Again.

Good evening.

And welcome to the first 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

This is a time of open comment period.

At this time, we allow members of the public to address the commission on items that are not on tonight's agenda as a public hearing.

If there is anyone listening or present that would like to address the commission, please do so at this time.

Do we have anyone?

Seeing none, we can now move on to the next item.

I will call the meeting to order and take roll call.

Commissioner Roche.

Commissioner Ross.

Here.

Commissioner Aishan is absent.

Commissioner Klein.

Commissioner Krull.

Here.

Commissioner Yost.

Here.

Commissioner Andrist.

Here.

Welcome, Commissioner Boyam.

Here.

Commissioner Ahmed is absent and I am Commissioner Gupta.

Commissioner Ahmed, you're present.

All right.

So Commissioner Amit is also present.

So we only have Commissioner Aishan as the absentee today.

Next, we will set the order of the agenda.

Are there any changes required for tonight's agenda from staff?

Nothing from Commissioners.

Any changes required?

No.

If not, I will take a motion to approve.

I'll move.

We approve the order of the agenda.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Krull and seconded by Commissioner Yoast.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Any is there an abstain?

No.

I wasn't here.

Okay, but uh this is only for the agenda tonight.

Yes.

So yeah.

So uh motion passes unanimously.

The next item on our agenda is the consent agenda.

We will now review the consent agenda items.

Item four A is the minutes from the December 10th, 2025 Commission meeting.

Has everybody had a chance to review the meeting minutes?

Are there any questions, comments, or concerns?

Anyone?

If not, I would take a motion.

So moved.

Second.

Oh, go ahead.

Motion made by Commissioner Krull and seconded by Commissioner Andrist.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Abstains.

Abstain.

Uh uh Commissioner Boehm will abstain.

Everybody else is an aye.

Motion passes.

Item 4B is the 2026 appointments of Commission Chair, Vice Chair, and Zoning Board of Appeals members.

Are any nominations for the position of Commission Chair?

The chair would entertain a motion.

I'll move that uh Commissioner Gupta retain the seat.

Second up.

Motion made by Commissioner Klein, seconded by Commissioner Krull as well as Commissioner Ross.

Any discussions?

Are there any other nominations for chair?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Okay.

Motion passes.

I will continue as chair.

Are any nominations for the position of uh commission of uh commission vice chair?

I will take a motion.

Motion for Jonathan Krull as Vice Chair.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Andrist and seconded by Commissioner Yost and Commissioner Ross.

Any other nominations?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Motion passes unanimously.

Uh Commissioner Krull will continue as vice chair.

Are there any nominations for the appointment of a commissioner member to the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals?

Um looks like nobody's getting nominated this time.

We'll probably have to do it again next time.

Or uh, how does this work?

Uh just not too well.

Actually, we uh I'm gonna nominate uh Commissioner Yoast.

I'll second that.

So uh he's even here motion made by Commissioner Address and seconded by Commissioner Krale.

Any other nominations?

If not, all in favor say aye.

Aye aye.

Aye.

Congratulations, Commissioner Yost.

You are on the zoning board of appeals.

The zoning board of appeals meets the first Wednesday of every month.

So this commission member would serve on the board of appeals and serve as the planning commission's liaison to the board.

Moving on, item 4C.

This is the adoption of Robert's rules of parliamentary procedure.

I will now ask for a motion that the commission adopt the Robert's rules of parliamentary procedure.

I'll move we adopt Robert's rules of parliamentary procedure.

Motion made by Commissioner Krell, seconded by Commissioner Yoast.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Motion passes unanimously.

Reports and recommendations.

We have no reports on the agenda today, so we'll move on to public hearings.

We have three public hearings on tonight's agenda.

After staff have given their report on an item, the applicant will be provided 10 minutes to present their application.

After that, each member of the public wishing to speak on the item will have five minutes to address the planning commission.

At the end of the public comment period, the applicant will be given five minutes for a bottle.

Do we have a sign-up sheet for public hearing today?

Okay, it's up there.

Say that again.

Okay.

Yeah, I'll do that.

Okay.

So at the time of uh at the time I open the public hearing, I will announce some ground rules.

Item 6A is travel demand management number CD 2025 011 C UP by SNC Invest LLC, increasing the maximum number of parking spaces up to 26 for the development of a standard restaurant use.

Staff, can we have a presentation?

Good evening, Chair Gupta, members of the commission.

My name is Anthony Cheeky.

I am with community development.

I'll be presenting application CD 2025-011 C UP.

This is a travel demand management plan to increase the permitted number of parking spaces for the site up from 16 up to 34, just to clarify.

Okay.

The applicant is SNC Invest LLC, and the subject site is located northwest of the intersection of 55th Street Northwest and Chateau Road Northwest.

The site is located across 55th Street from the Walmart North Plaza and is shown in red with a star on the screen.

The conditional use permit is required in order to permit a parking space increase in support of a standard restaurant use.

Just some background.

A TDM plan allows for some flexibility of uses with varying parking demand characteristics that make it difficult to specify a single off-street parking or loading standard.

The commission shall review the TDM plan and may adjust the maximum parking standards associated with each development based on the information provided.

The travel demand management plans shall estimate parking demand for the proposed use based on the recommendations of the Institute of Traffic Engineers, Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, the American Planning Association, or other acceptable sources of parking.

The applicant is opted to use the Institute of Traffic Engineers and operational parking demand based on number of employees typically on site to support their request.

The current UDC standards are on screen now.

I've included both the definitions of standard restaurant and fast food restaurant on the right side of the screen.

And if food is served in tableware or disposable containers.

Based on UDC definitions for the use, the proposed use of the site would be would fall under standard restaurant.

Also, just I would like to make a note that the UDC does not currently have a definition for a fast casual restaurant at this time, which in principle would fall between these two parking needs.

Uh at their property.

With current parking, this would leave six spaces for customers.

The applicant is proposing 34 spaces for the site, which equates to one space per 115 square feet.

With their employee count, this would leave 24 spaces for customer parking.

The applicant had provided calculations for peak hour customer trips to site at 28, broken down into 22 sit-down and six takeout deliveries.

This places a peak at 38 spaces.

Community development team is recommending 26 spaces, which equates to one space per 150 square feet outside of the 10 employees.

This would leave 16 spaces for customers to come on site.

Staff leave that parking should not strictly be designed to only meet parking peak demand, but adequately address average demand for the site.

The UDC also encourages promoting cross-access, shared parking, and multimodal transportation, which future development of the neighboring lots would assist in achieving.

Here is a copy of the applicant's current site plan showing their 32 spaces, two of which are ADA accessible.

With their current space count, the applicant still meets the 25% minimum landscaped area required in the UDC.

In terms of criteria, the planning commission shall review each travel demand management plan and may adjust maximum parking standards in table 400.08 based on information contained in the TDM plan.

As noted previously, the community development team is recommending approval of the travel demand management plan with the finding and support outlined in the community development memo dated January 14th, 2026, increasing the maximum number of parking spaces up to 26 spaces.

This concludes my presentation.

I'm available if there are any questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Chiki.

So this isn't this is a public hearing.

I'm going to open the public hearing now.

So some ground rules.

If you're on Teams and would like to speak, please use the raise hand button.

If you're on, if you're on the phone listening, please mute the phone until it is your turn to speak.

You will need to unmute your phone and state your name by pressing star six.

Everyone in the audience virtually attending should keep their computer on mute and point of order, Madam Clerk.

Yes.

I apologize.

The app.

Oh, I forgot that.

Sorry.

Can the applicant please come up?

Do you want to finish your public?

Okay.

Everyone in the audience virtually attending should keep their computer on mute and unmute only if called on by the chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Mark Walsh.

I'm with GCUBE Engineering representing the owner.

The owner, Sean, is here.

She's available to answer specific questions regarding the operations of first meeting noodle.

First meeting noodle has an existing site over kind of by the Red 44 area over Mailwood Road area.

They are currently in the process of site development plan, as was explained.

They purchased this property and we're going to work them through to get this thing approved for their standalone restaurant, which will have some benefits compared to the strip mall that they're currently in.

Did everybody get a chance to review the letter that emailed that Shand had sent to me, kind of further explaining?

So we put the TDM calculations together based on some preliminary information that we had earlier, and she did a better job of explaining that the whole purpose of the standalone restaurant is to provide a better experience.

And so some of our calculations that we submitted in the TDM are probably not as accurate as they probably could have been based on a standalone versus what we use for information that was submitted as part of the information that we had from their actual existing operations.

The reason we're here is because the UDC parking calculations under the LDM, the parking calculations required that we have minimum, which was a lot of times creation of over parking for spaces.

One of the good examples I have is we were sort of working on the uh RGI's office building over on the West Circle Drive at the time that the LDM was still in place before the UDC came into play.

And they held off on submitting that.

We would have required 119 parking spaces for that building under the LDM.

When we came back in in 2024 under the UDC, the maximum number allowed was 82, which was under parking for the type use, which was at that point didn't have a lot of their tenants.

It was kind of a speculative retail center with mixed use kind of um, I shouldn't say mixed use.

It was a um what do you want to call it?

Like a strip mall, but two stories with office buildings, food tenants uh with unknown square footage devote devoted to each different use.

We were able to get up to 86 spaces based on adding four EV parking spaces.

That building um does have the multiple tenants, including RGI's office, Crisp and Green, Codobo.

And every time I talk to the owners of RGI, they tell me how underparked they are.

Um, so it's something that the parking calculations I've loved that they reduce the amount that are required, but we went too far.

And so uh we kind of had this discussion with uh part of the Russian builders uh development services advisory council, which is a meeting with uh members of RAB, racing area builders, and also public works uh community development building safety.

And we've discussed this, that those parkings are a problem.

But understandably, they want to continue with having these transportation demand management plans as opposed to just allowing us to redo increase the parking.

The reduced parking calculations are specifically to try to enhance more people to use public transportation.

Totally understand it, but we also have to realize where certain properties are and what the needs are going to be for those businesses to be successful.

So the issue I have with this TDM process is of the items that were listed that we can use for resources.

Most all of them are studies or facilities that try to support redevelopment, higher density development items that are locations that have public transportation or shared transportation that helps keeping these parking spaces lower.

This site is on the periphery of uh low density residential and adjacent to commercial, and there just isn't enough of public transportation to support bringing enough people in to make the business successful.

The other thing about the TDM uh process that I don't care for is that we're only really have businesses experience or the ITE calculations.

And the ITE calculations, the Institute of Transportation Engineering is based on trip counts.

And it's really hard to correlate trip counts to actual parking spaces.

There's nowhere in there that there's a formula for that.

So in this situation, for a fast uh high turnover restaurant, um, the peak number of trips per hour is something that you really can't correlate that to how many cars are actually there.

The peak trips per day, like if that's at noon, doesn't include the employees being parked there.

And so trying to correlate numbers specific to a peak hour doesn't correlate to how many parking spaces are needed.

We really should be going back to looking at uh is the correct number, the number of seats plus employees plus other factors.

And so I guess that's what I'm kind of trying to make a point of.

Um I think that we went down the wrong path of trying to reduce the number of parking spaces, went too far, and now we're trying to correlate it to a traffic calculation as opposed to what is required for an actual business to operate.

Some businesses could use way less parking spaces, others need it.

Uh the TDMs, uh I went back and looked since January 2024.

The TDMs that have been brought forward to you is the Chick-fil-A.

Uh, Chick-fil-A was approved for 83 spaces.

Uh, the maximum based on their building would have been 55.

Um, that comes out to one per 66 square feet of building.

They had another 20 spaces actually that were approved that are allowed to go to the Olive Garden site.

Um, so that is the one of the thing about Chick-fil-A, is they also have a drive-thru, which doesn't increase the need for parking other than for the employees.

And so that ratio, if you take out the employees and stuff, is still well above what we're asking for.

Uh, another TDM that was involved in was that West Circle Retail Center, which is right across the road from the RGI site.

Uh, that one um ultimately the application was withdrawn because staff allowed us to use uh fast food as the calculation for an unknown tenant.

Um, so that was actually withdrawn.

Um, I hear it from the owners on that one too, that uh they feel they're gonna be underparked.

They're still in the process of leasing out that site, but they do have a food tenant that's coming in there.

The other two applications were both for Chase Bank.

Um, one was on the one west side of Cub Foods.

Uh, they requested 19 spaces where 11 was the maximum allowed, and that one is approved exactly as is.

Uh, then they came with a similar size building for the site that was um over by high EV, and uh they requested 24 spaces and uh staff asked that they only go down to 19.

I think that's what was approved.

So for first meeting noodle, in the staff report, they mentioned that applying the maximum peak uh trip generation of 38 trips would correlate to the bringing it down to 10 additional parking spaces.

Um I didn't see in the report that there was any breakdown of how that was figured, but I think that they took the number and actually divided by half based on our statement that people would be there for 30 minutes to eat, which 30 minutes is a pretty quick turnaround.

If you switch that to 45, it totally changes the number, it would increase the number of parking spaces needed.

In that same paragraph, they said that alternative middle ground calculation be one space per 150 square feet of a restaurant uh based on the anticipated turnaround time for patrons' use of the site.

There's no correlation between a turnaround of somebody eating a meal and the square footage of a building.

And so it's just kind of a one of those.

I just I have an objection to the trying to correlate square footage to uh how long somebody's in a building.

Uh, and both of those conclusions that kind of came to the 26 spaces that they are stating that would be acceptable.

Um, but there's an error in that use of the 38 peak of hourly trips.

They use our peak number of spaces, which are not based on the hourly.

If you use the hourly, you'd be somewhere in the 60s to 70s, which would increase the number of parking spaces that are acceptable.

So staff may need to re-look at that, but uh kind of just circling back to we did the calculations.

We know that we could use 38 spaces, or we're asking for 34.

And for first meeting noodle to be successful, they need the parking spaces.

If they had nine or 10 employees, and there's the pickups in ADA spaces, which oftentimes the only empty spaces in a parking lot, they're gonna need some aces for the customers that are sitting down and enjoying their meal.

There's up to 88 seats there.

We know that people don't drive in four people in their car to sit at a table.

All the tables won't always be full.

But this isn't like a church or an event that has one day a week that's super busy.

They're gonna have five days that they need to have people coming and going uh on a stay basis, they need to have the parking available for it.

And so that's why we're asking for the 34 spaces.

And the staff report even states that um they acknowledge that the 18 spaces that we're requesting, um, it states right in there that uh they agree.

It's just they come with a calculation for 26.

So here to answer any questions, that uh probably won't mean to wait until after everyone else has had a chance to okay.

Thank you.

Okay, I will now open the public hearing.

Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak to this item?

Please come up.

You state your name and you have five minutes.

Hello.

Um, my name's Bob Nordman.

And I'm a board member of the uh Northwest Neighborhoods Association.

And um we have been working with the businesses in the Chateau Circle Development for about 13 years now.

And this is about our third, our sixth uh site plan that would that we've been through.

We sent you uh a letter.

Um just want to take you through a few key points on a on a small ask just to bring people up to speed.

And because five minutes goes really fast up here.

I'm just gonna kind of read through these to get everybody in synced so we have time if you have questions.

Next chart, please.

Um it's important when you guys are going through and approving a TMD in parallel with a site development plan to make sure that when you're granting additional parking, that that additional parking spots don't prevent um the applicant from meeting the other requirements.

That's part of the criteria for approving this.

An example for that is if somebody requests a bunch of extra parking spots and then realizes later that there's not enough green space on the property in the right locations to plant the trees that they're required, then that's kind of a a conflict you get by adding parking spots.

So it's often that there's enough total green space, just like Anthony said, 25%, but it's not always in the right spot.

Go to the next chart, please.

Um first meeting noodle.

There are two parking spots with the current layout that you're being shown today, where the locations of those parking spots are impacting important tree planting.

And what happens is the choice to put the water mean and the hydrant where it is in that blue line up at the top, takes away the ability to to plant trees there because you can't be within 10 feet of the water means and 15 feet of the of the hydrants.

So if you converted the two spaces into green to uh green space, you could plant trees um as part of the ability to um help out the property.

Um next chart, please.

We think first meeting noodle restaurant um can be a good addition to our neighborhood.

Um if the design choices are are made thought and in a neighborhood friendly manner.

Um trees planted in the location I was talking about would help soften the commercial intensity impacts on the neighborhood, the neighborhoods directly north.

Um if you improve an increase in the maximum number of allowed parking spaces today, we asked you please include a condition that um for converting those two parking spots to green space for planting trees.

Um last chart, please.

So something along these lines.

Um, with the following condition that the two parking spots in the northwest corner of the rear parking lot shall be converted to green space and planted with appropriate trees.

Can you go back to the picture in case there's question?

So uh this is a public hearing.

So if you're done for now, uh you you can have a seat and I will uh call the next speaker.

Okay.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item?

Any raised hands?

Um, I'd like to call the applicant back up, please.

Public hearing is closed for this item.

Yes.

Yes, you have five minutes.

You have a rebuttal.

Okay.

Um we have had a couple meetings with Bob in the neighborhood on this.

Uh, we've already removed or the parking spaces that are on the north side of the building to allow for more plantings.

Um, we also moved so that we have some tree locations between the water main and the parking spaces.

Um, the adjacent neighbors, uh the closest house, I think is 400 feet away from the site.

And they've had over a decade to plant trees on their side if they're that concerned about seeing these buildings.

And so I am starting to take a little offense to the amount of input the neighbors have on our site plan.

Um, if we can meet the parking, uh I'm sorry, the uh landscaping, the tree planting, and we all still continue to work with them on the location of the uh trees that get planted, but to ask to reduce the amount of parking based on the plantings, we can still provide screening.

Uh we can still continue to work with them, but it's starting to get to the point that the asks are making it very, very difficult to make this project move forward.

Thank you.

So anything else?

Do we have any questions?

Commissioner Klein.

Yes, uh, my question is to staff.

I'm familiar with this restaurant, and I see like 15 tables.

But everything we're talking about is parking spaces per square foot of building.

In this particular type of restaurant, there's a lot more people because the tables are really close together, the one southwest.

Um is there any flexibility or acknowledgement of the likely number of patrons in the restaurant?

And that's effect on how much parking they're asking for.

Um yeah, so I think there's a couple of factors at play there.

Um currently the UDC does measure just strictly based off square footage for the use for for this specific um for the standard restaurant.

Um part of the kind of a category reason why it falls into that definition again is based on how the food is provided to the customers.

Um we don't necessarily want to have an instance where the uh prospective uh developer is forced to have to provide food in the manner that fast food restaurants do to get that parking rate.

So the TDM plan is kind of the option for uh seeking a higher rate than what's currently per permitted.

Um with that in mind, we did take into account the applicants provided uh numbers with their um justification.

Um just felt that again, based on the peak amount they have provided, there are other options to get on site as well as future development to support um parking, shared parking across kind of the parcels that are here at the time that development comes through.

Again, that is a little bit down the road for neighboring sites specifically.

Um, but generally, I think staff are kind of in support of increasing the parking for the site.

I think it's just fine-tuning the exact kind of ratio that would work here.

Okay.

Another additional question.

And that's to the applicant and possibly to the owner.

Um every time I've been at the restaurant, there's been a pretty steady flow of the go, if that's the right term.

Um, quite frankly, that's how I think my kids eat everything.

Um it sounds like you didn't really advocate for to go take out another term.

Um, why is that?

Uh her email explained.

Um, their current numbers we used are based on what they're seeing.

So I think it was 45% of it is takeout.

But that's partially because there's limited amount of parking and limited amount of seats.

And the noodles and stuff are best eaten fresh.

And so if you have the seating and people can sit down and eat it, they're gonna enjoy the meal so much more.

And so that's partially behind it.

And you know, the the old LDM and other cities have a requirement based on seating.

Sometimes it's uh one per three, sometimes it's one for per four.

Um, and if we go with just straight square footage, a very efficient run restaurant is getting penalized because they're not gonna have enough parking spaces.

And so you don't want to build a Taj Mahal that's so huge that uh you know takes up all the space.

That's not a way to build uh efficiently to have more square footage to get more parking.

So that's the one area of the UDC, I think, when it comes to restaurants really needs to be re-looked at and understand why staff or um community development wants to continue to have the TDMs to kind of kind of air this thing out to see what is the best way to not go back to what was previously way too many parking spaces.

Um office spaces and um restaurants are the two that I think they just it went a little too far.

I do want to also make point that while there is potential for shared parking, there's only shared drive access in this site.

So the Firestone site to the uh west, there's no guarantee we can use any of those parking spaces.

There's a vacant lot to the east.

We don't know how that's gonna be developed.

The next slot over has an approved Popeye's site.

Commissioner Russ, I just want some clarification.

I just want to clarify, you had stated that you've already made adjustments to the green spaces.

I'm assuming that's under the owner's expenses, had to create different spaces.

Yeah.

When we started the neighborhood informational meeting, we showed eight parking spaces that were on the north side of the building.

Uh we reduced that to four to create a location that we can plant more parkings.

Um we have to bring a water hydrant over, it has to be the easement area.

Um and some of this is just, yeah, you could go out in the street and put the water main in the street, but now we're tearing up blacktop that's in place, and the cost just it just keeps continuing.

And they aren't in charge of that water main either.

That's the seller's responsibility.

So their seller's not going to charge or pay any more for that than they have to.

Right.

Thank you.

Commissioner Kral.

So transportation was noted as reasoning to limit the number of parking spaces.

Where's the nearest bus stop to this location?

Um, I do not have that on the slide, but it's it's based, it's basically across the street at the most to the south side of south side.

There.

And then second question here.

Um neighboring parcels, the old comp care on the far east side of that swath of properties.

Looks like it has a pretty substantially sized parking lot.

How many spaces does that location have?

Was that a pre-UDC or is that a post-UDC site?

Um, I believe that was uh LDM site, so pre-UDC.

And actually the Popeye site is also LDM.

Um, I'm not sure if they would be compliant if they came in with an application under the UDC.

So anybody else.

Can I ask a question?

Um my question is that uh the owner, owner's letter stated that 45% is takeout, but it wouldn't be if we have enough parking space.

Yeah.

But like Commissioner Klein said, like these days people just prefer to take takeout.

So how is this determination made that it's the preference of the patrons to sit in and they uh they they take out because there's no parking.

Was there an uh like a fee survey done, a feedback from customers?

If the owner would like to come up.

Yeah, that would be okay.

Can you state your name, please?

Yeah.

Uh hi there.

Um, my name is Lishang Shen.

So yeah, I'm the owner of the thing.

So my question is um you stated in your letter that 45% of the patrons take get to takeout.

Yeah, but if we had more parking, they would sit in.

How do you know that?

Yeah, because you know, um, since we um since we open startup, we open the business and uh at first though, we don't have that much higher takeout radio.

And uh, we often see we can feel the frustration, you know, when when we see while we see customers that keep driving around the end of around the dealer peak hours, just trying to find up, you know, the parking spot.

So, and also when a group of people, you know, come in, try to dine, just the probably one or two or one of them that's just trying to find a parking spot in the parking lot.

And uh, we can't they can be seated.

So, you know, zero time is valuable.

And um, as time goes on and uh in the past a few years, we notice the our uh takeout or radio is higher, it's getting higher.

And uh, we do hear some customers, you know, complain a lot.

Yeah, we you know, we value customers of feedback, and uh, we talk to we chat vis our customers and uh some people, yeah, some customers complain and said, Oh, we can find a you know parking space, especially after the residency hotel, you know, has been served to the community and is becoming more challenging for the customers.

Okay.

So that's why, you know, but uh our concept is trying to encourage the customers dying, you know, enjoy our food as like it's best they enjoy freshly into immediately after preparation.

These, yeah, overall dining experience is another important part of what we are trying to offer.

Okay, yeah.

So we we encourage customer dying.

And uh since noodles and other, you know, meals um made freshly, you can watch.

So I know fresh freshly made noodles and other stuff is always best.

It's very interesting to watch the those people make those stretch them out.

Yeah, it's another part of you know, interesting and fine experience for the customers.

Okay.

So do we have any questions?

Uh Commissioner Hammond.

Thank you.

Uh I do have two questions.

One is related to the experience, obviously that would be better for the customers.

Um, but would you essentially inadvertently be decreasing your your revenue by decreasing the turn rate that you're getting from the takeout?

Right.

And how would that actually impact your profitability and sustainability of your company really down the line?

Well, sure.

Yeah.

That wouldn't necessarily reduce the amount of uh people that are going to be able to uh get a meal from the place because with the new building, new new restaurant setup, they're gonna be set up for being able to do that turnover.

Okay, so there could be an increase in the sit-down number of patrons, but the site will have an increase either way from their existing site.

Yeah, okay.

Uh and then the other questions actually from Mark, uh, which is related.

You mentioned screen, and uh in terms of the conversations, fill me in on the screen and options that have been kind of proposed or discussed.

Uh a lot of the lot of us do um, there's a pretty specific amount of uh plantings that need to be actually a lot of them are shrubs, uh understory trees and stuff.

So they're not gonna have a huge amount of screen, and the ones that are like the deciduous and such are not gonna have any leaves in the winter.

But you can kind of see from the landscape plan, this is just essentially just showing the depiction of what is going to be required for the number of them.

Um you can see there's quite a few locations that there's gonna be plantings and trees.

And we were in discussion last week about uh adding two trees above what is required uh that would help provide some of that buffer uh for as the neighbors are driving by the site.

Uh when you are driving on Villa Road, you have to look over the frontage road, and then you see in the building.

Um, this is a site that if this building wasn't being built here, um, the option is frontage.

We could have the front facing villa, or we could be facing uh West Circle Drive 55th.

Um so I think what we've got uh best case scenario as far as for the neighborhood of not seeing the lights and etc.

They're gonna be from the business application.

Um, and we're gonna plant as many trees as we possibly can, but uh there's been a lot of asks from the neighborhood that are just kind of starting to wear on the ability to be able to produce these.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ross.

So I just want to I just want to say thank you for opening a business and trying to increase your revenue by increasing spots because a lot of businesses in Rochester are closing.

And I know that you've been very busy.

Um, and I find that um I hear the frustration when we're arguing over trees and we're plant them when someone's trying to build the revenue.

Um, so I just wanted to give my own opinion on that, just because as a business owner, it's already hard.

A lot of expenses, a lot of time wasted.

So um, and not that I don't value your opinion and have planting more trees, but it sounds like they've already been trying to accommodate a lot of different things.

And uh for businesses to survive, if it takes just a few more parking spots, it takes a few more parking spots to survive and increase revenue so you can stay open.

Thank you.

Commissioner Craig.

So kind of in that vein, um, staff, there's the concern from the neighbors was if we approve it at the 34 requested spots, does it still meet the requirements by the unified development code in terms of landscaping and plantings and all of that?

Um yes, to confirm their current iteration at 34 parking spaces meets the landscaping and planning requirements.

Thank you.

Oh my gosh.

I'll make a motion.

Go ahead.

You want to make it?

You go.

I'll make a motion.

Let me pull up the sheet here to approve the travel demand management plan.

DD 2025-011 C UP with the findings and support outlined in the community development memo.

Scratch that.

Question for the attorneys.

If I am going to be modifying the motion, do I scratch that whole second chunk and provide my own reasoning versus the community development memo?

Okay.

I will restart.

Motion to approve the travel demand management plan.

CD 2025-011 C UP with the maximum number of parking spaces to 34 spaces with the following reasoning.

The nearest bus stop, which is cited as a reason to reduce parking, is on the cell side of a very busy corridor.

That intersection there is very busy.

It's very dangerous, as we've talked about other developments here in this community.

Broadway and 14th is one I'm thinking of right here.

That's been a huge concern.

So safety is a reason.

There's also no development yet to date to the east.

We can't base current development based off of future plots of land that don't have any proposals at this time.

And the West is already occupied with a location that is not able to provide parking for the existing proposal that we have tonight.

And the developer has acted in good faith in addressing the neighborhood's concerns.

And also thinking of the screening aspect.

A couple of years back, the planning and zoning commission had a proposal near the Broadway quick trip to the south.

It was a housing development.

It was a much closer area where we did require additional screening as a condition of approval.

Whereas this, there is a significant larger distance between the existing homes and the future development.

And then the real core focus is the lack of available parking in the neighboring parcels.

And there's a limited appetite for a parking agreement potential.

And as we look at other ones that we've approved here, the chase by Cub Foods, the increase in parking spaces, the Chick-fil-A parking increases.

Those were based off of similar findings.

And so that is why I'm making that motion tonight.

Can I second that?

Okay.

Motion made by Commissioner Krull and seconded by Commissioner Ross.

Any more discussions?

Any questions?

Anything.

If not, I will take a vote.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Abstains.

Motion passes unanimously.

Moving on to item six B.

Commissioner Chair.

I'll have to recuse myself from this one, please.

Okay.

So we have we have seven commissioners for this one.

And six B.

Item 6B is zone change number CD 2025 007 ZC by INH properties to rezone approximately 1.2 acres of land from R2X, which is low density residential infill, to R3, medium density residence residential.

I'm sorry.

Staff maybe have a presentation.

Yes.

Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Elliot Moeller with Rochester Community Development.

And I'll give the presentation tonight on CD 2025 007 ZC for West Center Street and INH properties.

So just some general general background information.

The request is to rezone 1.2 acres of land from R2X low density residential infill to R3 medium density residential.

And tonight the development review team will be recommending approval.

And then tonight you're acting as the recommending body with the city council making the final decision.

So on the right there, you'll see the uh the site highlighted in green.

It's uh about six parcels.

Um if the zone change goes through, the those parcels will be combined for an in field development project.

So on your screen now is just the development process.

Right now we're doing the zone change.

Um, and then again, potential minor land subdivision, um, and then a site development plan would be required.

Um, I missed that on here.

Um, but tonight this would be the last time you would see this project unless uh might excuse me, a major modification would be needed in some event.

Um, but we are not foreseeing that.

So it'd be the zone change and then two administratively approved uh applications.

So on your screen now is the current zoning.

Um right now it's R2X to the west, north and on the site, and then directly south is R3, medium density residential, and then to the east is R4 high density residential.

Further down, um, just south of first street southwest is MXT core.

Um, and that's because that's along second street southwest.

Um, otherwise known as the future bus uh or the link bus rapid transit system.

The underlying land use for the site is traditional core neighborhood.

Um, this is generally encapsulates all those original neighborhoods when Rochester was first starting out that surround the downtown core.

Um, and then to the right is downtown fringe um uh land use, so it's the downtown core area.

Uh so on your screen now is just the comparison of the two districts.

Um so you'll see there isn't too much of a difference uh in the R2X, the minimum lots area is 2,000 square feet.

For R3, it's 3,500 square feet.

The setbacks are relatively similar.

Um, the primary difference would be the max height of the structure uh going up three feet uh for the maximum, as well as a reduction in the uh required landscape area.

So on your screen now is the part of the massing exhibit.

Oh, that red should not be there.

Um, but I would want to point out that in the red outline, that is the parcel or what would be the parcel with apartment complex situation, excuse me, switch situation situated on it with the R3 zoning district, the rear uh setback is 25 feet.

So that's uh shown uh on the top of the picture there.

Uh the blue line, um, because this uh would be R3, um, the zoning district, this project would be subject to neighborhood protection standards.

Um, it would be a regulated lot.

Um, the west and north properties would be single families, and they would be considered protected lots.

So that blue line is just showing where uh parking can and can't be located.

So anything southeast of the blue line, uh, you know, pavement and parking would be allowed.

Anything uh outside of that, uh it would not be allowed.

The pink dashed line is the 100-foot required step down for the height.

So anything northwest of that line uh would have to match the height of the R2X zoning district, which would be 45 feet and not 48.

Um then here on this one, this is what the red uh square was for, uh, just showing what it would look like if you were looking west on to uh center street west.

Um you'll notice right across the street there is uh an apartment complex uh that would be considered medium density again.

That is the zoning district across the street.

So it wouldn't be too out of place.

Um so just some findings in brief.

Um so when we're looking at the zone change, again, we're really looking at the compatibility of the underlying land use, but then also the surrounding area.

Um this downtown gateway neighborhood as well as the traditional core neighborhood really emphasizes the mixture of old and new um, as well as the infill development.

So this R3 zoning district would still be in the spirit of the R2X zoning district to provide infill development as well as a mixture of housing.

Um, so it'd be single family and duplexes next to more of a medium density style development with those neighborhood protection standards put in place, which include a buffer yard.

Um, this wouldn't be considered spot zoning.

Um, city staff don't believe it meets the threshold outlined um through the League of Minnesota Cities.

Um, and then lastly, uh, because due to the proximity of the site to uh not only the bus rep, excuse me, the link bus rapid transit system and downtown, um, we would just really want to see a higher density housing here.

Um, it'd be more appropriate given the um you know the walkability to downtown uh for workers, um, as well as just uh going to see amenities um and visiting businesses, um, as well as uh the city's goal of emphasizing and supporting um transit corridors.

Um so this would be uh a benefit.

Uh the nearest stop is about two blocks away from this development or potential development site.

Um and then again, just emphasizing neighborhood protection standards for those surrounding properties.

Uh, and then a complete uh list of findings can be found in the uh agenda packet.

Tonight uh we are recommending approval.

Um so that's the recommended motion on your screen there.

And with that, I'll take any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Um can we have the applicant come up?

Please take your name and you have 10 minutes.

Madam Chair, members of the commission.

I'm Bill Toynton with WC Consultants 717 Third Avenue, Southeast Rochester.

I'm here on behalf of the applicant who has applied for the zone change to the R3.

Uh, this is the first step in the development process, as you can see from the flow chart that uh Anthony put on the board after we're if we get the zone change approved, we will follow that request.

We'll prepare the side graded utility plans and uh the architectural plans, which will be all submitted to the city for review and approval.

Um's project lies in an area of R2X and R3 zoning, and this is a really good picture showing how big the necklace apartment is to the to the south.

So the massing is a little bit less than that.

Umliot has mentioned the um reasons to support the uh zone change requests on pages 51 and two of your staff report uh documents the criteria, the findings of the criteria to support the zone change.

Um and this is also will facilitate infill development in this area and consistent with the land use.

So we would respectfully request approval of the by the planning commission to make a recommendation to the council to approve the zone change to R3 from R2X.

Is there any questions that you may have?

Um we will call you back after the public hearing.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak to this item?

Do we have anyone online?

If no one is coming uh to speak, then I will close the public hearing and invite the applicant back up.

Or any questions from the commission.

Mr.

Jointon, would you like to come up?

There's nobody in the public hearing, so I would like to invite you back up.

Nothing to say.

Okay.

Do we have any questions for the applicant?

Nothing.

If not, then I will take a motion.

Is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion.

Okay.

Um go ahead.

Let me make sure I'm grabbing the right one here.

This is a good one.

I think you need to uh speaking to the mic.

Is this this is six B, correct?

Yes, this is six B.

Um, I'd like to uh make a motion to move forward with the recommendation of approval for zoning map amendment CD 2025 007 ZC with the findings and support outlined by community development memo dated January 14th, 2026.

Commissioner Um Boyam, if you if appropriate, would you please add per staff's facts and findings at the end of your motion?

I would I would love to per staff's facts and findings.

I'll second that.

Okay.

Um motion made by Commissioner Boyham and seconded by Commissioner Krell.

Any other questions, discussions before before we take a vote?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Motion passes unanimously.

Moving on to item six C.

Um, where is Commissioner Ross?

Can we go get her?

Item 6C is zone change number CD 2025 008 Z C by Sunshine Behavioral Health Group LLC, amending the zoning designation on a 2.71 acre site from L1 LI, Light Industrial, to MXG, which is mixed use general.

Staff, can we have a presentation?

Absolutely.

Uh thank you, uh Chairperson Gupta, members of the commission.

Good evening.

My name is Desmond McGill.

I'm with the community development department.

I'll bring be bringing you this application.

Uh, this is uh what we know is the Wood Lake Zone Change, uh CD 2025-008 ZC.

Uh the applicant is Sunshine Behavioral Health Group, uh, Brandon Turner.

Uh, this site is generally located in the south central portion of the city.

Uh, more specifically, it is located at the southeast corner of Highway 52 and Highway 63 at 77 Wood Lake Drive Southeast.

This is a request for a zone change on uh 2.71 acres from light industrial uh to MXG, which is mixed use general.

Uh our recommendation is that the commission forward a recommendation of approval to the city council, and the approval body of this application will be the city council.

Uh, this is the uh P2S land use plan.

Uh the site is highlighted there in the blue uh outline.

Uh the properties immediately to the north, south, east, and west are all uh within the commercial and business development land use designation of the comprehensive plan.

Uh there is a little area within this uh business park that is designated as parks in open space.

Uh, this is a uh uh retention basin for I believe the this facility.

And then we have a couple of industrial pieces uh just north of the freeway uh on the north east side, and then we also have on the west side of highway 63 some industrial and a little bit of low density residential kitty corner uh off to the northwest.

Um similar to the land use map, uh the current zoning is light industrial on the property, and so are all the properties uh uh sort that surround it uh to the north, east, south, and west, across this highway 63.

We have MXG, which is mixed use general, uh, which is what uh this applicant is looking to uh make a change to.

Let's see.

Again, highlighted in the blue is the site.

In terms of present land use, there are some uses in there that you would anticipate to be found in a light industrial business park, such as Linen Service or Distribution Center, mini storage.

There's also other similar types of uses, such as office products, equipment supply shops.

And there are several offices in this facility as well in this development as well.

There's also a retail component with some larger showrooms for a pool and spa, uh a um uh garage door showroom and a countertop showroom.

Uh we have a couple service uses, such as a restaurant up there on the northwest northeast corner, and at the northwest corner, we have a hotel right next to the uh this hotel.

Uh we also have uh many uh service oriented uses, which include uh alternative school, early child learning center, uh, a meeting center, uh uh the Channel 1 food bank is located in this site, uh, and Genoa Behavioral Health is also located uh in this uh development.

In terms of the district comparison, uh you're looking at the left-hand side there.

This would be the new uses that would be permitted under the new zoning district.

Um, and those would include things such as group living facilities, nursing home, congregate care, also community centers, uh uh standard school, auditorium, civic center, multifamily residential, uh, medical facilities, uh, place of worship and social services.

Those are some of the large more common uh uses that would be permitted in this zoning district now.

Uh the uses that would no longer be permitted on this site would include things such as this transportation dispatch facility, agricultural production, and a correction facility.

Light industrial um land use could still happen on this site, subject to an application being submitted for the consideration of the planning and zoning commission.

Um in terms of a district comparison, what uh you're looking at the minimum lot size, they're both the same.

And uh the rear setback are generally the same.

Uh the existing is 10, uh, the proposed is seven uh side, uh, neither one of those have a side yard.

The front setback has uh there is no setback on the front side for in the MXC zoning district, whereas the light industrial does have uh 25 foot setback.

That's probably one of the bigger differences, and likewise the maximum height goes from 40 to 60 feet.

Uh, but there is also more landscaping that would be uh within the MXG zoning district, and uh the floor area ratio uh is increased slightly.

Um terms of key takeaways, um I think the the four points I'd like to make is the MXZ Joan zone uh would allow for mixed use, uh I'm sorry, uh group living, multifamily residential, institutional, and public uses.

Uh the MXG will still allow for those light industrial uses, such as product assembly and distribution centers.

Uh again, subject to a commission approval.

Uh properties within the business center have also developed primarily uh with a wide variety of office retail supply stores and community-oriented services.

There's no no real heavy industrial uh or fabrication uh occurring on site.

The MXG zoning is also uh consistent with the current uh land use designation of uh commercial and business uh development and also compatible with uh existing development out out at this uh business park already.

Um and uh we believe that this uh um is consistent with the comprehensive plan core principles of enhancing integrity of existing neighborhoods.

Obviously, we have a hotel here uh that the uh current owner is uh is wishing to sell uh and a user that would like to uh occupy that uh uh older hotel and uh convert it into a behavioral health center for drug and rehab uh build uh rehabilitation.

So we believe that that would uh help you know the center in general with with a uh viable user and also provide a needed service for the for the community.

Um in terms of the zone change findings, we are looking uh there's three criteria uh that we find in the UDC.

Uh the first one being uses uh of the proposed MXG zoning district are appropriate for the subject property.

We believe this to be the case, and also the surrounding area.

We don't consider this spot zoning.

It's consistent with the underlying land use.

There is also um uh kitty corner to this site, uh, MXG zoning, uh which uh the site could be uh attached to.

And then also that and that's on the uh west side of uh highway 63.

And then the MXG zone will allow for the adaptive reuse of this site uh as a behavioral health facility without impacting existing businesses, nor do we feel that the existing businesses that are in pres present in the site would uh negatively impact those that are residing at the facility.

So uh we believe that all those criteria are met.

Uh our staff findings can be found on uh pages four through six of the staff memo.

Uh planning commission shall hold a public hearing and forward their recommendation to the city council.

Uh our uh recommendation to the council is to forward recommendation of approval on the zoning map amendment CD 20, this is B25-008 ZC with the findings and support outlined in our community development memo dated January 4th, 2026.

And that concludes my presentation.

I'd be happy to answer any questions uh that the commission may have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

McGeew.

Uh, is the applicant present?

Please state your name, and you have 10 minutes.

Thank you.

Uh Brandon Turner, I'm the chief financial officer of Sunshine Behavioral Health.

Um, we are proposing to convert uh this 103-bed country in suites to it's located 77 Woodlike uh Drive into a privately owned uh 94-bed residential treatment center for substance use disorder and mental health.

Um we operate programs across the country.

We have approximately 600 beds across seven uh different facilities.

Our model is to acquire uh hotels like this and convert it to behavioral health uh facilities.

Um this is a residential setting.

Our clients normally stay with us for approximately 30 days.

Um we serve men and women ages 18 to 64.

Um all of our clients come to us voluntarily.

Um and they either pay for the services themselves or they have commercial insurance, so we don't accept any um federal or state money for the services that we provide.

So we appreciate your consideration.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing.

Are there any members of the public that would like to come up and speak?

You state your name and you have five minutes.

Okay.

Um purchased it in '88.

It was zoned in 1980 as L1.

We've had a few changes.

Um, and so on points one and two compatibility.

I don't think this is compatible.

Um, I disagree with them.

I don't think this is going to improve this area.

Um examples of some of the things that you have changed as this has gone on in life with some of the added properties that have changed hands.

Um problems.

Oh no, no problems, no problems with this type of situation.

I can't have outdoor displays.

They get vandalized.

I've had to call the police.

I've had checks taken out of my mailbox and and cashed false fraudulently.

Um, so is this something that I think is going to improve?

We got vacant lots.

If I was somebody that was going to come into here and buy a vacant lot with you adding this, this isn't gonna prove anything.

This is not compatible.

We need more industrial, light industrial areas in this and more hotels.

And we've got a lot.

I mean, that's what this was originally set for.

And you guys keep changing all of this thing.

And so what I want to answer is he answered of it.

What happens if this fails?

What else can go in there?

This is light industrial.

We need more of this stuff, and we have lack of it right now.

We're gonna grow.

We need hotels.

And is this something that we need and do we need it there?

That's all I ask.

I look at questions one, don't agree with it.

I will I look at questions two, A through what F.

I don't agree with it.

I don't think they're compatible at all.

I think this is an incompatible thing.

Can I stop it?

I don't know.

That's up to you guys.

That's all quick and easy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Um, do we have anyone online?

In that case, I would close the public hearing and invite the applicant back up.

If you would like to add anything to the comments from the public, nothing.

Okay.

So uh do we have any questions for the applicant offer staff on this application?

Commissioner Cruz.

No, any question, Commissioner Yost.

There we go.

Uh, just a question for the city.

Okay.

Uh, how long has this been a hotel, this location?

25 years.

25 years.

Okay.

And it is it is it still operating as a hotel or up until recently it was.

That's my understanding that it's still operating.

It is, okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Andrist.

This is just uh something.

Um, so I used to live in Pine Island.

I built uh big, beautiful house on the outskirts.

I had five acres and um it was my dream house to be honest.

Uh I moved in.

Uh, there was a house next to me.

Um, kind of shared kind of almost the same driveway.

And they moved a behavioral health group home in there.

And I was concerned.

I went to the city council.

I was a little fired up, so I feel your passion.

Um, and I'll be honest, they were the best neighbors I ever had.

Um, it was a rehabilitative mental health facility.

And I I feel your concern.

Um, I do, but I I personally would support it.

Uh they were great neighbors.

Um, I built a $600,000 house next to my neighbor right next to me, turned it into a group home.

And they were great neighbors.

So I do feel we have a need for it in this city um for mental health and behavioral health.

So that's just a personal comment I wanted to share.

Chair Coop, I have a Commissioner Ross.

I have actually a question for the applicant, if I can, please.

Based on my experience with multiple people owning multiple residential things with group homes and rehabilitation places, how many staff are on site?

That's one question.

Two two would be do you have security cameras outside and so forth?

And what are your responsibilities if Mr.

Thatcher's and stuff gets ruined from a resident of your I'm assuming that you'd have to work through insurance and so forth.

I just have a couple, those are the things because what he's stating, there's no group home out where you're at now.

I know where you're at, but you've had all these things happen when there's not a group home out there or a behavioral place, right?

So my question is if it increases, once let's say that you go into this building.

Do you have security and insurance set for something like that?

So staffing available, insurance, and how does that all work?

I guess I'd like to know a little bit more about that because protecting business owners as well in that area, plus ALCs out there, and they've got cameras on site, but that doesn't mean I mean that's the parking lot as a joining almost to the end of that.

I'm I'm not familiar with ALC.

ALC is the alternative learning school, public school that's on there.

It's called ALC.

Yeah.

So we are staff 24-7.

Um, we do clinical programming from you know, eight o'clock in the morning to five, six o'clock that night, seven days a week.

Um we have staff overnight.

Um, we have nursing on staff as well.

Um we will have cameras in the facility and outside the facility.

Um, and we carry insurance in case there's any issues that happen.

So um, to my knowledge, having operated uh for over a dozen years, we've never had an issue um with damage done to uh a neighbor's property.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

One question, Commissioner Amund, you have a question.

Okay.

Um I've been no you said yes.

We have to direct it to the attorneys.

Yes.

Um we'll need permission for you to speak again.

And you don't need that.

Can I speak?

No, no, the public hearing is closed.

All right.

So uh are there any other questions for the applicant or for the city?

I don't think I have any.

My my personal thought is that um even though uh Mr.

Thatcher, you've had experience of increased crime around you.

I feel that the behavioral center is not going to be another instrument of increased crime.

So that is my feeling.

So I I'm I feel positively about this going in.

So yes, Commissioner.

So this is going to council.

Is it a public hearing at council as well?

It is okay.

So there's additional opportunities to share feedback at that point.

Okay.

Are we done?

Okay.

So in that case, I would take a motion.

I'll make a motion to forward a recommendation of approval for zoning map amendment CD 2025-008 ZC with the findings and support uh by staff outlined in the community development memo dated January 14th, 2026.

Second.

Commissioner Andrews, can you please add prep per staff's facts and findings?

Per staff recommendations.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Andrist and seconded by Commissioner Klein.

Any other discussion?

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Motion passes unanimously.

That concludes our public hearings for tonight.

And we move on to other business.

Uh, can we have a city council recap from staff, please?

Yes, thank you.

Uh Chair Pearson Gupta.

Uh, we had three items at the last city uh council meeting uh January 5th.

Uh the first two being per pertaining to the same uh site, which was the Oak Grove uh development.

That was a request for a zone change on 13 acres from agriculture to a light and uh I'm sorry, to an R1 mixed single family residential zone district.

And that was approved by the city council.

We also had a major land subdivision associated with that project, which was also approved, which uh created 37 lots.

Um and then there was also another um major land subdivision, which was the Poulty Homes uh proposal to subdivide 141 acres into 300 residential lots down on the southeast side of town or southwest side of town.

So uh those were the three items we had at the last meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other items brought by members of the commissioner?

Uh Commissioner Krell, please go ahead.

Well, since we have our former chair here in his spirit of always asking, has council adopted 100% of what we've sent them in the past meeting?

Uh I think we're pretty close.

That's good.

Good.

Any other questions?

Uh items brought up by staff.

I have nothing.

Nothing.

All right.

In that case, can I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Andrist and seconded by Commissioner Yoast.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

We're adjourned.

Thank you.