5 p.m.

Good evening and welcome to the April 8th Planning and Zoning Commission uh meeting.

Uh it is five o'clock.

I would like to open the meeting with an open comment period.

This is a time in the agenda that allows 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 that would like to address the commission, please do so at this time.

Do we have anyone on line?

City staff.

Just city staff.

Okay.

In that case, I would close the uh close the open comment period and move on to calling the meeting to order and take roll call.

Commissioner Ross here.

Commissioner Aishan.

Here.

Commissioner Klein.

Here.

Commissioner Krull.

Here.

Commissioner Andrist.

Here.

Commissioner Yoast.

Commissioner Boyum.

Here.

Commissioner Amund is absent.

So we have six present.

Commissioner Emoth is absent.

Moving on, we will set the order of the agenda.

Are any changes required for tonight's agenda?

Commission staff.

No.

If not, then I will ask for a motion to approve the agenda.

I'll move we approve the order of the agenda.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Krell and seconded by Commissioner Aishan.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any nays.

Item four A is the minutes from the March 25th, 2026 Commission meeting.

Has everyone had a chance to review the meeting minutes?

Are there any questions, comments, or concerns?

None.

If not, then can I have a motion?

Motion to approve the minutes.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Andrest and seconded by Commissioner Yoast.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Motion passes.

Moving on, we are at the reports and recommendations.

And we have two reports today.

Item five A is conditional use permit number CD 2026 003 C U P by the City of Rochester for changes to structural works with alterations of the flood wall for the development of the 6th Street Bridge with two conditions.

Staff, can we have a report?

Evening, Chair, members of the commission.

That was a mouthful for this conditional use permit.

So it's CD 2026 003 C UP.

And it's for the Sixth Street Bridge Project that's happening along 6th Street to connect 6th Street Southwest and 6th Street Southeast.

Again, it's uh located across the South Fork of the Zumbro River with the plan to connect 6th Street Southwest and 6th Street Southeast.

And as the chair had mentioned, the request is for changes to the structural work of that area as long as well as uh pulling back uh some of the flood walls um to make way for the development of the sixth street bridge.

Um and then specifically the reason why we have a conditional use permit is because of the floodway subdistrict, the piers that will support the bridge will be located within them.

The UDC requires a conditional use permit for that type of structure within the floodway.

Um tonight we'll be acting as a recommending body with the city council as the approval body.

On your screen right now is the site location.

Uh there's six street southwest and sixth street southeast.

Um, and the in the middle uh is an approved small area plan.

Right now it's the AMP site, but uh there's plans for a future mixed uh development, which is partially the reason for the bridge is to you know facilitate that um eventual redevelopment.

Um on the screen is the zoning map, uh the light green on the south is mixed use um transit node, I believe, and then mixed use fringe and then R3 to the east along Third Avenue Southeast.

So really meant for um densification.

Uh and then the along the Zumbro is parks in open space.

Um again, there'll be trails that will be maintained that way.

Um they're pulling back uh the flood walls uh to make way for more space.

Um, and then there's a UMR campus uh owned properties to the southwest.

Um, and then again AMP site, which is downtown fringe.

So this is the floodplain exhibit of the purple uh hatched as the floodway, orange is unregulated 0.2% chance flood.

Um, again, if we're picturing this area of the city, there's flood walls.

This is part of the flood project.

Um so you're talking about at least 10 feet, you know, uh difference um along the river to um the grade at which the street is at.

The flood walls being pulled back is one to accommodate the trail, but also there will be um I should say less than one inch rise in water level, um, not 0.1 inch.

Um, but it's so it's not eligible for a no-rise certificate.

Um, so because of that, the city will have to go through the FEMA uh clomer process um to uh um the floodplain um to reflect that change of less than one inch in rise um for downstream.

Um and then this is the UDC section that we uh would be referring to.

So railroad streets, bridges, and utility transmission lines um and pipelines are allowed in the floodway subdistrict um through the conditional use permit process.

Um city teammates, um specifically our DMC project managers um have been working closely with Olmsted County, the DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, um, as well as FEMA.

Um, and then due to the less than one inch rise, uh the city has submitted a conditional letter of map revision um to amend that floodplain.

Uh I will also say that uh this I don't want to say it's a procedural um vote tonight, but more or less um they have been working with the DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA, which all have permits that require greater detail than uh what they need to provide for us at the city.

Um Army Corps of Engineers, all of this has already been more or less approved.

Um they're just waiting on the Clomer and then this FDP prior to construction.

So our findings in brief, uh the bridge will be engineered uh or has been engineered with foundations designed to anchor itself to the riverbed.

Uh the bridge will be constructed with materials that are resistant to flood damage, um, probably concrete of some kind, um, and all associated utilities that would be crossing the bridge will all be above the regulatory flood protection elevation.

Um and so that's the base flood elevation, uh, the level at which there's a hundred-year flood event um plus a foot of free board to uh make up for any potential um extreme weather events uh in the future or uh the climate change um aspects that we've been kind of discussing with these floodplain development permits.

Um city teammates have also worked closely again with uh their two consultants, Bolton and Mank um and Bar Engineering uh to construct this bridge.

It's been almost a two-year process, I think now.

Um and then the again the expected rise is uh less than one inch.

Um and so therefore we would deem it not being detrimental to adjacent properties um or downstream.

Um tonight we're recommending approval with two conditions.

Uh so you see the recommendation recommended motion on your screen.

Um then two conditions would be prior to final approval, the applicant has to submit their uh engineered sign plans um to us for our records, um, as well as the uh clomer needs to be approved by FEMA prior to the construction of the bridge.

Uh I'll answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

Um any questions?

Oh, so Bob, the uh DMC representatives are not here today, right?

Correct.

So can you tell me how this ties with the DMC project?

Yeah, so this would be just another step of their um applications, another application that they would have to apply for um for the construction of the bridge.

Um really we're looking at the piers and that less than one inch rise.

Um otherwise, they've already gone through the Army Corps of Engineers for approval to pull back the flood walls.

Um they've also gone to council for approval of the whole project as well as funding.

Um otherwise, you know, this is one step, and then there's the clomer, which is through flooding.

I think my question is like rapid transit will turn around there.

Yeah, rapid transit okay.

Okay.

Sorry, I'll be right back.

No, you're good.

I just yeah, so yeah, it's really good, you know, other projects.

Just trying to connect some dots because I had forgotten what it was about.

So okay.

So uh I'm on page 14 of the agenda.

And so I'm looking at the diagram here, and uh, over to the right of that page uh of that diagram, there is a roundabout.

So and that is I think right above that area that is uh uh in the previous slide.

If you go to the one slide before, uh yeah, this one.

It's just over the area where it says downtown fringe, isn't it?

So what is that?

What is that circle over there?

Yep, so that exhibit that they have um shown is the approved um realignment of 6th Street, um southwestern into southeast.

Okay, um, and that's also portrayed in the approved small area plan.

Um so they'll be adding a roundabout.

Um, and that they've gone through uh many public engagement um events um for that area, especially because there's an elementary school just to the east, I believe, or nearby.

Um so they are really uh looking at the traffic flow um and that was recommended, and then it'll connect going south to facilitate that development.

What is the uh is that a parking lot over there right now?

Currently, I believe Mayo is using it as parking.

Oh, okay.

Okay, I get it now.

Okay.

So uh at the junction of sixth street southeast, there would be that round above.

Okay.

I get it.

Okay.

I don't have any other questions.

Any questions?

Nothing.

Okay.

So if there are no questions, I I can take a motion.

I go ahead, Jonathan.

You got this one.

Uh uh I uh will make a motion to forward a recommendation is council approving conditional use permit number CD 2026-003 C UP by the City of Rochester for changes to the structural work with alterations to the flood law for the development of the sixth street bridge with the two conditions.

I'll second that.

Motion made by Commissioner Aisha and seconded by Commissioner Cruell.

Any other discussions before I uh before I uh ask for a vote?

No.

Okay.

So all in favor say aye.

All right.

Any nays?

Motion passes.

Madam Chair, if I may.

Yes.

Just so that the record is clear.

Um, Commissioner Ahmed is now present.

So the vote was 90 unanimous.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I was going to ask you.

Item 5B is vacation petition number CD2026 002 VAC by City of Rochester to vacate a 66-foot-wide public right-of-way, approximately 125 feet in length, dedicated for 2nd Avenue Northwest, north of 26th Street Northwest, and south of the Riverview West Replat subdivision.

Staff, can we have a report?

Yes.

Uh thank you, Chair Gupta members of the commission.

Good evening.

Desmond McGill with community development.

I'll be bringing you this application tonight.

Um, this is a request for a vacation.

Uh, the applicant is the City of Rochester Public Works Department.

Uh the site is uh generally located in the Elton Hills area in the central part of the city.

Uh more specifically, it's located on the north side of 26th Street Northwest, uh, between 203 and 133 26th Street Northwest.

Uh the request is for the vacation of 125-foot long segment of 2nd Avenue Northwest, uh, which is located in the Valhalla 2nd subdivision.

Uh the approval body is the city council of a right-of-way vacation.

Uh, you are the recommending body to them, and uh our recommendation is for approval of this application.

Um, this is the uh Valhalla Second Subdivision plat.

This was uh platted in 1967.

Um you can see here uh the highlighted area, the hatched mark area.

That's the area of the subject vacation.

It is 66 feet wide and 125 feet deep.

Um again, the the uh the uh subject right away is highlighted in that pink area.

Uh you can see that the property all around the site is zoned R1, mixed single family residential.

Uh, there is an area of R2 out there uh off to the northeast.

Uh and in terms of land use, it's surrounded by single family residential on all sides.

Uh Viking Park is located a little bit to the south there, and uh there are those townhomes uh located out to the northeast.

Uh subdivision plates, uh the uh as mentioned Valhalla Second was uh platted in originally in 1967.

Uh and they did leave uh seconds second Avenue Northwest uh to be stubbed out to the north uh into future residential development.

Uh Riverview West first replied came came along in 1986.

For what reason they did not connect to uh that second uh avenue stubbed street, I'm not sure.

Um, but uh they did stop just short by ending their streets, uh West View uh and West Ridge uh lane as Cul de Sacks, uh just short of 2nd Street there.

Um this is the view from the south of the subject vacation area, uh 203 uh 26th Street on the left and 133 26th Street on the right.

Um, as you can see, uh one owner is already kind of utilizing the area for for their boat.

Uh and then uh there's nothing much going on the other side from a neighborhood perspective, not much will change.

Um the uh adjoining owners uh once it is vacated, uh, could potentially build a fence across this area if they wanted to extend their side yards out.

Uh each property owner would get essentially half of the right-of-way, most likely.

could see uh one owner is already kind of utilizing the area for for their boat uh and then uh there's nothing much going on the other side from a neighborhood perspective not much will change um uh the the uh adjoining owners uh once it is vacated uh could potentially build a fence across this area if they wanted to extend their side yards out uh each property owner would get essentially half of the right of way most likely uh that is a determination to be made by the uh uh property records office but we're pretty sure that's what will happen with with the uh vacated property once it goes through and is recorded um and uh we uh our city administration has been in discussion has discussed the vacation with the two owners they're aware that the they would be receiving the uh the the additional property in terms of any kind of property tax uh it would be minimal uh if any increase uh most of the value would be uh associated with the with the actual structure of the site and each area each property would gain about 4,000 square feet of uh property on their lot um in terms of summarized findings um the original street was dedicated for the use and benefit of the public for access and utilities since it cannot be utilized in this manner the right of way ought to be uh vacated by the city by releasing the property which would then be absorbed into the adjoining two lots from which the subdivision uh from which uh the street was created uh there is currently no ability to access this street the there was never any improvements and it currently uh uh dead ends into the backside of residential lots uh nor are there any existing utilities so um uh there really is no perceived need for this right away from from a city standpoint so our recommended motion for this is to forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for uh vacation petition cd 2026 002 vac with the findings and support outlined in the community development memo dated april eighth 2026 uh no conditions um and uh that concludes my presentation i'll it'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have thank you any questions commissioner uh clanfust why don't you sell it and build a house on it thank you that's gonna be my question that would that that would be a great idea and I was wondering if maybe the this city was looking at maybe acquiring it back uh because there would be enough to do that but unfortunately when the city vacates it uh it the property just isn't you know turn into like fee uh fee title land it is actually vacated back to you know the original subdivision property uh so and who is the adjoining owner to to that uh street right of way so um you know it would be great to build uh perhaps a get another house in in there uh but uh unfortunately the process is typically it goes back to the adjoining owners rather than to the other people in the subdivision from 67 it goes it goes to the owners on on on both sides of the vacated area from the ball hall uh second plat which was the 1967 plat.

That's the the the property in which it came from it wide enough to put a yeah whatever it would be actually it's 66 feet wide our minimum lot size is uh 60 feet wide on in the R1 zoning district uh it meet the minimum lot dimensions as well so could could uh these two owners potentially get together and uh do something with that property perhaps uh but that would be outside of the city's ability to you know require the city has no ability to retain the land to do what it wants to it um yeah uh I mean we could we we could just I suppose leave it as right away but um um you know it really wouldn't have any function um you said each property owner would get about five thousand commissioner I shouldn't go first yeah so I'm just gonna continue because that was kind of part of my questioning too so when the original subdivision was created those two 133 and 233 their lot lines were basically right in the middle of that right away but because there was that right away existing they couldn't do anything to that property so it's we're just basically giving them their property back correct yeah yeah okay commissioner Rossi had a question okay commissioner uh okay Mr.

Clausen I I would just note that the set the city never had fee title of this particular parcel certainly if it did then the city could sell it but essentially the city had rights to this parcel but didn't necessarily own it and fee and now that we're sort of giving up those rights the title still vests in the adjoining property owners.

Commissioner Anlin Commissioner asked the question yeah asked the question that I was sent to ask which clarify any other questions then is there yes I just want to clarify a bit more what Brent said there.

There's still that underlying ownership um and when it's vacated it goes back to that underlying ownership.

Okay.

Well, I was I was feeling like, okay, maybe we can put another house there.

That was my first thought too, with an isidential project for sure.

The one question I do have it's separate to the ownership of it.

So it's really for utility, but since there's a part directly um in front of it, is there even a consideration maybe of a public garden?

Like a vegetable or space.

Yeah, uh a green space, or more so even like a uh community garden slash like grow fruits and veggies.

Some are summer like the city does every year.

As like to the benefit of the community that is already in that neighborhood.

I think that would fall outside of what we previously heard.

What this isn't owned by the city, so the city can't determine any purpose other than street or utilities for that parcel.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you for that clarification.

All right, that answers it.

Any other questions?

So can we have a motion?

Uh no.

I'm I move to forward the recommendation of approval for vacation petition CD 2026 002 BAC with the findings and support outlined in the community development memo dated April 8th, 2026.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Boyham and seconded by Commissioner Yoast.

Any other discussion before I vote?

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Motion passes.

Moving on to public hearings.

We have one public hearing on tonight's agenda.

After staff have given their report on an item, each member of the public wishing to speak on the item will have five minutes to address the planning commission.

Item 6A is text amendment number C D 2026 001TA to amend Section 60.200.040E of the Unified Development Code.

Staff, can we have a report acting funny with the monitor, so I'll just have to go like that.

Perfect.

Yeah, thank you.

At Caples with Community Development.

And tonight I'll bring be bringing forward the text amendment number CD 2026-001TA.

Um, I just want to note that this is not the yearly UDC update that'll come later on in the fall.

This is more or less uh an update to the FEMA panels in coordination with the DNR and and FEMA itself.

So what is a text amendment?

It's an update to the unified development code, which is approved by city council.

Um this is the exhibit found in the um agenda packet.

And really what we're looking at here is some minor language cleanup, um, which is drafted by the DNR.

And then really what we're looking at here is the um the flood insurance rate map panels.

Um you can see the two panel upgrades there for I'm gonna list them off here 27109 C0164G and 27109 C0302G.

Um so really all the other panels are remaining the same, but um, and I'll get into this in just a minute, kind of in the the Bear Creek area.

Um, but this was a revision to those panels based on a study by by FEMA, I believe.

So here is um I took this directly from the FEMA website of all the panels in the city of Rochester, and you can see generally speaking, they're about three and a half miles or square miles each panel as a city annexes property in additional FEMA panels are adopted.

Um and then when there are our studies done, we have to um refer to the new study, and um the last time that was done was back in 2023 with the adoption of the Unified Development Code.

Um, and then previously was 2020 2017.

Um it's my understanding, just a little fun fact for you here that I believe the um oldest FEMA panel in the nation is 1980s area.

Um, but generally speaking, with each of the um, for example, for um G and E on the G and E on the panels that were adopting here.

The first one was the letter A.

So this would be the the seventh iteration of these FEMA panels.

Um when you actually pull the uh FEMA panel out, this is what it looks like, and really what it shows is just flood prone areas and um a requirement um for flood insurance if it's a federally backed mortgage, is what it comes down to.

So these are the findings which can be found in the staff report.

Um and just to touch on them briefly, the um the update does uh accurately address every single finding.

So this is the the recommended motion, and I'm happy to answer any questions after the public hearing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So since the uh since community development is the applicant, we don't have a separate applicant today.

So I will open the public hearing now.

Are there any members of the public?

Uh oh, sorry.

It's a public hearing.

So any members of the public.

So seeing none, I will close the public hearing and invite any comments, any last comments from the applicant.

Nothing that nothing.

Okay, now we can open it up for discussion.

Commissioner Ross.

Trying to be early.

Sorry.

Is this all revised?

Is this have anything to do with the stuff of city council approved on Monday?

No, this is um in regards to the Bear Creek levy.

Um, they had to get a recertification through FEMA.

Um, and through some of that work, uh, it was determined that there was a little bit of a discrepancy in it.

So FEMA actually went ahead and did a new study on it and it's adopting those panels.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

No questions.

Uh Commissioner Ayshen, did you have a question?

I did not.

Okay.

All right.

So in that case, I will take a motion.

I'll move forward a recommendation of approval of text amendment number CD 2026-001 TA with the findings and support outlined in the community development memo dated April 8, 2026.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Krull and seconded by Commissioner Andrist.

Any other discussion questions?

Commissioner Claren, you have a question?

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Motion passes.

Uh that concludes our public hearings for today.

Moving on to other business.

Uh, is there a city council recap?

Uh thank you, Chair Gupta.

Uh we do not have a uh report for you.

Uh we had a meeting a couple of days ago, um April 6th.

And uh we did not have any items that were considered by the planning commission.

We did have a final plat come through that the commission did see uh about a year ago.

It's the first uh uh final plat for the revised uh Pebble Creek development, 108 units uh were uh subdivided.

So that one's come part of that is it's only a part of the um 454 lots that they have platted, but there'll be other ones to come forward.

That's all I have.

Any other items from staff or from commission?

Yeah, I do just have one announcement to make that um I have accepted the position outside of the city of Rochester.

So my last uh meeting will be the 22nd of April.

And my last day will be April 24th.

Where are you going?

Um working for corporate Mr.

Carwash as a development manager.

Good luck.

Congratulations.

Anything else?

If there is nothing else, I would take a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Aishen and seconded by Commissioner Ross.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

We are adjourned.

Good job.

Thank you,