Everyone has two minutes to speak during open comment period.

And does anyone wish to be heard during open comment period?

Okay, we have uh Bill Rieso.

Uh I'm gonna get to have supposed to be.

You're gonna do the other one.

Okay.

Anyone else wishing to be heard during the open commentary?

Sorry, I didn't sign on that because I was that's okay.

If you just you could stand right there and just identify yourself and you have two minutes.

Uh my name is Mike Ryder, I represent Old State Aggate.

Uh we are currently going through the process of opening a new quarry just north of the airport um on the east end of the golf course property there.

We have some forms in with the FAA that are being reviewed.

Uh, we've sat down with city council.

I just wasn't sure if this new zoning ordinance has anything to do with or will affect the process that we've already been working on.

We're well into over a year now.

And like I said, I just was curious how that would factor in, if anything, with the zoning, what you guys got going on here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll address that during our uh new business.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to be heard during the open comment period?

Seeing no one, I will close the open comment period and call the meeting to order.

And Mr.

Sarlson, if you want to take the roll.

I can do that.

Um it okay.

Commissioner Gupta.

Here.

Commissioner Keene.

Here.

Commissioner Kenworthy, clear.

Commissioner Mueller here.

Commissioner Peterson here.

Commissioner Sendum.

Sure.

Chair Schubrin.

Here.

Commissioner Woodward.

Here.

Commissioner Lappell.

Here.

Uh everybody is in attendance.

We have a quantum, Mr.

Chairman.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh next up is the order of the agenda.

Are there any changes to the order of the agenda?

Seeing none, it's there.

I'll go ahead, uh, Commissioner.

Are are we going to have a review of this document?

I mean, it is a it is a vast document.

And I personally don't know how we can vote on it unless we understand that.

Sure.

Well, I'm gonna have a presentation.

It's not specifically on the agenda here.

I do have a presentation where I'm gonna go over a lot of things we talked about last time.

Okay, through each of the sections of the ordinance and just kind of provide a summary of what they entail.

So that will be up front before the public.

Right, I'll be part of the new business, I believe.

All right.

Oh motion to move the agenda.

Second eight or full motion made by Commissioner Kenworthy and seconded by Commissioner Peterson.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Uh the consent agenda.

We have the minutes from the January 23rd meeting.

Are there any changes?

If not, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Motions are approved against again.

Motion made by Commissioner Gupta.

Second, second page five uh commissioner.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Moving on to new business.

Uh we have a presentation on the airport zoning ordinance followed by a public hearing.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the board, good to see you all again.

Um, so yeah, I'm going to uh provide an overview of the ordinance here.

Um, but before I do that, um I wanted to recap some of the kind of foundational uh purpose and and you know the purpose of us updating the ordinance and the purpose of the JASB and their role in updating the ordinance uh for the benefit of you know those who weren't here last time on the board and in the audience as well.

Um so those are the first two questions are things we've discussed before here.

Um the next two questions are questions that specifically came up in our last board meeting.

So uh one was about uh the relative elevation of the airport with respect to the affected areas surrounding the airport, and another was um you know why the draft ordinance doesn't include noise mitigation provisions.

So I'll I'll get into that a little bit.

And then we'll have a detailed look at the zoning ordinance that is in front of you all.

Um can you also address the the question that came up there coming?

Yep, absolutely.

Um and then we'll just talk about next steps uh after that presentation.

So uh so why are we updating the effort zoning ordinance?

So there is a zoning ordinance in effect currently, it's very similar to the ordinance that's proposed.

Um, but that ordinance is now over 20 years old, and there have been some things that have happened since then, the most relevant of which um in 2019, the Minnesota State Legislature updated its zoning statute, and that changed um some of the provisions of the state model ordinance as well as some of the procedural uh requirements.

So the second thing that's happened since 2005 following that statute update, min dot updated its state rules, which basically is how it implements that statute.

And those new rules were uh introduced and approved last year.

And that changes um has some other changes that I'll talk about in a moment.

And then finally, and specific to Rochester.

Yes.

Are there things in the 2019 revision that are beyond advisory uh compared to the old ones?

In other words, requirements.

Uh yes.

So one a couple of the requirements uh have to do with uh local planning and zoning, and because airport zoning ordinances generally uh are multi-jurisdictional or interjurisdictional, there's a lot of different affected jurisdictions that need to administer and enforce the ordinance.

Um there were some new provisions put in the statute that actually now require those affected jurisdictions to integrate the zoning ordinance into their comprehensive plans uh into their court of ordinances and to administer and enforce the ordinance.

There was no requirement under statute previous to that.

Um, a lot of the other changes were procedural in nature as opposed to substantive.

Really, the substance uh comes generally from the rules as far as what is in the ordinance itself.

Okay, thank you.

Um finally, and specific to Rochester, uh in 2021, the airport completed a new master plan and airport layout plan, and that has had a few changes that affect the locations and the sizes of the zones associated with the zoning ordinance.

So all of those things taken together, uh, there's a need to update the ordinance, um, and that's really why we're here today.

So, what is the JASB's purpose and role in that?

So uh the JASB working with the airport um is is charged with developing an airport zoning ordinance that achieves a reasonable level of safety while also considering surrounding land uses, community development, and social and economic costs of restricting land uses.

So the role in doing that is considering the statutory requirements, which we've discussed in previous meetings, uh providing an opportunity for public input, which is why we're here tonight.

Um submit the proposed regulations to min dot for approval.

So once the JASB uh formally adopt or proposes this as the zoning ordinance, then it goes to MINDOT, and MINDOT gives basically a thumbs up or thumbs down.

They may, if they give thumbs down, they'll have comments that we need to address, and we'll have to come back to the board again.

Um we did get some advanced uh coordination with min dot since our last meeting.

So I'm fairly confident that the ordinance in front of you uh will meet with their approval.

Um so then once MINDOT uh does give the thumbs up on the zoning ordinance, then it's the role of the JASB to adopt the final regulations and then transmit them to all the affected municipalities for incorporation into their comprehensive plans and zoning codes.

So at our last meeting, a question came up regarding um the relative elevation of areas surrounding the airport and whether or not there were areas surrounding the airport that are higher in elevation than the airport itself.

And and the reason that's important is because the zoning map shows these surfaces that uh are labeled with reference to mean sea level.

So basically the the zoning maps are going to show you know the maximum height in this area is 1400 feet above sea level.

Well, if you don't know the underlying elevation, what does that mean in terms of what you can build?

Um so in order to um simplify you know the the administration of the ordinance, we did um you know prepare a map, at least a heat map that that shows the difference between those airspace contours and the underlying elevations, and this is what results from that.

And so this is actually in appendix H to the ordinance that was uh distributed to the board.

So the red area, which is almost entirely on airport, is less than 50 feet.

That's basically the maximum heights range from zero to 50 feet on airport, and then the orange is up 50 to 100 feet, and the as you get into the yellow colors, it gets above 100 feet.

So, really, the only places where you're talking about anything, any maximum height less than 150 feet is going to be on the airport proper or in the approaches in land use zones A and B, as we discussed previously.

So, really um, if you think about all the areas outside those approaches, you know, the height, the minimum height is gonna be 150 feet or greater.

So that would allow most types of structures.

You know, I guess uh so it I guess we answer the question that the airport is the highest point with respect to areas surrounding it.

Um the areas that are obviously in yellow here are areas that are closer to the same elevation as the airport.

As you get down into these green areas, those areas are significantly lower than the airport.

Uh another question we received at the last meeting was why doesn't the ordinance include noise mitigation requirements?

And um the only ordinance in the state that I'm aware of that has noise mitigation requirements is at MSP.

And that's because MSP has noise contours, and and so these are the noise contours for MSP versus the noise contours for Rochester.

And so noise contours are developed with a computer model that simulates the average day-night sound level of noise on and surrounding the airport, and that's measured in what they call the uh the day night average the DNL or day night average sound level.

And the um the recognized significant significance threshold for noise is 65 DNL.

So that's the uh for Rochester here is shown in orange.

That's contained entirely on airport property at Rochester.

Uh 60 DNL is considered moderate noise impact, and that is this dashed yellow line here that comes out into zone A, but is completely contained within zone A, which you know, as I'll get into in a minute, um, is the area where any type of structures are prohibited.

So there's really, you know, already a prohibition on noise-sensitive land uses within the ordinance without the noise mitigation.

Yes.

Um, go.

Um these noise levels, these are current noise levels have the uh taken into account future.

Thank you.

Uh actually, this is the 2037 noise contours that were prepared for the master plan.

So the master plan operations forecasts uh use 2017 as a base year, and then projected operations for 20 years.

And so this is this is what we're projecting noise will look like at the airport in 2037.

Now uh noise contours are generally shrinking uh because everywhere because aircraft are getting quieter.

Uh kind of the old aircraft from the you know 70s and 80s were extremely loud, and there's been a lot of developments in engine technology to make you know uh engines quieter.

So this doesn't even consider this considers our kind of the current fleet if you just project it out.

But 20 years from now, there'll be different types of aircraft.

We you know, we don't even know exactly what those aircraft are going to be.

So um, and most likely those aircraft are going to be quieter than the aircraft using the airport today on average.

So MSP has uh noise mitigation requirements for its ordinance because its 65 DNL contour extends uh over a mile from the runway ends, uh, and then the 60 DNL extends several miles from the runway ends, whereas at Rochester, it's extending you know roughly a thousand, two thousand feet beyond the runway end.

So there's really no need for noise mitigation requirements, and it would be you know, um, you know, there wouldn't be any areas where you could build a noise sensitive land use where you would need to have some sort of noise mitigation or sound reduction, you know, indoor and outdoor sound reduction um techniques for construction because nothing's going to be constructed there.

So Mr.

Chair?

Um go ahead.

Is that your Nimmos Meditation thing?

Does that take you couldn't do a call of the International Guard or whatever it is that comes off on the cities and flyover pears to be wherever they want rather than the normal patterns that couldn't commercial more people?

You know, as I said, we use the 2017 base as the base fleet for the noise contours.

So if they operated at the airport in 2017, they would be accounted for on the map here.

Um I guess before I get into covering the ordinance, um, I will answer the question the gentleman had at the outset about the quarry that is proposed.

So I'm just gonna switch over to our land use maps, and I guess for the benefit for those in the audience, um, we can um I would just say I think you're gonna cover a lot of this.

Yes, others might have specific questions during the public hearing short.

Yeah.

So rather than kind of pick one here and there, Mr.

Chair, but it's okay.

I think Evan should just go through his whole presentation and then we'll open it up to the phone.

Sounds good.

Okay.

All right.

Okay, so uh the proposed ordinance, you know, as we discussed at previous meetings, airport zoning ordinances generally have two components.

There's a structure or object height component, which so basically the height of structures and objects surrounding an airport need to be controlled so that there aren't any obstructions to aircraft approaches and departures.

So that's what we're looking at here is airspace obstruction zoning.

The second component is land use zoning.

Those things are generally entirely separate in nature.

So we're gonna cover the airspace obstruction zoning first.

So the map here on the right is the proposed airspace obstruction zoning.

We do have some inset maps we'll look at in a minute for that.

Uh, but just for the for the uh for the audience there, um, we're three major updates to the master plan that are reflected in these new uh airspace contours.

First of all, the northwest approach up here.

Um previously there was a planned extension of that runway that's no longer proposed.

And so now we're pulling that zone back such that um you know it reflects the existing runway end at the airport.

So that's going to lessen or or I guess raise the maximum heights that are allowable in that northwest approach.

Uh on the northeast approach, uh that uh end is being shortened as part of a major project where the airport is shifting its secondary runway, which is basically the one that goes from northeast to southwest here, is shifting that runway to the south.

So that's resulting in pulling back the approach surfaces on that northeast end and extending them out on the southwest end so that the um you know the maximum heights are going to be lower on the southwest end versus the existing condition.

Um the master plan also proposed a precision instrument landing system for the southwest runway end.

And so these approaches that go out 10 miles, um, there these two are uh existing instrument landing system approaches, and this is a planned instrument landing system approach.

And the reason that those need to extend out further uh than this runway end is that those approaches are used in low visibility conditions, so it's especially important that there are no tall structures you know within those approaches.

Um, currently the uh existing airport zoning ordinance for Rochester puts a limit, basically you it cuts off any airspace restrictions more than a mile and a half beyond the airport boundary.

And that was under the the previous statute.

The statute updates remove that cap.

So now uh the model state model ordinance has these longer approaches that previously were um not allowed, or you know, you weren't allowed to regulate out this far under the previous statute.

Um so that that is largely the reason we have multiple counties uh represented on the JASB, is because of those longer approaches going out several miles from the airport that are currently you know not regulated locally.

So then this is just uh this so that last map I was showing was from um exhibit B attached to the zoning ordinance as kind of an overview.

Uh then exhibit C shows uh has these detailed grid maps.

You'll see down in the right-hand corner, there's a grid map, so that for all of the areas with the lower height restrictions, basically the areas uh within what's called the uh horizontal surface here and the conical surface here.

Uh we have detailed maps zooming in on all of those areas, so it makes it easy for the zoning administrators and property owners and others to determine exactly what the uh restrictions are on their property.

Um then we also, like I said, I mentioned previously, we have these heat maps that then relate that contour information to the underlying terrain, so that um you know the zoning administrators and and and property owners can also determine you know what is the maximum height above ground level that they can build, not above sea level, but above ground level.

Sure.

Yes, so because that might be everything.

So how within these conical areas is there is it a hundred and fifty feet consistently within that area and extending out or how how would anybody know who lived in the zone off call it?

Yep, what the height restrictions might be with respect to their property.

So I'm gonna pull up this actual exhibit, Gary.

Is there a specific number or is there is it according to some judge?

No, it's a specific number.

Um, so I'm just gonna pull up the exhibit um that we're looking at here.

So this is that exhibit C.

This is the index sheet, and then there's all these zoom in areas.

So I'll just go to the first uh grid map, which will show you in this area.

So this is out in the north east northwest approach to the airport.

And so if you zoom in here on these grid maps, it'll show you this is the like I was saying, the maximum height above sea level.

So this in the approach, it shows like with 10 foot contours, and so you can interpolate between these.

Now the heat map is more of a um a tool that can be used for that approximation.

You know, we only went in 50 foot increments for the for the heat map colors that are shown here.

Um and the purpose of that, and I'll just go back to the purpose of that is really to answer that question.

Okay, how do these contours relate to my property in terms of the actual height above ground, not above sea level that you can build?

So and then we also have the grid maps down in the corner there.

So if you go into that exhibit, there's similar zoom ins for all of those areas that homeowners can use.

And they're just going to get that 50, which 50 foot band they fall into.

If they really want to know, you know, what is the exact height down to the foot?

Uh they can go to the contour maps.

This is more of a you know, uh a first look at it, I'd say that it becomes a calculator.

Yes.

Um so I'm just gonna provide a little bit of background on those extended, those three extended approaches that I mentioned.

So uh each approach extends into a neighboring county.

So this is that northwest approach, uh, which extends out into Dodge County.

Sorry, I'm there.

Can so uh basically this is the only portion of Dodge County that's going to be uh zoned from New Orleans, so it's a very small area, and in that area, the the lowest maximum height.

So basically, if you're looking right here, that's the lowest that those surfaces go in Dodge County, and the surfaces there are 2800 feet.

The underlying elevation is going to be roughly 1300 feet.

So that means that in Dodge County, this isn't going to affect any structures you know under 1500 feet.

So the approach on the southwest end extends into Maurer County.

And so Maurer County is closer to the airport, and so that maximum height is gonna be roughly 1800 foot feet in this location here where it crosses the county line.

As you go out, it'll look you know ramp up significantly fairly quickly.

Um, and so 1800 to like a 13 roughly average 1300 foot um terrain in the area, you know, anything under 500 feet is not gonna be regulated by the ordinance generally in Mount More County.

And then in Fillmore County, um, that southeast approach extends out uh very similar to Maurer County.

That that um lowest maximum height here in this location specifically is roughly 1880 feet.

So that means that that maximum structure height is gonna be 580 feet or more, depending on where it's well street.

So those are really the only restrictions associated with this ordinance that affect Dodge Mauer or Fillmore County.

Um the land use um, which I'll get into here next, uh, really only affects Oldson County.

Can you can you address if a homeowner or property owner is planning something that they consider may infringe upon that maximum height?

What is the proxy?

So you know, it the intent is that the airport zoning ordinance would be integrated into any local building permit process, and so it would just become one more thing that like local planning and zoning departments or community development departments would look at when they're evaluating a building permit application.

Um, you know, and and really so the uh the the landowner is responsible in in you know for filing notice to FAA if if they meet notice requirements, and that may apply for some very tall structures like cell towers, wind turbines, that sort of thing.

Um for just your general, you know, um, you know, homeowner building new house or you know, business owner building um, you know, some sort of you know factory or you know, store or whatever the case may be, you know, they may not look at this specifically because it's not going to affect them, you know, unless they're very, very close to the runway.

So that's every situation, are there any situations where like a person of a silo as we know them today?

Uh might be affected, you know, perhaps they have to be very close to the airport, but yeah, not reasonably beyond far away from the airports, and mine.

I don't I honestly I I don't know how tall silos generally are.

I don't know if anyone on the board knows.

So those will, yeah.

So you're only going to have those you know, maximum heights 70 feet or lower in those zones A and B really close to the lowland ends.

Right.

Yeah.

So is that silos the silo is likely if it's you're from you're not in zone A or zone B, the silo is likely okay.

It depends on where you draw the line.

Looks like it goes through my thin between A and B.

Okay.

Well, um, I guess I we could get into that afterwards, I think it you know, as Mr.

Carlson mentioned.

We'll make sure yeah, so any questions on the airspace zoning before I get into land use.

Well, just ask a wind power more than likely some.

I mean, if you're gonna build a wind tower, you better you better look into the ordinary.

Right, right.

And I you know, that was a question that we got um after we distributed the the proposed ordinance.

And I do know how tall a typical wind tower is, and it's generally lower than 500 feet.

So, you know, basically Mauer County and Dodge County and Fillmore County, this is not going to affect wind towers or shouldn't in in almost all cases.

Uh there may be areas in Olmstead County where it it would be an issue.

Yeah.

And correct me if I'm wrong, I think any cell phone tower or wind uh tower has to go through an air spacing anyway.

Right.

Yeah, that's a requirement of FAA.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay, so the land use zones are shown here.

And uh the only affected municipalities are uh the city of Rochester, which is shown in blue there, the city of Stewartville is within zone C to the south, and then um High Forest Township in Rochester Township.

So there's basically four municipalities that are affected by the land use zoning.

Um so just kind of generally speaking, uh uh a basic description of these land use zones.

So the orange is called safety zone A.

And so in that area, there cannot be any buildings, there cannot be an exposed transmission lines or any uses that can create large groups of people, like you know, fairgrounds or stadiums or things like that.

Uh zone B is more specific, it also doesn't allow those, you know, uh I guess attractance of people.

Um, but it also imposes, but doesn't you can build anything there as long as you meet density restrictions and those density restrictions?

Um there's not currently anything out there that even remotely comes near what those density restrictions are.

Um and then safety zone C, which is the dashed black line um that goes through City of Stewartville, extends in the city of Rochester, but they're um that area cannot have any land uses that interfere with safe aircraft operations.

So those are things like radio towers or cell towers that may interfere with radio communications.

Now that's something that's evaluated by the E uh by FAA through that process that uh that FAA air spacing process that John mentioned.

Um so that's not something that the local zoning minister administrator has to evaluate.

That'll be evaluated through that FAA process.

This just gives the zoning administrator the ability if that airspace process determines it as a hazard to do something about it or to prevent it.

So go ahead.

Would zone A preclude a large, let's say 15,000 people live will rally at the airport and um I don't think so.

I mean, I don't think that would be an area where that would necessarily occur.

Yeah.

Um I mean, strictly by the terms of the ordinance that you know likely be you know undesirable, or I don't know that it necessarily rules that out, but um you know it's something that this isn't really intended more for permanent uses.

Right.

So I don't know what the permit requirements are for a political rally, you know, locally.

Um that could be something that could be looked at as part of that, but it's not specifically addressed by the ordinance because it's not permanent.

You think our language is that something it doesn't it doesn't address temporary uses like you know, if it's gonna be for a number of hours or something.

It would have you know it would allow it if it doesn't address right, correct.

Yep.

Uh so those are the general descriptions in the safety zones.

So then um those same three master plan updates I mentioned for this airspace zoning also affect the land use zoning.

So basically the the northwest approach is being moved in, so that's moving zone A is it'll be this way.

This one's being moved in, so it's moved moving these this way, and then this is being moved out, so it's moving it that way.

Um other changes.

Uh the the previous statute had caps on or the limitations on you know how far from the airport you could restrict land uses, those caps have been removed, but that that doesn't result in significant uh changes, which I'll show in a minute.

I have a comparison of the existing ordinance to the proposed ordinance that I'll show in a minute.

Probably the most significant update to the rules with respect to land use zoning is that the lengths of zone A and zone B were capped.

So where previously the length of zone A was one-third the runway length.

So for the main runway that goes from northwest to southeast at the airport is roughly 9,000 feet.

So that would make zone A 6,000 feet, and it makes zone B 3,000 feet.

So uh that's how it was determined two-thirds of runway length is zone A, one third is zone B.

Now it's capped, zone A at 4,000, zone B at 2,000.

So that means zone A is going from 6,000 to 4,000 feet, it's getting shorter, and same for zone B, going from 3,000 feet to 2,000 feet, also getting shorter.

So what does that mean exactly?

So this shows the difference between the existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance.

So the white here is an existing zone C.

The black is the proposed zone C.

So you'll see in some areas, like this area is no one will no longer be in zone C, but this area down here is now on zone C.

And then the white here of zone A and zone B, because we're moving this approach in, and those lengths of zone A and zone B got capped, they're significantly shorter and they're significantly more in this direction.

So property others in that area are less affected under the new proposed ordinance.

And I'll zoom into each runway end here, and um, so you can have a look at each one.

So this shows kind of the difference.

And so the only areas where the restrictions are going to be greater than they are today under the existing airboard zoning ordinance, are those shown in orange or blue.

Otherwise, if it's clear here, that means it's staying the same.

This is zone A today, it'll be zone A after the ordinance is adopted.

And then this kind of white diagonal cross hatch areas.

This is being down zoned.

So uh this is currently zone A, it'll now be zone B.

This is currently zone A, it'll become zone C.

This is currently zone B, it'll become zone C.

So that means that the restrictions are lessening in those areas.

So here on the runway one three end, and then a comparison of the existing one with the data, the diagonal lines versus the solid color is the proposed.

There's the difference.

You know, so the new zone A area is shown in orange.

The only area off airport that is going to become zone A that isn't zone A today is this, these areas right here.

And these are the only areas that will become zone B that aren't zone B today.

All the other areas will either remain the same or be down zone.

Uh we did compare or look at the underlying zoning and the underlying land use for all of these uh uh runway ends.

I'm just gonna show this runway end uh because this is where this is the only area where the land use restrictions are increasing for zone A, zone B.

So all of the underlying use is agricultural, which is is the red color there.

Um and yeah, this is really to show that there are no land uses within that zone A or zone B area that's are you know currently existing that are gonna be issues with that new zoning.

But I might just point up one thing.

This this residence here, for example, is considered to be non-conforming because it is in zone A.

Yeah, but the ordinance does there's two properties that are currently in zone A that are non-conforming that have been specifically called out in the ordinance and sort of will be grandfathered.

Yeah.

Yep.

And I'll just go back to show on that first slide.

Those are called out on the index sheet and on the zoom in sheets.

So one of them is here and the other one is here.

So those are specifically identified in the ordinance as existing non-conforming uses that are will be grandfathered.

I got a slide on that later too.

And they're high.

They're they're just they're residences and structures uh in zone A.

Two-story house is too high.

Any sort of building at all is non-conforming in zone A.

And they're non-conforming before it meeting.

Right.

And we're not proposing to do anything to them.

So Mr.

Chair, if this becomes the standard then for the order or for any varies in the future.

Because I think we're established as we exactly if we're establishing an ordinance.

Basically, we're saying no other buildings could ever go again this pathway.

Is that right?

Right.

And you know, I guess in this particular case, the area where that we're saying that that's going to be different than what it already is.

It's here and here.

This is already zone A here.

This is zoning here.

We're not creating new restrictions on land use anywhere but here and here.

In the strip.

Yeah.

Council, uh, Commissioner Tripka.

Um these are non-conforming.

So is um is there more risk to these homes?

Um, you know, we did not do a safety risk analysis as part of this.

Uh, this is a state model ordinance, and I so I can't speak to exactly what the risk is, honestly.

Residents at Dollar come forward.

I mean, in both cases, those existing land uses are in zone A today.

Okay.

So we're not putting them in zone A.

They're already in zone A.

And just so it's just that now we now the statute says we have to call out those existing land uses in the ordinance specifically, so then they're protected from you know the requirements of the ordinance.

Go ahead.

Uh, Commissioner Gupta, just to understand one of the homes was built in 1980.

Okay, and the other one was built in 1900.

So one of them has exist, you know.

So these are these are not like recent homes, they've been in this the flight path for one or a hundred years.

Okay.

All right.

The airport hasn't been okay.

Thank you.

All right.

So I'm gonna move to another runway end.

So this is that uh runway end up to the northeast.

So we're pulling the zones to the south, and then we're shortening them as well with those caps on those lengths.

So that means on this runway end, everything is either remaining the same or being downzoned as shown here.

The only parts that are being upzoned are on airport, so like this red dotted line is the airport property boundary.

These this area is on airport, so it doesn't affect any you know neighbors.

I heard well, so that this is the um the existing is wider than the proposed.

Yeah, yeah, okay.

So lost in uh down to the southwest.

Uh we are pushing those zones out because there is an ongoing construction project that's shifting that runway down in that direction, but because of those caps on the zone lengths, um, there's no area down there that's going to be upzoned.

It's all either remaining the same or being downzoned.

And then finally on the north uh southeast end, um, there's really the only change here is because the runway end is staying the same place and the surfaces are staying the same.

We're just shortening zone A and zone B with those new caps.

Um this area, zone A today, it'll remain zone A.

This is zone A today, it'll become zone B, and everything further out is also down zone in terms of the land use.

Finally, zone C.

So this is the area that I mentioned previously.

Um you just can't have uses in zone C that interfere with aircraft in flight.

So again, an example would be a radio tower that you know interferes with radio communications between a pilot and the tower, that sort of thing.

So the area shown in red there is the area that is currently zone C that'll no longer be zone C.

The green is the area that is not zone C today that will become zone C.

So just to zoom in here, um, there's a little bit of a sliver within the city of Rochester that'll become zone C.

Um, here's just a look at what's underneath that.

There is some residential in that area, but you know, no area where that you know they're likely to be those types of uses.

Uh same in Stewartville.

Um would zone C would expand in Stuartville, but um you know it it's it's unlikely that there'll be any type of use within there or you know, proposed in the future.

Um these are the existing land uses that uh Brent was pointing out a moment ago that are called out on the maps and in the ordinance itself.

So these are the the um land uses that are grandfathered in within zone A.

There are no other known existing land uses that violate the ordinance that we've identified.

So permits, as I mentioned before, if someone wants to build something within the airport zoning boundaries, then the local zoning administrator is responsible for making sure that when they evaluate building permit applications, they're considering the airport zoning ordinance.

And including that in their permit approval.

So the zoning administrator is going to be whoever the underlying jurisdiction is.

So in when it's in a within a city, it's going to be that city.

Okay.

So that's um again, the permits uh should be the any building permit within the zones should be considered as part of a building permit application, and the zoning administrator will be the cities and the cities, townships or counties, depending on the arrangement.

So Mr.

Chair, it would seem to me that the ordinance should contain for instance who amongst the outside of Rochers are going to be the zoning.

Yeah, so the ordinance lists all of the affected jurisdictions.

So it lists all the cities, counties, and townships within the ordinance.

Um I'm not sure which section that is.

Um, and I understand that you know some of those townships may not administer their own zoning.

So in those townships, you know, the county would be enforcer, but we didn't want to get in the business of fig, you know, when that might change in the future.

The township might decide tomorrow it wants to enforce its own zoning.

You know, so we just included all of those jurisdictions.

Doesn't necessarily mean that every single jurisdiction, you know, if you've got a township and a county, that doesn't mean the township and the county have to issue a permit.

One of them does.

So commissioner.

Yeah, I was gonna make comments for high forest and Rochester Townships, they go their zoning administrators with TCPA township quote.

So in that case, so they would do the zoning.

Yeah, the town township would delegate that to them.

Right.

And that process doesn't need to change by virtue of this new zoning ordinance.

And that you know, presumably each of your counties or townships have some process in place now.

And yeah, this zoning ordinance doesn't necessarily change that.

Right.

And once the ordinance is adopted, um, the JASB would transmit the regulations to each of the townships, and you know, and then the township is responsible for determining how that will be enforced.

So would you want like a resolution from the township board branding that to the county or um that may clarify things?

I don't know, I guess from a legal standpoint if it's necessary, but it would certainly, you know, uh I don't think it's necessary under the statute, but I mean the the township and the county should be aware of their legal obligation.

Okay, so if health, I I think that's a good question.

And I I my opinion would be is that is sort of your jurisdiction's decision to make it.

I don't think that's probably within the purview of the Jazz B.

We don't really want to get in that business, quite frankly.

But um, if you have concerns about um you know who is the zoning administrator for you know, high force township or whatever, then that is probably something that you would want to get clarity on.

Because for my for my community, none of those townships does have their own zoning.

So your ordinance seems to think kind of really defaults to them and zone, but they're not a regulating authority, so should we make them aware of this and have resolution in place?

I guess I'm curious.

I I would look into whether or not there's already some sort of resolution in place that delegates that authority from the township to the county.

No, because they've never exercised their authority out of the law.

Right.

Yeah, they don't like the county, I would imagine.

Yeah, and that are but that's absolutely um any other questions on permits or zoning administrators.

Okay.

Uh variances.

So if someone's denied a permit, they can't apply for a variance.

Uh, and that of application goes to the board of adjustment, and the the new the proposed ordinance identifies the city of Rochester zoning board of appeals as the board of adjustment, the the the only body that issues variances under the ordinance.

Um then there is the ability, uh yeah, again, that's that's appeal if there's ability to appeal decision.

Um if if I guess appeal and an ordinance are two set or variance are two separate things.

Um but both of them would be go to the board of adjustment.

Um the the other provisions are uh non-conforming uses.

So basically that just says that uh any existing use is the the ordinance is not intended to apply uh to result in any existing use that may be non-conforming under the ordinance to be removed.

That's just not the intent or the uh the the ordinance is not doing that.

Um has but hazard marking and lighting.

If the city uh Rochester or the airport um they would like a property owner to mark or light an obstruction, um this ordinance gives them the authority to do so.

Uh, but that would be done that hazard or marking or lighting would be installed at the city of Rochester's expense and not at the property owner's expense.

Um judicial review basically says that uh any any person you know seeking damages must first exhaust any remedies under the ordinance.

Um penalties just establishes uh you know maximums for fines or uh under the under for violations of the ordinance.

Um conflicts.

So if there's any conflict between the airport zoning ordinance and the underlying zoning, the more stringent will apply.

And then severability if if there's any court findings that you know apply to certain parcels or certain sections of the ordinance, it will only apply to those parcels or those sections of the ordinance.

The remaining ordinance uh remains in effect.

So as far as procedure, uh we had our first meeting of the JASB in November when we uh just introductions and and uh had an informational briefing briefing.

And in January, the the Jazby determined that they would like to move forward with the state model standard ordinance as opposed to the custom ordinance, which is something that was discussed in detail at that meeting.

So then the third meeting today, present the draft zoning ordinance, and then we are asking for an approval of the zoning ordinance by the Jazby.

Uh and that'll be just that wouldn't be a formal adoption.

That would be approving the ordinance for as the proposed ordinance for the uh for the airport.

Uh then there would be a public hearing on that ordinance if if the JASB were to determine today that they'd like to uh uh propose this ordinance, then we can have the public hearing today on it.

Uh that public hearing requirement then would then be fulfilled, and we could send the JASB could send the proposed ordinance to MINDAT for their review.

Then after MINDAT's review, if they have any comments, we'll need to respond to those comments.

Um it may result in some changes to the ordinance, as I mentioned previously.

We got an advanced review from Mindot.

We don't anticipate that they're going to have any comments that would require that we have a second public hearing or revise any anything in the ordinance, but that's possible.

Um and so that might result in some additional meetings.

Uh, but if MINDOT comes back and says looks good, then the JASB could adopt formally adopt it, the uh proposed ordinance at the next meeting.

Any questions on that?

Can you assume you have Jasmine meeting today, present draft ordinance uh and adopt and public hearing?

Then you have possibly today.

Tell me the difference between what is the possibly today.

I think that um just means that um you know it depends on the comments that we receive from the public here today, if it were to, you know, um if the if the JASB can determine based on the comments that are made here today whether or not it wants to transmit the ordinance to me and not okay.

Okay, so so what we'll do is we'll go into the public hearing, then we as a body will you'll help us answer questions that came up, and then we will uh we will take up the uh the ordinance or and then make a decision whether I think that the the JASME has to formally like propose the ordinance before the public hearing.

Yeah, and that they do actually have to approve the draft ordinance in order to have a public hearing on that.

So there might be two resolutions to answer that it can't be in a thing.

Yeah, so there might be two resolutions today.

One would be prior to the public hearing proposing it, and then there might be a second one after that would uh submit it to mend that can work.

Okay.

Um so we're at that point, right?

Mr.

District I'm trying to understand as I went through this.

So, you know, oh here, I don't, you know, Memphis, you know, you apply into these airport for you know, I don't know, 130 seconds or so on the flight path you're looking down as they're seeing warehouses.

So somehow they got built.

Um and we have an ordinance here now that was adjusted well, you know, warehouse could never go in there.

Right.

Are they all grandfather?

Is that what I'm saying?

They may be, they may not be.

I you know, I think what this ordinance is attempting to do, or what any zoning ordinance is attempting to do for an airport is to prevent that sort of situation and not necessarily address it in retrospect.

Um so yeah, it but it is common.

You know, Rochester airport is um is fortunate in that it does not have that sort of development, you know, uh close by, and this the ordinance basically protects the airport from that happening in the future.

So but I I certainly understand I share your kind of you know confusion with that.

I mean, I would I would say, yeah, for like for MSP, for example, one of their approaches they have zoned that is not developed at all.

And so it'll remain that way.

Uh-huh.

But most of its other approaches are developed in some way that violates their ordinance.

Mr.

Reed is a great example of that.

And just me living in Texas at one point in my life, like Houston really has no real zone.

And so the airport itself has to go protect itself in those spaces.

So I think we're being proactive in protecting our spaces, and and that's what the MINDAT in the state of um Minnesota is asking.

Right.

And the question of why in other places.

And the airport is obligated to do it under uh federal grant assurances for federal money it accepts.

So I mean, the applying why are you applying the Toronto City Airport?

I mean, I don't I don't know if it's a mile away from skyscrapers.

Probably yeah, and and that affects you know what's possible in terms of approaches and departures of the airport, like you can't land on that run land if that's the case, uh, because that is that building probably penetrates one of these services, and so they have to design procedures around it, which is something that you know in your like to avoid if you can't in your precision instrument landing is what in that case we're just in that case, you would not have a precision instrument approach on that end either.

Might have a visual approach, right?

Yes, commission.

I have one more question.

Sitting here, I'm I'm a zoning person, so I'm in my zoning brain.

And um, you know, we're talking about like no.

You know, I just googled it up, they go anywhere from 100 to a thousand feet in the air.

And so I'm like, hmm, should I be talking to my commissioners about you know issuing pyrotechnic licenses if it falls in the room?

I mean, I guess I would, you know, you could notify the airport in those situations and they could put out a notice to Airmen or something like that.

Um, you know, there are other ways you could make sure that that it's safe.

So um if you have any questions regarding it, I I recommend you reach out to the airport.

You know, are you thinking the city of Surreville is probably gonna have you know they have a festivity there and I know where they should their fireworks off and you do it on an annual basis?

Um yeah, again, uh yeah, could affect them.

The ordinance is silent on that point, but there are other methods for that to get publicized in a way that it doesn't pose a hazard.

Yep.

Any other questions at this point?

We're gonna get to you okay when you're public hearing.

Uh so I so we have before us, before our public hearing, uh the approval uh approval of the draft zoning ordinance and the map.

Uh is there a motion.

I I go on Mr.

Chair, I do.

Um you said the zoning, the board of adjustments is the city of Rochester.

City Board of Appeals, yeah.

The City Board of Appeals.

Why, I mean we needed to identify one specific um you know board, and it is a city facility.

Um, you know, and under the state law, the airport is you know, proposing the ordinance and and convening the jazz me, the city is doing that.

So this is you know, and as part of its duty as the facility owner, um something that they need to consider as far as protecting that facility.

Go ahead, Mr.

And I would just note that the the joint airport zoning, I'm sorry, the um board of appeals is um uh establishing the city's UDC to hear variances, which is what we're what would be what we would be talking about in this circumstance.

Okay, I'm just bringing up the question because you know you're you're affecting numerous jurisdictions here, right?

I mean, given the authority to one of the jurisdictions for a major event or major activity more of this ordinance.

Yeah, I would say the city of Rochester is in the best position to evaluate uh requests for a variance or variance application, uh just by virtue of you know it's the owner of the facility.

Go ahead.

So if they're applying for an appeal, are they going first to the initial municipality for them to review it and then it would come to the board of appeals?

Is that kind of the process of the municipality would still see it?

Go ahead.

I'm sorry, can you I don't know if I followed the question entirely?

So if somebody is looking to appeal, they're first gonna go to their existing municipality, so they're gonna be a lot of chance to review it before it's coming to the city for it.

Right.

Well, so any variances request for variances or appeals are go to the board of adjustment, but that would happen after you know the zoning administrator denies the permit.

I was trying to clear the existing community would see it.

Right, yes, right.

So to use the example, so the in Dodge County, your your townships or Dodge County would have to uh your zoning administrator would have to deny it first.

Or can go to they would make the application with the jurisdiction and it's denied pursuant to the the zoning ordinance, and then if that individual wanted to appeal, then it would come to the zoning board of appeals, correct?

But it's a full-run conclusion that it's going to be depicted, right?

But then within their own jurisdiction, they're not able to pass it.

I I think it's back dependent.

Say that it exceeded the height requirements, and I would say that you know you either have to go to the board of appeals to get a variance to increase the height above uh the table that's allotted, or I deny it and put the reasons in writing and they could appeal my decision to say I I made a misjudgment and so they're calling my husband out as the defect um rather than saying the variance, but that all has to be in writing, and so then that goes to the board of appeals so they know what they're reviewing.

Thank you.

Any other questions at this point?

Okay, I'll move the accept the ordinance, Peterson moved by Commissioner Peterson.

Is there a second?

Seconded by you, Commissioner Keene.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, opposed saying nay.

Motion passes.

At this point, I will open the uh the public hearing.

Uh members of the community have up to five minutes to address the um the CASB on any issues and questions that you may have.

And we have uh to start us off, we have uh Olivia Oakland.

Oh, public health.

I guess um, I have a lot more questions planned after I went to the back end.

Um, but most of the questions were addressed.

I was curious about those two properties um there exemptions.

Is there grant bottom for if they needed to, you know, are they re-finishing a barn, building a bar, and you are expanding that grant voted on the parcel, or is that for resisting buildings?

Then if the nature of we're gonna we're gonna go through the public hearing and so you just keep track of all the questions.

And then we're gonna public hearing we will come back and uh uh our staff experts will address the question.

Sure.

So the other question.

My other question was um kind of briefly it talks about zone B and some density restrictions about gatherings and three-acre parcels.

Um I don't know if I missed a little more in-depth explanation of that or if it wasn't in there, but I guess you kind of mentioned it's more about permanent events and things like that, like if somebody in that zone um, you know, wanted to uh pursue a CP for some sort of business front, and you know, they expect more than 15 people and exercise on that.

If I know we have a property that's in the example, the organization for the city is stored um future use predicted to be um commercial industrial.

So is those are those parcels then limited, and then the only other question that I I'm a little confused that at first was then but is now answered that some run some runway are or zone areas are actually shrinking and some are expanding.

So with postcard, I guess that was a little confusing, but after that presentation, but I think it's more clear.

So thank you for that.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone else?

Anyone wishing in the hurry?

Yes.

Uh, can you pull up uh A B zoning map for Northwest?

Please first say thanks to the staff.

I answered some of my questions I had tonight, but uh I'll show you.

Actually, my property is improving, it's going out of A into the B.

Zoom in on the yield there.

So can we go to the actual?

Yeah, I can go to the I can go to the actual.

Yeah, so I think that's in B2.

That's uh no, that's B4.

Yeah, okay.

So that's up here.

Yes.

This is my farmstead.

It's in A.

Uh, there was a disagreement with city staff.

I put up a shed uh right here in machine shed.

Um yeah, 2024.

Anyway, uh presently under the present zoning, I'm grandfathered and can do anything as all stag cultural.

Uh they said there was no new building after much discussion, much discussion.

Uh there was on grandfather in uh shrinking this down does help me.

But one of my questions is that the devil's hand of the details.

Do you change any of the wording in the B zone?

Uh what is it can be built, what can't be built.

Uh, there's a silo just outside of B.

Uh, you're asking about the height restriction.

It's a highest structure uh coming off this plane.

Uh I can stand out here on the hill and look down the runways.

So that's my property is uh higher than the airport.

Um that's been out surveyed several times of let them on the place, no problem.

But anyway, that silo is approximately 70 feet, and it's got a 15 foot and 10 on it.

Right now, my height restrictions is a hundred feet, so that's uh where we're at now.

Uh my question is I've always been grandfathered and told that I can rebuild the house.

Is that changing in zone B?

Well, we'll continue, but uh that's my question.

Yeah, uh but that's kind of how we got around the other thing.

Um we do use drones.

Um we coordinate with FAA, the guys that come in.

I'm I'm assuming that doesn't change any with the new zoning ordinance.

Uh I would like a clarification if I'm able to rebuild the house in the new zone being just uh get that on record.

Uh number of people, uh, when I was in a the former attorney uh senior outchas are put in a 2005 ordinance that they got thrown out court in a redraft because it uh the set of gathering of people could not be that that's so a party was outside of my I couldn't do it.

Uh he said it was defined in state statute number four state representative, it was not uh so that's why I got thrown out.

But the number of people is still a kind of a question of what you can have.

Uh this gentleman that owns this place.

Uh I'm not sure what his plans are.

That one was not the one.

Yeah, that one that's built in 2000 or 1900.

I'm not sure.

Uh it's only one story, so it probably is 1980.

Well, that one's built, they must add it on to it because that's been their longer net.

But it's it does matter.

Um presently, high force sends any permits that we apply.

That's why the uh building permit from my shed.

Uh they send it to this uh airport for approval.

Um, and that's where it first got denied, and we discussed it for a while, and then they finally approved it.

But I'm not sure if that changes now.

If high forest will continue to do that, or any of the other townships have their own zoning, or if the county changes that uh, and there was a question about uh if the other jurisdiction probably wouldn't happen in high court, but in Dodge County, if they approved a permit, uh would the city have to take them to court then?

Um I'm pretty sure under state law that's probably what's going to have to happen.

Is you'd have to enforce the ordinance if they went outside of the boundaries if they approved like the permit for the dwelling or something like that.

Uh is there any language changes?

That's kind of key to everybody probably in this whole room as far as the language changes in those ordinances for A, B, C, whatever.

Uh is there any for polls, language changes?

It's hard to find it online and go through because you do not have a side by side.

Uh the question was asked on fireworks.

Uh Isaac, you call me back there, my son.

Uh this property here.

Um has fireworks once a year.

They are presently must uh work with the airport for the time of day and stuff like that.

Certified is the same.

I'm I'm sure uh I'm there every year.

Uh they work with the us two with the FAA and the flight control tower um make sure the airplanes aren't coming in.

The only other thing is the noise.

There was a noise study done on my place.

I allowed them to, I think was in the early 90s.

So there is some kind of noise.

They exceeded that noise requirement then uh by quite a ways, and then they dropped it, they never came back and told me why.

But uh the C 130s, uh definitely over 60 decibels over my place.

But uh, there was an uh air is it air force i think was finding uh the report the jet engine one today.

How many more questions do you have?

Uh oh, okay.

That's uh yeah.

Uh it's basically you know the noise requirements uh they've never been addressed at all.

And so I'm not sure why that is.

Um I've asked many times that we got anywhere.

So all right.

Okay, so I let you go over because you had a lot of good questions.

I want to get a sense, uh I have nobody else signed up.

Uh, but who else wants to speak?

So I kind of have a sense of okay.

So then I'm not gonna be as tight on the time.

Yeah, and I'll sign before we leave.

So you have the record.

Okay, but so if you want to, yes.

Bill Schumel, city administrator down the steward bill.

Actually, Olivia brought up the question we would have one was density in zone C because we do have community gatherings, you know, from time to time that fall within that zone.

And then obviously our industrial growth.

Um, we should be able to monitor the building uh height, so that shouldn't be an issue.

But that density, like Olivia brought up, would be something we want to know.

As Bill brought up the language, how that language might change with the uh ordinance.

The only other thing we'd ever really be affected by would be a water tower, and then if the restrictions are you can put antennas on or not, the water tower itself hopefully would be okay.

That could be a potential in that northwest area of Stewartville, but it uh falls between the um two runway uh areas.

So that's the asking which one is black line and the white.

Oh uh the black dog that's the total.

Uh which way do you get it?

Mayor does the black uh is the black the existing and the white's the new black is the new black is the new black is the new, but that's not density, that's is radial tolerance interference, correct?

Yes, yeah.

What was that new white dashed line again?

What was that?

Same restrictions, same restrictions, yes.

Okay, but which thing with the black removing black, but yeah, I talked about that a little bit more.

Yeah, that's all that's my question.

Yep, thank you.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone else wishing to be heard?

I guess we gotta like again Brettwood Oaks and aggregate just reiterating the question that I had to begin with.

Um I think that through the discussion in the presentation, I think we're okay, but again, it was going to reiteration that um east side of the golf course there wouldn't be affected by the SNR application that we currently have going.

All right.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone else wishing to be heard?

So I think that this is more comfortable.

Uh given that I uh anyone wishing to be heard last call uh with that, I will close the public hearing and we have a list of questions, and I'll uh and I've got a list of them here too if you miss any.

Okay, all right, thank you.

All right, so the first question I uh have note of here is from Nazelki about non-conforming uses, whether they can be expanded or changed.

So um I can pull up the actual language regarding that um just to be entirely completely clear.

Um so any construction alteration, uh the there can't be any change in construction alteration or intended use or construction alteration which begun prior to the effective date of this ordinance.

Um I believe there's also some language, and I forget where it's at, maybe Brent, you know, but there's there is language, I believe, that says that as long as the nature of the use doesn't change, you can expand it as long as it doesn't uh conflict with you know the height restrictions in the ordinance.

There's something on page 13.

13 and 22.

Uh yeah, that's a page.

Oh, 13.

This is 12, thank you.

Um existing uses or non-conforming uses.

Thank you.

So the non-conforming structure tree, only if it's been abandoned or more than 80% turned down, no permit granted for alteration or as long as the use remains the same and remains occupied, then um here.

I um not sure if it's C or I'm thinking it's existing uses.

Um no permit shall be granted for establishing or creation of airport hazard or permitted non-conforming use to become a greater hazard.

So as you know, as long as the use of nature of the use remains the same and the hazard doesn't increase by the terms of the ordinance, then that would be permitted.

So for instance, you could I you could expand a barn that's been grandfathered as long as it's not taller.

Okay, also barn on sound.

Uh yes, I think it's not intentionally abandoned or destroyed, then it can be rebuilt.

Well, the height this is we've also gotten recently that there's a proposed power line something.

Well, restrictions are ice water.

Yeah, I'll go through the comments and the questions in the order I received them, but we can come back to that.

Um there's a question, there are several questions about zone B density restrictions and whether the wording is changing.

And no, the wording is not changing as far as what the restrictions are.

Uh, this you know, is the state model ordinance.

The state model ordinance in terms of the language of zone A and Zone B has not changed.

So those will remain the same.

As far as and that goes for zone B, zones A, B, and C, all three.

So we're not changing the restrictions, we're just changing the boundaries.

As far as the density restrictions, those only apply in zone B.

Uh, they do not apply in zone C.

So there's a question about density restrictions in zone C.

Um, and so this is the density restrictions, and it's based on the acreage of the site.

So the smaller the the site, um, the larger the ratio of this the building plot area to the site as far as people.

So let's say in the instance that there was a business question.

So if you had a three-acre site, if it if you're not expecting it to attract more than 45 people at any one given time, it would be permissible within zone B, as long as it meets all the site ratio and building plot area requirements as well.

So there's a question about drones.

The uh the ordinance doesn't address drones in any way.

So nothing would change with respect to drones from what is currently in place at the federal level.

Um question about rebuilding a house, I think we answered that one.

How question about number of people?

Again, that's here and it's based on the acreage of the site.

Um if another if one of the zoning administrators were to approve a permit in conflict with the organs.

Um I suppose at that point, then that the only remedy would be for you know the city to litigate in that unusual circumstance.

Umise requirements.

There was a question about noise requirements.

Again, there's no noise requirements in the ordinance.

I just want to clarify on the uh the metric that I was showing in the previous slides with respect to noise.

But the DNL metric is the day-night average sound level.

So it's a computer model that averages sound throughout the day.

So there will be single events where the decibels are 130, 140, but if they're not occurring frequently, you know, the average is going to be much less.

So it may occur from time to time, but on average, that is not a significant noise impact because it's not frequent or intense enough.

Um I think that was all Mr.

Queasley's questions.

Um I think I answered the density and zone C from Mr.

Schimmel.

Um the quarry.

Right.

Uh well, I was just want to say one thing about uh water tower.

Like, say there was a case of a water tower.

Say a water tower was proposed that violated the height restriction of the ordinance.

Uh that water tower would likely require some FAA airspace review.

And if that airspace review were to come back as a determination of no hazard, uh, then you would be in a good position for variance because you could send that you know determination of no hazard to the board of adjustment and say, I think a variance is warranted here because the FA is telling me there's no issue, and then the board of adjustment would just decide.

Um then yeah, so again, the the white and all of these um land use maps that I was showing.

So the black is what's proposed, and then when I was comparing to the the existing ordinance, the white is the existing ordinance.

So just for clarity on that, the boundaries, boundaries, yeah.

The white are the boundaries of the existing ordinance zones and the black are the proposed.

And then there was a question about a power line, and I don't know the uh details of that.

Um I guess I could I the quarry, Corey, thank you.

We'll go with the quarry first.

Um the quarry be located in this area.

Um, there would be height restrictions on um if it's in the approach.

Do you mind if I point out exactly?

Can we go to the is it helpful to do the comparison?

Or I guess we can do this one.

Yeah, um we could do the comparison to the whole quarry would be this okay in here.

Okay.

Obviously, there's restrictions here, right?

But if I was to put say a scale house here, there would be no restriction on that under the ordinance, and then everything doesn't violate as long as it does not violate the air space, you could put a build a building in this area.

Okay.

Um then uh you know, I I know that the sometimes quarries have equipment, you know, you'd have to be careful to make sure the equipment doesn't penetrate the airspace, but that's probably something you're going through that notice process for anyway.

So yep.

Thank you.

Uh question about the power line.

I don't um not sure where that is or what's proposed.

You know, you go to the assault each one.

Okay.

See that way.

Okay.

Up there in the corner when the blue is a little purple.

Is that that is that the taller?

That is the existing land use that is being grandfathered.

Um somebody's home.

Okay, I'm just trying to be my bird.

Yeah, I understand.

Okay, so here we go.

But that is right where that is.

That's the corner of my farm.

All I know is they show kind of north and south and then going east along that I have no idea other than I got the slightly full script you can set up for this.

They don't tell you anything can't read the picture or whatever.

I I don't know anything about it other than that.

Okay.

Yeah, well, I would just say that zone A does specifically uh prohibit exposed transmission lines.

Um, so you know, there's probably some permitting process that if they're proposing something in zone A and it's considered an exposed transmission line, that would be prohibited, but it would be today.

This is in zone A today.

Uh zone A basically extends further out today, so it's no different than what is currently in effect.

Um and then as far as you know, if you're looking at the height restriction for a power line, I think you know, a power line in that location would meet those criteria, would have to file notice with FAA and have an airspace review.

Did I get all the questions, Mr.

Chair?

Okay.

Now I'll turn to my colleagues here.

Questions from commissioners, any questions?

So our next order of business is to send this to Min Bad.

Is that I I Mr.

Chair, I I think discussion and a motion, a motion and discussion, and then um yeah.

Next motion to send it to Chair.

Can I just maybe I just I got question of maybe what looks like a title, maybe it could I get that?

Go ahead.

Um it's on page 14 in the variance section.

And I don't know, you have the documentary.

I do.

Yeah, I can bring it up too.

Yeah, but put on the okay.

So it you got it up there.

So so it sort of relates to this these words, but do but do substantial justice.

I've read this a many times over, and I can't understand how those words fit into that.

I'll just read it out loud.

Such variances shall be allowed where it is duly found that a literal application or enforcement of the regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and relief granted would not be contrary to the public interest, but do substantial justice.

So basically saying that uh it's saying it would not be contrary, but it would do substantial justice in order to approve a variance to the applicant.

Right, I think is what that's saying.

Is there some massaging that you just be done or not?

Or uh just when you go from substantial justice and being an important yeah, yeah, I think a look at that proceeding.

I mean, I don't think we edited this part, but Brandon there were some parts that we made some edits to, but just for this type of thing where we wanted to clarify things like that, but this was not one of them.

So this is coming directly from the model or based model, yeah.

So it just seemed one letter.

I can just find in invariances, there is a clause in the statutory requirements that it has to do with um justice, substantial justice from bodies, and so I think it's it's called into that and we can statute.

So saying the relief would do substantial justice.

If you just take out the part about not being contrary, it's saying relief granted would do substantial justice.

It came up with scaffold um court case under all they changed the word hardship to practical difficult.

You are the queen of zoning.

What do you think?

Nobody's ever gonna look at this.

I understand that, but if it's not right, we ought to get it right now.

Well, the question, Commissioner, is that this is the model state ordinance.

So I I hear you, Commissioner.

But what I'm saying is that it's in all the other places.

So I think the the the course is to let your let minot know that feedback and uh that they should clarify it at the after level if they want to add to your point.

There's a lot of uh grammatical problems with that whole sentence.

Um the two that should be out of that sentence that's in there.

Okay, so in the commas are in the wrong place.

So I think I think we have the teacher review to go.

All right, other other questions, comments, discussion.

You were ready to make a motion, Commissioner.

Yeah, I was gonna make motion to accept this.

Uh to be send it to the middle.

Oh second.

Motion made by uh Commissioner Peterson, seconded by Commissioner Keen further discussing commissioner.

Yeah, I'm interested in this side discussion.

I think that's all it was was the idea of the variance uh uh the authority to come to is the city of Rochester's board zoning board of a variance, but it can be approved or denied at a local level.

I going back to the whole enforcement um thing, it bothers me that it appears that these things could be granted without uh the airport zoning or the zoning authority having any knowledge of it.

uh uh the authority to come to is the city of rochester's board zoning board of a variance but it can be approved or denied at a local level i going back to the whole enforcement um thing it bothers me that it appears that these things could be granted without uh the airport zoning or the zoning authority having any knowledge of it is there something missing as far as in our uh in our um enforcement so that if something is granted there is a there's some sort of notification it doesn't appear there is uh I don't believe that the ordinance provides for like a notice of every single building permit that's approved be sent to the city I think there's you know kind of a a presumption that the ordinance would be you know in for administered in good faith um I actually thought that was one of the reasons we're redoing this is because we weren't doing good faith well yeah I I think there's there's a recognition that that you know now there should be recognition now that there's a legal legal obligation for the zoning administrator to administer and enforce the ordinance um whereas you know it was unclear before in the statute who was responsible so you know the statute clarified all the underlying jurisdictions are responsible um but that did not change the the language of this now um you know if if MIDA they just issued the rules last year the new rules they may come out with a new model ordinance in which case you know it may include something like that I don't know but right now it doesn't but I guess in our discussion here I would have thought that the variance request did go to the uh the the authority be in the city of Rochester and could not have been approved at local level what I found in this meeting is it can be approved no so no the the all variances all uh applications for variances go to the city board of appeals I just oh that that's good to hear because that's not what I heard in our discussion.

Okay I heard it has to be rejected at the local level and that would cause the escalation and that's different just the the building permit application has to be denied based on the ordinance uh but and then at that point someone the applicant can apply for a variance to the city board of the PS.

And in that same scenario that same application could be approved at the local level yeah it could and you know presumably it if it is approved that means it's compliant with the ordinance okay I want to bring that up because that that again procedurally just bothered me that that it that that's a potentially because it and any of these things like in the zoning there there is a a form there is a a level of applying judgment it isn't just following the rules and rejecting it and saying it's it you know you're it's rejected because of the ordinance it's interpreting it and interpreting if it's justice or not.

So um I I just want to let that simmer for me but but again I it's a change I had in this discussion that in my January discussion I didn't I thought that was one of the reasons that we were trying to get away from allowing things to be approved or ignored because just this I mean these are complicated things and hard to keep track of just to respond to to your comment so this the city of Austin runs their municipal airport and their airport uh zoning district um falls outside of their municipal limits and so IH permit that's that could fall in that conical zone um being just in practice and communication between I and the city laws and the city engineer you know is in charge of those conical zones whenever I'm considering before I sign a permit I just shoot him off I mean this is how I do it I should come off an email and they said you know say I have uh personal land and identify the parcel numbers and then putting up a machine chat or brain bin or um whatever it may be and the maximum height of the structure is and based on you know my understanding of the ordinance you know I'm gonna go ahead and approve this and maybe five days you know to to respond.

You know I mean that's how how I do it but that didn't mean the next person well and so there is no yes you're right I don't see any um back checking or accountability built into this you know in case somebody wasn't there so it's an outlier I'm not concerned of it being an act normal thing happening but I again going back to a January discussion said one of the problems we had with the old way was it was easy to look away from it and not and not enforce it.

And I thought that's we were going for more like control and making sure if we did have a variance we were conscious of it at the airport level not just at the a local level but that that that's a comment I'll make but I'm gonna two to Commissioner Keene's points to Mr Reed does and I sit on the airport board as you do and does the airport board monitor this as far as the the um the zones that we have for potential developments as well is there that layer of of uh oversight I I mean I I guess I'll make two points there um you know for so let's say someone's going to propose a cell phone tower somewhere um in our midst we're gonna have an opportunity through the FAA to to comment on that um uh from our point of view oh along with the FAA is this going to be a hazard to navigation or not I think you know I think to your point I think we had a good long discussions about the building

I mean I I guess I'll make two points there.

Um, you know, for so let's say someone's gonna propose a cell phone tower somewhere um in our midst.

We're gonna have an opportunity through the FAA to comment on that um uh from our point of view along with the FAA, is this gonna be a hazard to navigation or not?

I think you know, I think to your point, I think we had good long discussions about the building of a barn that was within a zone.

I think toward some of your comments, especially out in the counties, uh the other affected county.

I think we're really talking about not utilization in as much as its heights.

I think in most of all those cases, that's 500 feet or more.

That is gonna draw a lot of attention if you start building something that's gonna exceed that height, uh, for sure.

Good good point.

Any further discussion?

We talked about temporary gatherings and uh versus permanent or longer term gathering, but I don't see anything in here that talks about temporary.

So any others that'll be in the eyes of the beholder.

Yeah, I mean if there's some sort of you know change in use of a property that is intended to accommodate like a permanent about a say a political round or Dr.

Warner wants to have a big party with mayo energy generator's farm and things like that.

Yeah, it does not address temporary uh uses.

It does not.

So everything in here is uh relative to a what might I call a permanent uh whatever permanent right?

I mean the the what triggers the you know the use of the ordinance is a building permit application.

Okay, so um you know if you have a political rally permit, it wouldn't uh you know it wouldn't trigger someone to go look at this necessarily.

If you wanted to have your political rally on the end of the runway, I think all our made them where we're holding under a any other discussion seeing none.

Uh we have a motion on the floor.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Uh next steps.

Mr.

Carlson.

I think we can just continue on to number six.

Maybe I if I may, Mr.

Chairman.

Um just so that I can confirm.

Um, we will need uh to send this on to MINDAT to do one final review.

Um, obviously um we anticipate that being quick because we've already gone through a couple of rounds of review with Mendot.

Uh they did make some changes.

I will need each member of the Jazby to sign the proposed ordinance.

There's a signature line for each of you.

Do you want me to do that after MindApp has their chance to review?

I think so.

Yeah.

So we will send this to MINDAT.

So next steps, I I anticipate this is our last meeting for a while.

Um I will need to track each one of you down to get a signature.

I think we can probably just do it via docusign at some point once Mindut has had a chance to to review.

So be on the lookout.

I've got good email addresses for everybody, and I think that's all I needed to say.

Any other business?

Seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn?

So motion made by Commissioner Mueller, seconded by Commissioner Gutka.

All in favor say aye.

Oh say nay, we are