um, more of a focus on agricultural events, less motorized events, as you know, a lot of discrepancy with the noise. So, that was a major component of Friday. Um, and then a lot of just descriptions of people's experience with the fair board, with the city, their experiences with the fair. Um, so that's all drafted out with you. Um, people that couldn't made it sent in emails and thoughts. So, those voices are still getting heard. Um in terms of today, it's just a chance for you to take a look at those ideas from the community and then hopefully we can kind of hash out um a continued path forward with this. [4:21] Jesse Fox: And first of all, a huge thank you to Izzy who was here pretty much all day Friday listening to all of us from the community. And uh, thank you for doing that. [4:31] Brian Douglas: Remember, we don't do that anymore. We can just do thumbs up. [4:37] Chris Nobach: Okay. So, comments from commissioners. Uh, Izzy, uh, what what kind of feedback did you get and and what do you you know now now with the data that was presented um that we got from the monster truck rally? Was it in the fall or whatever it was? Um, and I see that that dropped off of this which is great. But how do we deal with other items on here like demolition derby, motocross, autocross that could potentially exceed those levels? Um, have we thought about that? [5:09] Izzy Carlson: I'll just say in terms of Friday, I will say every person that came in was opposed to anything motorized. So just based on the people that came in on Friday, it was total opposition of anything motorized and loud. Um, in terms of the fair board, the last meeting that we had, I think last Monday, um, there was discussion of a reduction in the frequency of events. Um, changing the definition of special events to remove those motorized events from that category. Um, and then changing the duration of the amount of time that they could do motorized events. Um, in terms of the standards, I guess you still have to look into how we're going to— [6:18] Chris Nobach: Yeah, because it's still written like they need to meet it, but what happens if data gets presented that says that they're not meeting it? You know, that's kind of a concern I have. [6:40] Jon Radermacher: Yeah. And if I could add to that, so in my conversations with MPCA, if you know we run into circumstances in which they're exceeding the noise limits, then they generally work with—on the industry side, but their approach is to work towards mitigation strategies. What are the things that they could implement into uh the operations of that building or or facility so that it it uh mitigates the the sound so that it doesn't violate the the state statute for MPCA. So in terms of you know a consideration for something like this, are there mitigating things that could be implemented onto the site that would keep the sound from traveling and exceeding the the state standards for that? Likely that's going to be with with vehicles of certain kind certainly is going to be difficult. Um, but for like a concert or event like that if you know the band shell or stage or area is pointed or reflected in a certain way or there's certain you know buff—buffling buffers or something between, it could— [7:26] Chris Nobach: I guess one of the things I have a hard time imagining you know noise mitigation—you think noise wall something like that—but I just don't, you know, as far as the fair, if they're having issues with their budget and stuff like that, I don't see that being an option for them. Um, events, you know, they they would have to cancel the event, I would think. You know, I know when this whole thing blew up originally, um, I think I had heard that they were looking at doing muffling motors and or, you know, changing the mufflers and stuff like that. But yeah, I guess I I guess I just don't know, you know, if the MPCA is there to help mitigate stuff. I don't know what actual real possibilities there are there outside of not holding the event. [8:13] Jon Radermacher: I mean, that's—they're yeah, they're not—as it was told to me from the representative from MPCA that their focus isn't necessarily on events. It's on, you know, sustained users like in, you know, industry buildings. So, you know, how they would approach this, I don't I don't know specifically how MPCA would, but I would take that, you know, their approach for mitigating an industrial building and try to apply similar fashion to this. So if the event could exist within the noise standards, so you know, no more than a combined 5 minutes of over 65 dB during the daytime and 60 dB in a 30 minute period over an hour, you know, evaluated period and that's—that's the standard, you know, bleeding into the residential areas. So that's um you know, those are pretty low. Appropriately low for residential use, but um you know, so it's going to be a challenge. [9:22] Diane Johnson: And and another question I have—go ahead, Diane. I'm going to change subjects. Yeah. And um, the more I I look at this overall proposed text amendment. Um and I am a strong support. I mean, I love the fair. I go every year. However, as I look at this, I want to say I go back to something Bruce Hemma had said way back in the last planning uh commission, you know, about the purpose of the Canon Valley Fair is, you know, should be that, you know, the actual fair but agricultural things. And I think we've kind of strayed when we talk about motorized events and concerts and wedding halls, I thinking, which have absolutely nothing to do with promoting agriculture. [10:08] Diane Johnson: And uh I don't see these motorized events as being especially when if we got to contend with some kind of a noise abatement thing and everything else as ultimately bringing in that much money for the pain that it causes. And so I um I'm pretty much for at this point getting rid of all motorized events that happen outside that don't happen within the actual fair with maybe looking at the Memorial Day and Labor Day events perhaps not on those weekends but you know kind of a grandfather clause and then you know everything else is—is that you know statement of you know agricultural affairs, exposition, civic assemblies, you know, that kind of stuff. Um, so he can have the Lions Club Father's Day thing and things like that. But I I I you know, the more we look at this, the more we just get bogged down with all this stuff. [11:28] Jesse Fox: I I think you I think you bring up a good point. I mean, I I respectfully disagree. Like I don't I don't think it's the city's business to enforce codes and stuff like that, right? But I don't think it's really our business to define what the fair is and is and can and cannot be. Um, that's kind of their their jazz, right? Um I think we can have an opinion, I guess. But like I I just I you bring up a good point because I when this first started I said I don't want to be your big brother, you know, like I feel like Pandora's box has been opened. I don't know how to shove all this stuff back in. There has been many wrongs. All of that stuff. Um, but yeah, I—and to your point or to what I was saying earlier, I don't want to be their big brother. I don't want to decide what the fair can and can't be, but here we have to enforce code um at the same time. [12:13] Diane Johnson: And—and you are right. I I don't mean to tell the fair what they should be, but in in terms of, you know, they're kind of presenting this as, you know, we're a fair, we get to do what we want. And I want to say no, you know, you're here kind of under a whole grandfather thing about you've got the fair, you've got the couple things that have been happening for years, but um being they're not, you know, county fair, they really don't have that unlimited ability to go ahead and do whatever they want. And being they're in the city—in the city limits and in right now zoned pretty much all R2 with a little bit of urban reserve, none of what they've been doing is allowed there. [12:59] Chris Nobach: One of the questions I have Izzy, maybe you can help me or Jon—um, why can't we do something like permitting like we did—and I don't know what we did back when we used to have a street dance downtown. Why can't we do a event permitting like that where there's, you know, immediacy to it where it's a single, hey, you got one chance at this? You got immediate lessons learned. That went terrible. We're not doing that ever again. Um, pre-approved sort of list. You know, we've kind of talked about that. Can the fair come to us with the list each year and then we pre-approve it um that way? And I get there's not much flexibility there, but at least then we can feel out how things are going, you know, and kind of take a look back. Oh, that that didn't go well. We don't want that anymore. There's enough people that hated it, you know, that sort of thing. I—can we do something like that? And why—why can't we if not? [13:55] Izzy Carlson: I guess in terms of a just a pre-approved list of events, I mean, they're still in non-compliance in R2. You know, I couldn't—I couldn't go over to the industrial park and just have them give me a list of, oh, we're going to have this event in the industrial park or blah blah blah and then just me approve that. I don't have any statute that— [14:12] Chris Nobach: Let me try to rephrase it. Maybe off base, but like for, you know, if if there's events that run through the city, Chief has to come to the police commission and say, "Hey, we're doing the racing event downtown, the bike racing event." You know, keep in mind it has to go pre-approved. It has to go through a certain, you know, that police committee and then it has to go through council for approval. Why can't we do something like that for this? And I I hear what you're saying, but I feel like we do it for certain other things. [14:41] Jon Radermacher: But they're not probably in the R2 zone. And I think there there are limits in terms of permitted uses, conditional uses, other kind of uses in an R2 zone. Most of which aren't any of this. [15:10] Izzy Carlson: Yeah. And I'll say too, a lot of discussion has been on, you know, we can just do like conditional uses for events and we'll approve events on a case-by-case basis with a CUP. But CUPs aren't case by case. You know, they're permits that run with the land that are recorded with the county. So, if every time a fair wants to throw the lion's breakfast or have some sort of community event, that would have to go through a whole public hearing. It would have to go through the entire CUP process just for a small event like that. So when we think about doing conditional uses, they aren't really applicable to short stints; they're long-term. Um, and you know I suppose you could think of interim uses. Interim uses would be more applicable. Interim uses are used for short-term. You know, it's a—a business that maybe we allow in a residential neighborhood for a short time so that they can get their ground running and then they're no longer applicable for an interim. Um, but that still is a pretty tedious process. The same thing, public hearing for the Lions breakfast seems a little less efficient. [16:11] Chris Nobach: Could you do an interim use type deal each year for the summer or something like that? Or here's our list of events, interim use, pre-approval list, good for the summer. You would still be going through like we did with—we'd go through a public hearing as at least on that first basis. Um, and that's in my opinion that's not a bad thing because then the residents get a chance to say, "Hey, that went very bad last time." [16:50] Jon Radermacher: Yeah. And that's and you know that is a kind of a function of—of why they exist. Regardless of that, do we still not need to come up with a—a redefining of what they are? I mean, do you—do you want to do interim use on an—on an urban reserve every summer and—and a residential area? [17:43] Jon Radermacher: Yeah. And what I wanted to verify because I haven't really approached this from keeping it as residential. That's not really been the direction that um we had. So I want to make sure like even if we allow for interim use in residential like an R2 zone—I think we'd have to verify that because we do allow it for some other res but yeah and we did for you know I know the most recent IEP that we did um is in a residential zone so they are—yeah we did it for that body shop or whatever. So procedurally you would have to do that. [18:00] Chris Nobach: I think the difference there though—I think we did that sort of on the faith basis that he would be able to enclose that—that noise. Yeah. And I think even the residents that spoke in opposition, I think some of them had said they'd heard some revving and whatnot, but I think he was saying, "Hey, that's a controllable aspect that I—that I'll get a handle on." Whereas this instance, I—to Chris's point, I mean, yeah, like maybe you can put up a buffer wall, but if they're struggling to the point that they made mentioned last meeting, like that's not going to be an option. And that—I mean, that sound is going to—it's going to dissipate even with a wall. [18:25] Jon Radermacher: Yeah. And I and I think there's limitations too with what is allowed even with in an interim use. Like you're like in this instance, there are commercial activities or a certain list of prescribed list of things that you can approve an interim use for. Some of these fair activities might not even be included in that. So then you'd be revising your interim list to create this and for R2 zones and then that would be applicable for all R2 zones I guess and now you might have applications for things in areas you really don't want. [19:10] Isaac Naatz: Regarding like the public feedback, obviously the motocross, but in regards to like the camping and storage it seems as though there's opposition to that. What was the feedback on that? [19:10] Izzy Carlson: So, a lot of the feedback for camping was just the feeling that they didn't feel it was necessary. There's other campgrounds around, so the fair shouldn't also have to do this. Um, comments on they didn't want to have to look at it kind of. And in terms of outdoor storage, didn't want to have to look at outdoor storage. So, an aesthetic reasoning behind the outdoor storage um was—was most of the opposition towards those. [20:01] Diane Johnson: I just want to ask because we look at this, it says no motorized racing, does that mean that things like tractor pulls—what's—what's the slamming together of the cars? [20:01] Jesse Fox: Demolition. [20:16] Diane Johnson: Demolition. Those are as noisy as anything. And the other thing I'm looking at is noise levels need to be held to the PCA standards. Is that during fair time too or is fair time when it's during those four days they don't have to maintain noise levels? What is the— [20:31] Jon Radermacher: I think the expectation there is that during the fair time that those would be exempted. Yeah. The city kind of takes a blind eye to those four days essentially. Right. [20:54] Jesse Fox: So, what what I've gathered um is—is that the residents want no noise, they want no storage, they want no camping, and they want just four days a year for the fair to do their business from those that came in on Friday. Yes. Um, I would—it's a bit of a—from what I've gathered um that's a hard—hard stretch um for that group, the fair board to—to try to um fund the fair off of those four days. Um, I—I've—I've met with um members of the fair board over the last couple of weeks and there seems to be um like Furland doesn't have an issue, right? And this document is like wants nothing to do with the—the carts. [22:00] Jesse Fox: Um, but I think the hard reality is is that it's like a volunteer organization. It's not a hard—hard group that gets paid to do any of this. And they all have lives to lead and jobs to go to. So, the amount of time that they can put into coming up with ideas to make money—and I—and I get it, right? Everybody—everybody would be really really happy if they had really really quiet things down there and they made a fortune and all of this would go away. Um I I don't think that that's terribly feasible. Um because it really—it really ties hands. I mean, I get that you don't like the noise, but then—but then when you come in and you're—you don't like the look of the storage down there and it's like, well, the reason they have the storage down there is to make money, right? So, what is it that you don't want, right? [23:09] Jesse Fox: Can you live with the storage? If there's less—less loud events, can you live with um—I—if if they have like a Renaissance fair for some odd reason, right? And there's people down there in tents and they're doing stuff and those people want to be there for 2 days and the vendors are there and they've got trailers that they want to camp in because they don't want to drive 4 hours back to their house um so that they can be up and running the next day and all that, right? There's got to be a little give and take on what you can live with, right? You can't just say no to everything um because it's not—it's not fair to them either, right? I mean, that's just—that's—that's my opinion is that there—you can't just come in here and—and keep saying that same old stuff, right? Because it doesn't—there needs to be some give and take somewhere um on it because I don't—I think it—they're going to be really hard-pressed to not do anything. [24:00] Jesse Fox: Um, and I think some of these events aren't—aren't super money um—raising events, right? I—I don't know what—what they bring in when the lions have their breakfasts over there and I don't know what um, you know, the storage, you know, I think there's an eking by, right? However they can, right? Harness racing, I don't know what that brings in. Um, obviously they feel like that they need to have some other events. Um, and I get that it's noisy at times. Um, and I get that I don't live there either. Um, right. But there needs to be some sort of um, right? Some sort of agreement as to what—what we can get to. Um, because I think there's—I think there still needs to be a document that says what they are and kind of lays out what they kind of can and can't do, right? [25:37] Isaac Naatz: Aren't they just considered a nonprofit? They aren't a fair, right? [25:37] Jesse Fox: But it's not—it's not—it's not nonprofit or profit. It's—it's—it's I mean, you want to—you—you—you want to designate it a business area and just call them a business. [25:58] Isaac Naatz: What I'm saying is there's fairs all over the state, right? And the—and some of the documents in here talk about a lot of them and it talks about how they are designated. [25:58] Jon Radermacher: Yes. [25:58] Jesse Fox: And they're all—they're a little bit all over the place, right? And the thing of it is is that the city needs to figure out what they want this to be and—and just saying they can't do any of it is—is—is kind of hard for them to deal with. You know what I mean? But if you—and I understand where you're coming from looking at—they've been around for 150 years—and—and—but it's not the same. [26:52] Diane Johnson: But I guess what I'm saying is each year they know what they have to do and they aren't really—they've heard what the people have to say, right? But they're still saying, "No, we got to do this." And I'm like, there's got to be other ways besides racing and motorized vehicles and everything else that they can make money and be a solvent nonprofit. And that's what I'm thinking. Like I heard like—what is there, Friends at the Fair or something like that? You know what they need to do is probably get more people from the city to be parts of the Friends of the Fair and say, "Hey, we're looking for ways to make money. What ideas do you have besides motorized racing so that we can be solvent and we don't have to learn how to do it?" But you'd be amazed at how little people want to get involved. [27:13] Jesse Fox: Well, I think I get it. You know, everybody's got lives, right? And just magically—and—and the thing of it is is that if you know, you're like, "Okay, we come up with something there." There's an investment there that you have to put in either time and probably money to do an event, right? Let's say you come up—let's—uh—let's do a Renaissance fair. Let's do a whatever, right? Something quiet. Let's do a wine and—and cheese thing. All of that takes a lot of time and a lot of effort to get that word out. And—uh—and a lot of the time they are um dealing with the weather, right? You can—you—you—you can set up an event and—and fingers crossed you hope it makes money but it might not. [28:29] Diane Johnson: I understand. Right. So it's kind of like how much do you want to stick into something that's—that's new? And I, you know, and I I agree with it. It it seems to me this whole concept of the fair raising funds through any kind of motorized racing is a very recent development like the last couple years. I mean, we've—and we've had the two, you know, Memorial Day Labor Day events. Everything else was at the fair and pretty much we didn't have that. Uh, and you know, you look at their 990s and one year they, you know, five years ago or something they showed a loss. Every other year they've made a profit. Um, and I didn't see any significant bump up in their profit level when they had the motorized racing. So, I'm not, you know, I'm I'm really not sure that— [29:14] Jesse Fox: Based on what though? I mean, when you say that they—they—so they had—they had their two—two events on the Labor Day and Memorial Day, as far as I know, I—and they—and they— [29:14] Diane Johnson: I have no—I'm just—I looked at the 990s online. Which shows revenue, expense, and the difference, you know, and it shows major categories. Um I think one of them was filled out incorrectly because all of a sudden there was no program revenue and there was every other year but—and it wasn't 2020 but um you know that to me is the introduction of this you know all these motorized racing events and their desire to go forward with that changes the nature of what happens in that R2 urban reserve zoning area in a way I think that is very detrimental to the people who have homes there. Um, and I don't know, you know, I have no idea exactly how we go about— [30:21] Jesse Fox: Well, I think, you know, figuring out—here's how you go about it. You—you—you listen to everybody. And—and—then you make some really tough choices and ideally everybody walks out unhappy. [30:21] Diane Johnson: Yes. [30:21] Jesse Fox: Right. Because there's going to be um—because in my opinion both sides need to get some of their wishes, right? So if it's—we—we—don't want any—we want no racing of any kind. We're okay with the derbies um as long as the derbies are um on just one weekend of the holiday. [30:48] Izzy Carlson: One holiday weekend was something that was brought up. Correct. [30:48] Jesse Fox: And willing to do—and the other one on a non-holiday weekend. Yeah. And in exchange for that, we're fine with uh outdoor storage. [31:03] Isaac Naatz: Outdoor storage. Yeah. And camping when they have events there. Yeah. Correct. So that's what that's what sort of—that's what needs to happen. I mean, just going over and then figuring out how to write that up appropriately. [31:17] Isaac Naatz: Well, yeah. And I I I mean, I think the public would be more at ease about it if it wasn't so ambiguous is what you've spoken about before, right? I mean, you say special event. It's like, well, that could encompass any and everything, right? And even like with—with the storage, I mean, does that mean it—it—it—it—it could potentially be an eyesight or is it going to be enclosed or what is that? [31:41] Izzy Carlson: Well, I—right. So, currently they have outdoor storage and indoor storage. So, I guess the question is—yeah. So, then—so then what are we looking to expand, right? Is it—is it both? Is it one or the other? [31:41] Isaac Naatz: And I agree. I mean, I think as far as the fair is concerned, I I I tend to agree that the motorsport is kind of a non-starter just based on the fact that it doesn't seem as though they're going to be well adhered by the the noise ordinances. But when it comes to like these other ideas, I think it's important we consider them. But also, I think, you know, I think what we struggle with is we look at the language in here and it's like, okay, well, that encompasses a lot. Like that's pretty general. And I think that's the public as well to where, you know, unfortunately the fair has already taken an inch and they've gone about a mile with it. And so now you get an ambiguous document and the public's saying, well, you know, we trusted him the first go round and that didn't go so well. [32:39] Jon Radermacher: I I would offer that at this point—and I I don't think the expectation is that we're moving forward specifically with that document. I think that was the—it had—it had created the opportunity to start the conversation. We clearly understood and heard now from—from people that—that there are a lot of components of that that are beyond what they're willing to say yes to. We heard that um you know in the time that I went to the fair board meeting that they were even willing to you know make those concessions when we met with them last week with you know member of the neighborhood. There was a lot of conversation about reducing those things down, bringing the—if it—if there is a motorized event, can it—what—what are the specific things that are okay, you know, is it a demolition derby? Autocross serves very much—very similar to that; they're just not crashing the vehicles into each other. So, you know, in defining and bringing those definitions actually into it, like you know alleviating that ambiguity and then creating the—the specific limits and—and reducing those down so that they're—they're willing—absolutely willing to do that. [33:52] Jon Radermacher: But to—to believe uh you know to Isaac's point of they having—they still need to be able to do something because in order for them to function and operate the fair and ensure that they can you know preserve this space and keep doing that activity and—and their mission, um, generating revenue is important and they have an asset that you know in some ways they can do it. Now we're trying to define, well, what can you do with that asset that still preserves the qualities in—in the surrounding neighborhood. I think that's very important. Um however you know I'm in service clubs and you know we have a mission to do a—a service to our community. You know, and when I was in Kiwanis, it was very specific to doing things for kids, but we did still did fundraiser things that weren't necessarily kid focused like fish fries and parking cars during an arts and crafts fair. Like we do those things to, you know, support the other mission that doesn't make us money but is, you know, a good to the community. So, I think there's, you know, I think that's an important aspect to—to figure out. [34:37] Jon Radermacher: Now I real quick I want to address that R2 there. There are only two interim use allowances in R2 and it's for satellite TV RO's greater than one meter in diameter and special home occupations. So in order to uh do that you'd have to add a significant tier of of allowable interim uses uh to that zone if we were going to preserve it as R2. Hence, back to why—why is this even—why are we even talking about this as an ordinance—um, our city attorney has been very involved in this from—well even before I started and you know I believe the feedback and interpretation from her was the ordinance seemed to be the cleanest simplest way in order to create something. We still can create lots of limitations in—in terms of—of how that's going to happen and we can even create the interim uses in there to—to have to say, "Hey, if anything beyond these few things right now, if that's where we wanted to—if—if you were going to allow that to be um they all have to be done by interim use and they all—so that's going to require public hearing, a permit, you know, a cost fee associated with it and a renewal annually." So I guess— [36:10] Chris Nobach: I just I think one thing and I said this last time I I have a hard time with—and I know this is what we directed you to do—I have a hard time doing this because I feel like this is the fair's—and again not anti-fair—but I feel like this is their golden ticket from a legal standing. "Hey, you just codified us. We're in city code and we're able to do whatever we want that you just approved," as opposed to— [36:36] Jon Radermacher: Then change it. [37:03] Chris Nobach: Yeah. No, I—I—don't get me wrong, but my—my—point would be to what you said earlier, both sides should be unhappy ideally, right? If you're—if you do it right, but I think if you give the fair this, I think residents are going to be very unhappy. Sure. Right. So—Right. Yeah. This needs work. If we're going to approve it and even consider approving it—but if there's a different way, I—I—don't know what it is, but it'd be nice to explore it, I guess. But that's kind of where I'm at. [38:05] Diane Johnson: And I just to ask a question which may be a lawyer question but and I you know our concern all around is we can't predict what future city councils do. We can't predict what future fair boards do. Um, and if we write it in such a way that it's real easy to change, you know, any hard work we do might—but is there a way to write into—if—if we do create a new zone called fair zone—is there any way to write into that ordinance to say that in order to change anything, it has to have like a super majority of the council or would that just be totally impossible? [38:52] Jon Radermacher: I think there's—it's already statutorily in there that they do need a three-fifths for ordinance change regardless for rezoning. [38:52] Diane Johnson: Yeah, but super would be four-fifths where you'd have—or I—I—was thinking— [39:07] Jon Radermacher: This is beyond 50%. [39:07] Diane Johnson: Okay. Yeah, I was trying to think of there's one place where you have to have like— [39:07] Jon Radermacher: In rezoning from residential to uh commercial or industrial is a four-fifths and um fees calling for a feasibility study for assessment—a project that could have an assessment to it is also four-fifths. And I didn't know if if if that might offer some more reassurance to people or not. [39:53] Jon Radermacher: You would need to first amend the ordinance to add that as a component for approval because right now actions—Yeah, because right now fair zone is not anywhere in our ordinance. Correct. So we're crafting it, rezoning it— [40:18] Diane Johnson: But I don't I don't know if that would make people feel more reassured or not. I guess what I'm looking at is there's only one fair designated fair zone in the whole state, says right here in the conclusion, Waconia. The city of Waconia is the only one to designate an F1 fairgrounds district. Why do we feel we need to be an F1? 99% of the rest of them aren't. Why—why do we need to do this? Why—how are we different than all these other ones? [40:37] Jon Radermacher: So this—this one is back to that legal distinction of agricultural societies have state exemptions from—from local zoning restrictions or zoning regulations. This is not an agricultural society is designated by the state. It's a fair association. So they serve as a—as an independent nonprofit. So they don't have that same exemption. That's why we've—we've come to the conclusion that in order for them to even continue the activities of fair that we would—it would be the preference of the city to have some regulatory oversight on even being able and allowed to do the fair and create restrictions around any activities that happen outside of the fair. [41:50] Diane Johnson: But does it have to be designated an F? Why can't—I mean like I said they've been around for 115 years. They haven't done enough. [41:50] Jon Radermacher: Yeah. So then you get into the questions of they've been around for a long time. 110 going on 111 years and they're—they've been doing things in such a way. So there goes into the legal non-conforming grandfathered clause. So in order to verify—figure that out then we'd have to come up with some sort of conclusion that okay, this activity—this in the fair in the area which the fair has owned has been taking place continuously for prior to whenever it was that it was incorporated into the city limits. You know, it's likely that the city limits did not exist where the fair has been operating all hundred and some years that they've been there. [42:24] Jon Radermacher: So whenever that came into the city limits, whatever activities they were doing before are you know carried on as legal so long as they continue doing them. So the the micro sprint race track obviously was not something that was legal. They needed to get that permitted. They needed to get that approved. That wasn't. Now, where do we—who is going to determine for us what was happening in the fairgrounds? What was happening continuously? Was that at least an event once per year for however long? Um that—that's a lot of gray. That's a lot of uncertainty. That's a lot of unknown things that because we're in the situation with so much um pressure, visibility on the activities, and scrutiny on the activities that are happening at the fair, I feel professionally that leaving it as "we're not going to worry about it and we're just going to go with what they've done before" is really hard to—to stand by and defend. [43:17] Jon Radermacher: If there is ever the point where—well that—what—who's—who's claiming that that demo derby or that autocross or—because Ferland based his list a lot of the things that originally were in that list on what he's said in his time and knowledge and what other fair board members have said as we've done this thing. We did an autocross. We did demo derbies. We've done tractor pulls. We've done all you know concerts. We've done camping. Those things have happened at the fairgrounds prior, you know, for prior to at some point in the past where nobody ever said that those were a problem. So for us, I think starting from a point of what's acceptable today and establishing and they're—they're—and and that for them, they're willing to say this. They are willing to accept that we could create a district, a zone, and create things that are allowable for that area is a huge step because a couple, you know, prior to my start here, I'm—I'm guessing that that wasn't a position the fair board was willing to take. But they're—they're to the table with us now. They're willing—they're willing to—to do that. And I—I don't want to—I don't want to gloss over that. That's a big step from them. [44:46] Isaac Naatz: So I guess what you're saying is with the fairground district before it's even designated, we got to make sure the community and the and the planning commission and everybody else agrees with what would be going forth before that is even designated a fairground district. [44:46] Jon Radermacher: I'm saying in terms of the practice and creating something like this, it is a very good idea and service to the community to—to have those conversations. Now, like procedurally, does that have to happen that way? Well, yeah, we had to have a public hearing. You all as planning commission members are the first ones that are going to hear it. If you're going to, you know, hear something and from your community members that this is they're totally opposed to and nobody's in favor of, then yeah, you probably maybe don't want to do that. [46:03] Jon Radermacher: But like—so, it's—it's—like Jesse said, people are going to be unhappy. This is—this isn't something that I think is going to be settled in January or any other time because we're going to get community input. We're going to get our input. We're going to get all this input and it's going to keep going maybe for who knows how long until there is like you said everybody's unhappy. Well, I think that's what we've been trying to do in the last—in the last month. I mean we members attended the uh fair board meeting or attended—we we opened—you know the fair board was very gracious in opening and hosting the opportunity for any community member to come and and meet with them last—last week. We as a city have host this time. I'm not saying that like that's that oh yeah great good on us we we did this and now let's just move on. I I think there's more to be done yes. Um how how much more I don't know but I think a a valid next step is to at least revise and put into um consideration what the fair board is willing to you know reduce the things that they've they've had. If you're so willing to have us direct us to, you know, bring that back in January or bring that back and present it again as another public hearing. [47:20] Diane Johnson: Yeah, it—um I know—I know you guys cost money too and we use your time liberally—uh, but lawyers really cost a lot of money. Is there a way to just without doing the all the legalese just come up with kind of this thing only like a draft that hasn't gone through the lawyers yet because I don't know that we're at that stage and just say you know we'll have this to be allowed this can't and then you know like a rough draft that then we can see is this how—how— [48:22] Jesse Fox: We have a lot of people that have um expressed themselves at various meetings over the last year about what they don't like um and and somehow there needs to be a a coming together. Uh I don't know if uh that's feasible um to get like a like a group from like okay we got the planning commission is good with this stuff and the neighborhood is good with this stuff and the fair board is good with that stuff and—and trying to form right because this is not—there's a lot of stuff in here. And everybody wants a different— [49:03] Chris Nobach: Which part of it too Isaac is like what—what's legal in here right like the noise limit—I can—can anybody come to us in confidence and say, "Hey, this autocross will not exceed noise limits," you know, and I I think—I think that's why this is tough to be honest with you. It's not like I poo-poo autocross because I've been to events like that before. That's great. But there's a legal standing too, right? Like I don't—it's not just "is everybody happy." Is it legal? [49:03] Jesse Fox: Well, but—but the other side of that is for four days in the summer, we don't give a about any of it, right? Be as loud as you want. Do whatever you want. It's fair. But—I mean—that's kind of understood. I get it, too. I I wish there was a way for them to figure out how loud everything is going to be. And I'm not saying that they need to have loud stuff, but what I'm saying is that it—you—you—it's hard to predict everything and figure everything out. Sometimes you have to—you—sometimes you have to go with something that's not this and—and come up with something and then unfortunately resubmit changes later. [49:58] Chris Nobach: I was gonna say this doesn't give us a great opportunity to resubmit changes later in my opinion. Yes, we can amend this, but it's not immediate. It's not reactive. Right. I get it, but it's—uh—welcome to government. I—right. I mean, it's—I mean, I wish there was a quick fix for all this but there's not. And excuse my language, but this is the last one. So, and I—I I mean, I just—just devil's advocate, too. And and this is why we're up here and this is why this is very tough. Would we do this for any other business in town, right? Would we rezone for any other business, right? Like this is why this is so darn tough. And well, right then um—right. But it's you know the fact is is that it's—it's—I mean they're a nonprofit and technically business, but they only run you know the four days. So, it's kind of—it's a weird one, right? [50:54] Brian Douglas: Yep. Yep. Very much. [51:00] Chris Nobach: And that's why all these other communities have weird things in how they handle it. And I don't—and I don't disagree with you. I mean, there—there's—there's comments up here where, "Hey, I can understand two to three events per year." Like, I there's— [51:05] Diane Johnson: Jesse, you said you've you went to see Ferlin last—last couple weeks. [51:15] Jesse Fox: Yeah. I went to the— [51:15] Diane Johnson: Did he ever take that list that he brought here the first time where the whole place there's like 600 people in here and everything was going like that? Has he ever shown that list to you again and say, "You know what? I'm slashing these—these—these—these—and these. Here's what I think we can do." Has he ever done that yet to you to show you that, hey, I've made a commitment. I'm going to—I want to cut these out right now and let's see what happens there. Cuz see, that's what I think needs to happen. It needs to be something from the fair board saying, "Okay, we get it. We've heard the community. We'll cut all these out. What do you think about that?" And then we look at it as a community and we go, "Not too bad, but still there's this, this, but how about if you just instead of making it $5 or $7.50, why don't you make it $10? The price of your fair is worth more is probably isn't even worth as much as a pound of meat." It's like they've got to get into the reality that people are willing to spend if this is a good program, which the fair must be because it's been around this long. $10 or $15 to enter the fair would add a lot of money, you know. So, my thing is, but if they say that $15 or $10 is going to shut us down, that's scary because that means— [52:37] Jesse Fox: Well, I think um to answer your question, I don't think Ferlin said at any of the meetings that we—we—absolutely don't want to do cut—cut any of these events out. Um—uh—I think—uh—I think Ferlin is shrewd enough um that he knows that he needs—he needs to get whatever he can, right? It's like there's a list here of snowcross, motocross, uh, autocross, derbies, uh, truck pulls, and whatever else, right? All the motorized events. Um, he doesn't want—I believe—I—I—may be speaking out of turn, but he doesn't want to cut anything from that list because trying to pull events together is difficult. And I think the more options they have, right, it's—it's—easier. Like I don't think he can expect—I think the way he put it was is that you can't have the same—he—he—talked about demo derbies um and how um he feels they're sort of a dying thing because it's getting harder and harder because the people that are still doing them are putting a lot of money into the vehicles and they have to hit so many of them to try to not lose money. And there's certain events that they can't have too often because it gets—there's the—like a burnout, right? You can't have a monster truck thing every year because they won't—the monster truck people won't come back every year because they won't get—they won't get it. They won't get enough revenue because not enough people will show up every year for it or every six months for it. You know what I mean? [54:53] Jesse Fox: So, I think that's why he's—I think that's why he's probably trying to not limit—I think—I—I—think he—I think he's fine with limiting the amount that he has out of those events. Um, so if it's only, you know, if this group comes together in the—and some people are all right with if you want to do two, you know, in the summer, that's it, right? I mean, it—it—comes to this group and then the city council on what—what you want to limit it to, but— [55:53] Chris Nobach: That logic only works if you're not essentially going against noise ordinances. [55:53] Jesse Fox: Sure. [55:53] Chris Nobach: Like I—that's fine. He wants to try and keep as many options available, but if all the options available technically are against— [55:53] Jesse Fox: But if you don't know what the noise levels are, what are you supposed to do? Just eliminate everything and— [56:01] Chris Nobach: But—but—that's the point. So that's—that's—why we also can't greenlight it because we don't know what they are either and we have a feeling they're not going to come in favorably. Sure. Right. So—well, but—but—my point in terms of the fair board side of it, it's like okay, like sure, I get it. Like we're going to turn a blind eye for four days during the year. Don't take that as an opportunity to write in more of it. Take that as a blessing and take advantage of it those four days. And I get it. It's more work, but you're going to have to be a little more creative than trying to slip in stuff that technically you shouldn't be doing in the first place. [56:29] Jon Radermacher: Well, what if—sorry to but—what if like the vehicles are electric vehicles that don't generate you, you know, probably not doing electric vehicles in a demo derby. The fire hazard of that is pretty great, but you know what? If it's an autocross where they're not banging into each other or electric dirt bikes or what—like and they don't create the same level of noise, are you going to totally cut off the ability for them to do anything motorized? [56:56] Isaac Naatz: Well, no, that's fine. But again, there—yeah, that's vague. There's too much—I mean if you want to put that in there to where it'll be electric vehicles and not you know internal combustion— [57:20] Diane Johnson: It's any—these activities they cannot—they cannot—exceed any noise volumes and if you anticipate that it's going to be—you can't—don't bother asking. Yeah, that's what I was saying. He needs—he should know what ones are going to be high velocity noise and he should be able to look at those and go cut them. Don't leave them in there to say, "Well, God, maybe I can—maybe I can get this one in for one time every three years." [57:42] Jon Radermacher: And—and—that was—and—that was a—honestly that was a part of what happened with the event in September with the monster trucks. We—we—knew we could ask—we knew we could get the equipment. Let's—let's monitor it. They were—Ferland was absolutely in favor of monitoring it, figuring it out, understanding what the circumstances were and the results were not good. And you know, we clearly know that that type of event is not going to work in this location. So, we're not going to do that. So, it's—it— [58:06] Diane Johnson: Well, and that's—and—that's—what I'm saying. So, if that's the case, that's good. Let's write it down and say this isn't what we're going to do. So, we cut—that's gone. That one's taken care of. We're not doing that. So now it's a matter of figuring out, okay, what else? If we're doing this compromise thing, we've got to figure out what the fair has to say. "We want to do this, this, and this too." And then they got to bring it to us or the community and ask us, "What do you think? This isn't going to be loud. Um, we're going to make a little bit of money here because we need to stay in business and it's going to run two days. Are you interested in that? Will it work?" And basically what we have to do is we have to have caveats on all this, which is like, "Okay, let's do it one time. Let's see if it does work. And if it doesn't, we'll tell you next—next year this when it's done, we'll say, 'Sorry, we don't see that being a favorable thing to do.'" But I mean, they can't just look at motorized as the only thing to make money. I mean, I'll give you an idea what we have. We had like where we live, they did a bicycle race. I saw them doing the bicycle race through there. It was actually—I was sitting on my deck watching them. Didn't bother me at all because it was nice and quiet. They were getting through and I don't know what kind of money they made on— [59:10] Jon Radermacher: Yeah. I don't—I don't know why. I'm sorry if this wasn't communicated. Um I I feel like in the conversations I've heard from the fair—fair—fair board is they're not strictly only asking about motorized vehicles or motorized events that are going to make noise. There—there's other activities and things and they're willing to reduce any of that but also keep the ability to have other events like—I mean specifically the harness race—like you said, a bicycle event, things that aren't going to generate noise, using this—the space has function for you know certain things like—and it's a you know they've been—been there, they own it, they've been maintaining—maintaining it and operating there for a very long time. Like we are in a unique situation in which you know the rules—we're in a position where we're drafting the rules. So we need to—we need to establish something and—and—you know, absolutely have heard like motorized stuff is—is—really really problematic because of location and the impact that it's going to have on the neighboring communities and I and I know the fair understands that too. That's not— [1:00:26] Jon Radermacher: I think I would—we'd all benefit if we're dispelling the ordinance that's in front of you, the things that have happened in the past, and working forward with understanding establishing what the limitations are. And the fair is—is—doing that. That's been the response that I've—I've—seen from them not only in the planning commission last meet—last month when I was at attended the fair board meeting and the conversation we had last Monday. And if they can hear from the people that are in opposition of the things that they—of—of—the things they've done in the past and trying to help them establish the things that they're going to do in the future, I think you're going to get to a better result a lot faster than "Okay, fair, give us your list. We're going to NYX these things because we're hearing from the community like—" and then we go—we go around this over and over again because procedurally there's—there's different ways we're going to have to—we're going to have to act that are going to have very specific time requirements in order to be able to do that. [1:01:26] Chris Nobach: I hear what you're saying, Jon, but at the same time I feel like they've had the opportunity to hear the public every time we've had one of these meetings. "This is not good. We don't like this." And then the first time this comes—the first time this draft comes to us, there's a bunch of stuff in here that the public has specifically asked not to do, you know. So that's—I don't know. I think that's how we got here. I guess I—again—I don't know how we get to the next step, but I hear what you're saying. If—if—we want to revise this certainly, but— [1:02:12] Jesse Fox: I think—I think—I think this was a—was an attempt to try to put something together, right? To define stuff and then to deal with—to deal with some of the stuff, right? And to—and—and I know there's—there's something in here about six events per year and all this and I don't know if it was ever addressed or not, but like—some of that is there and—and you could take it however you want, right? You can be on this side and say it's going to go like this or you could be on this side and say it's going to go like that. But if you—if you limit them to six events a year, what is it, right? There needs to be more definition as to what the six of—what the six events maybe are, right? Because they have harness racing I don't know how many times a year that that I think would be considered an event right so— [1:03:13] Jon Radermacher: Essentially it came down to any activity that was outside of the four days of the—right—had to be defined in something. Either there was—I—I—think the value of what we do have in this ordinance maybe not the specifics and numbers is saying we're designating what is a motorized event like and saying, "Hey, these things within a motorized event, maybe it's only electric vehicle motorized events are acceptable and the quantity in—in the times in which they can operate them." The special events that are anything—any activity that's going to exist outside of the fair and what other restrictions and—and guard rails do you want to place on those? Like—like—that event could be the pancake breakfast for the Lions. That could be harness racing. That could be, you know, the senior center doing a concert and using the stage. They have, you know, to tell—to force them into only being able to operate in these facilities for—for four days or use the assets that they have for four days. And you said it about the weather—like you're—you're existing in an outdoor environment. Those four—and you only have four days in which to operate. You—you—hope and pray that you have the—the best possible weather and you know for—for that. [1:04:29] Chris Nobach: Well, I don't think we're saying that. I I don't think we're saying we're going to limit them to four days to make revenue. I think we're saying— [1:04:36] Jon Radermacher: Some people want that. [1:04:39] Chris Nobach: Well, no, that—that—that's fair, right? But I think from up here, from when we look at this and the fair saying, "Hey, we need to conduct other activities to generate revenue in order to—be able to make sure we can do those four days," right? That's fair. Like open to it, but there's some things in here that in my opinion are going to be non-starters, which is also—I mean—the reason it's come to this, right? And then to Isaac's point, right, that you know you—you—throw in motorized vehicle racing, which I get it, right? Maybe they meant electric. All right, fine. Only—yeah, but if it's internal combustion engines, I'm sorry. Like there's no way you're going to get around the noise. Like I don't care what it is. Like that—just based on the property of the fair and how little trees, how little coverage you have for noise and those neighborhoods being as close as they are and the fair being down below—like that noise is going to come up. I mean, I know they tried doing like muffler and—that's not going to work. So, I think I agree with you. We can work inside this framework, but some of the stuff is going to be a non-starter. [1:05:48] Chris Nobach: I guess I'm looking at the special events thing here. Special events not held during the Canon Valley Fair subject to the following requirements. Canon Valley Fair Association shall provide the city notice of a special event, including a description scheduled special event at least 30 days prior to the start of the special event. Is there opportunity in that clause for us to do something uh more on a case-by-case basis or is there not like this? This really doesn't give us the—the approval or the ability to approve or disapprove the event. [1:06:40] Jon Radermacher: In the conversation we had, we're trying not to get into trying to approve and deny everything all the time because what if there was a fundraiser for a community service organization or church or something that wanted to do it and they didn't—they didn't know about the 30-day window and they didn't give the fair board and everybody an opportunity to officially approve it. Um, and it, you know, are there activities that everybody's just fine with? And I don't know. I mean, I guess if we—my whole thing is if—if—you go on a case-by-case basis, you're—you're allowed to, you know, at our discretion and the planning commission and the city council's discretion to approve those case by case, aka speak for the community based off the input you're hearing. And then you're allowed to react and be proactive about the next event. That's why I'm stuck on that. And we're—another challenge we run into is in administering permitting, you know, from the administration level permitting activities. It's better for us when we have objective measurable things to you know evaluate because if it's—well this church is going to host a—a pancake breakfast but that church wants to host their—um you know—they—they—want to do an outdoor service but they love to play music with their outdoor service within their church service. So, okay, black and white. The pancake breakfast isn't going to make noise, but the church service that does this is—and—and maybe church—so, we—we—tell a church service, "No, you can't have an outdoor service there." [1:08:23] Chris Nobach: Well, we've let them do it in Jon Burch Park before. [1:08:26] Jon Radermacher: Yeah. [1:08:26] Chris Nobach: And we don't, you know, we own that. [1:08:28] Jon Radermacher: Yeah. [1:08:28] Chris Nobach: But now we're telling them they can't do it in the fairgrounds, which we don't own. Fair does, but we've told them they couldn't do it there. I mean, there's—it's—it's hard when we're—I just—I—I—I—want to avoid the risk or the situation where we have no—not necessarily liability but the arbitrary decision-making. Um, because that does get you into issues. I mean I've seen it in the city that I worked for—like it wasn't necessarily arbitrary but that was the argument the person tried to make and they went all the way to the Minnesota State Supreme Court with it and got a law overturned. So, I mean, it's—I—I've seen how these things can go from this to worst. And that's part of what we're trying to—from I guess my perspective and staff's perspective is if we're not going to move forward with this if there's animosity, I don't think anybody's feeling a rush to do that and forcing this upon anyone. [1:09:13] Chris Nobach: I mean, there is a time limit though, right? I mean logistically for—I mean if they want to do anything. Yeah. If they want to have any activities next summer. Yes. I mean logistically I think they would want something by February or March so they can plan out their summer. So I think there is some arbitrary time limit on it. But Jon, would this affect other nonprofits? So like whatever we decide to do with the fair—no, this is—this is—so if the other nonprofits came into you and said, "Hey, we want to do a pancake supper," and they follow through everything else, they can do it. [1:10:04] Jon Radermacher: Do they own land and are the things that they're doing in the land that they own in violation of the—the zoning overarching zoning district in which they're doing it? That's the questions we're asking. That's the questions we're—we're talking about. The—they—they—own this property and we regulate the—the—the use of that land through our zoning and their—their activities that they've done there for a very long time do not align with the—the—existing land use that is on this property. [1:10:43] Isaac Naatz: So again, I'm probably beating a dead horse, but what about churches in residential areas that have to—do they have to file for permits to do a "Hey, we're holding a special event fundraiser this Sunday"? Do they have to file for a permit to do that or have an interim use permit for that sort of stuff? [1:11:00] Jon Radermacher: Are they—is it—are—if the things that they're doing, are they in violation of—of the ordinance? Are they outside of the—are they violating the noises? Are they outside of the time restrictions in which activities can happen that generate noise or—or you know the use of the property? But like the—the—church itself is probably has you know the standing with at that—there you know—it's probably defined in the—in the code saying, "Yes, church is an acceptable use in this." So, I mean, this back to, you know, I guess back to the—the—legal um determination at the end of last year, beginning of this one, that specifically any motorized race and activity fair was on notice that the city was not allowing that to happen. In outdoor storage of—of vehicles was in violation of R2 districts. Those were very specifically called out in the compliance letter that those—those things couldn't take place because they were not compliance with R2. [1:12:27] Chris Nobach: So I guess for tonight's purposes then Jon—I know you want us to have a discussion. Do you want us to end that discussion with some sort of semblance that you want to take to the fair in terms of what we've sort of come to—and—of a—parse back all of these things or "We need to work with this framework and you need to provide us back something that you know is that isn't going to generate noise because it's it's evident that that's a non-starter"? I mean I think I would prefer if this is what we're going to do I'd prefer the fair come to us with, "This is bare bones. This is what we need to operate." And then that gives us a good standing to, you know, really see what they're working with. I guess you absolutely need five events that are motorized. Do you—if—that's what you need to operate? You know, I don't know. I don't know if we have the appetite to do that. Do you only need one? Do you only need two? Okay, that makes the picture a lot more clear. Do you need outdoor storage? Do you need, you know, and I get they're throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks and—but I—I—think—I think if they came to us—personally, I thought what we did last Friday was great. People were able to come give to you. We got stuff we can look at before the next meeting. That's—that's—awesome. That kind of gives them community input. I think it'd be great if the fair came up with what their bare—bare—bones are minimum for operation and then it gives everybody here a chance to look at it. It gives the community a chance to look at it and then maybe we can make a better decision. That's just my opinion. I don't know. [1:14:11] Diane Johnson: And I—and all—like that. Um, I guess I—and I go back and forth trying to figure out what we're saying with motorized events that aren't electric. Motorized events that make noise. We're saying they have to comply with the noise regulations, in which case pretty much we've also decided that most of them probably won't. I mean, that's—that's—what it says here. A motorsport activity must comply with all applicable city of Canon Falls and state of Minnesota noise laws, rules and regulations. I think it says it twice here. I think the special event— [1:14:11] Jon Radermacher: That was clear. We had in our conversations and discussions about this, there was never talk of exempting those—those events outside of fair time from any sort of state regulation regarding this. [1:14:35] Diane Johnson: So in—in one sense, if—and none of us really know the answer—I mean, if they are in violation or not, but if we kind of are assuming they probably will be, is it better just to exclude them from permitted uses and not have to deal with it going forward like at the noise studies and the back and forth—or I mean this—this—is just a question because I don't know. I mean or and there again everything they do during the fair—Excel—we're not even talking about. We're just going to— [1:15:22] Isaac Naatz: Well, I guess the other question would be Diane, if—if—we're not entirely sure, but we're of the opinion that they're probably not going to pass those noise ordinances and they come to us with this document, are we—are we going to vote in favor of it? And even if it were to get past us, do we think council's going to vote in favor? And I would probably say no. I mean, so I think they'd be sending us a dead ask from the get-go. [1:15:22] Jesse Fox: We don't know what the council will do, though. [1:15:50] Chris Nobach: No, I'm not—I'm not—saying we know that. I'm just—I'm just—I'm just—saying right to where—Yeah. I mean, I don't think many of us up here would be very comfortable, you know, approving it in the hopes, but probably knowing that, yeah, that's probably unlikely that's going to occur, right? So, I don't know. Me personally, I—I—wouldn't be able to vote in favor of it based on the fact that we don't know for sure and we've already had multiple instances of the public saying not okay. [1:16:07] Diane Johnson: I think the interesting—the interesting thing here is that with everything that has came, no one came on Friday to say, "Hey, I'd sure like to see racing. I sure like to hear those cars." Nobody came and said, "I love the noise." "I want you to have—make sure we have none." That's—I mean, that's the thing that we should just use as our gut line is nobody came. So that means maybe there's somebody here that likes racing, but the thing is majority of the people obviously don't. So we—yes, that should be like Isaac said a move point. If you do electric cars, I can think about that one. I can think about that. But as far as any motorized vehicles, motorcycles, snowmobiles, tractor pulls, it can be done during fair time. I'll give that caveat. But anything outside that time, I don't think—no motorized vehicles period by the fair board. [1:16:52] Isaac Naatz: Yes. So, you looked like you were gonna say something. [1:16:52] Izzy Carlson: Um, it'll come back to me. Okay. Probably later tonight. But—after— [1:17:12] Diane Johnson: I—I—I—feel like in one sense we've been using the—you know the original stab at this. Uh obviously we've come to a lot of other possibilities since then and I'm just wondering if it would be easier to have another kind of document to look at that might combine what the fair is willing to compromise on what we see from the community—com—comments as maybe being willing to compromise and then look at that document afresh where right now I feel like we're—we're—arguing against a document that we're probably not going to use anyway. So it—it—we get stuck there and are having a hard time envisioning the new one. And I'm wondering if we could ask the staff to come up with a new one. Do you have enough information to— [1:18:10] Jesse Fox: I—um here's my my two cents. Um, I like this document in that it—it—it—covers a lot of stuff, right? Um, I think what needs to happen is that this group needs to take in what Izzy's collected, what we've read, um, and—and—and come up with better verbiage, meaning um, put—put—in no racing, no motorized stuff, put in whatever. Right? If it's a non-starter, put that in. If you got a problem with it, put it in. Um, right. Because kind of all we're doing is—is—rehashing stuff. And what needs to happen is that we either need to start over or we need to use this document and have its framework and then dial in what we can live with and what we can't, right? And—and the reality, I think, is that you can't—you—can't—predict everything. You can't—you can only do with what you've got in front of you, right? And it—if—if—it's—if—it's—no—if—it's—no—racing, if—it's—no—demos, if—it's—whatever it is, right? If you want to have two, you know, a year, put it in, right? And—and change it around so that you can have a dozen events there during the year, but only two of them are motorized or none of them, whatever, right? Just keep in mind that um—you—you—can't—hand-tie them too much because they need to operate, right? And if it's—like—that's why it was like the six events. Um, right. Put it up to 12 so they can have six harness races and—and the pancake breakfast and the bike racing and the whatever else they've got going on, right? Give them—give them as many events as they want. But—um—because if you take away the motorized stuff, you got to—you got to—leave them something, right? I feel like—and you—we got to come up with—and I say that loosely—um—we got to come up with something. The city's got to come up with something that—because we can't just keep rehashing this—this—stuff because we're not moving forward on anything. [1:20:59] Chris Nobach: Can we—I mean to your point I I think that is a decent way to move forward, right? Um, can we schedule—and hate to do this guys, but can we schedule a work session where we go through this together and say what we do and do not like—or is that like have we already kind of—I don't know—jumped the shark per se? Like we've already had like council and you and go to the fair board and come up with the agreement. Like is—is—it's—yeah I don't know. [1:21:44] Jon Radermacher: As—as—I said if—if—this ordinance—yes, this was what we're directed—this is what the mayor and Ryan and—uh—our attorney and working with the fair boards—this is what we crafted. Like they're representatives of that—that were part of this conversation that—if it's not getting through the planning commission, it's not—it's a non-starter. Like I—so yes, if—if—your—if—what you're saying is that document in its—what it's outlining as um for this ordinance is not going to work. But the framework of it and saying, "Hey, we're going to define what things are okay or all the—we're going to define these things because some of them are okay and some are not and we want to be clear. We want to have clarity over what those things are and we're going to say these things they can't do and these things they can't—if that's—that's something you guys want to do. Provide us with them—and then—and then try to take a crack at it and then then you know, 'Hey, here's a public document and you guys go back to the fair board.'" I—I—and then the public has a chance to comment on it with Izzy and I—I—don't—I think we'll make more progress with that than what we're currently doing with the document in front of us. [1:22:49] Brian Douglas: I think as long—you know—if we follow that pro format I don't have a problem with that as long as we do not make a decision on the F. I just don't think we should make a decision until we know that everything is in place the way we want to see it. [1:23:19] Jon Radermacher: Yeah. No, it's—it's—Okay, this—let me go back. Let me—procedurally we will not be bringing anything back to the—this—this—thing. I'm—I'm—going to take it as a consensus. That draft is dead. Like that draft is dead. What—anything that comes back before it goes to this body for a decision will need to be posted and we will have to do a public hearing like we did the last—last month's meeting on when it's—when it's there. And it's not—in—my opinion for where I'm not going to feel comfortable with putting in front of there until we have a lot of conversations and commitments and acceptance from you all as stakeholders, these residents as stakeholders, the fair as a stakeholder in terms of—hey, this we can feel comfortable with bringing up in a—in a public—putting it in front of a public hearing. So like that's when it's coming to you as a decision. Okay. Okay. And that—you know—we have to post for that has to run for a cycle of 10 days. You'll get letters again of what it's going to be if you're, you know, in the area impacted. If your indication is, "Hey, 350 ft from buffer from the affected parcels is not big enough, we need to make it bigger because that's the state standard." So that's why they—they—go out in a certain way they do. Let us know. [1:25:18] Chris Nobach: So how do we do this, Jon, in terms of—that's the—that—that's—your question, I think, where you're at. So Chris has talked about offered up a work session. Do you feel like—I—I—think what we did originally was we had you know certain members of a committee. I—I—think in terms of getting through this in a most—I don't want to use the term in an expedient but like efficient time—time—fashion is—is there somebody designated from any of those stakeholders that can—we can all just sit in the room and work through this, spend a couple hours and—and—really do that where they—you know—the neighborhood feels like, "Hey, this is—somebody—these are people that could represent us and our interests." The, you know, the fair has their people. That if there's a member of the planning commission that can be a part of—participate in that so that they're, you know, it's—we're not coming back here and with—oh, we're just going to hear—hear—from them because, you know, clearly that was a misstep of that—that representative group did not incorporate everybody and didn't incorporate any of you. So what you saw clearly had issue with—like the people that have the issues with these things and the people that want something, they should be in the room together talking about it and hopefully we can you know work through something that we can put within the frameworks of that style of ordinance to have it comfortable that we can bring it back—if it needs to come back first in a work session before it then comes into gets published as a public hearing. I think that might not be a bad idea either. I just don't want to— [1:26:22] Chris Nobach: I feel like I like what you suggested because there's so much ambiguity here. But if I can get—if the fair walks away unhappy and the citizens walk away unhappy, but we have a document where there's input left and right and then it comes to us. Um—we've taken a lot of input, but I—I—feel like if we had to let today, "Hey, Jon, you and Izzy, go back and draft everything and make sure we're trying, we're doing our best to incorporate this the messages and impact from these—these—community members and make it fair and balanced." We'll do that part, but I—I—don't think it's going to be well-received. [1:26:57] Jon Radermacher: But I just mean having those stakeholders in the room, like you said, during a work session where perhaps—I mean, are they willing to do it? Like that's the question—is somebody willing to step up and do that? Because we—they—I mean Ferland tried they invited him to the fair board, a few people showed up that—and they provided some input and—and—ask some questions. We had one member of that neighborhood come to the meeting last Monday. Now I get people are busy—scheduling of—of—everything is always a challenge. This is why community engagement is really hard. But I mean, I don't know. Is that really on the other side of the coin? Is that really neutral ground? You know, is—is—that— [1:27:39] Chris Nobach: We need here? Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Can we do a work session where where is a safe—where is a safe—space for that conversation to happen? So, it's not feeling like we're on anybody's turf. Yep. Do we need—we don't want to not move forward as quickly as—not move forward as quickly as we can only because—you know—we have been dealing with this for— [1:27:54] Jon Radermacher: Let's talk with—let—let's—work backwards a little bit. Let's um—okay talked about March is—is—the—is—the—expectation of this—this—board that something could be in place and—and—a decision from either you or—think about a decision for you. Um, it then needs to go to the council. It then needs the council's vote. It's going to take two cycles of that and then a publication. So add another month and a month, five, six weeks on top of when you guys make your—make your vote. So when you guys make your vote, six weeks later, a lock could go—an ordinance could go into effect. So, for the fair, if they're going to be able to do anything that fits within an ordinance, when do you want that to be in place? Is that April? March. [1:29:01] Isaac Naatz: I'm assuming they've got to book the midway or they probably already have, but— [1:29:17] Jesse Fox: Oh, yeah. I mean, they're already—the carnival people have already been— [1:29:17] Brian Douglas: Okay. [1:29:17] Jesse Fox: That—that—stuff they're years out in. It's like and if you miss them, you're— [1:29:17] Jon Radermacher: Okay. So— [1:29:17] Jesse Fox: I've seen county fairs move their fair date because they couldn't get the carnivals. [1:29:17] Jon Radermacher: Okay. So, I mean, we—we—were saying it would be nice for them to know by March. Uh but that would mean we'd have to make the decision in February to get the six weeks where they, you know, because that would give you one February council meeting and one in March. If we do this right and it gets past the planning commission, I I think the council is probably going to see and be appreciative of the process that we went through and, you know, likely approve it. But so they're going to be able to kind of function with the anticipation that it's like they know what they have to work with. [1:30:03] Diane Johnson: Well, should we just work on the basis of March? And I mean, do you want to reach out to the fair and just ask them if that's—if—that's—workable? And— [1:30:03] Jon Radermacher: That can be a conversation that—that—I'll have. So, yeah. And if—I mean—if—if—they have more leeway that's great. We have more time. But yeah I—I—I—I—agree. I think it's—it's—more work but I think it's necessary in order to get something through. So this—you know—this is why we—you know—have committees, why I have a council—like if the whole—a community as a whole and every single person to be involved in these—this—decisions and actions like this it's—it's—really hard—like it's going to—and it's going to take time. So okay. So let's think March. We have our decision done by March. We're posting in February. So that gives us the, you know, a work session probably in—are work session it—work sessioning it in February or—or—do you have a special meeting that you can do that in between? I think that's probably doable. Um, so it would give us the from now until probably middle January to have those groups together to kind of come up with something and I wouldn't expect—I mean we went—we had five meetings I think just to even come up with that and a lot of back and forth and in between. So— [1:31:43] Isaac Naatz: How many people—have groups That's a quorum and only have two, right? [1:31:43] Jon Radermacher: Well, not planning commission members at most two. I mean, that's absolutely—involved. Yeah, that's four or three. I think I don't know. I don't know. Unfortunately, I think the less people the better because then it's just you condense opinions and you compromise however you can between people and— [1:32:36] Isaac Naatz: But—but—I do feel that if whatever group we come up with, if the fair feels like they need two people, then I feel like you need two people from the community on that side that are unhappy, you know. It should be equal in that sense but— [1:33:36] Diane Johnson: And we're looking at two people from the community, two people from the fair, um, couple people from planning commission. [1:33:36] Isaac Naatz: At least one. [1:33:36] Diane Johnson: Yeah. And do—I mean—do—we need anybody from the city council too or just do planning at this point? [1:33:36] Chris Nobach: City council doesn't involve this until we— [1:33:36] Jon Radermacher: Well, I mean, yeah, there's—they wouldn't hurt for them to be involved. That's why there's two city council members on the planning commission so that you're not generally taking all planning commission things without any sort of knowledge of the—of any member of the council other than staff to present it to them. [1:33:36] Diane Johnson: And I, you know, and I I would say that Ryan has been part of this for a while. Um and maybe he should be one, you know, be from the city council, although he might not want another meeting. Um so who—I mean, and Jesse— [1:34:04] Jesse Fox: Are you going to stay on a few more months next year or? Uh no. Okay. Uh the best I could do would be a member of the community and I don't think uh I am representative of the community, right? Because that community is up on that side. I mean I just—I just—need for me I just need this to move forward so that there's something so that the fair can know what their constraints are, right? And um—however that get gets done as efficiently or as quickly as it can, right? Um in the end, uh there might just have to be some awful decisions made and push through for whichever side. [1:35:03] Jon Radermacher: They're—they're—they're—not going to be awful. We—we—we—will figure this out so that it is reasonable for all both parties concerned—somehow. I mean I think it is possible if we work together for both the fair and for the community. I'm an optimist at heart, you know. Love it. [1:35:29] Diane Johnson: So, so Jon, so for us to—to—go forward with this, right, to have this—this—way of looking at it, you're—you're—looking for two people from planning, two residents, and then—um—well, two people from fair, right? And ideally, you know, council has representation in that, right? [1:35:29] Jon Radermacher: Yeah. Yeah, I think that sounds reasonable. [1:35:48] Isaac Naatz: Okay. So then for tonight's purposes, I mean, I think planning can at least get our part out of the way. I'm happy to volunteer for that one position. I'm not sure who else on here wants to do it, but just for expediency sake. [1:35:48] Diane Johnson: So I think you're volunteering to be part of the— [1:35:48] Isaac Naatz: Sure. [1:36:07] Brian Douglas: Okay. I'll do it also since you two are already on the city council, Chris and you. So it seems ridiculous to have you be on more things. And since Jesse's bailing— [1:36:07] Jesse Fox: I—I—am okay with it. I—I—don't know if you— [1:36:34] Isaac Naatz: So from city council, how do you determine who goes from city council? [1:36:34] Jon Radermacher: Like I—I—like your suggestion, but that's blindly volunteering, Ryan. Yeah. Well, I mean, he—he—has been a part of this group up to this point. And so, um, and if Jon thinks it's good to have two council people there, you could be the other council person there then. [1:36:56] Chris Nobach: But, no, then we'd have—No, no, you can't do that. We'd have— [1:36:56] Jon Radermacher: Well, depend—Well, now we'd have—four month. Depends on how late this gets scheduled. But if committee assignments all change next year, like—I don't know. [1:36:56] Brian Douglas: Okay. So right now is it a consensus of this group that Isaac and Brian be part of this—I'm not even going to call a negotiating group. It's just a stakeholder group. Yeah. And then how do we get the—Okay. So everybody is okay with this. Okay. And how—how—do we identify the two community members? Um, who wants to volunteer? [1:37:15] Isaac Naatz: Yeah, I was going to say, can the community members who are here— [1:37:15] Diane Johnson: Well, Kurt's not here and there's a few people that aren't here. So, right. Can you go back and talk with each other and try to come to a consensus and then let Jon know and if you pick the wrong two and somebody else comes back and yells at us, we're going to put it back on you. I don't know. Um but you know it because obviously there—there—are different community inputs too. So you know come up with the broadest—I won't be on it—and then Jon, I take it when you get all these names you'll schedule a meeting. [1:38:17] Jon Radermacher: Yeah. Are we looking at a December or January meeting? We'll do what we can. Uh that's—it's—going to be tough the week after next because of the holiday schedule. I know I have—I know I have commitments that are going to—I'm not going to be in town during a lot of those days, but if I have to, I can make adjustments too. [1:38:17] Diane Johnson: And you know, if you can get it done before our next scheduled meeting on the 12th, that would be great. [1:38:32] Jon Radermacher: That is the work session. And—yeah, and if—if—it's—if—it's—not, do we have anything else coming up on the 12th? Most likely. Yes. Okay. [1:38:49] Isaac Naatz: Um, question. Work session. Is that exclusive or is it technically a public? [1:38:49] Jon Radermacher: When you call work session and you need all of you, it's—okay. But if it's not—if we're talking work session where it's two of them, two council—oh, that—a group. Yeah. No, it doesn't have to be—doesn't have to be public or anything like that. Okay. That's why you can't have the quorums. [1:39:08] Jesse Fox: Yes. Okay. I figured out that one. If it is going to be Isaac Brian, you can't come. Okay. [1:39:08] Jon Radermacher: I would set a quorum and then you'd have to post it as a public meeting. Yeah. [1:39:26] Jesse Fox: Could I come and just watch cuz I won't be on the—if you won't be on the—yeah. You can't say anything though, right? I mean, well, this—if he's not on the committee anymore. Yeah. [1:39:42] Chris Nobach: Okay. Do you need anything else from the planning commission besides the unclear instructions we've given you so far? I think I can—lots of notes. Is—is—there anything else that anybody would like to bring up tonight besides—real quick? Whatever happened to the gentleman that came in looking to do the motorcycle shop in the residential? [1:40:30] Jon Radermacher: His—uh—so that the sound study also came back with—with—that as—um—and he had no instances of where it would—it violated the—the—noise ordinances. So he's—we tested it on multiple days, full days on when he nor—on one of them was a Wednesday which he indicated as a day he operates. The sound system was set up very close to his property and there were no—there were no uh points in which they exceeded the state limits. There were some a couple spike things but they were never above 80 dB. Okay. That could have been heard about it. Close enough to Highway 19 out there. It could have been—could have had a semi-truck Jake breaking or something, but who knows? Very good. [1:40:48] Chris Nobach: I—it's met the IEP standard condition that was approved. [1:41:07] Brian Douglas: Anything else from anyone? If not, is there a motion to adjourn? [1:41:07] Chris Nobach: Move to adjourn. [1:41:07] Brian Douglas: Motion by Nobach, second by Douglas. All in favor? [1:41:07] Commissioners: I. [1:41:07] Brian Douglas: Oppose. Nay. So moved. Oh, we got to say thank you Jesse.