[0:28] [Silence] [0:58] [Silence] [1:28] [Silence] [2:03] **Steve Nordin**: Good evening everyone. Welcome to the December 9th, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. Uh, roll call. We got Hamma here, Johnson here, Guesmi, I'm here, Fox here, Nobach here. Everyone's here for now. Um, can I get a motion to approve the agenda? [2:30] **Chad Johnson**: So moved. [2:32] **Jesse Hamma**: Second. [2:34] **Steve Nordin**: Moved by Johnson, second by Hamma to approve the agenda. Any further discussion? All in favor, aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Um, approval of the minutes from October 21st. [2:50] **Steve Nordin**: Motion to approve? [2:52] **Chris Nobach**: Second. [2:53] **Steve Nordin**: Second—what, go ahead. Motion by—no, motion by [Laughter] Chris, second by Jesse to approve the minutes of October 21st, 2024. Any further discussion? All those in favor, aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Uh, no one signed up for public input tonight, so we'll just move on to our first public hearing: uh, ordinance amending Canon Falls city code relating to the zoning of cannabis. Zach, you want to get us going? [3:45] **Zach (Staff)**: Yeah, so good evening guys. Um, the first discussion item involves the implementation of cannabis and cannabis-related businesses within the city limits. Um, before we discuss, I think it's important to note that all licensing has been delegated to, um, Goodhue County. Um, so the only thing that we're discussing is the zoning. There's only going to be four retail cannabis businesses or dispensaries, um, allowed in Goodhue County. So Canon Falls might not even have one, but I think it's still imperative that we have something in place in case we do. Um, so please look at the proposed ordinance in your packet, um, which defines the types of cannabis businesses and where they, uh, are zoned for each City or for each, uh, use. [4:25] **Steve Nordin**: Okay, thanks Zach. So with that, I'll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to address the city code relating to the zoning of cannabis? This is when you do it. Second call: anyone wishing to address the zoning? Third and last call: anyone wishing to address the zoning of cannabis in Canon Falls? Hearing none, I'm going to close the public hearing. Committee questions? [5:15] **Jesse Hamma**: Is all the cultivation done in enclosed buildings or is it, uh, outside? [5:22] **Zach (Staff)**: If it's in the city... let's see, I think it's... yes. [5:35] **Jesse Hamma**: Gotcha. [5:40] **Zach (Staff)**: I'm just going to review the definition real quick, but unless our attorney has anything to say... I don't know if it specifies... [5:55] **Shelley Ryan (City Attorney)**: It doesn't specify. All the definitions were—they are our own definitions, but they're taken from the County who took them from State. So it's all kind of one cohesive... [6:15] **Jesse Hamma**: I think it's a fair question. [6:18] **Shelley Ryan (City Attorney)**: It doesn't—it doesn't address that as far as, um—it just addresses cultivation, but it doesn't address indoor or outdoor. And I guess the question is: does it matter? [6:30] **Jesse Hamma**: Well, it might—it might matter to the residents if there's a cannabis field in their backyard. Yeah, might have a lot more visitation, maybe in the middle of the night. Just something to think about. [6:48] **Steve Nordin**: It's always amenable. I mean, we can add something to that if you guys see fit to make everything enclosed or have special screening as well. Um, but it's only in the industrial... [7:00] **Jesse Hamma**: I know it's going to only be industrial, but... [7:05] **Chris Nobach**: See, Zach, I got a question. I think you already answered it with where you derived this from, but uh, is there a specific reason why we don't consider cannabis manufacturing in a B1, B2, or I1 zone? Because I'm just looking at our city map and those seem like appropriate places to do it, especially if they're not doing the cultivation there. [7:37] **Zach (Staff)**: Yeah, we kind of just reserved all... anytime you're going to turn dry cannabis into, like, when you're actually manufacturing it, growing it, that sort of thing—is all just I1 or, um, I2, excuse me. But we just thought it was best that all the retail was, you know, strictly in the B1, B2. But, um, you know, if you move the manufacturing—if that's something you guys would want to entertain... [8:00] **Chris Nobach**: I mean, I'm just curious. Like right now, a B2 business zone, generally speaking, like Highway 52—you got all those buildings down there. They do manufacturing and stuff like that. You know, to me, it kind of—in my head—it makes sense. Like, you know, if you're not doing the cultivation or the growing there and it's all done inside your warehouse, I guess I don't really care. Personal opinion. So, and same thing with, like, Canon Equipment is owned as I1, Ag-Vantage stuff like that—those are all I1. They—they all manufacture there. So it's just kind of something to think about, perhaps. Unless there's some sort of smell that it's associated with manufacturing it, I don't—I don't know why we'd have an issue with it. [9:04] **Chris Nobach**: Good. So, and then for home occupations—see, now that would be in a different zone too, correct? That would be the—uh, it's not allowed there though, is it? I don't think we... do we allow it? [9:20] **Zach (Staff)**: Yeah, no. That was just a definition. It's not allowed there. [9:25] **Chris Nobach**: Well, alrighty then. How did I miss that? There's a lot here that gives us a lot of information. I mean, it just seems—I guess just to further my point—that the permitted uses for B1 and B2: cannabis retail, cannabis delivery service, cannabis wholesaler, cannabis transporter, lower potency hemp edible retailer... I—I guess I—I see manufacturing could be lumped in into those groups: B2, B1, or I1. I don't... is it? [10:13] **Zach (Staff)**: So that's on page four are the permitted uses for B1 and B2. [10:19] **Chris Nobach**: So you'd like to include the retail portion in—no, the retail portions—the retail portions are already in B1, B2. I guess I'm saying manufacturing is not in B1, B2. And then I guess more so: why is none of the—why is I1 not defined at all? We don't have anything defined for I1, but there aren't many I1 zones anyway. But we can sure add something that's... [10:50] **Chris Nobach**: I guess I'm not hellbent either way. I just kind of—it's just a question. [10:55] **Zach (Staff)**: Just a question. Sure. [10:59] **Steve Nordin**: So you're saying, Chris, to add, uh, manufacturing and, uh, cannabis low-potency hemp to, um, B1, B2 in addition to the other things? [11:15] **Chris Nobach**: I guess more so B2, the more I guess now that I look at it, because that's just along Highway 52 there, pretty much south end of town. [11:35] **Neil Guesmi**: Zach, was there some reason, or was this like a state thing or county thing? Or are the manufacturing licenses by Goodhue County also going to be limited or are they going to be more general? [11:50] **Zach (Staff)**: Um, let's see here. The only thing that I guess that Goodhue limits is the dispensary. So the actual retail is going to be... they don't—I don't see anything, and they have a guide that they put out, and I don't see anything where it references that. [12:05] **Steve Nordin**: Chris, do you want to edit now or wait and see if there's any need for it? When would it come up? When would it come up? Would it be a business coming to us saying they—they've identified a spot there and they want to—I guess—amend it? [12:22] **Chris Nobach**: Yeah, we can wait. I mean, it's just—it's just one of those things. I guess we—we took this language from someone else, so it'll work. [12:35] **Jesse Hamma**: Are there smells involved with the manufacturing process? [12:40] **Steve Nordin**: See, that—that's—we'd run into that problem before. And—and just for people, I'm looking at the map, and the map—the only B2 that's next to housing, I guess, is more so over by SuperAmerica and stuff like that, that group of housing there. But down in the—down in the... yeah, yep. I think the main reason why we just kept it in the I2 is because we wanted to keep manufacturing as far away from any residential. You know, everything is new to us as well, to everybody else, and we don't know what's going to happen. Will it smell? We don't know that answer. Um, what—what kind of activity is it going to be? So I think what we tried to do in this very first ordinance is to get it as far away from everything, allow it—right, because we—you have to allow it—but keep it as far away from everything that's residential. Um, I don't know. Is it going to be... you could put one right beside, uh, the dress shop then, right? So I think—I think what we planned on doing there is—is to keep it separate. Because we talked a lot about, uh, the mezzel business, um, which is a combination of things. And, uh, we had—oh, I forgot your name, I'm sorry Nick—we had him work on trying to get that separated also, um, because that would have allowed it downtown, and we just didn't think that was right for the—for the—for the first ordinance that we have to get put together. We can always change it. You—you're absolutely right, but we're working on this very first. If we end up having a license in town, we'll know what it's all about. And this is so fresh that I don't know the State's going to be ready for it or not, but we're really leaning on the side of precaution. [14:45] **Chris Nobach**: It's all okay. I'm good. [14:54] **Zach (Staff)**: Yeah, I think, uh, the reason manufacturing wasn't allowed in—in the B1 or B2 is because if you look at the definition, um, it references the cannabis mezzel business. I don't think we have a definition of that, but according to the State, you're allowed to cultivate, not just manufacture—allowed to cultivate as well. So like Neil said, I—it's just being as safe as possible just to make sure. [15:10] **Neil Guesmi**: Um, um, uh, I'd like to point out that, um, under the Cannabis business section, um, you've got, uh, section 152.422, the buffer zone. Um, that talks about you can't have it within 1,000 feet of a school and then the 500 feet of—from a daycare and athletic field. Um, now I don't know exactly my distances downtown, but we've got an athletic field downtown, right? And we also have a daycare business downtown, correct? So that's going to, um, make things... those numbers are state law. Okay? They're coming out of—out of the state books. Yep. Uh, we just brought them back down to local level. [16:17] **Steve Nordin**: Okay. Well, I don't think we would be in trouble there, would we? [16:20] **Zach (Staff)**: No. [16:25] **Neil Guesmi**: Uh, I'm just—um, if—I'm just saying that if anybody thinks they want to put one downtown... oh, I see, I see. You're—you know, the whole—the whole idea of throwing it in a—in a B1 down there may not be actual—actually feasibly possible with that distance. Because on one side of the road, you've got a daycare center there right behind the bank, and then on the other side of the road, you've got the athletic field. And if they're running 24/7, you got lighting and stuff too. So I think there's provisions for that somewhere in here too. [17:14] **Steve Nordin**: What's that? Any other questions or comments? I'm going to say thank you Zach. Ready to move it? [17:35] **Chad Johnson**: Well then I move that we forward for approval to the City Council, um, the ordinance amending our code relating to zoning of cannabis. [17:45] **Chris Nobach**: Second. [17:47] **Steve Nordin**: Motion by Johnson, second by Nobach to, um, amend the Canon Falls city code regarding zoning related to cannabis businesses. Is there any further discussion? All in favor say aye. [18:05] **Commission**: Aye. [18:07] **Steve Nordin**: Opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Okay, up next is a public hearing: ordinance amending Canon Falls city code relating to the Canon Valley Fair. Zach, you want to give us a brief description of that before I open the public hearing? [18:36] **Zach (Staff)**: Yeah, not a problem. So second discussion item involves a, uh, ordinance relating to the Canon Valley Fair. Um, what is being proposed is a rezone of the Canon Valley Fair property to a new zone called a "Fair Zone." Um, and then—then there would be a, uh, list of permitted, interim, and prohibited uses that will kind of dictate what can go on in this new zone. So, you know, please re—take a little bit to review it, and if you do wish to make any additions, feel free to remove or add anything you guys see fit. [19:23] **Steve Nordin**: With that, I'm going to open the public hearing regarding the ordinance amending Canon Valley—Canon Falls city code related to the Canon Valley Fair. Public hearing is open. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward, state your name, your address, and we're limiting you to three minutes. [19:59] **Ferlon Miller**: Good evening. Ferlon Miller, 106 Minnesota Street West. The President of the Canon Valley Fair Board here. I'll come up first. Uh, couple of things. We looked at the—the proposal here. Couple things our attorney looked at, we talked about—it kind of got put on us pretty fast here, so we've been working on it for the last hour. But, uh, a couple things. If we look at, uh, 152.021 definitions: "Canon Valley Fair." The pro—the proposed definition does not include racing events that would be during the fair. Number again: 152.021. It is on the first page of that. Thank you. I'll try to get into this in three minutes, but—but there's a lot here. So, but—that originally this was all about the cart track, and that's what we know there is an issue. We respect there's an issue and we want to address the issue, but now we're talking about fair stuff here, um, that would restrict us doing an event during the fair, whether it be a—a race, cart track, or whatever. Move on so I can keep trying to stay within my time limit. "Cart" under that same thing—if you go down there, cart definition needs to be changed to raise the engine CC. The ones we're talking about is the Micro Sprint. That's a 600cc. That's the biggest issue, that's the problem that everybody has. We're good with eliminating them right now. That's not what we're trying to keep. We're—we're going to respect the idea of keeping noise down, but this doesn't address all the other classes that there's not a problem with. Second thing: uh, Fairgrounds definition omits three parcels that are owned by the Canon Valley Fair Association. Just trying to know if this is intentional or a mistake, but there's three parcels that would be missed out on this zoning change. Um, the parcels omitted are 521-240, 521-201-0, 521-04230. And the definition lists three parcels that are owned by the Canon Valley Fair Association, and the parcel numbers are incorrect—probably just a clerical error. It's fine, it's not the end of the world, but it would need to be changed to have the correct number. It does say the correct number should be the 521-80030, and I believe there's an extra zero in the one in here. The next one would be 525-40030 and 525-00290. I think it's just a clerical error, and I will give you guys this here what I got for proposal—I just don't have copies. This is the stuff we worked on so you could look through it too. Uh, Micro Sprint definition needs to be changed to increase the engine, uh, CC, because the Micro Sprint you have in there is 210cc and it should be, uh, 600cc. And that's the one that's got the issue, and we're missing out on the other classes. Under 52.88 permitted uses: D—what permit would we be issued for that one? Is the question we have. Um, under the D for's. And then under E—will the city expand this to include other neighborhood-focused organizations or nonprofits, such as Bridge Riders? Because they do an event up there—they're a nonprofit organization, just as an example. Under F—the demolition derbies are not held on exact holiday date and are usually a full weekend. Can this be generalized to simply allow two weekends—one in the fall, one in the spring? Under 152.829 permitted accessory use: E—is this subject to State licensing and permit requirements? Under 52.83 interim use: A3—not feasible to require vehicle/equipment, including carts, trailers, RVs, to be removed daily. Under A4—can this be changed to just require the submitted schedule to have the date and time? It's not feasible to know the number of vehicles by April 1st. We never know how many vehicles are going to—you could have 20 people race and you could have 60 people showing up to race. Uh, A7—can this be expanded to 12 months? A10—request that the entire section be removed if this purpose of this is for light and sound; those are addressed in A8 and 9. The Fair Association has parcels that are residential, so this would require screening between their own parcels. Um, B3—not feasible to require vehicles equipped including carts, trailers, RVs to be removed daily. B4—can this be changed to just require the submitted schedule to have date and time? It's not feasible to know the number of vehicles. B7—can this be expanded to 12 months? B10—requests this entire section be removed if the proposed of this is for light and sound—those are addressed in A8 and 9. The Fair Association has parcels again with a residential. And then under 152.840 prohibited uses: A—request this be removed; camping has been offered for special events for years. And then B—conflicts with 52.83 A3, removal required for racing events. When this was all coming, I mean, we—we know that cart track's the issue. We're addressing the fair... um, we want to work with everybody. We want to get this done. We want to make it work for the people who are against it. We respect people are against it. We're trying to make it all work. We'll quiet it up, but now we're going after the fair too. And if we can't do this other stuff outside the fair that we've done forever, the fair is not going to be here. I—I mean, that's just a facts. We got to be able to do this stuff. I get the cart track—we're willing to work that—but some of the other restrictions are going to hurt the fair bad. [28:15] **Steve Nordin**: Has the Board, um, seen all of this? [28:18] **Ferlon Miller**: We didn't even get this until 3:00 this afternoon. Nobody has seen this. [28:25] **Steve Nordin**: So how would you think the best way to—to resolve all these requests be? Would it be to have the Board review all this and give us their requests in writing so we could look at it and see it? [28:40] **Ferlon Miller**: Again, I will give you this request. Yes, I feel that it's still a Board thing—not today's request, but we got to—we don't meet till Monday, next Monday. So there's... [28:50] **Steve Nordin**: You anticipate more changes or requesting more changes? [28:53] **Ferlon Miller**: This, I think, is the—the biggest part right now. So until we know what those requests are, we really can't do anything. I agree with you, and that's kind of where we sit. I really want this to work. I respect all these people—they're my neighbors—but it's got to be—if it's the car track, let's address the car track and get the Fairgrounds where it needs to be. That's our biggest thing. [29:15] **Steve Nordin**: How would you like to do that? Would you like to put all this in writing and have all the board members sign that—those requests for change or requests? It doesn't need to call—it doesn't take the whole board; all it takes is myself. Yeah, but once—you want all of them. They should know about it, see it, and approve it. I mean, if they want all their signatures, we can get that on there, or majority of them on there. We're good with that, whatever you guys would want. But then that way we wouldn't have any surprises later if everybody's on board with you, right? Is that—let me—yeah, that's just a thought. [29:55] **Chad Johnson**: I—I—I thought at the last city council meeting that we asked the lawyer for the fair board and the City Attorney to be part of this negotiation, which I thought then this came from the—the two attorneys. Am I mistaken with that assumption? [30:27] **Shelley Ryan (City Attorney)**: Commissioner Johnson, uh, no. What has transpired—and we're right at where we need to be for where we are in this process—uh, what's transpired is after the council meeting, I exchanged emails with counsel for the Fair Association to get an understanding of the negotiations, the—the type of resolution all parties could live with. And as discussed, the idea was to present a new zone, authorize permitted uses within the zone, and have a permitting process for the racing. So when I exchanged information with the Fair Association attorney, I wanted clarification on what did the Fair Association consider to be the fair uses. What do they do out there year-round and during the fair? So that's why you got a structure of an ordinance that is—and I think a lot of your points are—are valid. Um, and this is the process to talk through that—um, is to ensure that we have the fair defined to encapsulate what they do during those few days every year, annually in early July. And to the extent that, you know, need to add racing events if, you know, that that's one of the—the things that didn't cross our minds when we drafted this for your review. Um, the idea was then to have these other uses that they wanted to do all year round. So we were not overly restrictive in terms of they're going to do other stuff—they want to have, you know, gatherings and things of that nature. Um, and so that information came from their lawyers, uh, was put together. Uh, you know, the timing on this has been very short. So we put all that together in the draft form, kind of accumulating everything to this point together, then get to the public hearing stage where we hear not only from the Fair Association in their process, um, but also from the residents to—to include their comments in the discussion. [32:20] **Chad Johnson**: So their attorney hasn't reviewed this? [32:25] **Shelley Ryan (City Attorney)**: Their attorney got it today as well. Not before today. Not before today, no. [32:30] **Chad Johnson**: Okay. No, just wanted that clarification. Thank you. [32:35] **Steve Nordin**: More public input? Yeah, I was just curious. I mean, before we interact, should we do more input? Yeah, I think we're supposed to be—and I... questions. Thank you. Thank you. [32:48] **Jody Montgomery**: A few questions more so than comments. Um, I'm Jody Montgomery at 109 Haven Heights Court. There's a few things I just want clarified that it's kind of been kind of a shady area or cloudy area. Um, first of all, that my questions are geared more around the racetrack. First of all, my understanding is—I want to know who actually owns the racetrack. Is it the fair, or is it Canon River? [33:20] **Ferlon Miller**: The fair owns it. [33:25] **Jody Montgomery**: The fair owns it. So then does Canon River race rent from you? [33:30] **Ferlon Miller**: Any event that's run at the fair, whether it's during the fair or this—the fair does not run the event. We always hire promoters to run the events for us. So like Canon River Raceway is a hired... [33:45] **Jody Montgomery**: So do they rent the facility from you then? [33:50] **Ferlon Miller**: Yes, that's how we get money. [33:55] **Jody Montgomery**: Okay, so they rent. And we've been all concerned about the noise ordinance and everything regarding the fair, but Canon River Raceway is an LLC. They're its own business renting on the Fairgrounds. So wouldn't they have to be subject to these noise ordinances and all the Minnesota state ordinances? That to me is kind of cloudy because it seems like everybody's focusing on the fair—that they're exempt, that they don't have to worry about it. But if a business is renting on that property, that business still has to follow their own—own rules. And they're an LLC, so they would have to follow the rules and regulations of an LLC, not an agricultural fair or agricultural association. So I was just wondering if they're subject to those same ordinances that the residents are all complaining about. And then I guess in the last thing I had a question on is what Ferlon was just talking about: when you say you want it open up for a 12-month period, does that mean that there's going to be races year-round? That there's going to be noise year-round? That would be my next question—is a little more clarification on what that 12-month period would mean. Because we already get the noise already from the races. And that was all I wanted. Thanks. [35:29] **Erin McMahon**: Hi, I'm Erin McMahon, Hoffman Street. Um, first of all, I think it's kind of ironic that that, um, we're going to afford the fair extra time. Because last May, we didn't get any extra time and the noise just started right up without any—any input from citizens. So that's a problem. Um, I don't think the zoning should be changed. If you change the zoning, that's going to put the fair on an island, and if they want a text amendment, they're going to get a text amendment from a City Council who's willing to do it. So, no to the zoning amendment. Um, with respect to them not having a preview, it was published in the Beacon that anybody who wanted to could go down and review the information related to the track, which I did last Monday. I knew what they were going to—the zoning they were going to call it; they were going to call it the "Fair Zoning." I knew they were going to try to get in 12 months, which is ridiculous. And you know what that tells you, don't you? That means that they're going to start racing snowmobiles, who knows, maybe they're going to start racing drones. Not 12 months. And the fact that there—that the—this draft is talking about car types—it should be referencing the State of Minnesota zoning ordinances for noise, which is why this is illegal in the first place. I'm glad Ferlon brought up, um, the plat numbers. I didn't have one of them; I didn't have the 00101. You know that they haven't been paid—this organization has not paid taxes. My guess is they have not paid taxes because they think they're an egg society. Because if you're a 501(c)(3) and you're not-for-profit, you have to file—what is it called? You must apply for an exemption, you must apply. It's an assessment review and they have to apply for that every 3 years. So perhaps we could collect some back taxes to pay our attorney for all this ridiculousness that's going on this past year. Finally, if this zone ordinance does get changed and we're starting at square one again, like the Mayor referenced at the last council meeting—and hopefully that doesn't happen in less than 72 hours—we were able to get over 100 signatures so we can apply for a discretionary petition for an environmental assessment worksheet, which is going to be a very time-consuming, expensive thing for the city. And one of the lynchpins for both Eagle Lake Racetrack and for the Rice County racetrack. Thank you for your time. [38:47] **Jackie Bruy**: Hi, Jackie Bruy, 105 Haven Heights Court. I just have a question. Um, I don't know how many of you drove down the area of Mill Street in front of the Fairgrounds to get here tonight, but as you'll notice, the road is not in great shape. And with the increased traffic that is going to be experienced if the racing continues, who's going to be responsible? Where the Fairgrounds doesn't pay any taxes, does that mean the Fair Board doesn't pay taxes? Does that mean the residents—that we're going to be responsible for the upkeep so that the Fairgrounds or the Fair Board/Fairgrounds can keep the racing going? [39:30] **Steve Nordin**: Can I get your first name again? [39:32] **Jackie Bruy**: Jackie. Thank you. [39:53] **Brian Douglas**: Brian Douglas, 1124 Minnesota Street West. We are directly across from this racetrack. I don't care what decibels they have, I don't care what that is. I can hear them mowing their lawn from our backyard. This is—that this is going on this long is ridiculous. The other thing that I'm looking at is if it is going to go on this long, I would like to see much more transparency for us, the citizens, as to what's happening instead of finding it out in the newspaper, finding out later what's going on. I think that as a council, you should be able to put in something that says, "Oh by the way, we have this..." [40:35] **Steve Nordin**: We're not a council, we're Planning Commission. [40:37] **Brian Douglas**: Oh, I'm sorry. [40:38] **Steve Nordin**: And—and just for reference, I found out in the paper just like you guys did. Planning Commission finds out just like you guys do. So no one knows ahead of time when all this stuff comes down. I wasn't told anything. I found it out in the paper and I get my packet on Friday. So does... [40:55] **Brian Douglas**: And that's what I'm trying to bring up. Does that make sense? I mean, somebody—you must know what's going on way before 24 to 48 hours. That's what I'm trying to get is: we need more transparency, especially for the public that really isn't for this racetrack. And I'm hoping somebody will get that for us if we're going to keep this going on for the next year, two, or whatever it is. That's what I have to say. Thank you. [41:28] **Jim Hoffman**: Hi, Jim Hoffman, 917 Park Street West. I'll be pretty short. Uh, my thoughts and opinions would be to deny—to deny this proposed change. I don't know why we would entertain the idea for—for amending any part of the city code for this proposed change. It should be left as it is: Urban Reserve and R2 single-family residential. One day we will need additional residential property—that's what Urban Reserve is. We should leave it alone. And that way when it comes down the road, we will not have to—need to re—we will not have to try and rezone. We need and will continue to need residential property in the city if we ever plan on growing responsibly. The prop—this proposal will only give the Fair Board more ordinances to ignore. Like I spoke to at the last city council meeting, we don't seem to enforce any of the ordinances we have now. Why would we add more ordinances to be ignored? The city chose to ignore the—the noise ordinance all summer long. All citizens in this city deserve the same level of peace and quiet, whether you live in Cedar Hills, Larkspur Drive, or on the West Side. Thank you. [42:48] **Anne Anderson**: Um, Anne Anderson, 419 East Water Street. I live up by the East Side Park. I keep hearing that the only problem is this loud 600-whatever race. I could hear every single race. 6:00 till 10:00, 10:45 whenever they ended. Um, I could hear the announcer announce every race. I have two neighbors on both sides of me, 76-year-old widows. They both have hard of hearing; they could both hear the races inside their houses with the windows closed. And on these beautiful summer nights, it's not fair that we can't be outside in our yards enjoying our yards. And I can hear every race, not just the loudest one. There is one that's the worst by far, but I could hear every race. We're on East Water Street, directly, you know, east of the Fairground. So I think the sound travels through the valley. And if my neighbors that are both hard of hearing—one wears a cochlear implant—she can hear it. It's—we're not imagining it. It's—it's real. Because it keeps saying, "Oh, it's not that bothersome," or "It can't be that loud." So that's my only comment. Thank you. [44:00] **Al Johnson**: Al Johnson, 700 block of Minnesota Street West. I did—the last races, I did a decibel reading up there. And we don't live next to the Fairgrounds; we're about a third of a mile approximately from the noise track, I call it. And, uh, the decibel reading was over 90. And, uh, the lower end of the race—I'm assuming when they went around the track—it dropped down to about 85. And, uh, the medium reading on my phone—and I didn't cover up the mic like some people did—was 87 average. But it was over 90. And you can look that up and see. And that was—I believe after—that was about 7:30. So I don't know what size, um, CCs are running at that time, and it's not towards the end of the—the race time. But I'm assuming as a race goes on, the larger carts go. And I just—I just cut it off right there at that time. And, uh, that's all I have to say is: I did a decibel reading off our deck and I didn't cover the mic, so it was a clear reading on that. Thank you. [45:32] **Steve Nordin**: Anybody else wishing to address the public hearing? Second call: anybody else wishing to address the public hearing? Third and final call: anybody wishing to address the public hearing? Hearing none, I'm going to close the public hearing. [46:01] **Steve Nordin**: All right. Well, I'll be the first to start my rant. So, um, I'm going to be perfectly honest with everyone here. Uh, it looks like a 50/50 split of who's going to get mad at me and who's going to be happy with me. Um, this whole thing—we've been spending time. The City Attorney, um, our staff, Zach, Neil... we're amending this whole shooting match not based on pretty much anything else but the racing, the racetrack. We're—we have—we're—we're trying to amend the—the codes. Everything's been working good for I don't know how many years—are you guys bragging that the fair has been in? 109—going. And, um, and so like I said, a lot of—lot of time and money has already been spent. Um, I'm—I'm just against any engine-powered racing. I just—I just am. It affects the quality of life of residents. They've pretty much voiced their opinion many times to me. Um, they can't even enjoy their own property on weekends. I mean, if they have outdoor events, there's noise coming from... and yep, the races are only two minutes or—or whatever. It's—it's affecting their—their life on their own property. Uh, I heard somebody say that, uh, the winners will just have to get used to it—get used to the noise. I—I really took offense at that. Um, so people should—residents should adjust their—their grad parties or their outside parties depending on—on the race weekend? What—what's going on there? Uh, everybody's talking about—Al, you brought up too—decibels. Decibels don't mean anything to me. Noise is a nuisance. You know? And if it—it just is. If it—it's—it's within a certain decibel range, it's still a nuisance. That's just all—that's just how it is. Um, this—limiting CCs of the engine? I think, uh, any of you engine builders, um, small engine builders, know that that's crapola. We used to race 250cc snowmobile engines and you couldn't hear yourself talk for the next day and a half because they were so noisy. So restricting CCs, I think that's—that's not a real big deal either. Rant over. [49:33] **Chris Nobach**: So what was your bottom line, Steve? [49:35] **Steve Nordin**: My bottom line is I just—I can't foresee, um, approving anything that includes engine-powered racing. Engine-powered racing of any kind. Because, uh, Ferlon addressed that he wants to expand it to 12 months, and somebody mentioned that maybe that's going to start the snowmobiles too. So, um, that's all I have to say. [49:58] **Chris Nobach**: I just want to go back a second. It seemed like people were surprised that we get our packet on Friday. I guess I just want to put that—talk about that whole process. So I think, and you guys can correct me, according to city law or state law, maybe, we have to advertise what's happening so the public's aware of it. And then Zach obviously has to do his due diligence and prepare a—a packet for us. So it takes time to get these materials together. So you do a very good job—that wasn't—I wasn't trying to throw anybody under the bus, sorry. But I do want to start out here. Um, you know, I agree with everything Steve just said. Um, they have the right to enjoy their property. Um, I've been kind of on that train since day one. Um, and at the same token, I do not want the City—the City has, or the Fair has operated for 109 years just fine within city limits. I want no business being your big brother and telling you what you can and can't do every time you change something up. And that's exactly what this is. I think it's a bad idea for everybody involved to rezone to a Fair Zone. It's just there's too much in here. You already said it—that it just doesn't make sense. It's inconsistent, not everything's defined, and then on top of it, the next time you want something, we got to approve it, disapprove it... I—I'm not there yet. I don't think I'm against the racing, and I don't want to approve anything with racing in it. I—that's just where I sit. I guess just furthermore, too—just one more thing—part of this too is our City Comprehensive Plan. And in the language that I see, whether or not we approve this with racing or approve it without racing, whatever it says, we should be following our City Comprehensive Plan. And we have residents out there—part of their well-being is part of that comprehensive plan. And I think it's our job up here to make sure that we're not allowing something that their quality of life is affected. Done. [52:23] **Jesse Hamma**: I'll go next. Um, I—I fundamentally agree, um, on all of those counts. Um, the thing that I—I'm—I'm going to disagree with is, um—I feel like the—I feel like we need to change the zone. Um, I like the idea of coming up with a Fair Zone, um, so that—because it doesn't fit where it is. You know, it's half residential and half Urban Reserve. It doesn't—there's—there's nothing there that—that seems to fit. Um, now this is very comprehensive, it has a lot of stuff in it, um, that may or may not be needed. Um, I—I agree: I don't think the racetrack is a good idea. Um, I feel like, um, trying to corral this with times and CCs is probably not going to work. Um, and it goes back to the—the people that have to deal with the noise and that they—like Steve said—if you can't enjoy where you live, there's—there's a problem. Um, um, but I—but I do agree that, um, that there should be a zoning amendment, um, to deal with the fair. Um, maybe not to this degree, um, but I—but I still need or I still think something needs to happen in that regard. Yeah. [54:10] **Steve Nordin**: Do you have anything? [54:13] **Neil Guesmi**: Well, I think it sounds like a lot of fun, but it's not a lot of fun when it affects the community that supports the Canon Valley Fair. I would say it's the Board's fault. The Board needs to, in my opinion, review their mission statement. What—what is their purpose? To, um, find ways to exist within the community. If the Board—and it sounds like they're ready to say, "Oh, we'll never survive if we don't have this"—I would say then the Board has an issue, and that issue is affecting the community. So they need to review their mission statement and their priorities to fit within the community's requests. And I think it's pretty obvious what the community is saying. And I know it's hard to make those kinds of changes in a—in a Board, because there may be some really hardcore racing fans in there, and I can certainly understand that. But it's—it's on them. It's very much on the—on the Fair Board. And we need to—that's where—that's my opinion. They need to really look at—at how they want to exist and survive, but they have to work within the community because that's where—that's where all—is. It's all about the community. So they're the people that pay the taxes, they're the people that deserve to have a good quality of life. And, uh, the Board has to accept that. That's okay—that's going to be a hard thing for you to do, but you may have to do that. That's my opinion. [56:31] **Chad Johnson**: Well said, um, thank you. And I've come full circle on this whole issue. Uh, as one who has loved the fair all my life—I mean, 10 years I took my cows and took exhibits for 4-H. And, uh, it has a special place in my heart there. And somehow this issue became not about the Canon Valley Fair that we know and a lot of us love, but about a racetrack. And a racetrack is nowhere in our Comprehensive Plan. There was nowhere that the city came out and said officially, "Golly gee, we want a racetrack, let's go build one." Um, and so I guess I've come to the understanding that—and I think, Neil, you said it well—you know, the Fair Board needs to look at who they are and realize that what we support is the Fair Board as the Fair. We don't necessarily want to jump up and down and say, "Golly gee, we want a racetrack." And so, uh, I am not in favor of this amendment. Um, you know, maybe it should all be Urban Reserve, but at this point, I see no reason for this kind of an amendment. Um, and I see—and my recommendation to the City Council and to the staff would be to work on, at this point, uh, closing down the racetrack and having the fair go back to being the fair. [58:15] **Steve Nordin**: Any other comments? If there are no comments, I'm going to, uh, introduce Resolution 2024-18, uh, denying the ordinance. [58:25] **Neil Guesmi**: Second. [58:30] **Steve Nordin**: Motion by Guesmi, second by Johnson to pass Resolution 2024-18, denying—denial of the ordinance. Is there any further discussion? All in favor, aye. [59:00] **Commission**: Aye. [59:02] **Steve Nordin**: Opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Is there anything else to come before the Board tonight? [59:09] **Chad Johnson**: One thing I want to say is: thank you, Mr. Steve Nordin. Uh, we—we've been doing the math, we're not sure on the years, but you said three Mayors—you're three—three Mayors into it. So, uh, we really appreciate, uh, your service to the city. I've really—we know you have earned a lot, and, um, appreciate a lot. But maybe there is someone else that can... [59:45] **Steve Nordin**: I'm—I'm backing off and retiring from this. And, uh, I have some other interests that I'm into. So, um, but for anyone that, um, thinks about public service, you know—we don't get paid. It's just our time. It is—it is. No, you don't—do you guys get paid here? [1:00:15] **Chris Nobach**: No. [1:00:16] **Steve Nordin**: But it's—it's really a way to—to try to give back to the community and try to help. And what—what I've learned is that it's important to weed out some things. We've certainly had some long and interesting discussions in this room. So I've enjoyed it very much and I feel like I have given back. So thanks. [1:00:35] **Commission**: Thank you. Thank you. [1:00:40] **Steve Nordin**: I get to keep my nameplate? [1:00:41] **Chris Nobach**: Yep, absolutely. [1:00:42] **Steve Nordin**: That's your payment. Oh yeah, that's it. Yeah, that was it. Zach, you have anything further? [1:00:48] **Zach (Staff)**: No. [1:00:50] **Steve Nordin**: Okay. Uh, Neil, is it... yeah, what's his name? We're going to South Dakota together. Yeah, Jon Radermacher. He's our new City Administrator. Welcome. First day? [1:01:03] **Jon Radermacher**: First day. [1:01:05] **Steve Nordin**: Feet to the fire. Seen three of those too, yeah probably. Anything? [1:01:10] **Jon Radermacher**: [Inaudible] [1:01:15] **Steve Nordin**: Okay. Okay, with that, I'll take a motion to adjourn. [1:01:20] **Chris Nobach**: So moved. [1:01:22] **Fox**: Second. [1:01:23] **Steve Nordin**: Motion by Nobach, second by Fox to adjourn. Any further discussion? All in favor, aye. [1:01:30] **Commission**: Aye. [1:01:32] **Steve Nordin**: Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you everyone.