This transcript features the **Canon Falls Planning Commission** meeting from March 9, 2026. The key speakers identified are: * **Diane Johnson:** Commission Chair * **John McCarthy:** City Administrator * **Izzy Johnston:** City Planner / Staff * **Scott Lansman:** City Attorney * **Commissioners:** Chris Nobach, Chad Johnson, Isaac (Natzke), Brian (Douglas), and Tim. * **Public/Guests:** Mr. Hoffman, Erin McMahon, and Ferlin (Fair Board representative). *** **[1:23] Chad Johnson:** Yeah, I remember. **[1:25] Brian:** We've got two copies of the ordinance. One's got a bunch of lines to it. **[1:29] Chad Johnson:** I wasn't on the planning commission then, I'm a substitute. So, it has no lines. I had to recap myself with all the paperwork here. That's why I was asking him what parcel is uh what's being excluded. **[1:41] John McCarthy:** Okay. **[1:43] Chad Johnson:** Okay. So, if we don't agree with those— **[1:45] Chris Nobach:** Yeah, I have the iPad at home, but I just hate using them. I do like the laptops more where the keyboards are bigger, big hands and... All right, whatever. 10 seconds, Diane. **[1:57] Diane Johnson:** 10 seconds. Only like two seconds now. Okay. Oh, sure. Sure. [clears throat] March 9th, 2026 meeting of the planning commission of the city of Canon Falls will come to order. Roll call. **[2:19] Izzy Johnston:** Uh Diane Johnson. **[2:20] Diane Johnson:** Here. **[2:21] Izzy Johnston:** Douglas. **[2:22] Brian:** Here. **[2:23] Izzy Johnston:** Natzke. **[2:24] Isaac:** Here. **[2:25] Izzy Johnston:** Chad Johnson. **[2:26] Chad Johnson:** Here. **[2:27] Izzy Johnston:** Nobach. **[2:28] Chris Nobach:** Here. **[2:29] Brian:** Who's making the— **[2:30] Chad Johnson:** This thing is— **[2:32] Diane Johnson:** Oh, I just I won't touch it. [sighs] Okay. Uh, approval of the agenda which you have before you. **[2:37] Chris Nobach:** Motion to approve. **[2:39] Diane Johnson:** Move. Second? **[2:40] Isaac:** Second. **[2:41] Diane Johnson:** Isaac second. All in favor? **[2:43] Commission:** I. **[2:44] Diane Johnson:** Nay? All moved. Approval of the minutes from the January 12th meeting. **[3:03] Chris Nobach:** Motion to approve. **[3:05] Diane Johnson:** Chris moved. **[3:06] Isaac:** Seconds. **[3:07] Diane Johnson:** Any further discussion? All in favor? **[3:10] Commission:** I. **[3:11] Diane Johnson:** Oppose? Nay. So moved. Do we have... Public input 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 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. **[4:39] 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 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. **[6:05] Diane Johnson:** Thank you. [snorts] **[6:22] Erin McMahon:** 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... [clears throat] 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 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 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. [snorts] 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. 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 initiated 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 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 guaranteed to violate state law creates unnecessary liability. The discretionary enforcement policy forces residents to act as an unpaid regulatory body enduring multiple illegal events before intervention—an unacceptable abdication of municipal duty. We recognize the fair association 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 today and mandate proactive predictive noise modeling to guarantee legal compliance before any further action is taken. Thank you. **[12:05] Diane Johnson:** [clears throat] 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. **[12:20] Izzy Johnston:** [clears throat] 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. Um, so you guys have all been provided all the information from the memo and countless emails and narratives. Um, so I will kind of leave it up to you guys for any discussions or any questions that you have for John and I. **[13:06] Diane Johnson:** You want to explain the two different— **[13:08] Izzy Johnston:** 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 in the red ink. It's the second ordinance in your packet. **[13:25] Chad Johnson:** Thank you. [clears throat] I was just going to ask, was someone going to read Kurt's letter that Aaron gave us? **[13:30] Diane Johnson:** We're just going to hand it out. **[13:33] John McCarthy:** So it is—we have this—this will go into the packet as information received for the meeting. Because 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 record for this meeting. **[14:04] Diane Johnson:** Thank you, John. Okay I'll open it up. Uh we have the ordinance proposal as recommended by our staff. We have another one that was presented by the fair board. We have uh obviously have public input that we have also received. **[14:23] Isaac:** Yeah. **[14:24] Diane Johnson:** Questions, comments? **[14:26] Chad Johnson:** Oh, 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. **[14:43] John McCarthy:** You're on the noise enforcement procedures. **[14:46] Chad Johnson:** Yeah. **[14:47] Diane Johnson:** Okay. Which John, do you want to clarify the difference between the two? **[15:02] John McCarthy:** Uh yes. Thank you, uh chair. So the ordinance um is specifically the action that we're addressing tonight. What is being presented as recommended. Um then we also presented you what the changes that are being requested by the fair and their attorney. The noise enforcement procedures information is derived from the code and what we have as staff to enforce noise rules, specifically in regards to how we would enforce this for the fairgrounds in the first year. This also applies to anything that could be generating noise that we would—any sort of events or activities not just the fairgrounds. This is actions that we can take for you know, concerts 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 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, 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, and make sure that there's a way to address how we would receive complaints and then what actions we would take to address them. So, the action of the enforcement procedures is not necessarily something that has to be voted on here by the planning commission. It is—they are two separate things. Uh the enforcement can be at the discretion of 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 what is here can be incorporated. So, one of the ideas potentially that came up today in discussion was: can this be brought forward and approved? And I would say [clears throat] that it's something that we could have confirmed from the council at the next meeting along with this so that it is part of the record. It's part of the effort from the council to ensure that hey, we are ensuring that staff is going to follow through with this enforcement procedure. **[17:42] Chad Johnson:** 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? **[17:51] John McCarthy:** So, in regards to events at the fairgrounds, like if they have say a demolition derby and we receive a complaint from 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 exceed the thresholds, we would monitor. So, the complaints are in case we are not monitoring the sound. If we don't have the sound equipment out there in place, then the next time they host the event, we would ensure that the monitoring is out there. **[18:20] Chad Johnson:** But how do they file a complaint? Do they address that to the city offices? **[18:25] John McCarthy:** It's addressed to the city administrator. **[18:27] Chad Johnson:** So if they just call—like I know before there was police officers that were involved— **[18:31] John McCarthy:** Yeah. So it is not a live act. These complaints aren't expected to be a live action. Oh, we hear loud noise and we want you to go and shut them down. They're told to us after the fact so that the next time we have the ability 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 discussion over the last well over a year in my time in the city about this. 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 they then understand should not be done unless there were ways to mitigate that and ensure that it could be brought down. [clears throat] 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 not something I have information on today. **[19:37] Chad Johnson:** Okay. The next thing is the the flowchart with "permitted noise amplified," "permitted no amplification." Um usually amplification would mean you know like speakers plugged in or something. **[19:53] John McCarthy:** Yeah. **[19:54] Chad Johnson:** If things are just not amplified but considered loud and you get a complaint, is that something— **[20:00] John McCarthy:** It's anything that can add to the noise of the neighborhood is amplifying. The motorsports being an example of that. **[20:06] Chad Johnson:** So if there's 10,000 people there—a non-speakered 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. **[20:23] John McCarthy:** Okay. But the event itself doesn't necessarily... Yeah. So that's an example of something that we know there's no speakers but you know, should we monitor it anyways or if they generated a lot of noise from that event, the next time they want to do something similar to it, if a complaint was addressed, then we could by this practice monitor that event to ensure that it meets the compliance. **[21:10] Chad Johnson:** 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, if the crowd itself is loud because they're bringing a lot of people into the town, that could be loud and now all of a sudden we need monitoring. I don't know. Just throwing some ideas what I see around it. **[21:30] John McCarthy:** The effort of the enforcement is to identify the times in which monitoring should take place. If it didn't take place, and a complaint happened, then the next time we would be able to address it. And this goes to if we have consecutive events in which they still exceed that, then we would work towards prohibiting those events in the future. **[21:55] Chad Johnson:** Okay. And I started bringing it up earlier. There was five parcels that are being rezoned to the fair zone proposed and then two that are not. Is there any reason why the other two aren't? Because even if they wanted to store stuff on those other off-site areas now, they couldn't. **[22:05] John McCarthy:** I do have the aerials now available and those are wooded parcels. They're very small. They're not anything that they have developed right now. So if they were to develop it, you know we'd have to come back here for rezoning if they were going to develop it and use it for fairground purposes. Yes. **[22:23] Chad Johnson:** All right. Just curious on that. **[22:25] Diane Johnson:** Is that—you ask, you know, if you can be recognized by the chair? **[22:29] Chad Johnson:** Okay. **[22:30] Diane Johnson:** And Chad, I'm having a hard time when you just keep looking at John. So you're asking about why not all of the parcels that the fair association owns are being rezoned? **[22:44] John McCarthy:** In the ordinance amendment, per our conversations and what we've talked about with the fair, they are not petitioning to have every parcel they have rezoned. There are two small parcels um you know 52120080 which is just west of Floyd Street North. It is entirely wooded. It's a quarter block parcel. And then another small sliver which isn't even served by a street. It's off a right-of-way. Um it's just very small. **[23:42] Chad Johnson:** Then they would retain their R2 zoning. **[23:45] John McCarthy:** They would retain their R2 zoning. There's a potential—looks like if they could be served by right-of-way, they could be potentially developed for residential use. **[23:55] Diane Johnson:** So did you want to comment? **[23:56] Ferlin:** I I can if you guys want me to. **[23:58] Diane Johnson:** I mean, but that was your proposal not to have those zoned? **[24:00] Ferlin:** We didn't want to change them because it also keeps a buffer between the houses that are there. [clears throat] benefiting people for now you won't have that extra area. Okay. **[24:15] Diane Johnson:** So, other comments, questions, observations from the commission? **[24:19] Brian:** Yes. I'd like to follow up with that or that I added here to that flowchart that we were just on. This one here. 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"—where do we get violations? Why would there be violations? **[25:01] John McCarthy:** That would be if they have a prohibited activity that they do, or an event that they host in violation of the ordinance. So, they run a micro sprint car race on there, it immediately goes to the $1,000 fine. **[25:08] Brian:** 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. **[25:15] John McCarthy:** Because we're not prohibiting it... well, we don't want them to do it, but people will still break the law. So if somebody breaks the law, this is part of our hammer to enforce that law. **[25:27] Brian:** Would that be the thousand? **[25:29] John McCarthy:** That'd be the thousand dollar per per—Yeah—per occurrence. So if they're running multiple races, that's each one of them. If they have an event that goes three days, each day is potentially a $1,000 fine. Those get certified to taxes. Again, we go through the process of... if they don't pay. That's just—that's not the expectation here. I just want to be clear in our conversations with the fair board: 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 kind of got us here where the city told them to not do something and the fair operated and did it anyways. Now, there's a lot to that history and story of people that you weren't involved in. You know, I don't think anybody in this room was directly involved in how that operation went down. But in the future, if 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 the conversations that I've had with them that they want to follow these rules. If they don't, this is how we can move that process along to go to the larger fines and penalties. **[26:55] Chris Nobach:** 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 motorbike register at sound level? 100 dB, 105? Do you know any of that or— **[27:35] Ferlin:** We did have a... Yeah, please come to the mic. So, we did have a 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 know what I mean? It's like if you break it for a small period of time in an hour—right? 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. **[28:30] Chris Nobach:** Mmm, that's kind of contradictory to what we observed with the monster trucks, right? Because we have that data and it broke that sound barrier. **[28:44] Ferlin:** Right. But then when we looked at that data too—and I've said it to John—it's not what we want to do. 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 amplified it so bad on a night show versus a day? So was there something going on? Was the system... didn't work the first time or did it— **[28:57] John McCarthy:** More people? **[28:58] Ferlin:** Yeah. That's all I— **[29:00] Chris Nobach:** Okay. Yeah. Because I was going to say I think the reality is we really don't have the data. **[29:05] John McCarthy:** There is no data. The only way we're going to get it is what we have set up right now. **[29:08] Chris Nobach:** Right. So this is going to bleed into... and 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. [clears throat] **[29:42] Scott Lansman:** 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 some questions about then how 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. **[30:11] Chris Nobach:** 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 packet. It 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." Residential is noise area classification one. It's my interpretation that we set these land use activities in any location where those standards are established... basicially my understanding of that law is we are not allowed and should not be able to pass something that we would knowingly violate those noise rules. And I could be incorrect there. **[31:17] Scott Lansman:** So, if you take a look at the proposed ordinance at—where is it on page three—one of the conditions, remember these are permitted uses. Section 5C5 provides that a motorsport event must comply with all applicable city and 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 ordinance itself. **[32:05] Chris Nobach:** So 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 run these tests in real time and we just don't know. **[33:02] Scott Lansman:** So if your question is: Based on this rule, can the city pass this ordinance based on what it says right here and then the policy that will be used to enforce it? The answer is yes. Um any political issues I'll leave up to the planning commission itself. **[33:18] Diane Johnson:** 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. **[33:26] Chris Nobach:** 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 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 administrator, we talked about previously—well, we can do a quick back-of-the-hand calculation and say, you know, this modeling says 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 from what I can tell in the packet based off an example of 70 dB 200 feet away, you're still receiving mid-60 decibel levels. I just don't see it when you exceed that 100 decibel level. And I know none of that's in front of us, but that's the research I did. And I'm just having a hard time connecting the dots, I guess. **[34:30] Isaac:** No, I was just gonna say 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 recording all that and doing all these things to ensure that they maintain noise levels. My assumption is we're doing that because we have doubts that they will. And then we put together a pretty detailed procedure that, you know, once said noise levels are out of whack... 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 said event that we're discussing today to figure out if that's something worthwhile doing. So I mean 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 where those residents are essentially the ones that really are going to be rolling the dice to see how successful this is or isn't, right? **[35:46] Chris Nobach:** Can I piggyback on that quickly? 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, 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 citizens there, I guess, unfortunately. And I just don't see us doing this for any other entity. **[36:31] Isaac:** 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 sprints are bad. **[37:00] Chris Nobach:** 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. It's frustrating but I think—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 pick this thing apart and say, you know, just like Erin 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 closer? Yeah, we have stuff in here that says, well, the citizens, we have to do all this stuff to prevent it, but if there was a data-driven approach, I think I'd be a lot more comfortable passing this, I guess. **[37:47] John McCarthy:** May I offer a point? I mean the purpose of drafting ordinances and laws are to try to prevent activities that we don't want to see. So you have speed limits, right? You have 55 mph as the speed limit that you determine 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 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? The purpose 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. **[38:43] Chris Nobach:** I can tell you we also have speed limits for the safety of the public. John, in my my opinion is these folks don't want to see that. They don't want to see racing. They don't want to see those things. [clears throat] I don't want to see a law enacted and see if the fair is going to follow it or not, you know. **[38:58] John McCarthy:** And the noise laws and standards are there to protect the health and safety of people that are in Minnesota. **[39:06] Chris Nobach:** 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 data out there. I did a quick research on whether or not someone can do noise modeling—that data exists. And it's been required in other racetrack scenarios. We can ask for that, I guess. **[39:43] Scott Lansman:** Madam Chair, um you can correct me if I'm wrong because I don't have the complete history on it, but I believe that the issue of the motorized racing, I don't think specifically has been fleshed out to a conclusion of whether it can or cannot happen. I believe that it created this issue we have and then the idea was with this: 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 control because you're going to use a road for traveling on. You put the 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, 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 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. 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 racing is happening. But with the conversations that they want to try to come under some rules, they just want to know "what can we do with our property?" and that's what's happening here. **[41:40] Diane Johnson:** I and if I can chime in too... um it it seems that that some of the the problem here is these events that are now being permitted—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 have some kind of a thing that said "this is what 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 Commissioner Nobach is asking is if we can mandate that they do noise modeling 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 threshold from the point in which the noise is generated to the boundary it crosses. And I I don't have an answer to that in terms of knowing... I know it exists. **[43:22] Chris Nobach:** I struggle with that ask because I know it costs money, right? And you know, according to Ferlin's record that that's just probably money you don't have. And I have a hard time with it. You know, somebody's got to pay for it if you want to do it. And 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. **[44:08] John McCarthy:** At worst case that's the special events, right? That's five times... no motorized in the ordinance recommendations that we have. It's five limited motorized events. Special events have no specific quantity limits. What the fair board has asked—and the justification behind that is—if we can comply with everything sound-wise, should there be a limit to how many events that they could have just an arbitrary limit? So that's why their proposal was what it was. 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, or is it an after-the-fact monitor during the event with notice afterwards and corrective measures to prevent that from happening again? **[45:15] Isaac:** How could you even monitor certain events ahead of time because not all races are the same? 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. If they have a concert out there 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. **[46:11] Brian:** [clears throat] 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." Whereas if we have the restrictions at the beginning—they don't do the restrictions, it's done. I mean, allowing all these other things to say, oh, you get this and you'll pay 300, you'll pay a thousand. Set the restrictions up front as they were saying—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 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 know where they have to be and they can monitor it themselves and we'll have this set up. **[47:04] John McCarthy:** 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 set up, analyzed. we'd get a report back and we'd know. Prior to them running 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 with these mitigation measures, we believe that this event could not exceed those noise levels. That is what I guess the intent was when 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 perpetually violating this law, again, we still reserve the ability to require a cease and desist because they're violating an ordinance. **[48:22] Chris Nobach:** You know, I could even get behind uh tougher enforcement on that. Instead of starting at 300, we could start at a thousand and you do it again—3,000 and done. **[48:33] Scott Lansman:** Well, there's a cap on the law with the misdemeanor. So, $1,000 is the stat. **[48:40] Chris Nobach:** Okay. Start with a thousand. **[48:42] Diane Johnson:** Yeah. Or 30 days in jail. **[48:44] John McCarthy:** So, we're going to start arresting the board members? **[48:46] Chris Nobach:** I don't know. But— **[48:48] John McCarthy:** 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 exceeded whatever the standards are. We send the letter that said that event exceeded it. They come back and and if they want to redo 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. **[49:15] John McCarthy:** This is where I think the noise—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 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 noise standards. So, if they can prove that and show us that justification, then we could run that event again. Again, we'd want to monitor it. We wouldn't want to just 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 wanted to put in place the opportunities where if there is that chance and risk, we monitor and verify to ensure that if it did, something either needs to be corrected or the that activity isn't going to take place again. **[50:26] Chad Johnson:** 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? **[50:35] John McCarthy:** The monitoring would be done at the closest proximity to a residential that NAC1 threshold on fair property, yet right up against the boundary. **[50:47] Chad Johnson:** I know in the past we did I think two spots before. There wasn't there one at the pool? **[50:53] John McCarthy:** We moved the same monitor equipment to two different locations during the same event. **[50:57] Chad Johnson:** Okay. **[50:58] John McCarthy:** It depends on—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 choosing to at this time recommend to use for implementation. **[51:24] Chad Johnson:** They have a certain deadline to get their equipment? **[51:28] John McCarthy:** They've usually said three months. **[51:31] Chad Johnson:** Yeah. **[51:32] John McCarthy:** 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. **[51:49] Chad Johnson:** Okay. **[51:50] John McCarthy:** We would like to do as well a pre-monitoring to establish the base level just to ensure that we know... does this area right now at the NAC1 standards—does it exceed it without any sort of activity happening on the fair today? **[52:11] Chris Nobach:** 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 actually setting it up, we're putting it out there and this these are the results data-driven like it wasn't tampered with. **[52:33] John McCarthy:** I think there's some important things to understand too about the equipment—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, the sounds that it's taking. It's capturing decibel levels. So, you're not able to reinterpret the data and say, "Hey, this was a truck on the highway versus a car in the demo pit." Um, so evaluating the surroundings and environment of what's happening during that time where that recording is happening is valuable information. So, for people to tell us like, "Hey, we know the sound monitoring equipment is running for this hour. We happened to recognize that a 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 because the MPCA folks aren't gonna be able to tell that. **[53:45] Chad Johnson:** They just give us the data. **[53:46] John McCarthy:** They're just going to give us the report back. **[53:51] Isaac:** How does [clears throat] 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 and now it comes back down to a nominal level. I mean does that count as a violation? **[54:06] John McCarthy:** No. So it's the L10 and the L50 calculations. So the L10 is that if you have decibels that exceed daytime decibels of 65 dB for 10% 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 exceeding that level. So if you have, you know, it say it's it's just a long race, but it's a constant 75 decibel hum coming across that boundary, that could exceed the— **[54:53] Isaac:** 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? **[55:10] John McCarthy:** Well, you'd want to monitor during the periods of all the activities going on. **[55:19] Isaac:** Well, okay. So, but what I'm asking is if they have like a three-day type event and on day one everything reads fine, right? And then day two [clears throat] we're off. 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 spectrum on that? We got to talk about—" **[55:42] John McCarthy:** That would—yeah—if any moment of that event it was there... do you have any information to tell us why that happened so that you're mitigating it for the next time? Um, 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. So those could be considered in terms of the response of mitigation. **[56:15] Isaac:** 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 doesn't—as far as the city's concerned, we're strictly looking at that data regardless of whatever those citizens up there... **[56:39] John McCarthy:** The citizen complaints are to ensure that... so, say we monitored. **[56:51] Isaac:** Mmm-hmm. **[56:52] John McCarthy:** 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 perception of the neighborhood is that it exceeded it. **[57:07] Isaac:** I think that then warrants verifying whether or not it still does it in the future. **[57:12] Chad Johnson:** [clears throat] I don't know... that is city resources, money, time to set it up. **[57:18] Diane Johnson:** Does it cost to rent the equipment? **[57:20] John McCarthy:** 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 back and forth. The time for the monster trucks, people volunteered to even bring it down and pick it up for us. Um, we do have weekly 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 at least twice a week. I mean, there's ways we can we can do that without expending— **[57:51] Chad Johnson:** Someone lodges a complaint. Is it kind of like how for public input you'll say, "Hey, my name, my address"? 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—" **[58:05] John McCarthy:** We're still... any complaint-driven... we're assessing the validity of that complaint. **[58:11] Chad Johnson:** Okay. So if it's just a random bot generated complaints... **[58:14] John McCarthy:** We would do our best to assess like "is this legitimate or not?" **[58:18] Chad Johnson:** 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 clearly like there is a noise issue. **[58:25] John McCarthy:** It's relatively to me it's irrelevant of if it's a specific home in the neighborhood or if it's anybody that wanted to file a complaint in the city and there's a legitimate chance that it happened... [clears throat] it would be... except for we will enforce action. So whenever you "will" do something... **[59:44] John McCarthy:** The "will" is the monitoring. And again, that's back to my conversation with the fair board. They're not opposed to us doing the monitoring. Ferlin, could you nod? 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 creating any hardship on anybody by monitoring. **[1:00:07] Isaac:** Just to clarify, so when we say we're doing the monitoring, City of Canon Falls is doing the monitoring. So we're taking on that that expenditure of monitoring to ensure this fair adheres to noise levels. **[1:00:15] John McCarthy:** Again, equipment is no cost to the city, provided to us by NPCA. NPCA will do the analysis and return that at no cost to us. The cost to the city is on either if we're going to pick up the monitoring equipment and deliver it back to MPCA in St. Paul. I don't foresee this to be a prohibitive cost to the city. 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. **[1:00:53] Isaac:** To that effect, I mean, is the MPCA going to be amenable to handing us equipment every every weekend? **[1:01:05] John McCarthy:** My understanding from my conversation with the representative at MPCA was they did not have a problem with it. **[1:01:23] Brian:** 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 towns-people's accepted number. 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. **[1:02:10] Izzy Johnston:** That's a definition. That defining what a motor— **[1:02:15] John McCarthy:** Let me—This does require some explanation. So, when we were in one of our conversations, we were talking about the activity. So, like a demolition derby. A demolition derby activity is the cars actually banging into each other. The demolition derby event, which may take place over multiple days incorporating multiple activities, is... we tried to distinguish the two. So we said the activity is the actual movement of the vehicles. The event is the time in which it starts to it stops. They can have five events. They can't exceed more than three days each in a year. **[1:03:07] Brian:** 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." **[1:03:22] John McCarthy:** Flip it back to the one... it then it goes down into page three where it's permitted motorsport events. Uh so number two they can't last more than three consecutive days. And number three they may hold up to five motorsport events annually. **[1:03:36] Brian:** Okay. So that's the limit. This that's ambiguous. This one we should put in there. Okay, I get it. **[1:03:55] John McCarthy:** It's there to distinguish what an event is versus a motorsport activity. **[1:04:04] Brian:** 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. Provided, however, that the city council may allow additional motorsports events on request." I guess what I'm doing as I'm sitting here... I went into the meetings with the town's people and 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. **[1:04:50] Chris Nobach:** 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. **[1:05:05] Diane Johnson:** So you're saying on C3 you would like to have that the second part of that struck? **[1:05:10] Brian:** Yes. **[1:05:23] Chris Nobach:** And I just have another question on 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 if it gets to be 10:00 at night and it's still going on, are the police empowered to actually shut it down then at that point? **[1:05:54] John McCarthy:** It's the same enforcement mechanism. That's a whole another area of the code in which law enforcement can be sent to address any use outside of 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, we're not saying like they're running that derby during all hours of those three days. **[1:06:46] Diane Johnson:** 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 we'd like to do besides keep meeting? It is one of those things where it sounds like it would be cost prohibitive to either the event organizer or to the city to have noise modeling prior to an event being held unless the actual organizers of the event already have that information. 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. **[1:08:00] Tim:** 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. **[1:08:09] Diane Johnson:** Well, no. I actually I'm not sure we're quite ready, Tim. I appreciate that. No, I'm trying to find out what... if 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 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 too burdensome. Um if we want to say okay, our recommendation would be to limit the uh motor sports events to no more than, outside of the fair time, five events annually. I'm okay with striking out the part where the city council may allow more upon request. **[1:09:30] Brian:** Brian brought up a good point. **[1:09:33] Diane Johnson:** Okay. Thank you, Chad. **[1:09:42] Isaac:** 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 Chris had brought up, we don't have any of the data and so we kind of want to run it and see what ends up being successful and what won't go beyond the noise ordinances. I'm not really comfortable with that considering we got residents out there. **[1:10:11] Chad Johnson:** 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. **[1:10:35] Isaac:** I hate to tell you Chad, but there haven't been motorized vehicles for hundred years. **[1:10:46] Chad Johnson:** Well, they've been allowed to go... They have existed. I never motorced since the 1800s. **[1:11:00] Isaac:** [laughter] My point is more so I I don't care what has been done in the past. 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 guess that that's where I— **[1:11:27] Chad Johnson:** Those events aren't allowed. **[1:11:29] Isaac:** [clears throat] Okay, we can say that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that those events won't take place. 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 guess... I feel as though the city—like with this—we're the ones kind of doing all the work to make this work for the fair, which I'm not necessarily opposed to, but again, you know, 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 kind of where I'm at. **[1:12:07] Chris Nobach:** That's kind of how I feel, too, unfortunately. Sorry, John. Like I go back to: I would ask anybody else going into that property to do this to do something like that. And I know it costs money and I hate to do it to the fair. 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. **[1:12:27] John McCarthy:** I'm going to make a comment. It's not any sort of objection to the noise modeling and finding a solution regarding that. But I do want to ask like: Is there belief or concern still that they're just going to ignore if we're going to pass this? **[1:12:45] Isaac:** No, I I I don't think they're blatantly going to ignore it. But I think there's some sense of common sense to where if you have those type of events down there, 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 these events, they're kosher. 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 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 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. **[1:14:14] John McCarthy:** So at I guess in my... if I'm trying to practically apply this to... hypothetically say this happened. They run an event, we monitor it, we get the results back that they 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. **[1:14:26] Isaac:** John, 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 that's fine, 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 has shown they've gone over those levels, like we need to take that seriously. Rather than just like, "Okay, well, that was that last year, but we're going to try and make this work for the fair." I just... 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 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. **[1:15:14] Diane Johnson:** 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. **[1:15:42] Chris Nobach:** Well, let me just see you... I know maybe not you, but is that kind of what Isaac— **[1:15:52] Isaac:** I I think that's kind of where the rubber meets the road. **[1:15:56] Chris Nobach:** And I guess two things before we do that... City Attorney, does that put us at any more legal risk at all, including something like that? Or are we overbearing as a board? **[1:16:04] Scott Lansman:** Uh, Madam 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 with regard to conditions that you may have in a zone and the requirements that you have, it is whether or not there's a rational basis for that determination or those conditions you have on there. Rational 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 staff but um conditions, as I said, can be—if you state a good reason for it—typically it's permissible and defensible. **[1:16:51] Chad Johnson:** I have no idea how you get—say they want to do a concert next week. How do you get an idea of the crowd that will actually show up for it? Because the crowd will be loud too and if it's super successful... "well, you can't do that again." **[1:17:21] Chris Nobach:** Chad, I think some of it deals with... you can do a study saying, hey, this this type of activity is 100 decibel 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 could take a decibel... if you're worried about a concert, you could say, "Hey, the average concert does 90 dB at this level 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? **[1:17:59] Ferlin:** The only question I have for you guys: How do we mow our yard up there? Because we're going to break decimals with mowers 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. **[1:18:27] Diane Johnson:** Okay, just... Yep. We're not—we're supposed to keep the conversation up here unless we're asking for factual information. So, assume we really need to decide something tonight. **[1:19:00] John McCarthy:** Well, that's what I want to ask you real quick. We have to make a decision for the city council to make a decision. We have to decide whether we vote to recommend it as it is, deny it as it is, amend it, or table it/postpone it to the next planning commission meeting. I'm assuming the council could take it up whether or not we did anything or but anyway... so I think you basically either prove it as it is, amend it and approve it, postpone it or just plain deny it. **[1:19:38] Chad Johnson:** I hear people up here keep bringing up "it's for the citizens, the citizens." 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. **[1:20:10] John McCarthy:** Yeah. If I can provide context to that: the end result of our meetings was not a full consensus. We did not reach consensus on this ordinance between the neighborhood groups and the representatives of planning commission that were in that ad hoc committee. Those messages, the input that we did receive in those meetings was brought forward and tried to be incorporated and addressed not just with the code itself, but with the enforcement policy. Because that was my interpretation of what was discussed—that 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 was our efforts to incorporate that input. **[1:21:32] Diane Johnson:** And I think in enforcing it, if it's violated, it's very clear here 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? **[1:21:56] Chris Nobach:** 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 ask. **[1:22:15] Isaac:** Well, what constitutes a study? **[1:22:18] Chris Nobach:** Well, I was going to say I mean it goes through an engineering firm. A study like that goes through an engineering firm is stamped by some sort of professional. They provide it to the city administrator's office. Then when we get the request or event schedule from the fair—demolition derby, concert, other activity—"Here's our noise modeling studies." Izzy looks at it and says, "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 until you get it." **[1:23:00] Isaac:** And that would just be for the motorized stuff? **[1:23:03] Chris Nobach:** Well, that'd be for the things that you know are potential to violate the noise standards. **[1:23:17] Chad Johnson:** If they have a harness racing event, are we going to require them to do a noise study for that where the horses are just going around? **[1:23:25] Chris Nobach:** To me that doesn't make sense. I guess it sounds like 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 think that it has to go through a study. **[1:23:49] Isaac:** So, is that now and in perpetuity for every event here? Or is it just do it for this... anything? They want to run tractor pulls and they have a study that says here here's a max tractor pull event, and they prove through that study that that's allowable, then what are we to say that that study's garbage? **[1:24:25] Diane Johnson:** Right. And obviously if if we did this, um, you know then like three tractor pull events could probably use the same study. And we could still do the sound monitoring if there was... we had complaints that said, "Hey, that tractor pull is way too loud." At least that would allow us to be more proactive in terms of 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. **[1:25:28] Brian:** 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 they should want to see it succeed too by bringing in the proper programs. **[1:25:52] Diane Johnson:** Let me ask another thing. If we were to amend this to include a noise modeling requirement, does that have to have another public hearing or is that okay? **[1:26:00] Scott Lansman:** 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 within the subject matter are fine. So that wouldn't set us back another month and a half to go through everything. **[1:26:22] Diane Johnson:** So, is this something we would like to ask the staff to work on and then bring us back a clean copy or is it something we could— **[1:26:35] Brian:** I don't want to—I would rather see it, you know, go through the way it has been worked on. **[1:26:45] Isaac:** I mean I think this needs to see its end at some point right? **[1:26:51] Diane Johnson:** The fair needs to know what they are going to be held to. 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? **[1:27:01] Scott Lansman:** You could make a motion to whatever amendments you want to make tonight so long as they are within the subject matter of the ordinance can be brought forward as the recommendation from the planning commission to the city council. **[1:27:20] Diane Johnson:** Right. So would somebody then—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... **[1:27:48] Chris Nobach:** [snorts] G having amplified noise. **[1:27:54] Diane Johnson:** Do we or... so adding another bullet point? Anywhere between 1 through 5 or 6 for item C and then 1 through 4 or 5 for item G. The same language that the event is required to provide noise modeling showing... **[1:28:23] John McCarthy:** Sorry, I feel like it's might be an overreach to ask for noise modeling for weddings, celebrations, social gatherings, those sort of things. **[1:28:36] Diane Johnson:** I think amplified noise was the key there because I don't think like the art fair would have to— **[1:28:44] Isaac:** Right. Or did we—saying they have to give us 30 days' notice on any event they hold? **[1:29:02] John McCarthy:** I hate to make run-on 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. Notice and noise modeling showing that it complies with all local and state noise standards. **[1:29:21] Chris Nobach:** I'd be comfortable with that. **[1:29:23] Diane Johnson:** 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? **[1:29:32] John McCarthy:** Depends on if it's going to get two different sets of votes. **[1:29:36] Diane Johnson:** Okay, we'll do two separate. **[1:29:38] John McCarthy:** If everyone was going to vote all in the same way for both amendments, then you could include them as one. **[1:29:48] Diane Johnson:** Well, we'll do it real simple. Okay. So, would somebody like to move to amend the proposed ordinance um to include the noise modeling as John stated? **[1:30:09] Isaac:** Sorry, Diane, say that again. **[1:30:11] Diane Johnson:** Okay. Would somebody like to amend the ordinance to include the noise modeling requirement on C and G? G noting that it would apply to events with amplified noise. **[1:30:30] John McCarthy:** So C... can I offer a suggestion? So C1 would be an addition... "Canon Valley Fair Association notice including description, schedule event at least 30 days prior... including description, noise modeling to show compliance with noise standards, and schedule the motor sport event at least 30 days prior to the start of the motorsport event." And then the same addition in G1. **[1:31:38] Diane Johnson:** 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. **[1:31:51] Chris Nobach:** Yes. **[1:31:53] Izzy Johnston:** I don't—that would be in our definition page. **[1:31:55] John McCarthy:** I don't know what that is today, but as a recommendation to the council to add that definition, I guess. **[1:32:00] Isaac:** I mean, can I just add the word "professional noise study"? **[1:32:06] Diane Johnson:** Yes. **[1:32:07] John McCarthy:** That would be 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 "professional noise study" would be my recommendation there. **[1:32:20] Scott Lansman:** Um Madam Chair, members of the commission, two ways that this could be brought up and it'll be staff's discretion. One is to provide a 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 city council will be informed of what the recommendation was. **[1:32:43] Isaac:** I would motion it'd be my preference to have a modified ordinance and not study points or whatever. Here's what we wanted. **[1:32:51] Scott Lansman:** Yep. So the modified ordinance would be the amendment process. What you're doing right now is you're voting to have that change made—that provides the direction to staff to make that change. **[1:33:39] Tim:** I guess I'm a nay on that one because I think it's government over-motion. **[1:33:43] Diane Johnson:** I haven't yet... **[1:33:46] Tim:** Oh, I thought he seconded it. **[1:33:48] Isaac:** No, I was clarifying the word "professional" in there. Professional noise modeling too. **[1:33:55] Diane Johnson:** So, is that a second or no second? **[1:33:57] Isaac:** That would be my second. **[1:34:00] Diane Johnson:** Okay. So, it has been moved and seconded to modify the ordinance to include in C1 and G1 professional noise modeling requirement. 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, 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 the modification. It's been moved. It's been seconded. Is there any further discussion? All in favor of modifying the ordinance as stated say I. **[1:34:40] Commission:** I. **[1:34:42] Diane Johnson:** Oppose? Nay. **[1:34:44] Tim:** Nay. **[1:34:46] Diane Johnson:** Thank you. One nay. Now, do you want to also modify the ordinance in C3 to remove "the allow additional motor sports events"? **[1:34:56] Brian:** Brian, you were the one that proposed that. **[1:35:00] Brian:** Yes. I make the motion to remove "provided, however, that the city council may allow additional motorsports events upon request." **[1:35:10] Diane Johnson:** So, Brian moves that we modify C3. Is there a second? **[1:35:14] Isaac:** Second. **[1:35:16] Diane Johnson:** Isaac seconds. Is there discussion on removing the second half of C3? If not, all in favor of that modification say I. **[1:35:25] Commission:** I. **[1:35:27] Diane Johnson:** Oppose? Nay. Passed. Now, are we ready to vote on recommending or denying this ordinance as modified to the city council for their consideration? **[1:35:45] Chris Nobach:** So my the only thing I have left was what I asked Ferlin: If we add a rider under "parking" or something like that to just say, you know, West Gate cannot be used except during the fair? That was a citizen concern about people going around up there after hours. **[1:36:06] Isaac:** That would be under what, Chris? **[1:36:08] Chris Nobach:** So it was either it would either be under "parking" or wherever we define the fair. **[1:36:14] Isaac:** I don't have a problem with them using it because it also could be a safety thing—like not so much coming into that one road on Hannah's Bend. If they do road construction or something like that, it could be used. 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. I do see the residential concern. **[1:36:45] Chad Johnson:** The same problems over there by Hannah's Bend too. They come in and there's houses on both sides of the entrance. So I can see them just... 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. **[1:37:05] Chris Nobach:** But Ferlin also said they wouldn't use it outside the fair anyway, so I have no problem putting that in writing. **[1:37:12] Diane Johnson:** Okay. Where did you want to insert that, Chris? **[1:37:16] Chris Nobach:** I guess I'm looking to see if we add something like that... where's the best spot to put that? **[1:37:25] Scott Lansman:** If you added that—you know, one of the concerns I see here is, you know, "the west entrance should be closed off" and Ferlin 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 access road? **[1:37:50] John McCarthy:** I think what your comment is to close it down for public use during events. **[1:38:00] Chris Nobach:** Yeah. Anything outside of typical fair use. **[1:38:05] John McCarthy:** Similar to as we discussed other conditions—as long as there's a rational basis for those conditions then it's legal. **[1:38:15] Brian:** I'd say if you're gonna do something like that, 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 a backup. So if they're doing work on that road by Hannah's Bend there and nobody can get through, you know there needs to be access. 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 the other way is not available. **[1:38:50] Chris Nobach:** Seems fair. I'm pretty sure that if we do a major reconstruction on Hannah's Bend Road, the fair is not going to schedule an event during that time. I mean, it's going to be very difficult to help people get there. **[1:39:10] Brian:** It might not line up with their schedule. **[1:39:15] Chris Nobach:** Can we do something that says "outside of fair hours and emergencies only, the West Gate shall not be used"? **[1:39:23] Diane Johnson:** You're talking the 7 days of the fair? 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 fair and for emergencies. **[1:39:48] Isaac:** It'll just be special events, right? That the fair doesn't qualify as a special event? **[1:39:55] Diane Johnson:** Yeah. So it just it won't be used for special events. **[1:39:58] Isaac:** Outside of emergency personnel. **[1:40:02] Chris Nobach:** Easier to say: will only be used during fair time. West end—that's the only time that that'll be open. **[1:40:10] Brian:** I just see a problem if we decided a road project has to happen and well, we don't care about— **[1:40:16] Isaac:** We can make exceptions. But this is to ensure that the majority of these instances are negated rather than the minority of issues potentially coming about. I think this is to Chris's point—protect against what Kurt had made mention in here where it's a safety concern for that neighborhood. **[1:40:35] Brian:** I'm just saying if you're gonna write in that they can't use it, you should say it can't be the primary way. If the road's tore up or if it's flooded down there and the things happen, they need to be able to use it if they want to. **[1:41:00] Diane Johnson:** So what we're saying is that we want to modify the ordinance to say the the west gate can only be used during the regular fair and only if the Hannah's Bend Road is... **[1:41:15] Brian:** I don't... um... I think we can simplify this. I think you should... the only times they can use the west gate is the fair and emergencies. So you're... **[1:41:50] Chris Nobach:** I mean, can can we put it under "permitted accessory uses" or is that not the right spot? **[1:41:55] John McCarthy:** No, it's more like general district regulations. If it's just in the general district regulations, that the west entrance can only be used for the annual Canon Valley fair and emergency uses. Is there any need to have some flexibility so that—determined by the city if eastern access is limited? **[1:42:30] Isaac:** That's fair. **[1:42:31] Brian:** Yeah. **[1:42:32] Diane Johnson:** So your first part was: can only be used for fair times. Other times it's for emergency access or also be used as determined necessary by the city engineer or city administrator when the eastern access is limited. **[1:43:03] Isaac:** I feel comfortable with that. So, I would make a motion to add that, I guess. **[1:43:12] Diane Johnson:** Okay. So, between Chris and Chad, do you have the—or do you have the amendment? John's writing it down. **[1:43:25] John McCarthy:** Yeah, I think the addition would be added to Section 3. Okay. Here's what I drafted. Section 152.354 under F, new addition of three: "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 should say if this is approved, there's an amendment prior when prior to going to council, we may have to modify our language a little bit, but it'll be within that context. **[1:44:15] Isaac:** I would make a motion to— **[1:44:17] Diane Johnson:** Oh, Chris. **[1:44:18] Chris Nobach:** Is there a second? **[1:44:19] Isaac:** Second. **[1:44:20] Diane Johnson:** Isaac seconds. 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? **[1:44:42] Commission:** I. **[1:44:44] Diane Johnson:** Oppose? Nay. So moved. Any other modifications? Okay. Then are we ready to vote on recommending the modified ordinance to the city council for their consideration? So that action would be the resolution. Planning commission resolution 2026-02 approving the modified ordinance amending city code relating to the Canon Valley Fair. Would somebody like to make the motion to approve the resolution approving the ordinance as modified? **[1:45:52] Chris Nobach:** Motion to approve. **[1:45:54] Diane Johnson:** Chris moves. Is there a second? **[1:45:56] Chad Johnson:** Yeah, I'll second it. **[1:45:58] Diane Johnson:** Chad seconds. Is there any further discussion? All in favor? **[1:46:02] Commission:** I. **[1:46:04] Diane Johnson:** Opposed? Nay. So moved. Uh there is no further action required tonight. The next meeting of the planning commission will be on April 13th. Is there a motion to adjourn? **[1:46:16] Isaac:** Motion to adjourn. **[1:46:18] Diane Johnson:** Isaac moves. Is there a second? **[1:46:20] Brian:** Second. **[1:46:21] Diane Johnson:** Brian seconds. All in favor? **[1:46:23] Commission:** I. **[1:46:25] Diane Johnson:** Nay? She moved.