follow of the Columbus Planning Commission 6 6:00. We'll all do the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Number three on the three and four, we'll do them together. The approval of the agenda tonight and approval of the meeting minutes from April 1st, 2026. >> This is Kim. I'd like to make a motion to approve the agenda and also the meeting minutes of April 1st, 2026. >> This is Mike. Second. >> Take a vote. >> Gary, I am I. >> Mike I. >> Andy I. >> Robin I. Okay, that takes care of that part. Uh, at this point, I'm going to open the floor to the public. If anybody would like to come up and speak on any subject at this time, you are free to do so. Anybody online? Okay, we'll move on. Uh our next agenda number six is the concept presentation for and I butchered the name so I won't say it or the trucking concept. >> What is it? >> Jessic. >> Jessic. >> Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. The city has uh been approached by Woods Engineering on behalf of Jessic Trucking with a preliminary concept plan for the development of a truck company commercial office retail parts counter truck repair and maintenance facility on an approximate 20 acre parcel located along Hornsby Street Northeast. In uh I lost my spot here. In addition, the primary use of the uh concept includes a secondary component consisting of short-term commercial truck parking. The subject parcel is guided and zoned general business. Under the city's zoning code, both a professional office and an indoor vehicle service repair are classified as conditional uses within the district and would require the approval of a conditional use permit prior to development. At this time, there are no formal applications in front of you. Uh the applicant is requesting the opportunity to present their concept plan for preliminary review and discussion. The purpose of this presentation is for them to obtain initial feedback from you, the planning commission, respond to any of your questions, and identify any potential issues or modifications requested prior to submission of their formal applications. Again, there is no formal application uh requ uh nor formal action required tonight by the planning commission. Uh Charlie and representatives from Jess Trucking are here. There is a presentation. So sit back, relax, and formulate some questions and we'll we'll go from there. >> Hi civil engineer for the project. >> Can I interrupt just one second? Are we going to need to get this on the microphone? >> You'll probably have to sit at the table. Charlie, there microphones are Sorry about that. >> Thanks, Scott. >> About that. I know it's much easier to stand sometimes, but thank you. >> Yes, I'm I'm Charlie Melture, the civil engineer for Woods on the project. Um, so as was discussed by Aaron, this is a truck maintenance facility. Within the building, there's when the trucks come in, they're going to be washed, maintained for your general maintenance, parts replacement. uh people that come into the building, there'll be an office uh business area where they can get on their computer and and do what have you. There'll be other offices up above for uh jurisic staff. And there are two phases. Uh the cop is uh we've got to do a full buildout. Uh so we need to show you both of those. Um so we're presenting on the uh second page what you've got there is a COP1 and that's the site plan that shown in green is uh that shown in light green is asphalt. And then we've got CUP2 and that's for the uh future I take that back. It'd be built at the same time, but that's the least trucking area and there'd be uh separate gates where the trucker would come in with their access code and they they do shortterm or long-term parking back in there. the building uh partially screens it, but there also be this dark green line uh I guess with the circles on it is going to be a 8ft high retaining wall and then a 6 ft uh screened chain link fence on top of that. So it'll be a total of uh 14 ft screened. And then the storm water ponding is shown on the very east side. The judicial ditch uh number 15 is shown on the west side. um the grading that we've shown impacts where you've got that double dash line and that's if you if you look at the site plan on the northwest corner it it we'll have to mitigate that portion of the wetland and we've got two two uh maybe three areas that we can mitigate uh in the central very uh right hand corner that's that's the east side north is up on this plan that's an area that we can mitigate uh cons most of that almost all of that area and then on the uh lower left hand side there's a uh large area there that we can also do some mitigation uh There is a flood storage at an elevation of 895.6 and that follows approximately that wetland line that's that's shown on there. So we have to mitigate the flood storage that we're impacting and we would be mitigating at the lower left hand side for flood storage >> and also with that other wetland mitigation is shown on the on the central right side and we're just wrapping up the grading plan. So there's a portion uh pretty much north of the uh COP2 the the tan portion where we can pick up the rest of the uh necessary flood mitigation. Um, so as far as the area to the east of the building, that's the dimensions are are very uh very I would use the word stock for all these trucking facilities. It's 150 ft from the building to those uh uh black lines for the for the uh truck storage on the property. South of the building is uh proof of parking when this twostory first phase is takes place. And the request is to go to a fourtory. I'll get to the photos in a minute. Um, so that that area will be essentially be used for the future um expansion uh for the next uh two stories above the first phase. So the next sheet pretty much shows you what I talked about um with the impacts that uh north on the site plan itself that uh north west corner in tan that's the impacted wetland >> and the mitigation is uh the grade out area on the very east central side and we just graded out some uh just still grading out some on the very southwest side. It's not shown in that hashed gray, but that's going to be expansion of the wetland mitigation as well as the comp compensatory flood uh volume that's being impacted. So, if we go to the next page, phase one. Do you want me to take this? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um I'm Dana Liechuk. I'm the architect for this project. Um what you're seeing this this this next slide. This is the first phase of the project. This is a two-story office space. The total building size is approximately 46,000 square ft with about 6,000 4 to 6,000 ft of office space on the first floor and 4 to 6,000 on the second floor. It varies. Um the first floor, you can see there are semis behind the glass. That was our intent. We're going to park vehicles that are for sale are being rebuilt inside the inside the building on the first floor. Behind that will be retail um parts storage some employee spaces and then on the second floor will be strictly offices on the first phase. Uh the rest of the building you can see the bays um the apparatus bays uh facing both east and west um with doors facing facing both directions. Um, then there'll be there'll be parts storage and other other things like that, paint booths, wash bays, uh, all that that is within that that pre-cast box. The building itself, um, like I just said, it's going to be pre-cast, uh, around the apparatus bay. The offices will be metal panels, steel studs, steel framing, a lot of glass on facing west. And then if we want to go to the next slide. Thank you. Um, future phases, uh, we want to expand that office space, an additional two stories on top of the first phase, two stories. We're still going through some of the design pieces on this, so this isn't exactly how how we want it to be yet. Uh, but then we'll have uh elevators, of course, and and stairs that'll connect um all the floors together. The upper two floors will also be office spaces. That's where they'll expand more of uh more services. Um, and I I can't speak to exactly what they're doing on those floors, but it's just more office space. Um, this there the second phase also, it doesn't include any expansion of the uh of the apparatus bays. Those bays are all going to stay the same. That footprint of the of the main building is going to stay as is. >> And that's all we have for presentation. And do we have any questions from yourself? >> Let let me uh give these guys a little primer so that uh we can get the creative juices flowing. >> Sure. >> So as you guys know that they've uh discussed um two two cups. Uh one is for the the truck uh operation that's happening inside the building. The other CUP is for short-term uh vehicle parking. Uh most likely semi-p parking. Um and so I want to go back to this diagram if you will so that you guys can understand uh from the perspective here that the proposal would be that trucks would come in, enter through a gated uh entrance. Mhm. >> And then utilize the least short-term parking on the back side here for overnights, weekends, uh short terms. So if you think about the potential of getting uh commercial vehicles for instance out of our residential districts which is in our code uh this provides an opportunity for uh those users to use this space and then get a ride to back to our residential area or perhaps park their personal vehicle here while they take their truck. Um we've proposed the idea of a car wash or a truck wash inside here. Now, that is not in a in competition with the existing truck wash that we just opened. Uh, this is going to be for their customers that bring vehicles in that are in need of repair. Uh, they're not going to work on a trailer or truck that's covered in mud or dirt. So, they're going to have to run those through their car wash before they work on them. Um the reason that there's two cups is because uh truck parking, vehicle parking is not uh allowed in the code. Uh there's no specific provisions in our code that allow for short-term parking. So that's a consideration that we'll have to take take into effect here. Um uh I will let um Jess speak about the combination of the two and and what the vision is with uh the short-term parking because I I think uh in my conversations with Charlie that there's the potential that that short-term parking at some point goes away when they expand operation. So keep that in mind that that may be a although it's short-term parking might be might be phased out potentially. um they've provided enough um proof of parking so that the expansion could be utilized under this op of this proposed operation. Uh and as Charlie has um described, technically um they have some wetland work they're going to have to do. Uh and we would certainly not issue any permits to them until we had documentation from Rice Creek uh that the wetland mitigation and those items were um taken care of properly. So you guys focus on the use on the parcel. I'm going to bring up um a couple of images for you to take a look at so you kind of have a picture of where we're talking. Um so this is uh this is the Blaine Brother site on Hornsby. >> Mhm. >> They're looking at this parcel right here. >> Okay. >> Um I don't know if anybody took a look at it, but this is similar to what it looks like today from Google Earth. Um, >> looked like a field to me. >> So, uh, knowing those items, feel free to, um, ask any questions you may have so that, uh, they can have some guidance on on what direction to go. >> Okay. Um, I have a couple of questions here. How tall did you say that fence that, uh, barrier fence was going to be? 16 ft. 8 and 8. An 8ft wall and 8ft fence. >> 8 and six. >> 14 ft. >> How tall is this semi? >> 136. >> 136. So it would go over them. Okay. Um, how soon you think you're looking at adding the like the second two floor, third and fourth floor? Are we looking like way out? >> Five years. >> Five years. Okay. My question maybe more towards Aaron. Um, in our the general business uh conditional uses, um, it it seems our our current language kind of dances around what we're looking at here. Um, indoor vehicle service and repair. um auto shop is kind of my my taking on that. Um and then indoor RV service and repair and then it also mentions an indoor RV and truck wash facility. Does anything need to be done with that? It more specified to commercial vehicles or or trucks or trailers or anything like that? >> Yeah, that's a good question. I um I thought that through uh you know the Blaine Brothers site is the same uh zoned usage um and that was approved under conditional use permit. So I think the spirit of that is is still intact. Um the one that I question is the short-term parking uh and how we would have to uh make an exception for that or you guys could make a recommendation that there be a change and council ultimately would make that decision. But um I I think again your question is on on point there with um it doesn't specifically say in black and white that this is a approved use or a conditional use. But if we look at recent history >> right across the street you can see a very similar activity happening under this under another rooftop. Yeah, I just see RV and I think um much lower use case than a than a commercial trucking going in and out. We did have conversations uh with the public works director uh should this facility be approved where we're going to require a turning lane uh to to allow for traffic flow and make things come a little easier in and out of one driveway. Mhm. >> Uh they're limited on on access obviously because of the wetlands. So we'll make some accommodations there if we need to. >> Uh I have a question based on that. Aaron, um as far as traffic goes, where are they expected to come off like the highway per se at like 97 and Loves and come out >> and come on down? >> That's a tight turn as it is. Um, and how's that going to impact the road that probably isn't upkept as well as some of the other ones we have in town? >> You're talking Hornsby itself or 97? >> Uh, I guess both. I mean, they're redoing pretty much all of 97 now, but Hornsby >> north of there is pretty bad. I'd imagine you start adding some trucks going south, it's probably going to turn into >> kind of the same thing. >> Yeah. Um, I I can I can certainly look into whether that was explored during the Blaine Brothers um uh application. I have to assume that Hornsby was uh made to uh 10 ton minimum specification coming off of Highway 97, which for engineering purposes that seems sufficient, but I understand your concern. Um that's why we when we met with the public works director, we thought about uh the turning lane requirement just because of traffic volume and and allowing our other vehicles to get around >> uh entrance and exit of the of the one driveway. So >> all right, I have another question for you guys. How how what is your timeline? What are you looking at? What do you hope to hope to do? Um, our hope is to be setting pre-cast panels this fall, late fall, uh, September, October. >> Sounds good. >> How much traffic do you anticipate um, for your shop? >> Traffic for the shop, >> trucks, semis, >> six a day, 10 a day, one a day. >> Um, >> I don't know. >> What do you guys think? Maybe f maybe five uh semis an hour or less. Um >> so 40 >> during like an eight hour day or >> during daylight or >> during day during business? Yep. >> Business hours. >> 40 trucks a day. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean understand right they're a truck repair, >> right? Going to come in and then be parked and wait for their turn and then get repaired and then out the door. So, uh, as as the flow goes, certainly, uh, they've described a parts counter, so there might be some traffic from other businesses, including Blade Brothers, maybe to to get some parts that they don't have access to, uh, and vice versa. So, um, it's I mean, it's a commercial operation. >> Sure. >> You know, kind of what we had envisioned for this stretch of the of the, uh, Hornsby and what's what it's zoned for. Um, one more another question. Uh, you guys expected to bring in like a lot of fill to kind of mitigate some lower areas. I mean, obviously pretty pretty low, so I'd imagine you'd be bringing quite a quite a bit of dirt. Yes, >> we do our best to try to balance the site, but with some low spots, we have to there will be some >> You're going to build it way up high like all the new houses have to be built with a 30 foot >> Well, there about the finished floor will be about the highest elevation. Uh it's just if you're looking from Hornby, it's just to the north of that gravel drive that comes in there. There's a high point there. >> You still got that picture from the street? >> That's the finish floor. >> Basically back where that shed's at on the left side is kind of your 90 I think. What is it? 906 Charlie >> uh 9007. >> So that's basically the same height that it's at currently. >> Okay. >> Vicinity. left side. Yes, you will have that. But to Dana, we're going to do our best to balance the site as best as possible. >> All right. >> Yeah. So, dirt out of the ponds um and any mitigation for flood storage, that'll all be used the the good soil will be used. >> Right. and understand right this is going to be under the supervision of the Rice Creek Wershed District and they do a really fantastic job of of managing those permits and so I'm pretty confident that they'll do their job. We'll just check the boxes when when we make sure that they've got the proper permits and that it's been inspected. So, >> um Mr. Chair, may I? >> Yes. Uh, Erin, I and uh I'm sure other council members and the mayor would be able to speak more intelligently on this, but I believe there were previous planning commissions that asked for traffic studies at Hornsby and 97. So, we may have some data on that for the planning commission already. Anybody else have any questions? >> Nope. Nope. >> Good for now. I uh I just also want to point out that this is kind of the extent of our sewer water district. So, we would be adding a fairly high volume customer to our water operation and our sewer operation. So, >> they're proposing a car wash, right? So, there you go. You hear uh instantly hear water. So, it's in terms of an enterprise fund or in terms of the city's ability to continue to provide service, the more customers you can add, right, the the more you can put in the in the machine uh to provide more service. So, >> and I think uh you know, relocating a business from a neighboring community into our community is also uh a win-win. >> That's a win. Yeah, >> that's a win. That's great. That's great. Um, well, nobody else has anything else at this time. Scott, anything more you want to add? >> Nope. Just wanted to offer that up for you. >> Okay. Thank you. So, thank you. Well, gentlemen, uh, I think it's wonderful. Things look great. Um, I look forward to seeing you back looking for your cup and and, uh, you're always welcome to come back if there's something that you need to discuss with us. I don't know what that might be, but but uh uh look forward to seeing you come up for your cup and uh any more plans and sounds like a good idea. >> Thank you. >> Thank you guys. >> You Thank you. >> Thanks. Okay, our next item on our agenda today is the public service facility public utility zoning ordinance. >> Thanks again, uh, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission, give me one second to get, uh, the map to the right location. We're in the same neighborhood, not too far away. All right. Uh, the city has been approached by Kexus Energy, uh, owner of a property located within the commercial light industrial district, just down the road from the one we just talked about. They are anticipating the future construction of a sub electrical substation on this parcel of property that they already own. Um, again, this request uh would be limited to just a legislative amendment that I want to propose to the city code, and I'm just looking for your feedback. Our code does describe uh by definition what a public service facility is which also includes electrical substation. We also have the definition of a public utility which describes the owner of the uh substation if you will or electricity. Um, we have a section in code that talks about public utilities and public service facilities may be allowed by conditional use in several DO zoning districts and must adhere to some standards. And the only uh zoning district I can find in our code that allows for by conditional use a electrical substation is the Lake district. So therefore, the rest of the zoning districts either got missed in the process of amendment uh or were going to be looked at for future uh amendments to the code to make things happen. Um Kexus has identified the future need to expand their electrical infrastructure within our service area and uh to support that continued growth and reliability of our electrical grid. They would like to build a substation on their parcel that they own. Um, an ordinance amendment would provide a regulatory path for such facilities subject to the city's review through our conditional use process. Staff recommends at a minimum amending section 7A753, the commercial light industrial district, uh, under the conditional uses to include electrical substations and associated public utility facilities, including transformers, switching and distribution of electrical energy and accessory equipment. Uh this use would then allow uh would be allowed by conditional use permit allowing for you guys as well as a city council to evaluate site sight specific impacts, performance standards and operational conditions. Uh would be nice if you guys would tonight discuss this potential revision. Give me any feedback and consider any other zoning district you may want to amend to allow for electrical substations to prevent this amendment from having to happen in the future should the grid need to be expanded. However, um I don't know that Kexus owns any other parcels in our city, but that they do own parcels in adjoining cities. So there is some value to just limiting it to the property that they own, but there's also value for someone else beyond me uh and beyond us to have it in the code. So feel free to give me any any feedback if you will. The conditional use permit obviously allows us to name conditions a 6ft fence nonopa or you know nonopaque in nature so we don't have to look at those things. Uh this is right on the corner of a commercial area. This large parcel here is actually owned by the Rice Creek WHED, which is a um wetland bank. So, the potential of it ever being developed is slim to none. Um the only potential would be if Forest Lake were to develop. There might be some residential that has to look at it, but >> it's for problem. >> So, um just looking for any feedback before I bring you guys an ordinance. the amendment or revision for consideration. >> Well, I I can't imagine where they would put another one in our little town. >> So, I did a little I did a little research. Uh this is East Bethl. Um theirs is in a residential zone on the north end of the city. This is um Lynwood. This is on Typo in a residential zone. And then I also looked in Ham Lake and this is on Cross Town and it appears to be in a mixed commercial/industrial district. So I think it's most likely wherever the Nexus or Great River Energy owned land at the time and cities just made accommodations for them. Obviously we need electrical >> distribution. So >> Okay. >> But lower our uh electric >> electric bill. >> Electric bill. >> Yeah. >> Doubtful. Yeah, I think they're looking at the expansion of the commercial industrial district down there and the potential use that's going to start coming as a result of more and more and more uh the expansion of our of our businesses. So, >> yeah. And and if I may again, um chair, Mr. Chair, uh keep in mind this is also the area that is being talked about for the technology corridor uh south of there as well. Okay. I don't see why there would be a problem with there being a substation there. You >> know, I think it would be I mean I I don't know where a near substation is to us. So, so having one near us would be would be beneficial, I believe. >> I certainly like the idea of having it way off tucked in the corner next to Fourth Lake. >> Yeah. Right. That's an excellent place to put it. Okay. Um, well, I will I will prepare a amendment to the commercial light industrial district to include electrical substation as a conditional use. It should be a pretty simple amendment. >> Thank you. >> Okay. 7B. Are we done with that one? 7A. >> We are done with 7A. Want to talk about anything else? >> Okay. driveway access standard performance discussion. >> All right. Thanks again uh Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission, the city is considering a potential amendment to the zoning code to clarify and strengthen the language related to the driveway apron paving and access standards. Staff has identified that the current ordinance language lacks specificity, which may lead to inconsistent interpretation and enforcement. The current city code requires that all driveways connected to the public right ofway by an uh apron constructed in accordance with designing standards. And I included the diagram um in illustration number four uh and illustration number five. Uh these illustrations establish baseline design standards including apron uh geometry, surface expectations uh based on roadway type and general driveway construction standards. However, the reliance on these illustrations that were adopted in 1992 may not fully reflect current engineering practices or expectations for durability and long-term maintenance of our roads. Gravel, rock, and class 5 material carried onto paved road surfaces from driveways have been identified as the cause of hazardous driving conditions by reduced traction, increased stopping distances, and introducing debris that may lead to the loss of vehicle control and and windshield damage. Additionally, staff has identified the need to address drainage and storm water management considerations associated with driveway apron construction. Driveway aprons directly influence uh roadside ditch flow patterns and covert performance, particularly in areas where there's open drainage systems like most of ana county. Poor transitions between aggregate driveways and paved roads can increased sediment transportation, resulting in the deposition of gravel and fines within the road ditches and storm water systems, reducing the conveyance capacity and acceleration of maintenance cycles. As part of the process, part of the proposed amendment, staff is seeking feedback on incorporating standards that ensure proper drainage design, limit sediment migration, and preserve the long-term functionality of public draining infrastructure. The proposed amendment would focus on refining the standards associated with driveway construction and surfacing, particularly as related to the development uh context. This includes establishing clear requirements for driveways within platted subdivisions such as minimum paving distances from the public streets, dimensional standards at the right of way and as well as defining expectations for driveway improvements on non-platted or rural parcels, including improvements through the public right ofway to the property lines. The amendment may also address the allowance for second driveways where appropriate, provided such access points are constructed to current standards at the time of installation. The intent of any amendment would be to improve consistency, ensure durability and functional access and provide clear expectations for future property owners while maintaining flexibility where is appropriate. Uh this item is being presented to the planning commission for initial discussions and policy guidance. And now I'm seeking feedback regarding the overall direction of the amendment, including considerations related to paving requirements, access configurations, and the ability or the applicability across zoning districts. There's no formal action required. However, I would like to incorporate your feedback in a draft ordinance. Yeah, I'm going to speak up on that one, Aaron, as I'm part of a development that I do not have that apron that should have been in paved by the contractor, right? Um, as I don't have that, I just have a gravel road to my driveway. Um, in this amendment, would the would I be responsible to do that? Even though that should have been done by the contractor 5 years ago, like cuz I'm not the only person Yeah. within the development that has the same issue. >> Yeah, that's a great question. So, um >> that's going to be it. >> So, under 10,000 >> Yeah, under this under this uh proposal, anything that was done before the ordinance would be grandfathered in or a nonconformity. Um you could choose to do it if you wanted to. >> Yeah. >> Um but in this case, you wouldn't be obligated to pave your portion of the driveway that was required by ordinance. However, should we should the city come in later on and remove the road and repair the road, uh we would likely then pave the apron to your driveway, uh which would be assessed back to all the property owners all the way down the street. So, those driveways would eventually get caught up uh to match current standards, but we're talking 25 years if the road was just put in. >> Yeah, it was just put in 5 years ago. >> So, this would only apply to anything new construction after the adoption of the ordinance. >> Okay. But if someone would come in in your neighborhood and propose a second driveway, >> yeah, >> they may have to pave that. >> Um, one thing I wanted to bring to your attention before we move too far into the conversation, um, I was part of this ordinance change in another adjacent community, and what we discovered was that, believe it or not, not every road is laid out right down the middle of the rideway. Sometimes it veers one way, sometimes it veers the other way. Uh so as you can imagine if I required uh I'm just trying to find the right street here. If we required uh every resident to pave to the property line from the edge of the already improved road surface. Well I may be paving 75 ft but my neighbor across the street is paving three feet because the road is no longer is no not in the center of the rightway. So there are some considerations that uh may need to be thought about in that um everybody needs to pave a certain distance >> to make sure that we accommodate some of those scenarios. Or you can simplify the language and just go from the edge of the improved surface to the property line which is technically the apron by our diagram but not necessarily described in code. There are a couple really good examples here in the city. Um, but they are on gravel roads uh that are yet to be paved. And I would hope that once we would come in to pave, uh, we would straighten some of these out. But you can see here, um, for instance, this isn't necessarily right down the center of the rideway, >> kind of meanders back and forth. So, this neighbor may have 10 more feet to pay for than this neighbor. uh until those roads either get straightened out or never get straightened out, right? So that was the consideration we came to with a distance because that then it made it equal for nearly everybody instead of uh uh an unequal uh sort of >> Yeah. I would I would agree with that because otherwise, you know, like you say, you might have 75 ft to pave and I'm not sure where my right right of way is in, you know, my property, but >> and granted, right, I want you all to know that if the city were to come in and and pave your road, like it would be done to an engineering standard and we would figure out where all of those lines are before we decided to go ahead with the project. But um really just looking to to see if there's support for this mandatory paving for anyone who, you know, develops uh after the adoption of the ordinance. Eventually, we would hopefully then catch up once everything starts to get paved throughout the city should the city move in that direction and and uh expand to paving everything at some point. Are they actually talking about doing that? >> Well, we get requests um annually from neighborhoods that have gravel that want to know when or how's the city going to pave their road. And so we have an um a um application process where uh the neighbors have to go and get signatures from all the neighbors cuz they'll be assessed for the for the cost of the paving. So most of the neighbors have to agree to let that happen. And typically that ends the conversation. >> Yeah. >> One person wants it done, but the rest of the neighborhood doesn't want it done. That kind of because one person's not going to pay for the whole thing. So >> based on this um um I guess change to the uh to the language. I didn't realize how uh how detrimental the city was to my driveway with all of the uh gravel and runoff that and uh at the end of my driveway because it's I'm constantly shoveling the end of my driveway because of all the sediment from the from the gravel. >> Sure. >> But it's okay. Well, I think uh I think that apron I I do believe we need to have a standard distance without a doubt. I don't know what normal is 10 15 ft. >> So the the the city that I came from it was se we landed on 75 ft. >> 75 ft. Now, if you're thinking uh you know, a more urban neighborhood, 75 ft might be from the edge of the improved surface to the apron of their garage on a short short driveway. >> Absolutely. >> But uh you know, out in the rural zones, I don't know if 75 feet is absolutely necessary, but uh we know that um most road rightways are 66 ft wide. It's a pretty pretty decent standard nowadays, which means from the center line to your side is typically 33 feet. If a road lane is 12 to 14 ft wide plus a shoulder, you only got 10 to 12 ft to pave if you're going to get to the property line. So, that's another consideration is if we just get everyone to the property lines, that helps some. It helps certainly helps with gravel getting into the culverts and and the ditches and stopping up uh water flow. So, >> is the culvert standard in our current language? >> Culvert is standard. Um depending on >> is it up to date and everything? >> Yes. So, our uh when someone would apply for a driveway permit or an access permit, the public works director goes out and makes a determination on whether a culvert and the size of a culvert that's necessary before we issue the driveway permit. >> So, I'm I'm a little confused about this 75 ft thing that you're talking about. Are you are you saying that people would have put an apron 75 ft apron on? >> So they would so they would pave beyond the property line towards their their house up the driveway until they reach 75 ft from the edge of the improved surface towards their home. >> Interesting. My driveway is 400 ft long. So >> yeah. Yeah. And and we're not asking or wanting to have residents pave their entire driveway. We're just hoping to capture that section of the right of way that's we have the responsibility of to to make sure that we're not dragging gravel class 5 or something out onto the roadway, which turns out to be maintenance work for us as well as all those safety concerns that I that I brought to your attention once there's gravel on the roadway. I did provide uh the last page of your packet there is the ordinance from the other city that uh I came from where we made a change. >> Oh yeah. >> Mhm. >> Have you found like a what a minimum is like? So you said 75 ft but would like 12 or 15 ft be >> I guess as the property line. >> I think it would be nice to have a 15 minimum line. Well, well, that that is a that is certainly an also a consideration as as Carrie brings up. I mean, do you want them to pave 10 ft beyond the property line? So, if we have the situation where the road meanders through the ride ofway and someone's paving only 2 ft, we'd get at least 12 out of it. And everybody would do 10 ft beyond the property line. I mean, you can certainly uh in uh enact that standard as well. And again, this is just for anything new beyond the date the ordinance has passed. So, if we have a development proposal come in, it would be up to the developer then to pave every one of those uh prior to closure on the homes. And um it does lead to a few escrow issues uh just like landscaping. You know, if a developer finishes a house in December, they're not making asphalt in December. So um but that's management on the city on the inside that we can handle that we already handle with landscaping. So >> uh Mr. Chair, may I ask a question? Um thank you. Um so here in property lines, uh I believe there are some properties where the property line goes to the middle of the of the road. Uh, I I guess I haven't seen that, Council Member Wendell, here in um Columbus based on county mapping. >> There may be some survey there may be some old surveys out there that still show that someone owns Okay. >> uh to the center line or something of a roadway, but I I haven't seen it yet. >> It it does exist in other jurisdictions. >> Yeah. and and and I want to make sure it doesn't exist here if uh and just be aware of that. Um cuz I agree with you. I think there's been some old zoning maps where that's shown and there are communities where >> is that just an easement that the if that was my property? >> It's actually been surveyed to the center. It's actually been surveyed to the center of the road to so you get your minimum acreage in other cities. >> Oh, okay. So, so they're trying to hop over a different issue by doing that kind of survey. >> Yes. >> Got it. All right. Thank you. >> I never heard of that. >> I've never heard of that either. >> To Aaron's point, when Broads Meander, my parents had to sell a quarter acre to the neighbors at their uh at their place up north because when they went to sell their place, they didn't have legal access to their property because my parents actually owned the 45 ft down the other side of the street. >> Wow. Aron, just take a quick look at Howard Lake Drive. >> Testing my geographic knowledge of the city of Columbus. >> Boy, it would be bad to have to pay for the street. >> That road's all over the place. So, okay. Now granted, right, some of our roads are uh county roads and so county access standards are different than city access standards. However, city can be more restrictive than the county. So we can obligate a resident who lives on a county road to pave the apron above and beyond what the county requires. It does it does create a little dynamic in the office when they're told they have to do that, but um it it has happened. And by dynamic, you mean arguing? Yes. >> I bet. I mean, Howard Lake looks like it's pretty close to right down the middle of this right away. There's some, you know, as I said, granted, if the city was going to come in and pave um Garage Street here, we would hire an engineer to put it right down the middle. We wouldn't follow the current road >> wandering path if we have if we can't, you know. So, but there are even some stretches. I I was looking earlier today, 145th maybe. It's gravel right now, but the road literally bends to go around a wetland, but the rightway doesn't to go around the wetland. So, it's an interesting scenario. >> Okay. Well, anybody else have anything on the driveway aprons? Mm-m. >> Would a would a 10 to 12t standard beyond the beyond the property line be an acceptable starting? >> That seems reasonable. Absolutely. Yeah. >> Um are you interested in talking about um maximum width of driveways? >> Maximum. >> So in the other city I came from the minimum width was 12 ft. The maximum width you could have was 24 ft. >> Sounds about right. double width. All the more should be. >> What's the downside if we don't have a maximum? >> Somebody could legitimately put a driveway across their entire >> just pave their whole yard, right? >> Pretty much as long as they could meet the impervious surface standards. >> Then I don't have to mow. >> You'd be >> then your neighbor puts on some big pile of junk on this. And I don't know has yet really become a >> a topic of consideration here in Columbus at this point, but it certainly was where I came from. >> Well, I I my opinion is that, you know, 24 ft a double width driveway. >> That's pretty needed. >> You know, a double width driveway, you got a double width up at your garage and bring it straight back and that's it. So, I will I will add that as a as a condition for you or an amendment for you guys to consider before we bring it forward and we can talk about it when it when it shows up in front of you. >> Okay, sounds good. Anybody else have any other discussion on this? Oh, nope. Okay, then we'll move on to number eight, planning commissioners report. You got anything? >> I uh we have a couple of um conditional use permit applications that are under review. Uh so the next couple of planning commission meetings um in June will be a little bit heavier and probably need a lot more consideration. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> Okay. And then >> I I have one question. I know um deer hunting's coming up obviously in 6 months or so. The uh the rifle uh ordinance by the DNR has come up into play through here and the city council. I'm wondering where we're at with that or kind of I know we had to talk to two other cities because of Carlos Avery. Just kind of curious on where that's going right now. Yeah. Uh, and that's a great question. I'm going to defer to the council member sitting immediately to your left to go ahead and give you the political answer. >> So, uh, yeah, actually, uh, when it's my turn, I'll give you the answer. >> Very good. >> Yep. >> Okay. Well, it's up to you now. >> Now it's my turn. >> Now it's your turn. >> So, let's lead off with that. So, um, uh, most of the city council members and the mayor were at, uh, uh, the cap yesterday along with Aaron, uh, meeting with some legislators. That is one question that came up with our state senate or our state representative uh, that was brought up as if the uh, legislature would consider any changes to that in the next year. And the determent was uh back to the county again like you already know that the and noa county made that part of the city council's decision. So if that's a concern that's probably something that we should talk about at at a city council meeting as to what we're going to do >> that is scheduled to be on our work meeting in May to discuss that and how we want to try to approach it and if we're going to do something ordinance-wise we want to get that in place as quickly as possible before hunting season. >> Yes. And so what was expressed by the city council and the mayor to the state representative was uh that we would like it to go back to shotgun and again they deferred it back to the city council for action. >> Okay. So that >> that's where we're at. >> All right. Well, >> it's gone in a big circle. >> Yeah. Making sure so come September you don't have that ordinance change and everyone gearing up for a rifle in a month. >> Yeah. Now, the concern that was also brought up during that meeting was how are we going to advertise that because most hunters at this point know that they can go out anywhere in Columbus and and use a rifle. How are they going to know that they can't by city code? So, that was one of the big questions with that. And then who's going to enforce that? Because that's not going to be something the DNR is going to enforce. that's going to end up having to be the sheriff's department probably that will have to enforce a local ordinance. Uh, and is the sheriff's department when they're not under our contract hours going to be able to effectively manage that and enforce that considering we have a deputy that may be coming from Anoka, you know, from quite a distance. So, all those things have been discussed and that'll come up in the in the workshop. Okay, any other questions about that one? All right. So, also at uh this um isn't directly related uh uh to the planning commission, but indirectly it certainly is. Um we met with uh representatives of the bonding committee uh the state bonding committee and talked about the Hornsby Street bonding project. And so that's our section of Hornsby, the Eureka section of that road has already received the bonding. We applied for that bonding back in 2004 for or forest lake did back in 2003 2004 and and we weren't included in that. So um we talked specifically about um um one of the house files. it' be 1567 and 50 or 1569 and 1568 uh for $762,000. Uh that was authored by uh Representative West uh in the House and then Senator Krin in the Senate. Um both those senators uh that authored those uh bills are still very supportive of that and the legislaturators that we met uh including the co-chairs of those committees um for the most part seem to be on board with that. So we're hopeful that we'll we'll get that bonding uh to go through uh possibly with adding a little bit of different language in that as well uh that that we might want to see in there. So, look forward to that. Um, and then at our um workshop meeting, we did talk about uh the Kexus Energy um um substation out there. So, I think we're all on the right track. Uh and you guys are on the right track as well with that. We're we're anxiously awaiting what you decide to do with it. So, okay. >> Anything else that we should cover? All right, we're up to our last item on our agenda. You >> Hi, this is Kim. I would like to adjourn the meeting. I would like to have a motion. >> This is Mike second. >> We'll take a vote. >> Jerry I. >> I. >> Mike I. >> Andy I. >> Robin I. This meeting is adjourned at 57.