All [music] right. Uh, let's uh stand for the pledge of allegiance, please. >> Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Number three, consent agenda. We need approval of the meeting agenda and also the uh planning commission meeting minutes from October 15th. >> This is Susan. I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> This is Kim. I'll second the motion. >> We take a vote. >> Kim I. >> Susan I. >> Mike I. Andy I. Rob and I. All right. Next on the list, we have public open forum. Is there anybody here who would like to speak or online would like to speak about anything other than tonight's discussions? Hearing none, we'll move on. We are going to uh here have our public hearing on ordinance number 25.04, fence regulations. Eleanor, you're on. >> All right. Um, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City of Columbus Planning Commission on November 5th, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard. The hearing will be conducted in person and by interactive technology at the Columbus City Hall located at 16319 Kettle River Boulevard, Minnesota to consider a city code amendment to chapter 7A regulating fences. A full copy of the proposed ordinance is available for review during regular business hours in the city administrator's office at the address listed above or can be viewed on the city website. Members of the public interested in attending in person, monitoring the meetings, or wanting more information should contact the city offices at 651-464-3120 or visit the city website at columbusmn. us. The hearing shall continue until all evidence and testimony has been received. Well, thank you, Eleanor. It's like you've read something like that before. [laughter] >> Okay. >> I'm getting really fast at it. >> May maybe you'd like to tell us also since you're the person of record about what uh what we're doing here. >> Yes. So, we have discussed this um briefly at pretty much every meeting for the last month or so. Um, and at this point, um, we we called a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment with all of, uh, your guys's suggestions and edits. Um, and that's what we we will have our public hearing on tonight is that, um, first draft regarding um, the fencing regulations. Um, a couple things to point out since the last time that this was seen uh before the planning commission is um we will be moving it to a different section than where it was originally proposed. It will have its own section now instead of being lumped into the middle of the general provisions section. Um I think that that will be a lot easier for residents to find um and be a lot simpler um for the design of that. We also are having a zoning permit required for all fences. Um, as a part of tonight's meeting, I also gave out a handout that would be in the front of all of your desks. It's also provided to the public here of um a part of what our current fence permit looks like which would be a very simple um zoning part of the the zoning permit which outlines where the fence would be, what it's made of, how tall it is, the type of information that we were looking for. Um so that's just an example of what um that zoning permit application might look like. Um, we added a section for property verification so that we don't have to require a certificate of survey, but that the property owner is taking responsibility that the fences are in fact going to be on their property and they're um taking accountability for that. Um, other than that, a small a couple other small changes regarding the um drainage requirement of having a gap in between the bottom of the fence and um the grade level for solid fences to not restrict uh drainage issues. Um, and I believe that's that's essentially the the changes since last time. [snorts] Well, you appear to have listened to us. >> Yes. >> Everything seems to be there. >> Thank [laughter] you. >> You've done a good job, Elanor. Um I, you know, I read through this thing trying to find anything wrong. I could not find anything wrong with what you wrote up, Elanor. That is excellent. >> Perfect. All right. I have no comments. I I feel the same. You did a great job. I guess the only question I have, I should have probably looked, um, how much do we charge for like a zoning permit? >> So, currently in our fee schedule, our zoning permits are $50. >> Okay. Um, for driveways or anything that requires um potentially someone to go out and do inspections or engineering work, which these fences typically would not require any sort of engineering work. We require an escar of $250. Um and [clears throat] that is so that um we can have consultants review it. Um but in general zoning permit is $50. Um and we will be reviewing the fee schedule um in January to be changed for the next year and that can be adjusted. >> Okay. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Any other questions, gentlemen? >> Nope. Nothing for me. >> All right. >> We want to open the floor for public comment. >> Okay. Oh yes. Is there anybody [snorts] who would uh prefer to speak at this time on the fence matters? Hearing nothing. We'll close the public hearing. [cough] [clears throat] And now we will take a vote as to moving it on to two weeks from now. Is that correct, Elanor? >> Correct. Since um this is a public hearing matter, it uh does have to actually come back to the planning commission at the next meeting and then it can go to the city council um after that. >> Okay. So, this is coming back to us. >> Yes. >> All right. So, >> it can be it can be a simple motion. Yes. >> But we need a motion to move us along with >> continue like continue. >> Uh this is Susan. I'll make a motion to continue the public hearing for the proposed fence ordinances at the next public um the next planning and zoning meeting on November 19th. >> This is Kim. I'll second the motion. >> We'll take a vote. >> Kim I. >> Susan I. >> Mike I. >> Andy I. >> Robin I. [clears throat] >> Okay. Now we're going to talk about something fun. [laughter] >> Well Oh actually not yet. We're still We're still on shared driveway. That's not so bad. [laughter] >> We haven't got animals yet. >> Depends. >> So, let's see here. Eleanor, would you like to tell us a little about what we're doing here? >> Yes. Um so our shared driveway and private roadway ordinance is um intended to support the development of those land locked parcels that do not have direct access to a public roadway. Uh the provisions were established due to the significant pre presence of wetlands throughout the city which often often make it challenging or impractical to construct traditional road accesses to those landlocked parcels. Um most residential areas in the city as of now are largely developed um with limited remaining areas of highland that is suitable for um standard subdivisions. As a result, most of our subdivision requests that we are getting these days are families trying to section off a 5 acre parcel um of [snorts] their of their large contiguous land. And um these shared driveways and private roads are um become increasingly common option for those small lot splits and new subdivision applications. I wanted to go over some of those ordinance requirements that we have in place since there seems to be it's a it's an easy thing to get confused about the requirements for these um shared driveways and I want to make sure that everyone's on the same page of this little section of um our city ordinance as they are most likely going to keep popping up before you guys and I want you guys to be aware of it before they start um coming up for for applications. So, if you go to page 12 and 13 of um your packets, um these are from two different parts of our zoning code. Page 12 is from our general provisions in our um zoning [snorts] ordinance and then page 13 is actually from our subdivision ordinance in chapter 8. They kind of outline the same process, but um I just wanted to go through them a little bit. So, in the rural residential district, a lot that has no frontage on a public road or street is allowed to obtain a building permit for a single family house. So, whether or not you're subdividing a new lot that has no road access or if it's an existing lot that has no road access, you are allowed to develop it if you have um the room and meet the requirements for this type of shared driveway. Um, and the general requirements for that is there can be no more than two lots meeting the frontage requirements of this section that can have access from that driveway. So, the shared driveway can only be between two lots. Um, the driveway must be 16 ft wide. Traditionally, driveways are 12 or so feet wide, but to allow through traffic or a emergency vehicle and somebody else from a different house coming down. And so there's not collisions. Um we require them to be 16 ft wide uh instead of just 12. And then additionally when we allow this to happen um or we we permit a shared driveway, the everybody involved in that shared driveway must enter into a development agreement with the city that um has the following criteria. that over the driveway there's a 66 foot roadway easement dedicated to the city. Um, and that uh sorry, this is essentially intended to um these shared driveways and private streets are intended to have the possibility of the city coming in and building a road there in the future. So, it's setting it up for the city to be able to build a for a formal road there eventually. That's the the overall goal is that eventually it will become a road, but it doesn't need to be one right now. Um, then there has to be a maintenance agreement between everybody who's using this shared driveway of who is actually taking care of it, maintaining it, um, plowing it going forward, especially when those properties change hands. um if one of those properties are sold, you need to have something in legal writing of who's taking care of the access way to both of these um these homes. And then there is also a requirement that all of the people using those that shared driveway um wave the right to object the future roadway and the assessments for the cost of the construction of that public street. So, if the city does decide to come in and build a road over the easement that they granted, um, that the the people who are benefiting from that, um, wave the right to to tell the city no in the future on that specific matter. Um, and, um, wave the right to um, deny objecting future special assessments for the purpose of building that road. So in short, these these private streets are a little bit complicated to maintain, manage, institute. There's a lot of steps to doing it. Um, and then there is some follow through with the intent of the city to eventually build a road there. Um, another one of the handouts that you have before you at your table is an example of what one of those maintenance and development agreements for a shared driveway looks like. What um, and this is a pretty standard one. It has essentially the bare bones of what's required by ordinance and nothing else. So, they agree to to widen it to 16 ft. They um agree on maintenance requirements and they agree um that if the city wanted to come in and put a road there that they're okay with that um and have um and does anybody have any questions on >> Oh yes I do. >> Please do. Same I just rambled about it. Please give me >> how how is this what we're talking about here different than the couple we had a few meetings back who were trying to put in a shared driveway. >> So that would be using this ordinance. That's why I wanted to go over specifically what it is. Anytime that a subdivision comes in asking for a shared driveway, when you look at the plat, it's going to look like a road. um they mark it out as a road because they'll be dedicating it to the city as if it was a road and they have to measure everything as if the future road is going in, but [clears throat] it can be to a less standard now um as long as they fulfill all of these requirements, as long as they um sign these agreements. So, it's not different. It's the same. >> It's the same >> that this is the provision that they were um proposing using. Okay. It seems like the other thing should have been easy then. It seems fairly straightforward. I'm guess I'm >> I'm still confused about We can talk about if you'd like. We'll talk [clears throat] about the other couple later. >> Yes. >> And you can try and unuse me. >> Yeah. I'll talk to you talk to you about the the specific >> Okay. Thank you. >> reasons there. There's a lot of other >> Yeah, I don't have a good memory. So, [laughter] I just I know what you're talking about. >> I can't quite remember. I can remember them sitting there. I don't remember all the myriad details of it. >> Okay. Anybody else have some comments or questions or >> Yeah, I have a question. This is Andy. So, I see in your example here, uh, they have, um, like a set amount of money that they would be like on a special, uh, assessment up to like $11,820. Is that like the most they would be >> assessed if like say the road comes in, you'd need >> Yes. >> surveyors, etc. So, after that dollar amount, they would be like not liable for that anymore. Um I would have to confirm with our legal team about this specific thing. Um this future improvement has not happened yet. So if it was going there, I would confer with uh the legal team that wrote this document before making any assumptions. Um but that is the section where it's saying that this is going to be the cost of improving the road. We agree that um we will not object to this special assessment going through to this dollar amount. >> Mhm. um should that happen in the future and that was the calculation that was done when this was written. >> Okay. [snorts] So, it potentially will be higher based on today's costs. >> Um I again can't confirm if that means that they can object to the higher cost, but >> okay, >> that's [snorts] the way that this one was particularly written, >> but I can get back to you about that. >> All right. This is Susan. I did see that assessment. I guess my question being in from a title standpoint, shared driveways can get really muddy in the future and really gross. Um, you can have John and Bob or buddies, they own the shared properties, they but each other, they're great. One of them sells and then in the future so and so doesn't want to maintain it. They don't want to plow it. They don't want to not park on it. They don't want to help resurface it. Um, so I understand that we do a development agreement, a maintenance agreement. Um, but I'm wondering as opposed to just an assessment too when and I guess you could probably speak to ones previously when they this is a development or when they are doing this initial shared driveway, is there an escrow held that then at least in the very beginning when they're they're developing the two properties or developing the shared driveway that is actually going to make sure it's surfaced to the city standards. it's it's done all those things and so you're holding that amount so they actually do it and then a clause where if they don't the city then can use that escrow to then go ahead and finish that to city standards. >> Yes. So we commonly put shities um and warranty clauses in our development agreements for a myriad of different types of developments. Um again I haven't worked on a ton of these these yet um or really looked into how those development agreements have been structured. I know for we do hold escros for just driveway permits in general. Um and that a warranty clause in future development agreements for shared driveways would be a reasonable thing to request um that is added by our legal team. Are they currently now recorded then on each property but also as some sort of deed restriction that will then carry forward? So, it's cuz I can just I I've ran a few across in title insurance and underwriters and not very happy neighbors. So, I I've seen the the opposite end side of it of what it can result to. And when you're selling your property or buying a property, you don't want to share a driveway, you know, you're going to get attorneys involved and get really expensive. So, I'm just kind of thinking from that standpoint more. I guess how I mean I know we have we have landlocked parcels I'm sure you don't know exactly obviously but roundabout I mean would is there really a lot that's even actually buildable actually even worth holding $15,000 you know doing a share driveway for you've got a parcel that's 80% swamp low land that you're going to have to pay a fortune to bring in I guess I mean is it >> that's something to discuss yeah >> I mean I'm not sure if that how much we have of that >> um >> I mean I guess obviously you don't either like exact you know >> I don't I I mean you know [laughter] >> I I don't have the the map of the wetlands of Columbus memorized >> but I'm kind of wondering like you know I'm getting there. >> Yeah I would think at this point as far as what's left I can't imagine if it hasn't been develop developed by now then obviously it's not worth developing is how I think especially with the markets now as opposed to they were you know 1015 years ago. So, I don't even know. I would say >> I'm just not a fan of shared driveways if you anybody could tell. Um, not a fan. >> No, no, >> no. It's It is also a way to allow our residents, especially like long-term residents, to um be able to use this land that they've held for generations to be able to have their their family members stay in town. um which without this clause very likely we would not have any way to develop that land back there. And we as a city have always been pretty much very um if it can work within the parameters and it makes sense, we we will work our hardest to make it >> sure work for our residents. >> Makes sense. >> Thank you. Of course. >> I have another question. This is Andy. Um, is this only for developed like you're going to develop a house on it? Say someone buys a plot of hunting land that's landlocked by a bunch of neighbors and you want access to it, right? But you're not going to necessarily put a house on it. >> So, in that case, you could just get an egress uh ingress egress easement. It doesn't need to have all of these standards of, you know, 16 foot wide driveway and a 66 foot easement and a roadway agreement for just hunting land in the back. Um, it doesn't have as high standards. Um, and that can be negotiated with your neighbor about just giving an easement for, you know, a little trail or a smaller driveway through. Um, it only becomes relevant when you have a a home on the end of it because then you have to consider >> how did they get their mail and how did the the police get there and where did the fire trucks come in? That's when it gets to this. >> But like legally that owner doesn't have to give you access or they are you allowed an easement onto your property. >> They don't they do not legally have to give you access um to to the landlocked parcel. >> Okay. Is there anything else that we'd like to discuss on this? Think >> so. >> Eleanor, is there anything else you would like from us on this? >> Nope. I I just thought it was important that um we could go over some of the smaller ordinances as we go forward that are becoming relevant to >> Absolutely. >> Um >> that's a good one to go over. >> Yes. And that one is um talked about in the office and with residents quite commonly. This is a very common thing that that comes up in conversations. >> Okay, now let the fun begin. [laughter] >> Now we get the fun stuff. >> I am a fan. >> We are we are going to once again work on the animal ordinance, but this time we're only going to work on the uh on the uh the survey. S >> animal ordinance survey that Eleanor has come up with. She did a wonderful job on it. >> We get to do that. So, Elanor, would you care to brief us on that? >> Um, yes. So, at the previous meeting that we discussed the the upcoming animal ordinance, um, one of the the number one takeaways that we as staff received is that uh you all wanted more public input and at least starting the process to getting some public input is this is a a good simple way to to get some some community conversation started about this project. Um so staff has uh prepared a short resident animal ordinance survey to gather community feedback. Um the current ordinance is generally flexible and um this survey is intended to first learn how familiar residents are with the current rules. Gather opinions on keeping animals on smaller lots. Um how big should um the areas be depending on um what type of animals they have. um identify community priorities and concerns such as noise, odor, and fencing. What are people the most worried about? Um and then gauge the supports for a simple staff level permit process similar to this um zoning permit that we did for um the fencing. Um the survey itself um I tried to use plain resident level understanding of ordinance without getting into the the deep specific details that we will discuss discuss later in this process. This is to intended to just get a broad understanding of where our community sits with this. Um first of all does anyone have any initial comments while going through it and then I can start going through it on a smaller level? >> No. No. >> Okay. Okay. So, so starting out uh the first section is intended to gauge you know information about the resident filling out the survey. Um so Columbus resident or just a property owner that does not reside here. um the the size of their lot, whether or not they're keeping animals, and what kind of animals are you keeping on your property, if you are at all. Um [snorts] I I do not want this is intended to be an anonymous survey because we don't want people to feel like we're trying to catch them. Um I don't want anyone [clears throat] to feel like I'm trying to to catch them breaking a rule. Um and hoping [clears throat] that they'll be honest about whatever they have. Um, and then the second part is do you understand what the current rules are? Um, or even know what they are and um, allowing for an additional comment space under that section as well to to leave whatever comments about the current rules that they want. Then the next section is kind of the bigger one. Um, the first question there is a reasonable minimum lot size for keeping of each animal. Granted, our actual ordinance will probably be a little bit more complicated than just if you have four um two acres, you can keep chickens. Um hopefully not too much more complicated, but you know, we'll we'll have something. But uh that'll give a good overview of what our community thinks is reasonable for for certain types of animals. Um the general question of should residents with lots under 5 acres, we have a lot of um lots under 5 acres in this uh community um that are just grandfathered in or lot averaging should be allowed to keep small animals um or larger animals. And um [clears throat] then moving on, um should the city continue to allow large animals as it does now with the same similar ordinance structure that we currently have or would you like it to be more restrictive or make it less restrictive? Um moving on, it's the what factors do you think matter the most when deciding how many animals a property should have? So, size of the property, type of animal, the distance from neighbors, um odor and noise potential, fencing and shelter quality, other um a broad question to see what are you guys worried about the most. Moving on. And then moving on on whether or not residents believe that we should have any sort of permit system or if we want to keep allowing it as a permitted use. And um then for common issues and enforcement >> [clears throat] >> um what issues should we focus on when um possibly working into our nuisance codes as well um of of what are you most concerned about again? And then I I also included a question where if you've had concerns with your neighbors animals in the past, was it addressed um successfully um by by the ordinances that we currently have? And then um just further questions about whether or not they want more updates in the future from from this um particular ordinance update and if they'd be interested in uh attending a community open house for this matter. Regarding that, is there any specific language on what I I have given that you think should be adjusted in any way or questions that you wish were included? Questions that you think are irrelevant that should be excluded? >> I thought you did a good job. [laughter] >> I'm looking. >> We're We're looking to find errors here, Elanar. Okay. [laughter] >> Yeah. I I I guess I would like to see something somehow that clarifies to uh the public that we're not, you know, when it comes to asking about what animals they have. I would like something to be fairly specific that we're not looking >> almost animals >> like a preface in the beginning of this is not intended as an enforcement measure. We're not checking anybody. >> I think that's a really good >> this [snorts] is we're trying to we're trying to gauge where our community is so we can best serve them. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Absolutely. and maybe using the word or a phrase in there somewhere like you know future just so they're not you know because current stuff is going to be essentially grandfathered into it. So >> yes yes knocking on their door saying they got to get rid of their stuff. >> Yeah, I I I agree that it should be fairly clear that this is not intended to to to get anyone. >> We don't want to rat anybody out or anything. >> Yeah, I'm not trying to do that. [laughter] >> So that would be my one suggestion. Otherwise, I think everything else seemed fairly straightforward, easy to answer, >> easy to read. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, >> an enforcement. Well, if we're okay with the way that this is currently laid out, um I will be talking to um our assistant city um administrator, Aaron uh Berg, uh since he has been in charge of social media and community outreach uh a lot recently to put together a plan on how we want to release this um and possibly putting it on the newsletter and all of that information. Um [snorts] I might Yes. So, so I will keep you updated on when this is going out. It might be, you know, in a minute. It might need a couple more tweaks, but I I'm glad that you guys think that this is a good start. >> Looks great. >> Thank you, [snorts] Elanar. >> Of course. >> Well, I think that kind of wraps things up except for the fact that we have, let's see here, uh, planning commissioners report. Do any of my fellow planning commissioners have anything to report at this time? >> I do not. >> I have neither. >> I do. >> Susan is leaving. >> This is her last day [laughter] here today. >> You weren't here very long, but when you were when you were, you were very helpful and and yes, >> insightful. And I'll look forward to seeing you in your new job. >> Thank you. >> On the other side of this wall. >> Yes. Absolutely. [laughter] Thank you all so much. It's It's been a pleasure and unfortunately was short and sometimes life in the universe has other plans for you. So I'll still serve the residents just in a much different role. So thank you all very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> And Elanar, do you have anything to report? >> Um I was also going to say thank you so much Susan. I do look forward to seeing you um every day now. Every day [laughter] just down the hall. So that will be fantastic. Um [snorts] going forward, I also have uh an announcement that the other um uh comprehensive plan amendment which was to make the the northwest quad of our free freeway district uh mixed use uh to allow future residential properties did uh we did hear back from the Met Council and that was approved. So that will be on the city council agenda next week. Um the plat is still having some small um concerns with the with an NOA County surveying department um department. The Anoka County Yes. >> Yes. >> property records. [laughter] It's been a long day. Um but should be coming um to a close fairly soon. Um, this has been a a really long project that started a couple years before I um was hired on. Um, so seeing it get this close to being completed is really exciting. >> It's awesome. >> Excellent. Anybody else? Okay. >> Oh, one last time. This is Susan. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> This is Kim. I'll second the motion. >> We will take a vote. >> Kim I. >> Susan I. >> Mike I. Andy I >> Bob and I and it is 6:32 and we're adjourned.