[Music] Call to order the planning commission for the city of Columbus 6 p.m. Let's pledge of 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, moving on to item number three and that's uh looking for approval of our meeting agenda for tonight and the approval of our joint planning commission city council meeting minutes. We do those as one. >> This is Susan. I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> This is Kim. I'll second the motion. Okay, we'll take a vote. >> Kim, I >> Mike I Andy I >> Robin I. >> Okay, next public open forum. There doesn't seem to be anybody here. If there is somebody hiding and I don't see you, you can can come forward. Anybody online, Elanor? >> No, >> we have nobody online. So, we'll just move right on uh to the discussion of the Verizon small cell installation IUP and text amendment for 152010 Street Northeast. Uh if I could have you from Verizon on step up forward here for me, please. >> Okay. Yes. That's before we have reviewed your uh application and uh just for the record, could you give us a just a brief uh description of what you'll be what you're looking for? >> Yeah, absolutely. So, this is um what we're proposing is a small cell deployment. What we're looking at is to replace um initially one um white pole there in the parking lot of running aces with one that's just a little more um structurally suitable. ble to handle some small cellular antennas um on that pool. Um we plan to have a follow-up pole um replacement in that same exact parking lot next spring as well. And really this is just driven by the network demand and coverage from the amount of crowds that running aces um brings in every year and just the events that they hold in their parking lot with their um you know the fall fest they just recently had things of that nature. So it's just uh it's important to be able to have that coverage when you have that uh high density of individuals to be able to ensure you know both uh function and use from you know being able to make phone calls and texts and that sort of thing but also from an emergency response perspective to make sure the network is capable of handling that traffic if you know god forbid there's ever the need um for those emergency calls to go through. >> Thank you. Um, for the record, did you receive a copy of the staff report developed by Elellanar Han dated October 15th? This report has findings number 1 through 12 on pages 9 through 10 and conditionings number 1 through 11. >> Yes. >> And you received then do you have any questions or comments at this time about that? >> I do not. >> Okay. At this point, they'd like to open to the commissioners if you have any questions, comments. >> I have nothing. I have nothing. I have nothing. >> I have nothing. >> Well, it looks like this was pretty easy. >> If I may, chair for >> I have one question and it and it really doesn't pertain I don't know how it pertains, but what about like somebody like T-Mobile or something like that? Does does this take pressure off of everybody or just off of you guys? >> It doesn't. It's just off of Verizon. So, the antennas are specifically Verizon network antennas. So, it's only going to offload for Verizon's network. Um, I I know other carriers do similar deployments. I don't know if they have plans um in the future for this particular um parcel, but in in this scenario with this type of deployment, it's very unique and specific just to Verizon Wireless. >> Okay. Okay. >> Anybody else? >> No, sure. If I may, chair, I did want to address just for the record that there was uh one additional change in the reports since the public hearing two weeks ago. Um and that was to uh ensure um running aces and Verizon did mention that they were going to possibly have a second um antenna installed on the property next year um depending on but the exact location of that antenna is not quite determined yet or the the timeline. So, I wanted to include a provision in this permit um to cover them on that one so they would not have to come back here next year and do the entire process over again >> um for the same project. Um >> and so I guess another question for you is there a plan to do a third one in the future? >> There's not at this time not a third one, just a second one. It would be identical in design, the same type of a pole replacement. We just don't know exactly which pole in the parking lot um we're going to replace just due to there's some redevelopment plans that may be coming down um the pipeline with running aces that would affect exactly where we'd want to place that to make sure it optimizes um you know the current need and then to futureproof it to to limit the number of total small cells we have on site. So that the plans right now in the foreseeable future is just the one we have proposed now for this fall and then one additional one um that we would be installing next spring. >> Okay. And so the uh language in this IUP does permit uh city staff to approve that second one, the location and installation of that second one administratively. um as long as it's consistent with um what is being approved here tonight so they don't have to come back to to more meetings next year. >> Yes, I like that. >> But I did want to address that for the record. >> Okay. Anybody else? Anything else? the uh so we're looking for a motion to approve or deny the Verizon small cell installation IUP and text amendment to the city council with changes discussed. >> Uh this is Susan. I'll make a motion to recommend approval of the Verizon small cell installation IUP and text amendment to the city council with the changes that were discussed. >> This is Kim. I'll second the motion. >> We'll take a vote. >> Kim I. >> Susan I. >> Mike I. Andy I. Robin I. All right. Thank you very much, sir. You are all set. >> Thank you. Okay. And we are going to discuss discuss fence regulations again because I know we all loved it so much the last time. >> Back for more. >> All right. Yeah, apparently there was some drinking going on before the meeting today. >> Okay, so uh I trust everybody has read and seen what the uh regulation changes are or proposed to be. Um does anybody have any questions or commentary on those changes? >> I actually did have a question. I went into our code and it's been a long day so I necessarily maybe I couldn't find it. Um but I did see that we do a zoning there's a zoning like permit. Do is that also then apply to the fences? So typically we we have a general zoning permit in um written up in our code but it isn't assigned specific things. Um so we always have the option to um include fencing into a zoning permit. um but we have not been been doing that as a as a part of our provisions. So that is actually something that um can be brought up if we the proposed ordinance as it's in in front of you now would be um acceptable if we don't want to pursue doing any sort of permitting for fences um as we have been doing. A lot of our residents aren't going to come forward and start getting permits for putting up a fence in their backyard. It's just it's not going to be something that uh everyone does. We can definitely encourage it and start requiring it for fences if we want to have stricter regulations. So, this is um regulations that are that are understandable to be done without a permit. If we want to have them stricter, >> you're going to have to start having those zoning permits. >> Got it. Yeah, because I didn't see it specific. So, I kind of thought maybe and yeah, I can imagine that the majority are not going to call or to see if they need a permit or come in to get a permit. So, um that was kind of my question. And I guess if somebody does call and they say, "Hey, do I need a permit?" Is that answer then typically yes? And then you would do the zoning permit at that time or do you just say it's not required? >> Um we typically have them do up a simple site plan uh sort of zoning permit. Um it's not included in um our it it's not currently implemented fully if that makes sense. >> It does. Yep. >> Is that one done just to make sure they meet setback requirements? >> Um because we have no regulations on fences. Um there's not really much zoning permitting to do. >> Makes sense. >> Um requiring a zoning permit for what we currently have on the books is a little bit like are you building a fence on your property? >> Great. >> That would be great. Yeah, that's the only thing we'd be checking for, right? Makes sense. Yeah. The the one thing I saw in here that um I was a little confused by and that was what the hell was I reading? I didn't I don't have my notes. Darn. Never mind. Um I guess to go over some of the changes that we discussed um specifically we talked about um setbacks from um in the Lake Overlay district. I think a common and easy way to to state that in code is um repairarian lots, which are any lots that have um direct access to to a river or a lake or some sort of body of water. That those um setbacks must be met for fences so that the fences can't go straight down to the water line and it can't restrict viewing of the um lake shore for other residents. Um and that would apply to to any lakefront property, but that is what is commonly used for that kind of restriction. Um so that was added um specifically stating that fences cannot restrict drainage um if there is drainage issues on a particular property. You typically would have them raise the the fence up a few inches off the ground um to allow flow of water underneath. um allowing an exception for public parks, schools, or other educational facilities to have taller fences for say our new um tennis court or any sort of um playground equipment can have taller fences. That's a pretty common uh situation. And then um masonry stone or concrete walls which are technically fall under our fence category um having tighter height restrictions and um setback restrictions. Um those are not especially common but we do technically allow them and should have some more restrictions on them. Um so that's what you are seeing in in these. We also talked about um materials to be used last time and being a little bit more specific on that. Adding restrictions that um the fences cannot be made of corrugated metal, sheet plastic, plywood, pallets or makeshift fencing would not be allowed. Um allowing them to fall into disrepair to the point of being a nuisance to neighbors would not be allowed. Having that clearly spelled out and having a piece of code to go back to if there is issues with that is very helpful for enforcement reasons. Um but other than that it is it is pretty pretty standard to what we currently do. >> Do we require people to give some sort of a plan of their fence to us if the city? >> Um design standard wise. >> Yes. Well, not necessarily design standard, but how are we going to make sure that people, you know, we have nothing in here that says, "Hey, you can't build on somebody else's land or, you know, we're basically saying if you think this is where the property line is, this is where you can build your fence." >> I mean, >> which isn't a really great idea. >> All right. Um, so that was one of the things that I wanted to bring up is if we wanted to institute those zoning permits, we can definitely add that, but that's the only way that we're going to be able to require them to submit a plan or submit some sort of um evidence of what they're building the materials out of. Currently, we have this um the code set up essentially as guidance for anybody who's going to build a fence and something for us to point back on if there are issues um that the city can step in and be like, "Nope, this is this is the these are the rules. You did not follow the rules." >> And we can do something after the fact. If we want to uh require permits and require them to submit that information, we can. Um, and that's a policy decision that is really up to to you guys. You can be as reactive or proactive as you want in this situation. >> One of the things that I'd like to recommend too is especially where fences are made out of materials that are more solid like wooden slat fences that there be a minimum height they're set off the ground. Columbus is so flat has drainage issues anyway. A chain link fence you probably wouldn't want to do it. Mhm. >> For a couple of reasons. Number one, you've got some chances of drainage anyway, but you could have a small animal that could get trapped under there. But if you have a wooden fence, maybe they should be there should be a standard so it doesn't block drainage and back water up in somebody else's yard. >> I've never had a fence, so I don't even know what a reasonable distance underneath would be. >> Normally, it's 4 in. >> 4 in. >> Okay, that's Yeah, that's not bad. >> And and eventually over time, those will kind of fill in a little bit more, too. So, that does give you an option, but those can be obstructions to drainage. And what Robin was saying too is I've seen places where they ask you don't have to get a permit, but you're requested to submit a site plan so staff can look at it to make sure that it's on your property lines if there's a certified survey available so that you're not so if it looks like you're building it on somebody else or in a drainage easement that you can be advised of it. So you may not have to come back and take it out later. >> And that's basically what I was thinking of is I would like people to turn in a little something. You know, here a piece of paper >> shows the outline shows where I'm putting it. >> That's all I'm thinking of. I I don't want some big ordinance or anything like that. I I don't want that. I just want us to be able to see something before they start putting it in. >> And I completely understand that. That is typically my process. If somebody comes in and says, "I would like to build a fence." I I walk them through um what their property looks like and what they can what they can do and what they can't do and what I we advise um I tell them that we advise you to set it back 2 feet from your property line and to leave a gap underneath, but we don't have anything written in ordinance regarding that. I like that that was added in especially um be because then you can get into that dispute and I think when you're going two three feet back even there if their site plan is the GIS printed out I mean that GIS is very very close so if it's you know within two three feet that's probably going to be covered. Yeah. Um, and I think, yeah, I think having that and I think having something then like in their property file or something that kind of shows that what they submitted and if they haven't then executed that, it becomes an enforcement issue. But then also the city isn't held liable for quote unquote approving something that they already have and that keeps the city out of any potential liability should the property neighbors get into some civil dispute. That's your guys's issue. It's your property. the city has looked at it and at the time, you know, it was approved via what we had in ordinances. So, I think yeah, I think having a site plan and maybe like an approved stamp or something, I don't know, but taking a look at it for sure, I think is a great idea. >> Um because that's another thing that I I wanted to discuss. So, if we were going to have and correct me if I'm I'm wrong, um those we don't have a lot of many of our properties do not have certified surveys on file and would require them to go out and get a new one for every for the fences if they want to get that close to the property line, which they should do. Um, do we want to have a a formal system put in place in this ordinance and setbacks to enforce to and require them to submit those things prior to putting in a fence? >> I personally think so. I don't know if I would go as far as a survey because a survey is going to be pretty expensive for a fence. If I was a homeowner, I'd be like, "Well, then I don't want the fence." Well, I guess maybe I Well, I still would want the fence if I wanted it, but um I think that would really I mean, even requiring a survey sometimes for to build something because it's less than amount of acreage, you kind of get a lot of push back. So, I think the fence would maybe create a lot of push back. >> But I think a site plan and I think having I think having something written into the ordinance that, you know, dot dot dot, this is what you need to do. I think just those simple steps, I mean, if they want to do it, they should be able to just submit what they're thinking and, you know, have staff take a look at it and advise. >> Okay. >> Sometimes a survey can actually cost more than the fence. It >> sure can. I think that's why I don't want to require a survey. >> I think if you just have a statement that's signed by the person that's coming in say, I have verified that the location of this fence is solely contained on my property. >> Absolutely. >> And that takes the pressure off us or the liability off us. Absolutely. >> And doesn't have to go, it's all on them to make sure it's there. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> And they can then quabble amongst themselves should that ever occur and come into the office and want to talk to >> because then if two neighbors are if you certify that you put it on your property and then I take the time to get a survey >> to find out now all of a sudden it's not >> that's on you. Yeah. >> Right. And that keeps us >> and then it becomes a civil matter out of it and >> I like that. I like that a lot. >> Yeah, absolutely. Okay, it's a good idea. >> I have a question. Is chain link fence considered uh a uh approved finish appearance >> typically? >> I didn't see that on here. So, I was just questioning and if they put up those pl the plastic cloth all the way across it. >> Um, according to our current fencing ordinance, it would be allowed. We have allowed it in our industrial corridors and in people's yards. >> Okay. Because I I didn't see it as like a finished material. >> As a finished material. >> Uh yes, I there is technically I guess a finished side to a chain link fence a little bit >> where the cuz the poles are on your side. >> Yeah. Where goes past and doesn't come over. Yeah. >> Yeah. I would the finished side of chain link fed. I just I just didn't know if people would be like, "Well, where's the chain link fence on on the list >> on the list of Yes. Because currently all we have is the the problem um right fences that we've had in the past banned and leaving it at that. Um but it can be called out. >> Okay, >> that's a very good point because those are very common." >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Absolutely. >> To approved. Okay. So I am hearing definitely go with the the simple zoning permit. Uh do not require a certificate survey but requiring some sort of statement that it is entirely on their property. Um for did we want to currently we have allowing boundary fences? As staff members we'll always recommend not to do boundary fences but we do technically allow them. Do we want to remove that allowance and say you must set it back two feet? >> My personal thought is no. >> Okay. >> I'm in agreement cuz if I put up a fence on right stay off my lawn, >> right? And I want to protect that by putting the fence up on my property. >> The reason for the setback is so you can maintain it. >> Yeah. >> On the other side. But I don't think that's required. It's recommended that you do that, but it's not required. >> Yeah. Right. >> That sounds good. >> Yes. All right. Also with the narrow lots by where we live, it's really tough to put that restrict two feet away from the property. Be right next to your house. >> Yes. In some in some areas it would be. Um and so I think I agree with that. Um question I guess uh for you as well. Um are we allowed to call a public hearing with these changes in the in the next version or can do we have to have another discussion? No, we as long as we put them in the next version for the public hearing to be brought up and discussed again. So, we've met the requirement. >> Perfect. And I I'm hearing all of that. Um, what we do need to do to keep moving forward with this ordinance is have a public hearing regarding these changes. I think we all have a pretty solid idea of what we want now after >> absolutely >> talking about it. >> Um, thank you all for for participating and let me um letting me know >> what what we want to have. Um, so we would be calling a public hearing for the for the next version with those changes as discussed um and going from there is is my recommendation. But >> uh this is Susan. I'll make a motion to call for a public hearing for ordinance 25-03, fence regulations. >> This is Kim. I'll second the motion. >> We'll take a vote. >> Kim I. >> Susan I. >> Mike I. >> Andy I. >> Robin I. There you have that. Anything else on that subject while we're still on it? Nope. Good. Thank you. Excellent. Uh, planning commissioners report item number seven. I personally don't have anything. How about any of you guys? >> I have nothing. >> Nothing. Nothing. >> Nothing. >> All right. Thank you very much. Eleanor. >> Um, I I also have nothing tonight. >> Thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you, Eleanor. And then >> this is Kim. I make a motion to adjourn. Susan, second. >> Take a vote. >> Kim, I Susan I. >> Mike I. Andy I. Robin. I we are a journey. [Music]