Good evening.

I will now call the Thursday, April 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we please have a roll call?

We may.

Commissioner Stanton.

Present.

Commissioner Stockton.

Here.

Commissioner Walters.

Here.

Wilson is absent.

I am present.

Commissioner Darr?

Here.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Here.

Commissioner Gray?

Here.

Commissioner Ortiz is absence.

We have a quorum of seven.

Thank you.

We are there any changes or adjustments to the agenda this evening, Mr.

Zinner.

No, there are not, ma'am.

Is there a motion to approve the agenda?

I moved to approve the agenda.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Thumbs up approval in the agenda.

Unanimous.

We all received a copy of the minutes from the April 9th, 2026 regular meeting.

Are there any changes or adjustments to the minutes?

Seeing none.

I moved to approve the minutes of April 9, 2026.

Second.

Oh.

Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Darr.

Thumbs up approval of the minutes unanimous with abstentions from Commissioners Stockton and Gowway Jones.

The only item on our agenda for this evening is a tabling request, case number 91-2026, a request by Crockett Engineering Consultants, LLC agent on behalf of PD and CJ property seeking approval to rezone the subject property from Plan Development PD to PD and approval of a site-specific statement of intent, allowing development of 34 multifamily units to be known as Bay Hills PD.

The approximately 3.5 acre subject site is located at the property addressed 3 and 21 Grace Lane, a request to table this matter to the May 21st 2026 planning and zoning commission meeting has been received.

This is the applicant's second request to require readvertising and public notification.

May we please have a stop report.

Yes, as described, the uh request is to uh extend the tabling uh from this evening's meeting to the May 21st meeting in order to allow the applicant to resubmit a revised set of plans addressing technical comments and to uh engage in discussion as it relates to an associated development agreement establishing triggers and contribution requirements uh associated with the impacts of the development may create.

Staff is supportive of the request uh and will allow us the opportunity to continue to work forward uh with the applicant.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for staff on the tabling request?

Seeing none, would anyone uh was this was advertised, correct?

Yes, it was advertised to date certain for today.

If anyone is here to speak on the tabling request, please come forward now.

Seeing none, we will close public comment and go to Commissioner Command.

Are there any commissioner comments on the tabling request?

Commissioner Stanton.

Again, I tend a motion, madam chair.

Please.

As relates to case 91-2026, Milton Corridor, Rolling Hills, and Richard Rowe, PD rezoning and plan.

I moved to table this to date certain May 21st, 2026.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Brodsky, maybe we have a roll call on the tabling request.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Yes.

And Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

That matter will be tabled to date certain May 21, 2026.

Uh that concludes our business for the evening.

Are there any members of the public here to make comments of a general nature?

Mr.

Gebhardt.

Good evening.

Pick on you because you don't have anything on your agenda.

But um Great, you have to state your name and address for the record.

Okay, Gaphart, civil engineer, civil group.

I want to bring up an issue with the ADUs in general.

And it's has nothing to do with Chapter 29.

It's about Chapter 12A, which is the stormwater ordinances.

A lot of the central city is what they call critical downstream locations, and there's a map that shows those.

You can look look that up on the website.

And there is a policy letter from John Glasscock on that that uh states what you have to do if you're in a critical downstream location.

Um I don't really want to get into the weeds of the uh stormwater ordinance, um, but there is uh two paths in it.

There's a development path and uh and a redevelopment path.

Most of the inner city would uh fall under the redevelopment um path, except if you're in this uh critical downstream location area.

And if you're there, then you you have to not only provide detention for what's there, you have to provide um I think it's 50 percent more for what you propose.

This is going to be an impediment to um this type of construction.

And it's the ordinance is poorly written in in a lot of ways, and that um there's some exceptions when you read through uh Chapter 12a and the exceptions, it it talks about single family homes are accepted.

Not part of it.

And what that has always been interpreted to mean is like if you at your home you wanted to put a deck on or a patio on your back, you don't have to follow the stormwater ordinance.

And so I I would be interested in seeing if you guys would entertain the idea of doing a carve out for uh ADUs on uh on this critical downstream location and allow people to build them without this being triggered uh by it.

And it's really this nebulous, it depends on who the staff member is and what what what we're told and what the project is.

Um yeah, if they're tearing down everything and they're rebuilding brand new, you need to provide detention, you need to provide water quality, that's not an issue.

What I'm talking about is if you're building another ADU in the back, um this could be a uh pretty large impediment to it because when you look at these this map, the critical downstream location map, you'll see that there's very little north of Broadway that is not in a critical downstream location.

And the critical downstream locations were determined by staff as being tributary to a point that there's a known flooding issue or a known uh problem.

And so what I've proposed to staff um about three months ago was say, okay, well, we're building this detention and we're overbuilding detention because of this existing issue.

So give me relief from that and let me give you the money I would spend on that, and you guys put it in a pot of money to go fix that problem.

Because the problems are big enough that not one project can fix that.

You know, you can't I can't say, well, I'm gonna go down there and replace that pipe underneath Garth because it's you know it's a 150,000 dollar project, and I can build a detention for 25,000.

So why would I do that?

But I would give the city 25,000 to go fix that problem, and they could collect that money from um people being developed.

The downside to my idea is that in the meantime, until the city does fix it, the problem doesn't it isn't fixed, and there could be more flooding or or more severe.

So it's not a perfect solution, but um if you if you could think about how we could maybe carve out so that it doesn't impede these type of um this type of what you're trying to promote.

Because I you guys put a lot of effort into this, and I'd hate to see something that has nothing to do with what you live in.

You live in Chapter 29.

I live in both 12A and 29, and um it's going to I can see it being in uh a pretty big issue where it becomes where okay I'm allowed to do this, I can do all this, but I can't afford to do this.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a nice night.

Any other member of the public comments?

Seeing none, we will go to staff comments, Mr.

Zinner.

So your next meeting, as I indicated this this evening and work session, will be May 7th.

Uh it will begin with a uh work session uh to which we will begin the conversation as it relates to data center uh use specific standards uh as well as uh specific um conditional use criteria.

Uh Mr.

Kuntz is uh working on pulling together information that we believe will be relevant.

Uh we are probably going to scope more of what we intend on looking at uh and how we intend on engaging uh our allied departments.

Um he will be away at a national planning conference for the next week uh starting tomorrow, and hopefully uh this topic obviously will probably be in one of the educational tracks, uh so we should come back energized with ideas of how others may be approaching this from a national perspective.

But this evening's conversation during work session obviously uh lends me to understand that you as commissioners are also beginning uh your investigation of this topic, and I think it would be valuable to uh maybe come not per se loaded for bear uh for Mr.

Koontz at our next meeting, but loaded with suggestions as to have you thought about this.

This is an area that may be worthwhile to consider.

The process is going to be slow.

It will be arduous.

It is the intent that staff will be meeting internally with our own staff in our departments that are going to be most impacted by this industry and this use in order to identify what the metric criteria are that we will expect in an application package.

Those will be the use-specific standards.

The specific conditional use criteria, on the other hand, will be what we see left on the table that we have not gotten out of the detailed reports of that submission.

The package as a whole is the toolbox that the industry will use to ensure that if they are going to make a proposal in Columbia, that proposal is complete enough for it to even be considered.

As Mr.

Smith noted this evening, the administrative delay will appear for council consideration for first reading and introduction on the May 4th council agenda with a possible adoption of that administrative delay at the second meeting in May.

Initially there was discussion that that administrative delay would be a maximum of six months after further consultation with our legal department and thinking about all of the parts that are going to go into this.

The request is going to be made of council to approve a 12-month administrative delay.

As I counted on one hand today, I've got five months in the Planning and Zoning Commission.

There will be three probably here with you.

There will be two with the public on Be Heard, and then we're going to have to come back to you as a follow-up to the comments from be heard.

That's six months right there.

We didn't want to be running to do an extension.

So we will unpack this slowly and methodically.

We intend to probably, it may not be an every work session topic, because as I have stated previously, we don't want to.

We're always chasing our tail to try to produce documentation for the next commission meeting because we are preparing for council meetings in between our commission meetings.

So our staff needs time to absorb what you have said during the work session, do some additional research, and so what I'm assuming or believing will end up happening is that we will do work sessions, every other work session will be related to this topic.

And part of this evening's discussion during work session was to lay out what we would be talking about in the in-between times.

I have not forgotten, and I have every intention of being able to distribute, which we have not yet, and I want to be very upfront about this with the commission.

We have not distributed to our industry partners, small on integration.

We have been dealing with our staffing shortages.

I have lost another staff member this week.

We are we have been completing interviewing.

I potentially have a senior planner candidate that we will hopefully be able to onboard once an offer is made.

But that candidate will be basically dealing with our comprehensive planning and our long-range planning functions.

So I am still having to fill two planners.

So it has been obviously, as you may imagine, quite an exhausting period of time.

That's with budget and dealing with a variety of other topics that we are also managing.

So I'm not going to give you a time frame, because every time I give you a time frame, I never can meet that and I get frustrated with myself.

What I will tell you is we will get to the small lot integration and the conversation about that as quickly as we can, and I would uh hope to you that it will be before the end of this fiscal year, which would be the end of September, that will allow us enough time for public comment to come back, internal review of that comment, and then we possibly restructuring the ordinance to bring back to the Commission for final discussion.

Vumes are not getting slower.

Mr.

Brodsky had raised this at the beginning of the work session.

We are still doing a fairly sizable number of concept reviews on an every other week basis.

So we have people that are kicking the tires.

But the economy and financing and all the other things that are going on right now in our world aren't resulting in a lot of follow-through, but we've got a lot of stuff that's in the pipeline that is just one step away.

Five cases on your May 21st agenda.

There will probably be five.

I've got five or six items that have already come in, not all going to the Planning Commission for my next submission deadline.

So we are being kept occupied in the interim periods of time.

I don't like meeting unless we have something to discuss with you.

So there may be occasion that we cancel the work session only because we don't want to burn you out, and we don't want to be trying to burn the candle at both ends on a staff end to try to produce documents to make a meaningful work session.

We've got topics we will start to work down that list.

As we onboard new staff, you will have an opportunity to meet them in work session and we will hopefully be able to get our legs back underneath us and send our ship sailing again down a path of being able to make deadlines that I have indicated I would like to meet so we can move our program forward.

With that being said, uh we do have a meeting on the 7th, and it will include, as I noted, uh five total items.

There are four public hearing, or there are four public hearing matters, and then there is one subdivision, a preliminary plat, albit small preliminary plat.

It is still the first we have had in months.

Um that is case 121 at the eastern terminus of Scarborough Drive.

Uh then we have the ADU uh text change that will be on our uh on our docket that we discussed this evening and during work session.

We have a major revision, uh this is not a rezoning request.

I want to be very clear that it is not a rezoning.

This is a plan revision uh to our property that is the corner of Scott Boulevard and Vaughn School Road.

This is the Copperstone Corner property, uh the balance of the tract of land that is to the west of the uh Deventure site, which we took uh up about two years ago, uh, is being sought to be uh redeveloped as a assisted uh senior living center, uh.

Given that the commercial development uh for that property is not deemed viable at this point.

So that is the major plan amendment.

All of the underlying uh statement of intent provisions uh generally are being retained.

There has been a revision to the traffic study, so there will be uh some other amendments that will need to be made that go along with this project, but there is no formal rezoning from PD to PD.

We're trying to keep all of it within the plan approval that presently exists.

And part of the PD designation as discussed when we did the reapproval uh of the Copper Stone Corner was because that's what the neighbors wanted.

They wanted PD because they wanted they want an additional opportunity to review.

Uh the other project that is a new PD rezoning plan and a preliminary plat, all in one, uh, is west-southwest of 2909 Rock Warry Road.

Uh this is north of the extension of Gray Oak and where Grindstone Plaza Drive intersect.

This is a property that has uh three parcels, or it's comprised of two parcels today, both of which front uh in essence to Rockware Road.

The purpose for the PD plan, uh, because this is a multifamily project, is to provide uh surety uh to the adjacent property owners along the Rockware Road corridor, which is scenic of what is going to happen.

So this is more of a tactical uh issue to resolve potential outrage of development in this particular environment.

Um the uh the plan is the plan has public road infrastructure installation uh and is uh consistent with the uh general built environment that is further to the south.

Uh so multifamily or not multifamily, two family development to the north uh of the parcel site is what exists along the Rockware Road Corridor.

Um we could have done this property as RMF, so I want to just get out in front of that now.

However, due to the sensitivities of this particular environment, uh the applicant chose uh to do PD.

And I think we will be better served long term.

This is a purpose-built uh student housing project, and therefore probably very limited change associated with the project.

So once approved, likely to be developed per plan, uh just because that is the model that they are using.

Uh and then finally, uh the last project site uh that we have is a short-term rental.

Uh is at 713 Hilltop uh drive.

Um this is an R1 zone parcel of property uh in East Campus off of a uh a roadway that one wouldn't claim is a road, but it is, uh, and just happens to be next to a very uh uh well-wired in individual within our community who is the adjacent property owner to the South.

So if you all want to look it up on the assessors records, you'll know exactly what I'm referring to.

Um this should be a very interesting public hearing.

We have already heard from many residents, uh, including uh the most notable citizen uh that we have within the community, and uh at least her husband.

So we will uh stand by for some additional correspondence before we go live with the staff report in about a week.

Just so we know where we're talking about.

Um our Scarborough project, our property down off of Water, which I believe we are all familiar with, our property there on Rock Quarry, which is an oddly shaped tract of land with an appendage that goes down to the public street of Grindstone Plaza Drive.

That is where the public street will connect, and then it curves through the development uh to Rockway Road, and then our Hilltop Drive project.

Uh text amendment is a citywide amendment, therefore it does not have individualized public advertising.

That is all I have to offer.

Thank you very much for your time uh and your attention this evening.

Thank you very much.

Are there any commissioner comments this evening?

Commissioner Obradsky?

Not so much a comment, but I just want to check something with legal real quick.

I don't think this is issue, but on the minutes, um we have two commissioners absent, and two of the commissioners that are here had to abstain from that vote.

So we technically only had five votes on our minutes.

Is that okay, or does that violate quorum?

And we need to revisit that next time.

No, that doesn't require it.

That doesn't violate the quorum.

Just want to double check.

Thank you.

Any other commissioner comments?

Commissioner Stanton?

Adam Chair, I would like to enter 10 a motion.

Please do.

A move to adjourn.

Second.

Move to adjourn by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray without objection.

We stand adjourned.