[Music] the order of the planning commission. It is 6:00. Uh first of all, let's do the pledge of allegiance. >> 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. Hey, we're going to do a consent agenda here for the approval of the meeting agenda and also the approval of the September 17th, 2025 planning commission meeting minutes. >> This is Susan. I'll make a motion to approve the meeting agenda. >> You can do them both. >> I will make a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> This is Kim. I'll second the motion. >> Kim I. >> Susan I. >> Robin I. >> Mike I. >> Andy I. >> All right. Okay. Next on the agenda public open forum. Is there anybody here or online who would like to discuss anything with us tonight? All right, hearing nothing. We're going to >> Oh, we did. came out of nowhere. >> Since I'm here, figured I this makes most sense to talk here. So, Aaron Benedess with Running Aces. Um, I just want to say thank you for the fall fest and everything we had in the Columbus night at Running Aces. Um, and appreciate the partnership and that we're actually I know we had to cancel the movie uh but we will be showing it this Friday at the track uh on our screen so you can have dinner on the restaurant patio and then watch watch the movie there. So yeah, and everything executed. So thanks everybody. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> You say uh uh Robin, if you don't mind, I'd just like to personally thank Aaron and Running Aces. my wife and and grandkids and kids went there Friday night and it was very packed and they said you went out of their your way to find tables for everybody that didn't have tables there to make sure that the event was pleasurable for all the Columbus citizens. So, thank you for for that on on behalf of Jenny and and the Fall Fest Committee and the citizens. Much appreciated. >> Yeah, it's one of those things we have enough seating when it's beautiful out. Uh thankfully the remodel helps when it's not to juggle some things a little better. But yeah, we we made it work and I think having a full crowd with the remodel was uh things things ended up being okay. >> Yeah. And and it sounds like you weren't turning people away because you had to be inside. So thank you. >> Welcome. Anybody else? Okay. Now, we'll move on uh to the public hearing for the Verizon small cell installation IUP and text amendment at 15201 Zurich Street Northeast. Eleanor, could you read us the notice? >> Of course. Um, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City of Columbus Planning Commission on Wednesday, October 1st, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. or soon thereafter as parties may be heard to consider a request for a text amendment and an interim use permit to allow a wireless cell antenna installation in the horse racing zoning district. The hearing will be conducted in person and by interactive technology at the Columbus City Hall located at 16319 Kettle River Boulevard, Columbus, Minnesota. Members of the public interested in attending in person, monitoring the meeting, 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. >> Thank you, Eleanor. >> Of course, >> I would ask now the representative from Verizon if you could please come forward and have a seat at the table here. And if you could give your name and current address for the record, please speak into the microphone so that everybody can hear you. >> Yes. Uh uh good evening. Alex Truman, Representative Ryzen, wireless. My address is 4340 Stinson Boulevard, Columbia Heights. >> Okay. Uh we've reviewed your application and as normal protocol for the record, could you brief us a little bit about your application? >> Yes. So um this entire project is just driven by the uh coverage capacity needs of the events and the patrons there at Running Aces. Um they hold a lot of events throughout the year. Some um ones that you just experienced the other week in their parking lot and outside area as well as draw crowds to the racetrack and the casino itself. So these small cells are there um to be able to provide the capacity demands when you have a large amount of people congregated in one space who are using their cell phones. Um it's a big uh safety uh risk just due to when that capacity is being eaten up by so many people, it's hard for those connections to be made with the tower. So this is really there to make sure that everyone has the adequate coverage and those, you know, emergency service calls can go through, you know, in the unfortunate event that they're ever needed and just provide that improved service to everyone who's out there um, you know, enjoying the different aspects that running aces uh provides to the community. >> Okay. Uh, did you receive a copy of the staff report developed by planner Allison Alanorhan dated on October 1st regarding this application? >> I did. >> Pardon? >> I did. >> Thank you. Um, and it contained findings numbering uh 1 through 11 on pages five and six. And I didn't see any conditions. Um, do you have any questions about these? Uh, I do not >> 1 through 10. >> Oh, the conditions are 1 through 10. I'm sorry, I missed that. [Music] You have a copy by me? >> Aaron's already got it for you. Okay. Yes, this is all accurate. >> Okay. any any questions or comments on that at this time? >> I I do not and I'm I'm open to answer any questions or or concerns of the board. >> Okay. Uh at this time, I'd like to open the floor to fellow commissioners for co questions or commentary. Anything at this time? Pretty straightforward stuff. >> Pretty straightforward. Is he ask any question? >> Um, I read the whole thing. I did not see anything that we needed at this point. So, where am I at? >> There's no questions at this time. Uh, we usually take two weeks to go through these. Uh, >> Robin. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Chair because the city council is here. Open questions for the public comment. >> Oh, I forgot to do that. Are there any questions from the public at this time? >> There you go. >> And there are not. >> You're good. >> Got to make it official, though. I understand. Okay. Uh, at this time, um, I'm going to close the public hearing. >> We're going to close the public hearing at this time. You may be seated. and planning commission. Is there anything that any of you have read or want to comment on or ask questions about? >> I I did have a question um for the established um term limit. So, there's nothing currently in the code that establishes an actual term for that IUP. And then I guess kind of a sub clause of that is there going to be I don't know every couple years or something like that kind of like review to make sure they're up on the FCC and and kind of all those details. Of course. Of course. So, um this was a bit of an interesting text amendment to go through. We do have provisions in our code for cell towers and communication uh towers and antenna installation. There is nothing in the code uh specifying what that term limit for those IUP should be. Nor um are they specifically mentioned in any district. Um the provisions exist. I think I believe that the current uh you know tall 500 foot um cell towers that we have are under grandfathered in uh CUPS not through this IUP system. So this would be the first time we're permitting them under the the new regulations that were installed um for that term limit since there is nothing prescribed in code. This is the the conversation that we'd be having what that term limit would be. Um with other built structures in the freeway district like those uh billboards, we set that IUP termit term limit for 10 years. Um so that would be consistent with a built structure in that district. So that's what uh staff recommended um for following up on FCC. That can definitely be a condition that is put in. um if we want to have a smaller term limit or have um a a prescribed enforcement base that we check in um to ensure that everything is still compliant with FCC standards, we certainly can add a condition like that. >> Thank you. >> Of course. >> Okay. If we're doing uh one thing for Verizon, will we have to do the same thing for AT&T or is anybody else going to be able to use >> this particular from my understanding this particular small cell installation will only be for Verizon and that this cell tower which is an existing light post will not be able to support additional antenna. Um this would be the only installation on this. >> Okay. Are there more than is there more than one tower? More than one light tower. >> There is not any planned at this time to install any further small cell installations. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Oh, thank you, Alex. >> Yep. Um so just real quick on clarification of two items. So with as far as the FCC item goes, um Verizon is a licensed FCC operator. Part of that license requires them to always be um compliant with anything the FCC puts out. So that is something that they have to report to on an annual basis and it's part of their license to be maintain that license with the FCC. So as any of those directives or changes or um ordinances etc change and are put out through the FCC, Verizon makes those changes and is always compliant. So that is part of any FCC licensed user whether you're you know manufacturing uh you know walkie-talkies you know airplane navigation system etc. They're they're all part of have the requirements they need to follow per their FCC license to be compliant. And then um for this uh running aces there um is plans for a second one due to um the size of the pole and the type of equipment. There's one pole that is facing um just northwest that's going to be going towards um the hotel and the uh casino itself and then there'd be plans for one just to the northeast in the same exact parking lot um for the future use for the events that are held in the parking lot itself. So the goal is to be able to provide a complete coverage and capacity for the entire running aces property there. Okay. Any other commission members? >> Okay. Um, at this point, we're going to >> Can council weigh in on this? I just >> uh >> um You are allowed to to weigh in on this >> since it's a joint meeting. >> Just curiosity sake. Uh as as I'm on a phone call every day and drive by running aces, that's where my Verizon service drops. Um, is this going to as far as right outside here, is that going to project farther than running aces? Is there any plans in the future to service Columbus as a whole? >> Yeah. So, for this um deployment, the primary objective is the running ACES property and that's how it's designed for the network. That being said, there will be some bleed over it. It's not going to be significant just due to the size and the height within. you know, there's it's small equipment and it's only being installed 30 feet off the ground. So, you don't have that kind of coverage pattern that you would see with your your typical, you know, 250 ft. >> Sure. >> Um um tower, but there's I do know that there's always uh plans for the improved coverage of capacity. Okay. >> It's a huge issue, right? I mean, we never really foresaw the type of data usage that is coming out of the younger generations. I mean, the reality is the last thing people are using their cell phones for is to make phone calls. It's, you know, don't quote me here, but I hear you now. Doesn't really matter. It's about how fast you can stream, download, you know, game, music, everything. So we are actively planning expansions and upgrades throughout all the communities in the metro because it's we have to stay ahead of it. So our our goal is to be get the equipment get the coverage before you don't have it you to make you know so to be able to provide the you know the best service to everyone. So that's really really our goal. Um so there are plans to uh to expand to upgrade to be able to provide that that improved service but these two ones are primarily just for running aces. That being said, there will be some coverage bleed off that you'll get, you know, on the art, what is it? Just the the arterial streets to the west and to to the north there. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Anybody else? Don't want to step on any feet again. >> Oh, no. Okay. Okay. Uh at this point I'll advise you that uh the P commission has two weeks to review this and application and we'll meet in two weeks to discuss the application again and forward our findings to the city council. >> And you are all set, sir. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay, next on the agenda, we are going to discuss the farm animal ordinances. >> Let me get to the correct page real quick. >> There he goes. >> Eleanor, would you like to brief us on what we're doing here, please? Absolutely. Um so recently we did a presentation at a planning commission um meeting describing what our current farm animal ordinance or the keeping of large animals um how that process works in the city um and what changes staff um is is seeking to to make to that ordinance. Um that was mostly to to make sure that everybody understands how the code currently functions as it can be a little bit confusing um and complicated. The goals that um we have moving forward as we discuss this is to make our our provisions more comprehensive, understandable for residents um easily enforced and reasonable and fair. Um it's been a work in pro progress previously in this city um with lots of previous conversations regarding it. Um, and we uh believed that it was a good idea to get everybody together in one room so we are aware of what the city's goals are and that we're all on the same page going forward so we don't um I guess go down a rabbit hole um and completely misalign with what the goals are here. Um, on the end of the packet that was submitted today, um, that you have before you today was a list of questions that I put together regarding what we want to do with this animal ordinance going forward. Um, and I was hoping to go through them and and see what the but the planning commission and the city council had in mind for this particular ordinance. um starting off with the general purpose of the ordinance and what we are trying to accomplish. Um and I'll pull those questions up here and we can have a bit of a discussion surrounding it. Um for the three primary goals that we have is addressing animal welfare, the addressing neighborhood impacts and maintaining a rural character for this community. Um is there anybody here that would like to uh speak on that particular question? [Music] It's okay if not and we can move on to more specific things but starting broad. Pardon? >> I did not hear you. >> Oh, sorry. Um, it's okay if not and we can move on to more specific questions, but starting broad and narrowing it down might be a little helpful. >> Um, so this is Janet. I I I actually just like to bring up um this has been discussed >> several years ago. Shelley Logan, who was on the council at the time, did quite a bit of research and some of the um stuff that she came up with was handed out um I think just tonight. So, that's part of what you have right there. Um in the past, what we've discussed is trying to balance those goals. Um there are certain neighborhoods in Columbus like Thurbeck who actually had um covenants against large animals, but now they no longer have those. Mhm. >> So part of what we talked about in the past was a neighborhood like that, a neighborhood like Furlo Acres. Would you have a different um set of rules for those kinds of neighborhoods than you might for properties that are out in the you know closer to Carlos Avery or like in my area where there already are a number of of properties that have these kinds of animals. I think the other thing that's come up more recently and we didn't talk about it in the past was a safety issue. So with with bird flu and some of the other um zooonautic diseases that are being created and potentially uh passed on to other species including humans. Um that might also be something you want to add to the list to to consider also >> of course I think I mean I think all three of them are important. How much weight you want to give to each of them I think is a point of discussion for this group. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Mr. Scott, I I agree with that. I think the one thing that's missing here is public health. Um because in addition to that, farm waste will also encourage rodent populations to skyrocket. I think that also needs to be part of the ordinance discussion. >> Right. So it kind Yeah. The public health and safety aspect of it I think is important. It's also true if these properties are close to waterways because the the manure contamination can be really significant. [Music] And that would tie in um addition additionally we've talked about redefining habitable acres um especially because our landscape is exceedingly wet with abundance of wetlands, waterways, ditches, um shoreland ordinances. um it does become a public health consideration to to include those provisions. Okay. Um I am actually going to move on to the animal density and lot size. We spoke about um Janet you brought up the um what we would consider like platted neighborhoods. um even if they are of a certain size and they have large backyards. Um a lot of them at some point had covenants um restricting larger animals but no longer do. Um I know that other communities do have a restriction that they cannot have large animals in platted subdivisions. I think that gets a little bit complicated here because we do have a lot of platted subdivisions that are totally suitable for uh the keeping of large animals. Uh I believe where um you live is also a platted subdivision but is a much more suitable area. So being having language about that becomes a little bit difficult but we can search into how we would distinguish those. I think the other thing that's um a challenge here is that the lots are are laid out really differently. So you may have a um home that's set back from the you know road 2 3 400 ft. You don't even see the home. They have a huge front yard. Yet our ordinance doesn't allow them to have you know the the leanto structures or or some of those kinds of things. You also have some like the property across the street from mine where the pasture runs sort of horizontally. So if you didn't want to have those in the front yard, having them alongside I mean the the vision is the same way. >> So it's really I I mean it's kind of why we didn't get any traction on this is that there's just so many different um permutations to consider and and I but I do think it needs to be addressed. It's just that it's not going to be an easy like one-sizefits-all. >> No. No. Um, so our provision regarding accessory structures in the front yard does prevent having uh these pastures in the the front of your home in that example. Uh, since we do require an animal structure as a a barn, a lean to some sort of structure and um our current provisions in the code would not allow that in the front yard. >> Yeah. >> Right. And so I think I think one of the things to talk about is what's really a front yard in Columbus. I mean, if if you're I mean, if you're if you're in a sub a suburban neighborhood, it's pretty easy to say what the front yard is. But if you've got a lot that goes this way and everything is kind of lined up this way, what's the difference if it's sitting in the middle, you know, here, same number of feet off the roadway or sitting in front um kind of off to the side of the house? And the same is true with those those homes that are set far back. I mean, most of their land is in front of their house and a lot of them have really good screening, so it's not going to be an eyesore. It's not going to be a problem, but our current ordinance doesn't take any of that in cons into consideration. >> I would So, that would be under our residential accessory building code. we can add a a provision in this animal ordinance um allowing animal structures um to be in a separate category and have those in the front yard if we don't want to touch just accessory buildings in general. Um and there is a provision that allows if there is sufficient screening it can be in the front yard. Um, and I I do agree with you when you were talking about the long lots where it's most mostly um visible from the street and you can have the pastor right across um to the side. So I understand um where you're coming from there. >> This this is Scott. So again, the structures related to animals I think is covered outside the animal ordinance, right? Would it be I I'm I went back and looked at at now then's uh animal ordinance and it's much simpler. it it it's literally based on number of acres and then their animal count uh is much simpler than than what we have here for example in Columbus and keep or in now then and keep in mind now then's got a lot of high ground and they're dividing up farms so it's not apples to apples here right but they don't talk about you know lowlands not being included in in the acreage or anything they just say three acres uh you're allowed to keep um the large animals and then they if it's a milk cow, a cow, a horse, a mule, it's all one animal unit. And we've got multiple categories here on on animal units. I think it would be much simpler to have a minimum acreage and then one animal unit per acre like some of the surrounding communities here. Now, I'd be curious to see what some of the current animal owners say because that might be a problem with with some people. >> I I can tell you one place where I believe it would be a problem is like goat owners. You're going to let them have one goat on three acres. >> No, because a goat under this statute is is 2 animal units. >> But I believe what you were saying is that it is everything is one animal. >> No, no, no, no. I'm saying that right now we have a mature dairy cow is 1.4 animal unit. A slaughter steer heer is 1.0. A horse is one. They don't make that distinction. They just say all of these large hooved animals are one animal unit. >> And then you get down to ours where we're dividing up swine by weight. They just say a swine is a.3 animal unit. And then um I there's there was a point oh a swine's a.5 and a goat's a 2 and and that's pretty much all of the categories on their animal units. >> So it's much simpler right >> I think I think the well I'm sorry go ahead I was going to say I think you have to kind of step back to the original question that that um Ellaner posed which is what are our goals? So, when you think about the number of animals per acre, um what we haven't talked about is are you just talking about the space for them to roam around or are you talking about a space that's going to provide some nutrition for them? So, if you're planning to supplement their feed with hay or grain or whatever, it's maybe less important in terms of the the quality of the of the pasture. But if and and and a lot of times people get large animals out here that don't have a lot of experience with large animals. So they get a horse and they think, well, you know, I won't have to buy hay because they can graze all summer long on the pasture. But if there's no good forage in that pasture, that's not going to work, right? Or if the if half the time the pasture is so muddy and mucky that there's no no plants that they're going to graze on, then that's that's not going to work. The other problem is that you've got such a huge range of sizes. So you can have goats that are 40 lbs and you can have goats that are, you know, 180 pounds >> and you can have horses that are 2,000 lbs like draft horses and others that are, you know, little mini horses that are the size of a St. Bernard. So same with the donkeys. And so you know, even just to say donkeys, horses, I mean there's a huge range of sizes there that people have. And so you almost have to address that as well because obviously a goat that's 40 lbs needs less than a 180 lb meat goat or if you're talking about horses, you know, a Clydesdale versus a little mini horse is very different. >> Um I I do agree that the there is a large range of what specific animals need um in in a given pasture. And I I think this is a good topic to to address because we are looking to redo our animal units. And what the one of the big decisions is do we want to simplify them and um shorten the list of animal units to be more understandable for residents or make them more specific um for um given the type of landscape that we have. And and so I I would also like a little bit of clarification here. When the purpose of animal units is not how much nutrition they need per acre, it's how much waste they produce safely per acre. Right. Based on you, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. Cuz I think, you know, when I kept horses, I there was no way I could a one acre per horse would ever feed a horse even on a good year where we were growing enough hay. We always had to buy hay. Um, so that I think that's the individual owner's responsibility to care for that animal properly and they're going to have to supplement that. I think the acreage is more on how much waste we're producing. >> Yes. So yes, our ordinance is based more on neighborhood impacts and the nuisance of having large animals in your neighborhood rather than um the necessarily the care of the animal which is left up to the individual owner of that animal. >> So I'll I'll counter that with anam a real example. So there was um there was a time that I chaired the board for a ecoin assistant therapy organization. we were relocating from Minnitonka to Madina to the Baker Park Reserve. So most of the horses that they had in their herd and there was about 18 of them um were old horses that they did not they most of them were on special diets so they weren't you know they might be foraging a little bit but not much. So their need for space was more about you know getting some exercise getting out in fresh air things like that. Madina's ordinance was not based on that. Um, so we spent I mean I I submitted the CUP for them and went through all of the things with their planning commission and their council. Um, so they had to do a lot of variances for us to make this work. Um, and so my point is that if you don't want to have to do a lot of variances, you got to consider all those different um, kinds of situations in in the language because the number of acres that we had for the number of horses we had by their statute was inadequate. But for what we were actually doing with the horses and what the horses needed and how we plan to, >> you know, feed them and everything, it was it was more than adequate. and they recognized that, but it didn't fit their it didn't fit their their ordinance. And so it took a lot of work between us and the city to kind of figure out how to deal with that. >> I Okay. >> Uh this is uh Susan. I I agree with maybe simplifying it. Um, I'm thinking more from a code enforcement compliance standpoint where if we start getting into trying to determine if animals are being fed properly and and some of those things, I think that could be a logistical and and just a time on staff. It could be a nightmare. Um, I know I've looked at the ordinance when I first moved into Columbus and um, I think it could be a little bit simpler and I do kind of agree that maybe simplifying it more towards and I think really defining habitable acres I think is going to be probably the best place to start to develop my personal opinion to start to develop either the animal units or and kind of go from there because I think that's really important because again you can have 15 acres and 10 can be swamp. >> That was just my opinion. >> This is Jenny. I have um just one I guess point to make. So I talked to three different residents who are all longtime residents and asked them and they all have um horses and asked how many horses they could have on their property and all of them gave me different answers. So we can go through all of this, but getting back to the goals of what this means, how is that disseminated out to our residents? How do we code enforce? What does that look like? I mean, my bigger concern in going through and doing all of the work on this is that it ends up becoming a piece of paper and not actually enforced. And so I I think I just want to really make sure that we're all understanding what this looks like for our residents and maybe even getting some feedback from our residents before we move forward because any major changes we make are going to cause waves. Will it make any actual changes for our residents? Probably not. And and I'm not trying to sound negative in that, but I think it's just important that we really because not to say that our city has a communication issue, but it is hard to get that information out. And what does that look like if we do make these changes? I agree. Um I agree that this um particular ordinance is going to need a lot of community input. Uh there are a lot of people who have animals in this this area and don't have the the understanding of what the code means of what they currently can have and then what would happen if everything was changed. When we were talking about enforcement, um, part of my presentation and a part of this report was considering having some sort of permit process, whether that be administrative or um, lots of other communities do IUPs. Again, I don't I've I've mentioned this before. I don't think that that would particularly work in this community, but is a possibly a possibility. Um, but having a staff level approval of making sure that they whatever regulations we do put in place are being followed and can be understood by residents when they come in and show me a picture of their property. Um, show me where their their animals are going to be that we actually have some that would be that um exchange and communication of what the rules are. And then also have some sort of enforcement action because we have a a permit on file regarding that property. Um, and so I did want to get some feedback on whether or not we want to to pursue any sort of permitting process for animals. We have not in the past. >> Can I ask this is Jenny. Have you had any recent issues relating to this ordinance >> beyond I noticed somebody had something about 1600 chickens or something like something like that? >> Yes. not that might be a problem, but that >> um seems more like maybe a misunderstanding on their part. >> Yeah. So, there was a misunderstanding in the code and also um a I believe a past employee who had a typo in this handout. And because of that typo, it technically told uh residents that they could have 1,600 chickens um per acre of habitable land, which I think is a little too much. Um maybe and the the true number in the code is 16 chickens per acre of habitable land. Um there is commonly I do get phone calls from neighbors asking can my neighbor have this goat um that's been roaming around in their backyard and I have to be like maybe um is there a fence? Where's the goat? Is there a um there's not there's not a there's not really a followup with that. And then there will be residents who are like, "Well, I think because of the code, I can have four horses." Um, because my lot is yay big. Um, and then having to explain where it it's actually the pasture land, the habitable acres. So, where where is your pasture at and how big is that area? Oh, actually, you can only have one horse on that property. Um, and that's it's it is a lot of communication errors. um >> and having a formal process. Of course, there will definitely be quite a few people who do not get this zoning permit. Um and that would be a slow roll out of of having to require that in some sort of way. Um I think keeping it as simple uh and easy as possible will be a great benefit of getting people to actually get this zoning permit, hypothetical zoning permit. um which would be the the goal of just making sure people comply with the existing code. Um did I answer your question? >> Okay. >> Uh this is Susan. I actually I do a lot of code enforcement and code compliance and I think Oops. I think one of the most important things that we have to understand and we have to remember is that you can only for one your ordinances have to be understandable by by the public and they have to be easily read and they have to be understood by staff. And as you mentioned, people I get the calls myself. Can so and so have horses? Don't know. Let me pull it up on the GIS. How many acres is it? And get a lot of questions. Can they have this because you know they're the the barn or you know lean to um it has to be x amount of feed from the neighbor's residence. So I think there's a lot of things that go into it. And I think um just making sure that any you know people can understand what so they do you know when they are calling or even if they're looking it up themselves they be like okay x amount you know and that and that. So, um, and I think I think a zoning permit process, I think, is the way to go. I think that way you get maybe a site plan or if it's under I don't say that cuz it's more for building. Um, but a site plan that shows, you know, where the structures are going to be, is it fenced? Um, where the neighbors are, how far away are you, you know, proposing from the neighbors and and showing that habitable acreage as far as wetlands or lowland um, and kind of that including there. I I fully agree and fully support um definitely a zoning permit process. So, at least there's some some sort of action, but also not having someone having to go through an IUP process um to have, you know, three horses or a couple goats. >> Mhm. >> I personally um Yeah, I think there should be some sort of permit process and I don't think it should be an IUP. >> Okay. [Music] Um, I guess going back to the specific list, we've been uh discussing this in a little bit free form, which is completely fine, and if anyone thinks of anything, feel free to speak up. Um, but one of the points under uh item two here is should there be a minimum lot size for the keeping of large animals? um whether or not you have the minimal um habitable acres, what should the minimum lot size in general for a property be in order to keep large animals? >> Again, this this is Scott. The example that I have, I'm not sure would work in Columbus, but uh three acres is a minimum lot size and you keep up to three animal units plus an additional animal unit per acre is what now then uses. >> Okay. >> And I'm not suggesting we make it 3 acres, but as a minimum. Oh, I I I would agree with that because I I know like I have two and a half acres >> and I can't imagine putting a horse on my property that would not bother my neighbors cuz they're close enough >> that you know I think there does have to be a minimum lot size be able to have large animals. >> So this is Rob. You have to have a you have to have five acres to build a house, right? So maybe we just make it five acres to even have a large animal on your property. Might be unfavorable, but >> there are a lot of properties that are left. >> At least it's consistent, right? Like I have two acres. I have chickens, but I'm not going to put a cow there. >> So >> my neighbors would go nuts. >> Yeah. >> So this is Jenny. With our neighborhood, we have lot averaging. And so we actually have residents that have two and a half. They're newer houses. They have larger backyards. And so I could see one or two of my neighbors wanting to get goats at some point or something like that. Yeah. Um so I I think this is where it does get murky no matter how we decide to look at this. >> Where there more pencil lots, they're long. >> Yeah. >> And and that's what I was going to say. I mean where I where I live there are a lot of pencil lots. I live on one and I have 5 acres and then 40 acres behind me. There is no way I could have a horse, not even one on my on my property because the houses on either side of me are so close. My property goes way back and there's nothing behind me, but it's wet. >> So, I mean, I I that's the part that's really a challenge here. >> Yeah. But see, yeah, I'm in a similar situation, only I'm on three with a pencil lot and I have lots of pasture behind my house and I would easily be able to support two horses out there. So, I mean, it's just so situational here. >> It is. And that's that's what makes it really challenging. So, >> and I'm trying to picture that, Scott, like by where we're at off of Howard Lake, there's multiple houses that used to have a lot of horses, right? >> Well, I've still got the horse barn and I've had horses on my property up until >> recent like four houses in a row that did and it was never an issue. >> Well, it was all one pasture. It was just property. >> Yeah. >> You might however be able to draw a line between what's a small animal and a large animal. And >> in your case, Jenny, as you you've described, maybe >> one goat is half of a large animal. So they could potentially get two goats on >> a 3 acre parcel with a lot of extra space where it might not support a horse, but it might support two goats. >> Yeah, this Jenny, I like the idea of of defining the small versus large because I I couldn't see a lot of my neighbors having horses, but I could see them potentially trying to have horses. Um I do also like the idea of maybe having a minimum not a minimum but allowing for two if a resident it would be very awkward and hard for a resident to have one goat >> or something like that. So that would just and I'm being ser I mean just having that minimum of well you can only have one that just gets to be challenging as well. So just some food for thought >> and and so the department of agriculture is I believe who does the animal units >> um minister >> for recommendations >> pollution control. Oh, okay. >> I believe >> and I think they were originally developed for feed lots. >> Yes. So, I mean, the whole purpose of them is very different than what we're talking about applying them to now. >> Yes. Um, so we do not have to keep animal units are pretty common language throughout all zoning codes. So, we can definitely keep the the name. Uh, that is understandable, but we can change what the actual units are. >> Well, but see, that's my was my point. If we can use animal units and change the value. So a goat it like for now then it's 02. >> That's a lot of goats. >> That's a lot of goats on 2 and 1/2 acres, right? >> But we can change that value. So if we're going to use the animal unit in our definition and we're going to >> assign those values. Yes. >> So that those 2 and 1/2 acre lots can have those animals. Yeah. >> I did want to bring it back to something that Aaron and Jenny were talking about, which was the large versus small animals. Currently, we have them as hooved and non-hooved animals. I would like to change that to large and small animals because uh I don't think you should have 16 emus per acre. Um >> so I do think that that's an important distinction to make. Um that's a different type of definition there. We're going to have to add a lot of definitions for farm animals, large animals, small animals, um and what those exactly are going to mean. But being able to focus on that is is very helpful. What what do you call a miniature horse? >> If we get so far into the details of >> course, are they classified as one horse? >> Yes. >> Even though you might have them in your house, >> it's just >> I mean I somebody >> I'm just wondering how you rate it. Is it one horse? >> Yeah. >> Right. So, well, this is Jenny. So, that's where you could technically I mean I I guess tech you may be able to answer that better, but if you do large versus small, would it be more weight oriented? So, uh, because you do have, again, a large goat, small goat, large horse. Clydesdale is different than a miniature pony. And my I have neighbors that have both. And so, I I think that distinction might be important because that could help us really define what that looks like in a a simpler manner. >> Very much discuss. My only concern about weight, classifying them by weight is the enforcement side of that. Now, when your your enforcement person goes out there, how are you going to dis distinguish what that animal weighs and how are you going to classify it? >> Yes. Um that was my my concern as well is the enforcement process or explaining that to a resident um might get a little complicated um and difficult to to it's it's easier when you say you can have x amount of horses uh in this particular area um than bringing out a calculator and trying to do a bunch of math and >> them explaining how much all of their horses weigh >> or a scale >> or a scale when we out there, >> right? >> You got to pick up all the good now you're going ponyb. [Music] Yeah, you have the stick and like the vets do, right? >> That's a that is a lot of um >> average weight of a Clydesdale horse 2,000 >> staff time there. Okay, Elanar, I have one I have one other question because I know this has come up in a number of other communities. Um bees, are you including bees in this? I know. I I saw it in some of the documentation you provided and and I thought, you know, that's a whole another deal. >> But it it it does create conflicts sometimes with neighbors. And so I don't I don't know if you have a vision on that. I don't. But I mean, I beekeep so I mean I >> I not this year, but in the last eight years I have. >> Let's just leave it alone. >> Yeah. I mean that's why that's a that's a different ordinance. Let's say let's table that in a different 20,000 bees. >> Oh god, >> that's what it is. Strike that >> per hive. And so if you have a, you know, 10 hives, it's a lot of bees. >> Have we ever had complaints about beekeepers and the location of hives? Cuz some cities do >> having them around setbacks for the hives. >> I have not received any complaints um in my tenure here, nor have I heard of any complaints regarding beehives. Um that does seem >> Okay. So, I guess the best policy is don't kick the hive. >> Yes. Perfect. Perfect. There, >> that would be my recommendation. >> I'll be here next week. >> Okay. Um, [Music] so what I am hearing now is really focusing on habitable acres with our wet landscape and really nailing that one down. Um there's been a couple of different interpretations of what we want to do with the animal units and um minimum minimal acreage minimal um and so far I've heard yes to a zoning permit. Just want to bring it back down to a level of where the conversation has gone so far. >> Can I bring up chickens? >> Of course. Um, do we have a, and this is going to be followed up more directed towards Rob and I, um, do we have a limit on number of chickens that are kept? >> Yes. So, that is in our our provision of non-hooved animals. Um, which I again think that there should be some definition changes versus large farm animals and small farm animals. Um, and that would be the keeping of chickens, turkeys, uh, rabbits, and that would be just a flat 16 animals, not animal units, animals per uh, habitable acre >> per acre. >> And roosters can only be kept on properties 5 acres or more. >> That was my follow-up question. >> Yes. >> Thank you. But I think I mean I don't mind roosters, but again, if I had a rooster in my yard, I have a neighbor that's as close to me on my north side as any suburban. >> I mean, so if they really hate I don't have a rooster. I I don't have chickens, but if I did, >> that would be really bothersome to them. And I certainly would meet that five acre >> rule. So again, I I think I don't know it. So, to be clear, the reason I asked that question is because uh council member Bush has received complaints about neighbors with and there is one 900 ft from our house, which I don't mind, but some of the neighbors do. >> You know, especially at 4 in the morning. This is Robin and I had our neighbor had roosters about 200 feet from our property. >> Mhm. And let me tell you, my grandkids didn't even want to go outside because the rooster was so loud. >> Mean, too. >> I want to kind You need more >> if I could through the chair. I just kind of want to build off what Scott was saying. So, what the complaint was, it wasn't so much about the rooster. It was about that they were freeranging >> long, long ways. Like, I have chickens. I don't have a lot. Just enough to supply eggs for our family. But those chickens were in my yard, which is substantially far away from there to where they were tearing up neighbors property, going into their gardens, eating their raspberries, things like that. >> And I was getting the crap for it >> because me and the and and my other neighbor, but we don't let ours out. They don't freerange. They have big fenced in areas that they can have it, right? We feed them feed, so they don't need to free range. But >> Mhm. There's those differences there. And that was going to lead to my next question. Do those have to if you have an acre, right? You said 16 per acre. Do those have to be in a fenced in area? >> It is 16 per acre of fenced in habitable area. >> Okay. >> So, we do not allow freerange chickens um in this community >> at all depending on how many acres you have. >> It is under under our code. And people are violating that on a daily basis. >> Yes, I see a lot of chickens out and about. >> Half a mile down the road and one cigarette. >> Um there was I remember sorry >> I was right for a couple years. >> Um that is our general code for all of our animals. any sort of farm animal whether that is rabbits or chickens or cows. It is measured by the acres that you have fenced in that is well drained and that there is an animal structure for them to to hide in inclement weather in. And that's what it's measured on, not the acreage of the property. >> Excellent. happy to say I'm within code >> but again it's it's such a difficult thing to communicate that many people don't understand um what our code is and so simplifying it down in that way would be very helpful um so and I'd just like to bring up two other things one is that lots of people have quite a mixed managerie so you know when I I have my horse. He lived with three goats and two donkeys. >> Mhm. >> Um they were all minis and it was all fine. But I'm just saying that, you know, a lot of times people their herd may not just be horses or goats. It could be a mix of them. >> Yes. And then the other question I have is um like in my neighborhood there are a lot of storm water ponds and I don't see anything in here about protecting the storm water ponds from the manure runoff or anything like that. I mean you know you get told not to put your grass clippings and blah blah blah but I can tell you if you're getting runoff from a pasture going into those ponds they're going to they're going to silt in and fill in in no time and then you don't have your flood control anymore. So, on top of not wanting them, you know, tiptoeing over your septic field, I would think you'd also want to keep them certain distance from storm water ponds. >> Okay. Um, so for the habitable acre rewrite, which seems to be a large focus on this, it would be excluding wetlands, uh, obviously storm water ponds. Um, there would be typically there are more restrictions in a shoreland district, um, or for the keeping of animals. That's uh pretty standard. We can do that um if we'd like. And then adding setbacks from property lines, storm water ponds, um >> water sheds. >> So, you're telling me my ducks cannot swim in the >> wetland in my backyard? >> Dang it. >> The ducks that I have permitted can't swim in my backyard. >> I don't know if I can control them. They're going to do what ducks do. But >> you do allow ducks. So, >> good thing you don't live in Columbus. >> In Cambridge, we allow them as well, but they are considered one unit. We we classified ducks, geese, turkeys as fowl. And then we just did one unit per certain amount of fowl. That way you don't get into this back and forth with a turkeyy's >> Yes. >> a little bit more than that or a duck is a little bit more than a chicken. We just went with one >> I >> so >> and then it takes away from uh having multiple lines in your >> animal definitions as to >> this is a duck, this is a chicken, this is a turkey, this is a emu. Obviously that's a different scenario cuz that's much larger. But >> uh that is also something to consider. Yeah. >> The other thing with the structural setback is you could write in a a provision for uh any property that is 300 ft or more from the right of way. Uh you could make an exception for a detached accessory structure for the purposes of an animal uh as long as it either meets the structural setback >> or is no more than half the distance of the space between the existing setback. So there are many ways to creatively allow for a structure in front of the primary structure if it meets that exception. >> Mhm. >> Rob, you had >> Yeah, thanks Robin. And my question was to Erin. So is this something recently knowing that you sit on the council up in Cambridge? Is this something recently that you've went through and undergone a study of some sort or worked through as a council or is it fairly old? wondering if we could use that like Scott as well is referencing now then if we could get maybe a series of these and look at them and kind of come to an agreement all >> so this is Scott I believe the department of agriculture has an interactive map that you can click on and it will show you the local community's animal ordinances >> okay >> that might be something that would interest us to >> and uh to answer your question um Cambridge is about seven square contiguous miles of city. Um, our animal, specifically fowl regulations are extreme. Um, I happen to be the planning commission chair when uh the proposal came forward about 6 years ago to allow chickens in town. Uh, and our planning commission um denied that and sent it to the council as a a non-recommendation. and the council kicked it back to the planning commission and said, "Make it happen." Uh, so my planning commission made it almost as difficult as possible in order to get a permit, an interim use permit to have four chickens in your on your city lot. So, I don't know if I would go by Cambridge's ordinance. >> I don't think that would >> it's not going to apply here to to most of the lots in Columbus, >> but there's not a lot of small lots. Like I think I live in the smallest lot neighborhoods. One side of the road's acre, the other side's 2 acre lots. You know, there's not a lot of that in Columbus and from what I've heard a lot of the council, they're all about the 5 acre minimums. I don't think anyone is. So, I don't foresee a bunch of tiny lots coming outside of But then we got the senior communities, right? at the Priner's Preserve and and the new one there. >> But I don't I mean maybe we have to have rules around it, but I don't foresee seniors wanting to tend to a bunch of birds every morning. >> That 5 acre lot, >> maybe I'm wrong, but >> yeah, that 5 acre lot came into effect in 1979. >> Mhm. >> That's when the city adopted it. But I don't know what it was before that. I mean, I don't know if you could do it on an acre. I I don't know. I mean, I know from door knocking there are some neighborhoods that the sizes are less than an acre. >> Oh, for real? >> Yeah. >> I think Teachers Road >> and and I I don't remember the the avenue, but go up Kettle River and go kind of to the left where um like I can know some of the people that that were there, but I mean there there's there's a whole bunch of of houses right back there. Um actually it's it's close to where um Andrea lives. Msina. >> Oh >> Andrea Msina. >> Oh. Oh that's Yeah. We call that teachers rule. >> Yeah. About 107. That'd be connected almost to your neighborhood there though. All >> under acre lots. >> Yeah. It's like a city urban >> neighborhood. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It butts up to my to my my lot too. >> Um and I've still got the horse barn by the way. So >> the difficult >> I don't have 5 acres. So >> the difficulty for for everyone as a reminder is when you make a change to this ordinance and you start communicating that the ordinance has changed, >> how are you going to determine who was grandfathered in and who was not >> based on the circumstances. So that's that's also a consideration. And we might be sending code enforcement on a wild goose chase, no pun intended, uh because we don't know if they had the horse or the goat prior to we can certainly surmise from historical aerial photos that they did not have >> a herd of goats at the time, but now they do or something. But I mean that that will be a little bit difficult too because it's not retroactive. >> Yeah. A fine example is the pigs over there off 165th and Notre Dame. I don't think anybody knew they were there until they got out. >> Yeah. >> And it's pretty easy to locate where they were going. So, >> and he had a few. >> Huh. >> And he had a few. >> He doesn't have any anymore. And you got to thank Sean for that. >> Negotiated that out. And the the only real avenue to that once you start permitting farm animals is to add smell, noise, whatever to your nuisance ordinance and then you enforce your nuisance ordinance, not the farm animal ordinance. So that is one leverage tool that you might have although that is >> that's not fun to enforce either. So >> and those are usually the complaints. I mean, they're they're in this Verlos Acres example. Um, it's the smell and the flies that's bothersome to some of the residents. >> And that is a fantastic point, Erin. do have nuisance ordinances regarding smell and um I think it it is only uh barking dogs, but we can uh certainly add provisions about um any other sort of animal noises that are happening. And it is a lot easier to go after those specific nuisance complaints than um anything more complicated that's in our zoning code regarding farm animals. That is that is tech what typically triggers uh any sort of enforcement action. >> This is Scott. I'm I'm curious. How do we enforce a a nuisance smell? >> Is that subjective? >> They do make a meter that measures odor and they make them particularly for different uses oriented toward different industries. One of the ones that they use is oriented toward animals, livestock, and feed lots. They're relatively inexpensive and when I looked up the mayor asked me that question earlier. So they're called olifactor meters. >> I think the Met Council has some. I don't know if they have them related to the uh animal smells, but some of the chemical smells you can actually rent them or borrow them from the Met Council. >> So would we write that in the ordinance then? A limit on on the meter >> you would have to probably something like a sound meter. Decimals they probably come up. >> Sure. Yeah. >> Like really terribly stinky or stinky or >> or or hasn't bathed in a week. >> Yeah. >> I think the other, you know, one of the things that um I know when we did our CUP in Madina, we had to have a manure management plan. So, we had to tell them how we were going to deal with that, what we were going to do with it. And and you know what happens with horses if you have a number of them is that you usually have a bobcat or something that sort of scrapes it all into a pile. so it can compost and then you have lots of gardeners who love to get but you have to have a place to put it. >> You have to have a way to contain it so it doesn't run off. Um so in Madina we actually had to have bunkers built that would contain it and that's where the manure went and that's where it would compost. >> Was that a a commercial? Because when we commercially boarded horses we had to have a manure management plan. >> We we were a nonprofit but they treated it like a commercial. >> Yeah. >> Anything commercial. you have to deal with the Minnesota Department of Animal Health. That's one of the things that they require. >> But I think if you're in a sensitive area like where there are a lot of wetlands and stuff, that might be one way to address it that you get some agreement up front about how that's going to be handled, especially if there's going to be more than a couple of animals. >> Okay. But isn't that the again getting back to the animal that's the purpose of the animal units and that's determining the safe amount of manure. That's >> I I just I think it just I think the animal units is it's so dependent on where you are. So if you're like where you are where it's high land, you got space around you, you're not going to have the problem that you would in a place like my place. >> Correct. Um, and so I think, you know, even though I have the I have more acreage than you do, I I would create a lot of problems if I had, you know, large animals on my spot. >> But if we limit that acreage to high ground, still worried about the waste, the manure then. >> Well, I I think I don't know. I mean, define high ground. I mean, I I mow it. I But it's not like if horses were back there, it'd be a mud pit. >> Okay. Um, and I think that, you know, I have a storm water pond in the back of my property. I have a storm water pond on the side of my property. The pasture that's across the street, there's a culvert that runs out of the street. Sometimes when they had horses and there was really big downfalls, I'd have their horse turds in my front yard because it would run through the culvert into my yard. >> So, this is this is Jenny. One last point or I guess note going back to one of my original questions and statements really related to I know that we need these changes. I I know that this is important but ultimately people move to Columbus to have their space and to have a lot of these things. So I think we need to be really delicate about how we handle this. Um especially because I think you know for our residents you know I guess I can ask Elanor how how frequent even within a year do we have animal like noise complaints or any kind of complaints. >> Um surprising I do not feel all of the animal complaints anymore. They usually go directly to Shawn at this point. Um so I can definitely check in with him about an exact number because I have not heard any in in quite a while. Um, I think it is kind of understood in this neighborhood, in this area that your neighbors might have some animals. Um, that's why people are here. Uh, we don't want to restrict it to the point where people are not allowed to have animals as long as it is safe for their neighbors, um, safe for the animal, and uh, easily communicated to the residents is kind of the goals here. So, I think going back to I mean Susan's point in in trying to kind of come up with the permitting process because we are so rural, I think it's going to be complicated to determine who fell before this and who falls after it and what does that look like and how do we enforce because I think for Shawn that will be a nightmare. >> Okay. >> And and so I think it's just something to think about because >> I could drive down Broadway and half the people could have horses and I wouldn't know because they're in the back. And so really it's it's thinking about what this looks like for us. I I definitely agree with simplifying language and and making some of these changes to make it so our residents understand. Okay. Um especially with the um with having that um fenced in area be what that is and not their total acreage. Yes. Most residents from my understanding and talking to residents, three of them uh two of them thought that however many acres they had, they could have that many horses. Um but all of their horses were in one acre. So I mean so for what that and again they had they don't have as many now and and that's fine but for what it is you the complexities of this I think really clarifying and making it simpler for people should be a major goal and not making it more challenging for Shawn and us to try to manage and frustrating our residents. >> I Yes. So if we were to institute a a permit process that would create some enforcement issues. However, if we're going to make the code any more complicated than it already is, I don't see that being possible without having some sort of enforcement permit option. Um, so yes, >> and I think this is Susan. I think as far as the noise, the smell, um, those are very subjective. And I think I've seen a key word in some ordinances and the one that I actually enforce as well is it's a public nuisance. It's not just John Doe doesn't like his neighbor, so he's going to call every day and file complaints. It has to typically be two or more people. Um, that's kind of how I feel about that as far as enforcing it, so you don't get kind of those get involved in those neighborly disputes and hopefully there's not a lot of that, but it could happen. Um, but yeah, I definitely do agree with um it would be hard to see like Jenny pointed out, you know, who is grandfathered and who isn't. Um but definitely I think simplifying and I think setbacks too as far as might kind of help alleviate some of the the smaller or more kind of irregular shaped um parcels they maybe you know x amount of feet from again like the leaning to the the barn area to the neighbor's home not the property line but actually to their home can kind of help I think um kind of regulate without um telling people that you know you can't have this and you can't have that with having some sort of regulation and kind of um an outline I think to go by for the residents so they can understand it as well and and and I can understand it too when I go ahead and look at it. So >> Mhm. >> Yeah. Okay. Um you touched on setbacks from uh neighboring homes adding that to so focusing on the habitable acres um and where those can be um located at where that pasture is making it extremely clear that that's the area that we're talking about. We're not talking about your lot. we're talking about your pasture. Um clarifying the location of those habitable acres. Um and simplifying some of the the animal units is okay. Yes. Sorry, speaking out loud. >> So is the purpose of the setbacks from uh neighboring residents more odor related? What what is the purpose? >> Yes. So um my interpretation of that code is there is a setback for the animal structure itself which has to be 100 ft from a neighboring residence and 75 ft from um any lot lines but we do not have any setbacks for the the fenced in habitable acres. So you can have for instance you want to fit as many llamas in your backyard as possible. you're going to fence right up to your property lines. Um, which could have some problems for your neighboring resident for for nuisance reasons. >> So, I I just so I understand this, the setbacks for for the structures is because that's where your waste is most likely to gather and produce the mo biggest odors, right? That that would be the purpose of having that setback. Um, but if we're having an the older part of this be in a separate nuisance, [Music] do we really need to have setbacks? I >> for the structures, >> it would be easier to prevent complaints by having some sort of setbacks for those structures than trying to follow up on every complaint um of odor and then trying to mitigate that by asking them to move the structure further away from their property lines. That's at least my interpretation of that. I'm I'm also not interested in the neighbor's horse eating my prize lilock bush >> that they can reach right over the fence or my tomatoes or whatever prize uh pumpkin I'm growing for the state fair. >> But a structure setback isn't going to affect that. That would be a the fencing setback. Correct. Yeah. Yes. Well, >> I'm But the I'm talking about the structure setback >> and why we have it. Why is it there? I think um it was >> Sorry. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I'm going to guess that the base of the ordinance was taken from what someone else did >> and kind of modified to fit Columbus uh boilerplate, so to speak. And so just because someone else had that, that sounded good. >> I I'm just making the assumption that it was the order. >> That could be. And I'm sure that's before any technology could detect odor >> or measure it. Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> Ellen, I have a question. So, one of the complaints that um we have heard out of the Verloacre example is the fence being in the rightway. So what's the I mean that's different than a setback unless you have you have uh language specifically but you know especially if you've got acorage that's you know close to a road and you want to maximize the amount of space you've got for your animals they didn't realize that they were building their fence in the right way. >> Yes. Um so we do not allow people to to build fences in the right of way. I'm sure um that is why we we highly recommend getting a survey done or and making sure that you know where your property line is before you build a fence there. Um a lot of people don't I guess understand that where where their property line starts uh when it comes to the right of way. But that is already a part of our code. That would be one of the benefits of having the site plan review in the administrative permit would be that we could tell them that their proposed fence is in the right way and it and it cannot be there and then have to make adjustments. >> Yeah. With with the proposed administrative review uh that we were talking about earlier with that permit process, we can actually inform people of where they can put all of these things. >> Which brings up another question. And how about utility easements? Is that part of a habitable acre? >> Um are typical drainage and utility easements across >> power power lines? There's lots. >> They can be under power lines. >> They can be under power lines. >> Okay. >> And over um pipelines. Big issue on right away from their part would be that they don't build it on city right away, especially those that are road streets. >> They're going to be mad when we come in and reconstruct the road and take their fence down, but we're not obligated to put it back up, but they're going to be >> I asked because I had to get a permission from a utility company to put my fence under a power line. Yeah. Mhm. >> So any restrictions on that would be taken up with the the owner of that easement, the power >> Mhm. >> company or um the pipeline company um to see what their provisions would be. We wouldn't restrict that specifically. I know one of the other things that came up a few years back was a a resident who wanted to have cattle and he wanted to have bowls. I don't know how you feel about bowls, but I'm thinking that's probably not a great idea. Steers are different. Heers are different. I'm not so sure about a 2,000 lb bull. >> But but to your point, the other thing is buffalo >> or those. Yep. I mean I I So I mean there Yeah. Just >> there's a lot to think about. >> Yes. It's very poss it's very easy to start. >> So So to your point, one of my neighbors had buffalo. >> Nobody would know. They they aren't there now. They're both passed away at this point, but I grew up with buffalo in my neighbor's yard. True true story. I mean, so and again, I had to walk back an acre and it's all wooded. And I mean, for what that is, to my point originally, people are going to do what they're going to do. And I and not to say that that's okay, but because Columbus has so much dense forest and and woods and all these other things, it's it's just going to be challenging either way, I think, just in terms of an enforcement perspective. So, and buffalo are not, >> but you could define you could define hoofed animals to include or exclude uh certain animals. Like you don't have to include bison or buffalo >> as a as a hoofed animal that could be excluded. Then therefore, it's not permitted >> by just making that no different. I mean, there's a cow, there's a horse, we don't have buffalo in there. That means it's not allowed. >> Yes. >> What about ostriches? Mr. Mayor, you can do what you want. I just heard a number of Leighton say that people are going to do what they're going to do. >> Do what they're going to do. >> They're pretty tough animals, too. I know my cousin had about a dozen of them. They'll beat you to death if you don't. >> Yeah. >> Normally, you exclude exotic animals and those could fall under that cate. >> Remember when they were uh meat animals? >> Yep. >> People were raising them from meat. Yep. >> You could >> you could though have those that are not defined fall into the interim use permit category >> and they could come in and justify why they're they should be allowed to have two emu running around their property or ostrich. That is another option. Um the other the other consideration could be that if um city staff deny the permit uh the review process could be left up to the city administrator or it could come back to the committee for a second look if they wanted to appeal that decision. So there there is that potential avenue too and I know Jack wants to be the animal wrangler and the decision maker. So, >> well, I think since the mayor is the official weed inspector, he >> don't see any weeds. >> You can be as creative or as black and white as you want to with this. It's it's your code. So, >> I do agree with what Jenny said, though. There's a lot of people that have a lot of animals around here and they're bothering nobody and even just bringing this topic up >> will strike fear in their hearts. So I think it has to be done really carefully and sensitively. So >> So to that point, this is Rob. Do we need to have I mean do we need to send notice out to that? I mean this is out there, right? But people aren't looking for it. Do we need to put it out on the billboard like, hey, we're having another meeting about or a public hearing about this. Come tell us your feedback. >> To do to do an ordinance change, you'd have to do a public, >> right? But >> and certainly I guess from from the point that you were making if you want to have more community feedback for this particular ordinance because you um for whatever reason we can make initiatives to to do that other than our typical calling a public hearing um for an ordinance is publishing it in the newspaper and putting it on the website. We can reach out to more residents via social media or billboard or make it more apparent on the website if we want to p pursue more community input for this >> then it's more like we put it out there we ask for your involvement so when you come to us that you're mad about it you didn't show up to the meeting and share your opinion I mean just giving every option to share the opinion right >> and and if we want more guidance surveys are available ailable. We can we can definitely try to reach out to as many community members as we we want if we want a little more guidance on how our community feels about it. >> Okay. >> This is Jenny Erin. You put out a survey for the tennis courts. Do you know how many total people responded to that? >> 80. Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, I can certainly look it. It had a good response. >> So, >> it did. >> Okay. That might be it. >> And we can um advertise, promote on social media. We can send it out via Next Door. We can send it out through our list serve to try and garner as much feedback as we can. >> Can we send that survey out and somehow track if it's Columbus residents responding to this one? I know >> IP address only. And then so >> I can that IP address list into >> Google and find out where those IPs are assigned to. That's about as specific as I can get. >> We'll also have a newsletter coming out here in about another month and that is the one thing goes specifically to every addressing. >> Okay. The concern I have about the electronic survey is is if I want to it to go a certain way, I'm going to call my brother in Pittsburgh and I'm going to call my mom in Minneapolis and I'm going to have them take the survey, too. >> That that would be my concern. We can also write in a question and they don't we can make it a required answer that they are or are not a Columbus resident when they respond. Now, they don't have to be honest, right? So, that there's a little bit of difficulty there, but we could we could try that as well >> or a question that maybe most Columbus residents should know, maybe a landmark or some, you know, something that most residents would know. >> Once this gets out, I'm sure a public hearing will be well attended. >> Yes. anyone >> whether we put it on social media or not there will be people here um >> and I don't and we welcome it right >> yeah I think for this >> absolutely I think it's a I think it's an excellent idea to have more input >> because I'm looking at this going well we can upset a lot of people >> while making a few people happy >> yeah so so the goal is again to to make it reasonable fair understandable and enforceable Because right now, our current code is is hard for residents to understand. And I think that that should be a priority is letting letting our residents know what the code is. >> Yes. >> Did you know Howard Lake, they used to have a residence with a mountain line? >> I was not aware. >> Yes. >> Lived there a long time, too. It was well before my time, but >> Oh, okay. >> So, no, >> I was aware of the Black Panther that was loose around there, but >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. Well, I >> Hey, public input. That seems to be the general >> general feedback. I got >> We want more input. Yeah, I got some uh understanding of where everyone stands on this from a from a council and a planning commission point of view and understanding that we're going to need more community input um and put together at least some draft ideas of habitable acres and um a more clearly defined at least reorganizing what we exist have existing to to be understandable to people is at least a place to start. Okay. Uh, can we wrap that part up >> if everyone has anything else they'd like to discuss with the >> farm animal ordinance? >> Okay, then we'll move on. Uh, planning commissioners report. I wanted to let people know who didn't know that Jack and uh Eleanor and myself and I can never remember your name. >> Jenny. Jenny. >> Jenny. Jeez. And Jenny were at a uh meeting with the La Mer family on Friday. It was a very productive meeting. We are doing everything we can to help them as much as we can. We have, I believe, a possible working solution that will not require a variance, which I'm sorry, I couldn't vote for a variance if I wanted to. Um, but anyway, uh, it was very positive. I I think we all walked out of there going, you know, we might be able to do this. Um, so I just wanted to mention that that, >> you know, it's a real positive >> positive meeting, I think. And secondly, I wanted to I I'm remissed last week to welcome Susan back. We're glad to have you back and in good health with us again. >> Thank you. >> Any other commissioner members have anything they'd like to bring up at this point? >> No. >> Okay, then we'll go for the city council's report. >> Anybody? Nope. We should go down the line. Rob, you got anything? >> No, mayor. Um I don't but I'm curious if anybody wants to do a quick overview of the um open house last week for PTOIC. I wasn't there. So curious how that went. >> Well Jenny were there. >> Ron and I can tell you how that went. >> Oh Jack was there. >> Jack Jack could also heard about it. >> You missed it. Jerry OJ will be here at our work meeting on October 7th. But I mean for the for for the planning commissioners, I mean obviously you have an interest in this too. So >> Okay. So this is Jenny. Um Ron and I attended um I so there were a lot of residents there. There was a lot of feedback from the community, a lot of frustration because now um what seemed to be starting as um these are the conditions we're wanting to meet for anybody that signed the original petition. And if anyone's aware or not aware, there was a petition that I think 70% of the residents um on a near PTOIC signed um requesting a myriad of things. Um and so what started was maybe a focus on that to reduce that then kind of snowballed into other things where residents then all of a sudden had other concerns and like um reducing axle um tonnage or uh weight restrictions for trucks on PTOAC all of a sudden snowballed into bigger things. And so then you had people that wanted it and didn't. And so it um what started as good intentions grew into major frustration. Um and so I think would you agree with that, Mr. Mayor? >> I agree 100%. In fact, I think when we walked up I you didn't come to the beginning either and I didn't. >> We we both came Yeah. just about after halfway through. >> Right. So I think Jack, you've seen Oh, no. You were with me, Jack. It's right at the fireball. Fire hall. But >> yeah, I think Jenny made it uh clear that uh there was a lot of frustration there. In fact, I think JW said, "Don't go in there." >> Yeah. So, the the one thing the county noted was that they potentially will just do a mill and overlay and not move forward with the project at all. um because there is some legal concern from the county attorney at this point who has reached out to other county attorneys and uh basically don't want to move forward with the project because of this. And so now we're in a place where you have very frustrated residents who walk on the road, live on the road, want the project done and others who do not. And it's gotten um worse. So uh Jerry's going to present next week um at our um workshop on Tuesday. So um there are residents that are planning to come. So if any of you would like to join that would be exciting for you. >> So to Jenny's time there >> Jenny's point I got quite a bit of feedback at Fall Fest like what's going on with PTOAC. Were we able to stop that project? Is it going to happen at all? Like there's there's residents that live on that road that don't even want it fixed. They said if it's the way it is right now then people won't travel down it and that'll slow up traffic. So there's thoughts of that as well. So, >> well, they threw one out there, too. But I One was uh we can give it back to the city. We can give the road back to the city. >> Yeah, let's take on a road that's disintegrating. >> I'd like I'd like to vote for that. >> Built on trees. >> Well, we could get more signs that say rough road. >> Put more. >> Well, I I I would say city won't do that. That's a county road. county could put more signs on and save it. >> That was just kind of a a pun or a joke. >> Well, it's not so far-fetched, though. >> Yeah, it's >> Is that it, Janet? >> Anybody else? Uh, city council? >> No, I have nothing. Thank you, Mayor. >> Uh, nope. Just uh Robin and I on Friday and we'll see how that goes. We'll update all of you. Um or hopefully the family can as well if anything happens with it. And that's it. >> All right. and assistant planners report. >> Um, I don't have much to report at this time. I did want to let everyone know here that our hidden park um comprehensive plan amendment was approved by the Met Council recently and will be on next week's city council agenda for final adoption um and publication for for that particular zoning change. So, that one came back from the Met Council. Um, all good to go on that one. Excellent. And the last thing on there, somebody want to take control of that one. Ajournment. Take a motion to >> Hi, this is Kim. I make a motion to adjurnn. >> Susan second. >> Take a vote. >> Hi Kim. >> Susan I. >> Robin I. >> Mike I. >> Indy I. >> We are adjourned at we're kind of controlled by >> 7:31. [Music]