Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Rochester Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Summary: October 29, 2026

Boards and Commissions — Thursday, October 29, 2026

BodyRochester, Minnesota

SessionBoards and Commissions

DateThursday, October 29, 2026

StatusNEW · FILED

Video Record

0:00 / 1:45:53

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.

Speaker 1

0:02

Evening, I'll call the meeting to order.

0:04

We'll now begin with open common period.

0:06

This is a time in the agenda that allows members of the public to address the commission on items not on tonight's agenda as a public hearing.

0:13

If there's anyone listening that would like to address the commission, please do so at this time.

Speaker 2

0:21

And please introduce yourself.

Unassigned speaker

0:34

There

Speaker 2

0:34

we go.

Speaker 3

0:35

Hold it down.

Unassigned speaker

0:36

Good

Speaker 3

0:36

afternoon, Kelly Raykirkpatrick, 1107 East Center Street here in Rochester.

0:41

Forgive my sunglasses, it's exceedingly bright in here for me.

0:44

So I'm here to speak about Shannon Oaks 8th edition.

0:49

I want to suggest that you table this particular plat due to a lack of, let's call it evidence, not against housing, but so that you are all informed as to the full capacity of the land.

1:05

If you recall when I spoke last month, that was my object objective in our land practices and our necessity for housing, is that we shouldn't be working towards engineered mitigation to solve what we're trying to do, but instead work with the land to provide the housing that we need.

1:21

So why table this particular plat?

1:24

Mostly it's to defer for evidence and not against housing.

1:28

And please complete request for a complete environmental record before the city advances this decision, as it may shape wetlands, groundwater drainage, and neighboring properties.

1:41

The lots have been widened.

1:43

We don't know why.

1:44

Perhaps that can be answered.

1:46

But the staff recommends the approval with five conditions.

1:50

However, the site has earlier planning from 2019 that may or may not work with current regulations, and the layout has made some changes to adapt from that original 2019 preliminary plat.

2:04

And prior planning approval is the most relevant context, but in and of itself, that is not the answer for ever for every current wetland and geological question.

2:17

So whether the current record supports the findings that are needed now is what we're after.

2:25

So wetland status must be documented, and we trust the city will do that, but it shouldn't be assumed.

2:30

So one of the key pieces of the feature of this land is the incidental wetland.

2:42

So finding out about that would be really helpful for you before you go forward to approve this andor direct the city council to approve it as well.

2:50

So again, a complete wetland delineation, ask for that plat overlay on top of the wetland delineation, and get the exact conservation act, wetland conservation act information in your hands in your packet, so that you know what you're voting for.

3:07

And then your local government unit is the common council to approve this.

3:12

You are an advisory panel to the council.

3:14

Please make sure that you are communicating with them and they understand everything that you are getting so that they can move forward as they need to as well.

3:23

Desktop maps are great.

3:25

We can all access them, but the sites are well known by the folks that have lived there.

3:29

They've watched the geology change, they see where the rain goes and all of those other things, where the seeps are, decora edge may be exposed or not.

3:37

And then you need to ensure that all of the grading and everything that's going to be done will not impact and require that engineered mitigation.

3:47

It's not an assumption.

3:48

We want to make sure that the impacts will occur and not require that mitigation.

3:55

And why table instead of relying on the conditions that staff has shown you?

4:01

Because you want to be able to view and make sure that those issues have been resolved before you give your approval, and your packet is not complete to be able to do that at this time.

4:13

So these can be later later addressed if it is lawful.

4:18

The city certainly won't do anything unlawful.

4:20

However, it's important that you have all the information.

4:23

So ask staff to identify which issues must be resolved now and which can be conditioned and the legal basis for that distinction.

4:32

And then finally, it's the city's responsibility to demonstrate with adequate technical evidence and the required process that this layout protects wetlands.

4:43

It protects our groundwater, which is so critical in a growing city right now, and the slope stability and neighboring properties.

4:50

So again, this is not to say no to housing.

4:54

This is to proceed with findings that identify what is satisfied and what remains outstanding.

5:02

Thank you for your

Unassigned speaker

5:02

time.

Unassigned speaker

5:06

Are

Speaker 1

5:06

there any other members of the public that would like to address the commission?

5:10

Seeing none, I'll now call the meeting to order and take the roll call.

5:15

Commissioner Ross.

5:16

Here.

5:16

Commissioner Aishan.

5:18

Here.

5:18

Commissioner Klein.

5:19

Here.

5:20

Commissioner Boyum.

5:21

Here.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Parking██████████████████████████26%

Procedural█████████████████17%

Homelessness████████████12%

Zoning Regulations█████████9%

Environmental Protection████████8%

Infrastructure And Capital Projects███████7%

Public Comment█████5%

Wetlands█████5%

Veterans Affairs█████5%

Summary of Proceedings

Rochester Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Summary

October 29, 2026

The Rochester Planning & Zoning Commission convened on October 29, 2026, to review a major residential subdivision and a veteran-focused housing development. Commissioners heard public testimony, debated parking minimums and environmental review conditions, and issued recommendations to the City Council.

Consent Calendar

The Commission approved the minutes of the September 16, 2026 meeting (per the transcript), noting a discrepancy with the agenda which listed the date as September 30, 2026. The vote was unanimous.

Public Comments & Testimony

Open Comment Period: Kelly Raykirkpatrick, a local resident, addressed the Commission on the Shannon Oaks Eighth plat. She requested the item be tabled to allow for a complete environmental record, including a current wetland delineation, to fully understand impacts on wetlands, groundwater, and neighboring properties. She explicitly stated her position was "not against housing" but in favor of proceeding with adequate technical evidence.
Public Hearing (Items 6A & 6B – MACV Veterans Housing):
- John Lovald (COO, Minnesota Assistance Council for Veterans): Stated MACV's mission of ending veteran homelessness, emphasizing the proposal is for permanent supportive housing. He noted that 90% of MACV clients are at or below 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI), and half of those are at 30% AMI or lower. He cited a 15% vehicle ownership rate across their statewide portfolio and expressed MACV's commitment to being responsive to neighborhood issues.
- Andrew Nofziger (Area Resident): Supported the project's mission and urban infill density goals but expressed specific concerns about parking and pedestrian safety given the site's proximity to an elementary school.
- Correspondence: The Commission discussed a letter from a neighbor describing criminal activity near the site. Commissioners noted the content was concerning but largely outside the purview of the zoning decision.

Discussion Items

Item 5A: Major Land Subdivision (Shannon Oaks Eighth)

Proposal: Castlewood Homes, Inc. proposed a 25-lot single-family subdivision on 10.73 acres of R-1 zoned land, east of Oakview Drive Northeast.
Staff Report (Desmond McGill): Recommended approval subject to five conditions. Key among them was a requirement that the applicant obtain approval of a Wetland Sequencing Replacement Plan from the Local Government Unit (LGU) and Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) prior to final plat submission, as the site's 2015 wetland delineation had expired.
Applicant (Mark Wells, GCUBE): Confirmed a new wetland delineation had been submitted. He argued the redesigned layout reduces grading and environmental impact compared to the prior 2019 plan. The applicant accepted the five conditions.
Commission Debate: Commissioner Ross expressed a lack of comfort with the outstanding wetland information and proposed tabling the item. Staff and the City Attorney clarified that conditioning wetland mitigation is standard practice and that a 60-day statutory deadline (submitted Sept 16, deadline Nov 16) was approaching.
Key Outcome: Motion to forward a recommendation of approval with the five conditions passed 3-2, with Commissioner Ahmed abstaining. The matter will proceed to the City Council.

Items 6A & 6B: Public Hearing – Veterans Housing (Lennar/MACV)

Proposal: A 11-unit (23-bedroom) townhome development for veterans. The Travel Demand Management Plan (6A) requested a parking reduction from 10 to 2 spaces. The Major Modification (6B) requested reduced setbacks/buffer yard.
Staff Report (Eliot Miller): Recommended approval for both, citing the project's social equity value, proximity to frequent transit services (Link BRT), and alignment with city goals to reduce excessive parking.
Commission Debate (Parking):
- An initial motion to approve the parking reduction to 2 stalls failed 2-3.
- Following negotiations, the applicant accepted an amendment from Commissioner Aishan to require 4 parking stalls instead of the requested 2.
Key Outcome (6A): The motion to approve the TDM plan for 4 parking stalls passed 4-1 (Commissioner Ross recused). The approval was tied specifically to the MACV project.
Key Outcome (6B): The motion to approve the Major Modification passed unanimously.

Other Business

Staff provided a recap of the October 19 City Council meeting, noting approvals of several other subdivisions (Graham Acres, Westbury 2nd, Pebble Creek 7th).
The next Planning & Zoning Commission meeting was scheduled for November 18, 2026.

Meeting Transcript

Evening, I'll call the meeting to order. We'll now begin with open common period. This is a time in the agenda that allows members of the public to address the commission on items not on tonight's agenda as a public hearing. If there's anyone listening that would like to address the commission, please do so at this time. And please introduce yourself. There we go. Hold it down. Good afternoon, Kelly Raykirkpatrick, 1107 East Center Street here in Rochester. Forgive my sunglasses, it's exceedingly bright in here for me. So I'm here to speak about Shannon Oaks 8th edition. I want to suggest that you table this particular plat due to a lack of, let's call it evidence, not against housing, but so that you are all informed as to the full capacity of the land. If you recall when I spoke last month, that was my object objective in our land practices and our necessity for housing, is that we shouldn't be working towards engineered mitigation to solve what we're trying to do, but instead work with the land to provide the housing that we need. So why table this particular plat? Mostly it's to defer for evidence and not against housing. And please complete request for a complete environmental record before the city advances this decision, as it may shape wetlands, groundwater drainage, and neighboring properties. The lots have been widened. We don't know why. Perhaps that can be answered. But the staff recommends the approval with five conditions. However, the site has earlier planning from 2019 that may or may not work with current regulations, and the layout has made some changes to adapt from that original 2019 preliminary plat. And prior planning approval is the most relevant context, but in and of itself, that is not the answer for ever for every current wetland and geological question. So whether the current record supports the findings that are needed now is what we're after. So wetland status must be documented, and we trust the city will do that, but it shouldn't be assumed. So one of the key pieces of the feature of this land is the incidental wetland. So finding out about that would be really helpful for you before you go forward to approve this andor direct the city council to approve it as well. So again, a complete wetland delineation, ask for that plat overlay on top of the wetland delineation, and get the exact conservation act, wetland conservation act information in your hands in your packet, so that you know what you're voting for. And then your local government unit is the common council to approve this. You are an advisory panel to the council. Please make sure that you are communicating with them and they understand everything that you are getting so that they can move forward as they need to as well. Desktop maps are great. We can all access them, but the sites are well known by the folks that have lived there. They've watched the geology change, they see where the rain goes and all of those other things, where the seeps are, decora edge may be exposed or not. And then you need to ensure that all of the grading and everything that's going to be done will not impact and require that engineered mitigation. It's not an assumption. We want to make sure that the impacts will occur and not require that mitigation. And why table instead of relying on the conditions that staff has shown you? Because you want to be able to view and make sure that those issues have been resolved before you give your approval, and your packet is not complete to be able to do that at this time. So these can be later later addressed if it is lawful. The city certainly won't do anything unlawful. However, it's important that you have all the information. So ask staff to identify which issues must be resolved now and which can be conditioned and the legal basis for that distinction. And then finally, it's the city's responsibility to demonstrate with adequate technical evidence and the required process that this layout protects wetlands. It protects our groundwater, which is so critical in a growing city right now, and the slope stability and neighboring properties. So again, this is not to say no to housing. This is to proceed with findings that identify what is satisfied and what remains outstanding. Thank you for your time. Are

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com