City Council Meeting Summary for January 27, 2026
City Council Meeting Summary for January 27, 2026
The City Council convened its regular agenda session to address a series of consent items, unfinished business regarding a rezoning request, and multiple new business items including right-of-way vacations and rezoning proposals. A significant portion of the meeting focused on complex planning decisions, with council members expressing varied positions ranging from strong support for increased density to concerns regarding pedestrian safety, environmental sensitivity, and traffic flow. While most items passed unanimously, significant deliberation occurred regarding a grocery store and gas station proposal at the Zion and Crossover intersection, leading to a scheduled property tour.
Consent Calendar
- A2 (NeoGov HR Software): Resolution to approve a contract renewal for $65,419.19. Council requested the redistribution of the original contract and resolution to ensure transparency regarding the multi-year auto-renewal history.
- A3 (Hawkins Weir Engineers): Resolution to approve Amendment No. 6 for up to $97,130 for the Goshen Water Storage Tank Improvement Project.
- A4 (OPW Commercial Services): Resolution to award a $47,000 contract for painting approximately 1,000 fire hydrants, with a $9,400 contingency. The council confirmed the hydrants would retain their existing color and noted this is a first-time blanket contract for this volume, as previous painting was done internally on an as-needed basis.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Rezoning at 5901 West Michael Cole Drive: No formal public comment was recorded in this segment, though the applicant represented concerns about floodplain alignment and detention pond placement in the conservation easement area, leading to a tabled motion.
- Rezoning at 1807 North Garland Avenue (C5): Public comment was recorded in opposition. The speaker expressed concern regarding drainage issues at the site and articulated a preference for the development to consist solely of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) rather than duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes allowed under the proposed RIU zoning district.
- North Crossover Road/East Zion Road (C9): Council members Sarah Bunch, Sarah Moore, and Bob expressed strong hesitation regarding the pedestrian friendliness of the proposed gas station and grocery store. They cited insufficient alignment with taxpayer-funded pedestrian investments in the corridor, concerns about future pedestrian safety, and questions about whether the design could better prioritize pedestrian interaction over automobile access. Councilmember Monique noted a lack of communication from residents regarding this specific development.
Discussion Items
- Unfinished Business: Michael Cole Drive Rezoning (RZN 2025-50): The applicant requested a table to the February 17th meeting. Jonathan clarified the applicant was responding to two specific concerns: the alignment of boundary lines with the floodplain and the potential to build a detention pond within the proposed conservation easement. Public Works Director confirmed that while detention ponds are not prohibited in the floodway, they require design considerations to ensure they do not aggravate flooding conditions. The applicant is currently evaluating whether to move boundary lines or remove the possibility of a detention pond.
- Vacation 2025-28 (West Cato Springs Rd/Emma Ave): This item was identified as a staff correction for an administrative error where only one of two intended right-of-way strips was previously presented. Jonathan explained that Councilmember Brink dissented previously due to concerns about sidewalk alignment inconsistencies with the master street plan, but stated that staff, engineering, and planning groups are now in full alignment.
- Vacation 2025-32 (South School Ave): Approval requested to vacate 0.36 acres of utility easement for a multifamily project near City Lumber. Council questioned potential impacts on future South Street plans; Jonathan confirmed no known impacts as the current request concerns utility easements, not street right-of-way.
- Rezoning on North Double Springs Road (C3): Request to rezone 1.18 acres from RA to RI-12. Jonathan noted a previous Planning Commission vote of 6-1 in favor. The dissenting vote was attributed to concerns regarding the adequacy of personal services for future residents, rather than water or sewer infrastructure.
- Rezoning on South Washington Avenue (C4): Request to rezone 0.4 acres from NC to RIU. Discussions focused on the unbuilt alley bisecting the parcel. Jonathan explained that under current standards, if a property frontages an alley, the alley must be improved to street standards (curb and gutter, stormwater, etc.), though the planning commission's long-range subcommittee is reviewing the implications of allowing street trees on alleys.
- Rezoning on North Garland Avenue (C5): Request to rezone 0.4 acres from RSF4 to RIU. Council queried traffic impacts given the limited right-in/right-out access. Staff reported that given the scale of the property, no potential for significant traffic issues was found.
- Rezoning on East Huntsville Road (C6): Request to rezone 0.83 acres from mixed zoning (RSF4, RMF24, C1) to CS (Community Services). Councilmember asked about setbacks; Jonathan clarified that CS allows a build-to zone (inverse of setback) where structures are intended to be near the street (max 25-foot setback), contrasting with deeper setbacks in RSF4.
- Rezoning on North Addington Avenue (C7): Request to rezone to RSF18 subject to a Bill of Assurance to limit the property to two residential uses. Staff recommended denial due to the assurance creating a permanent hindrance to future redevelopment, while the Planning Commission recommended approval (5-2). The Bill of Assurance would require city action to amend or remove.
- Rezoning on North Rupple Road (C8): Request to rezone 4.8 acres to CS. The property was previously split-zoned due to bleed-over from adjacent properties. The Planning Commission forwarded this unanimously (7-0).
- Planned Zoning District Amendment (C9, Zion/Crossover): Request to amend the existing PCZD with a new overlay to allow a grocery store, convenience store, and fueling station on 7 acres, leaving 2 acres as open space. Councilmembers expressed deep concern regarding the commercial nature of the site (gas station) conflicting with pedestrian investments and environmental sensitivity of Hilton Creek. Questions were raised about the viability of the original PZD and whether the grocery store could be oriented to front the street with parking in the rear. Staff indicated the applicant's logistics model requires the current layout due to truck traffic patterns, though the open space buffer is designed to protect Hilton Creek runoff.
Key Outcomes
- Table Motion: The Michael Cole Drive rezoning (RZN 2025-50) was tabled to the February 17th meeting to allow the applicant time to evaluate boundary changes and detention pond implications.
- Consent Approved: Consent items A2 through A4 were approved pending the redistribution of the NeoGov contract documents.
- Zoning Approvals: Ordinances C1 (Vacation), C2 (Vacation), C3, C4, C6, and C8 were approved (or moved forward for approval) as rezoning and vacation items with staff/Planning Commission recommendations in favor.
- Mixed Recommendation (C7): The North Addington Avenue rezoning (C7) remains under mixed recommendation. Staff recommends denial due to the restrictive Bill of Assurance, while the Planning Commission recommends approval (5-2). Council discussion noted the option to amend the ordinance to remove the Bill of Assurance.
- PZD Discussion (C9): The Zion/Crossover Planned Zoning District amendment was discussed extensively. No final vote was recorded in the transcript provided before the adjournment, though staff and Planning Commission recommended approval. A site tour for council members was scheduled for February 2nd (Monday) due to weather and accessibility concerns.
- Legislative Amendment: A walk-on amendment to the Finance Commission Ordinance to establish a three-year term length was accepted and will be added to the February 17th agenda.
- Administrative: The City Council will open offices at 10:00 AM the following day due to weather conditions. Councilmember Bunch announced a medical absence for the upcoming Tuesday meeting.
Meeting Transcript
So we're gonna go ahead and call to order the agenda session meeting for um Tuesday, January 27th. And hopefully everybody has their agenda. The first order of business at the city council meeting next week will be um Steven's monthly financial support or financial report. And then I am gonna move in and read consent. And just because I can't see everybody on my iPad screen, if you are a council member and you want to interrupt me or talk about a specific item on consent, please do just unmute and and start talking. I don't want to accidentally miss you. Also, just to go ahead and let you know when it gets to new business. Jonathan is going to be proactively presenting on each item of new business. So you will not have to worry about we're gonna have a presentation on each of those. So okay. Beginning with consent, we'll of course have the approval of last week's minutes first. A2 is a maintenance renewal with the NeoGov HR software. It's a resolution to approve the purchase of annual software maintenance from NeoGov in the amount of 65,419.19 cents. This was budgeted. And Missy, I believe is on the call and can answer questions about it. Should you have them? I didn't know if I missed it in the packet. If the contract was included, I didn't see it. That is a great question. I believe I've seen it, but I don't know if it made it into your packet. Missy, are you able to speak to that? Yeah, and I may have Brad chime in, but basically, these are this is a contract renewal of combining all of our products into one contract, because I think the original ordinance was set in 2010, and we've had these products uh auto-renewing every year. And because we brought learning software to you separately last month, we needed to combine all of the NeoGov products into one contract that would renew together instead of having to break them apart. Am I saying that correct, Brad? Yes. Yes, that's correct. And then I think her question, though, correct me, Sarah, if I'm wrong, is just can is there a way for council to see that one big I don't think she got the, I don't think the actual contract combining them all was put in the packet. That's what you're saying, right, Sarah? Correct. So Brad, do we have new contracts or is this just to change the ordinance so that we can auto-renew every year? Um it should be in the packet. I think it's just maybe maybe I missed. I apologize if I missed it. No, I think the issue is so this is not an ordinance change that's coming forward. A2, it's a resolution to approve a purchase. So if it needs to be an ordinance change, then we need to correct that and pull it because that's not how it's listed in here. It's listed as a resolution. And so I think what we just want to make sure we distribute is the purchase agreement and or contract that we're saying we're voting on. So mayor. Yep. Uh what we may need to do is include the original resolution approving the very first contract. And that that original contract has the renewal terms. And we're we're working from there, you know, several years after the fact, where we've just continued to renew that year after year. Uh, but we can certainly include that resolution. I I think in addition to including the resolution, what we're asking is to be able to see the contract itself. So can we also send out that original contract? That would be included in that resolution packet. Great. Okay, perfect. Yes, if we could redistribute that to council so they know so that just so they have it, I think that'd be really helpful.
openpublica.com