Rochester City Planning Commission — July 13, 2026 — ZAP Deliberations
Independently transcribed from a citizen video recording.
David Watson — South
Eugenio Marlin — Northwest
Milton Pichardo — Northwest
Nicholas Carleton — East
Niner Davis — Northwest
Steven Rebholz — East (Alternate)
J. Myers: Staff
T. Warth: Corporation Council
J. Myers: Yes, go ahead. Okay. So there was a lot to digest. What we're going to do is we're going to open it up to discussion. We are going to go through the 4 standards that we typically apply when we review the amendments, some of which are difficult to apply when we're thinking of a citywide update, but I'd like everybody to do their best, and I'd like everyone to give a response on each of the standards. And then we're also going to go over the, I believe, 6 MAP-related items that were brought up that were determined to be consistent with the Rochester 2034 Comprehensive Plan. Okay, so do we want to start with discussion?
Chairman Watson: Let's go through the request first. We'll go— the request to amend, and then we'll make a motion, and then maybe
Alternate Rebholz: I will second.
Chairman Watson: Yes. Actually, you want to read that request, please?
J. Myers: Yep, and I didn't get exact addresses for everything, but I think we all bring our recollection. So the first one was related to—.
Corporation Counsel Warth: No, no, no, there's no amendment. You have to pull back onto like the whole— what they're going to be deciding. But you read at the beginning of the—.
Chairman Watson: Oh, I'll read it.
J. Myers: Oh.
Corporation Counsel Warth: Just saying.
J. Myers: Gotcha.
Chairman Watson: Because like normally you do that at the beginning.
J. Myers: The request.
Chairman Watson: We've got to keep you honest.
J. Myers: Yeah. Keep me on my toes. Uh, to amend Chapter 120 of the City Code by deleting in its entirety Chapter 120 of the Zoning Code and replacing it with a new zoning code developed through the Zoning Alignment Project, and to adopt a new zoning map developed through that same project, an action requiring City Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council.
Chairman Watson: I need a motion.
Commissioner Carleton: Move it.
Unseen speaker: Second.
Chairman Watson: Thank you. All right, so we're moving second so that we can move forward with your process.
J. Myers: So do we want to open it up for discussion first?
Chairman Watson: Yes. Yep. All right, so open it up. Any issues or concerns that are not either general or specific?
Alternate Rebholz: I can just jump in as I read through the Kind of the directives from the Comp Plan and how they're embodied in the materials presented. I see them largely consistent, and I certainly agree there's things to talk about on both these things. But forwarding greater density along the transit corridors, I see you doing that. Repositioning and rezoning, declining Commercial corridors by changing the previous downzoning that hampered them from retaining those commercial corridors. I see doing that. Things like advancing diverse housing options, I see that. Right. Strict parking minimums, I see that. So I do see, you know, this event that it's— comprehensive look is consistent. Yes, it's universal.
Chairman Watson: You know, I agree with you. I think the overall— even though there's some specific areas that may have some concerns, or you may have some concerns about, I think in general it meets the overall goal of comp planning and it looks at issues that are necessary for the city to consider in order to be a viable place to live and work and have a viable impact within the city as well as within the state.
Commissioner Carleton: At this point, we've heard a lot of the public input, and it's been repeated almost to the point where I feel as though we have heard all of the input that we will hear, and we're starting to get repetition. We're starting to get a little vague. Comments, but it feels pretty sorted out at this point. I know we've commented, to Joanne’s point, that, you know, there was a postcard issue, there was concern about the short window. I don't feel that way anymore. I feel like there's been plenty of public involvement, that it has been heard. So I think we're at that point as well, to truthfully consider this.
Commissioner Davis: I feel like there's been a lot of consideration for comments. I think they gave a very thorough review of the comments and summarized them very well. In terms of like making sure they looked at them, like that gave them evidence that they did. Also choosing not to address the short-term rentals, I think was a great idea because I feel like that'll hamper the process a ton because there's so many moving parts with that. So yeah, I think it just reaffirmed for me that they actually paid attention and listened, and a lot of, like you said, the directions that it's going seem to be the direction we need to go overall.
Commissioner Pichardo: So. I mean, I'm going to echo everything everyone's saying. And I think they did a good job, like, actually engaging the community and reading each comment by selecting the things that are not zoning-related, so they have a list and people feel that, oh, this is not necessarily— our concerns aren't really zoning. We hear you, we understand them, and we have a list and it's in the box. So I do believe that they did a good job. To dissect each comment and anything related to zoning, combine it into the zoning law as best they can.
Vice Chair Marlin: I think that some of the issues— I see the concern in a lot of people with those changes and can you correct them. Our experience tells us that most of those are self-correcting. Time brings change. And throughout the years, we're able to adjust to the needs of the population in the city. So I'm comfortable with it.
Corporation Counsel Warth: How long have you been on the board for the commission?
Vice Chair Marlin: 20 Years.
Alternate Rebholz: When I look at Standard B, you know, I think that's the one where it talks about compatibility with present zoning. But I also look at— compatibility with conforming uses of nearby property and character of the neighborhood. And I think in many ways the revisions to the zoning are really responding to, A, the changes in the global market. Yeah. The desire for mixed-use districts, and also the present zoning wasn't supporting, you know, those uses. This change in zoning for support uses that was somehow hampered by the previous zoning. So even though I talked about with B, it's not strictly compatible with the present zoning, but it's a change in the zoning that's required to be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. And so I thought that kind of A as the guiding standard with B, you know, reactive to that guiding standard by changing the present value to be compatible and to support the comprehensive plan. So that's how I'm reading it and can see how that standard applies here.
Chairman Watson: All right, any other overall— any other concerns overall that we may have regarding that? Anything else?
Alternate Rebholz: I think the next standard is C, suitability of uses.
Chairman Watson: Oh, okay.
Alternate Rebholz: You heard a lot about that. You heard about tweaking the edges that are consistent with the comprehensive plan. I don't know if we're going to get to that, but in general, you know, where, you know, requests were not consistent with the comprehensive plan, I believe I understand that well and believe that the uses proposed are suitable, we'll have this amendment. That's why I see this satisfied in my mind.
Chairman Watson: Yeah, you know, to me also, I think the considerations that have been given to very specific areas of the zoning and looking at where potentially how to change, if or whether changes need to be, those are all things given due consideration to be able to make the optimal ..,outcome …positive for both the city and residents?
Commissioner Pichardo: Taking into consideration the use of space while also considering that they're not the only defense of the infinite fields that are used specific use is not suitable for that area, there is still other ways that the use could be monitored depending on the use.
Chairman Watson: modified
Commissioner Pichardo: Modified so I think
Alternate Rebholz: the last standard I see that available to services and infrastructures this week was and in many ways, you know, a vibrant and. Sustainable city will help keep that infrastructure and those services
Chairman Watson: up to date.
Commissioner Davis: Our city has changed drastically in the last 20 years, and now we're on an upward tick, and we need more housing, more development, more everything. So we need to admit that this is what's necessary to do that.
Alternate Rebholz: With respect to the comments, I think we're seeing, what is in my mind a very sustained and engaged community, both through the comprehensive plan and the comments that went through that, through this …process. And it's taken a while, but I'm encouraged by the breadth of comments, the number of comments, the thoughtfulness of those comments, and If any tweaks come up in response consistent with the plan, I think that's, you know, that's a good thing because it's— everyone once again…and it makes a difference when you come out and participate in the hearings and provide thoughtful input.
Chairman Watson: You know, and I think the response or the comment that the applicant made that, you know, the consultant was amazed at the amount of comments and community activity, community interest that were— that has been shown is unusual. So let's— I think it speaks highly of who we are as a city and the interest that, you know, the citizens have. All right, anything else on any of those 4 that we've talked about? A through D? Okay. All right, just one more about these 6 other—.
Alternate Rebholz: I mean, for me, I would like to discuss them here, posting about the 6, you know, consisting of energy, the edges, or in response to comments seen. Do you want me to be silent and let the council hear those comments again, or do you want to discuss today whether you think those tweaks should be part of our recommendation? I'm inclined to make them part of our recommendation, but it's all of us.
Corporation Counsel Warth: So do we put them in 2 categories?
Alternate Rebholz: Yeah, these are the categories where they work…
Corporation Counsel Warth: Okay. Maybe just to go over, like,
Commissioner Carleton: we have kind of an approximation of the US, but solo has We have kind of an approximation of the six, but also those six were 393 Merchants Road, University Avenue from Grove to Scio, 2316 Highland, Atlantic Avenue, specifically 1206 and 1225 Atlantic, 131 through 187 Chili Avenue, 185 through 261 West Avenue.
Chairman Watson: Those are all the ones that were in good shape.
Commissioner Carleton: They were consistent.
Alternate Rebholz: They were consistent with the ETD. They were the results of the community, you know, engaged and looking at. And, you know, certainly the broader requests made,The ones that are consistent over time, I wouldn't be inclined to recommend them.
Commissioner Carleton: Yeah, I'd be happy to discuss each one of them individually. I guess the 2 for me that just were sort of easy decisions, in my opinion anyways, were University Ave and Highland, Midtown there. Both are just very clear examples of, you know, we saw a lot of community outreach with one of them, the other one was just clear on the map. Um, so to me, those are easy recommendations. Again, we're not making the change, but I'd recommend those ones. The other ones I'm happy to discuss at greater length, but also agree with the recommendation to make the modification at this point.
Commissioner Davis: I thought they explained them fairly thoroughly.
Chairman Watson: I was satisfied with the explanation.
Commissioner Davis: I was, you know, their presentation, their breakdown, I felt comfortable enough saying like, okay, that makes sense, I understand where you're coming to that conclusion.
Commissioner Carleton: I remember here in Chili ave, you know, the community came out and really explained how they were putting changes to this and how it's always been bad. You know, that was pretty powerful.
Commissioner Davis: Yeah.
Chairman Watson: And I think also with that, the response, or I think response to the question that someone had regarding, you know, things are going to stay the same unless it's something, unless it's a change. So that, so not, A current landowner is not going to lose what they already have, right? It's going to affect anyone who comes in new with a new plan or changes. That will be the area in which will be affected, not the current owners.
Commissioner Pichardo: And it's very refreshing to see how fluid, in some cases, if the community wanted to be low density, and these happenings according to the comprehensive plan and all these items. So it wasn't that the proposal was, okay, we just have to do everything high density or bring— it was a fluid nature of how many happenings. Yeah. That makes me feel and understand that there was some thought put behind it. That we listen before making a decision.
Chairman Watson: And I guess for me, I think overall, I think as Steve had said, I think these things, I think, make sense. Nothing stuck out as saying, hmm, it doesn't sound right. Everything's made sense with their explanation of quite why they were being considered this way. And then even the ones that were not, make sense.
Alternate Rebholz: It makes sense that they're not consistent.
Chairman Watson: That's correct. That's correct. That's correct.So if we need, uh, you know, I would be more than willing to make recommendations for the city council to approve it. As they've identified. And again, not to— again, approve it as they've identified.
Corporation Counsel Warth: Is there any other—So you have a project, as we well know, from the 6th. And you could also— and I'm just raising this option to recommend with alterations. Yeah, is there any other concerns about other things?
Vice Chair Marlin: I think the staff did a great job. And I am satisfied.
Chairman Watson: And I think no, for me, no additional recommendation would be needed.
Commissioner Davis: For those 6 or—
Chairman Watson: For the whole plan. Yeah, the 6. Yeah, the 6. So the 6 were more than enough. But again, for the whole, recommend the whole plan without conditions, without any other changes.
Commissioner Davis: I guess overall there was a few things that caught my attention that I tried to get clarification on. Like, for example, the billboards thing was like, what do we need legislation for if they're staying the same things they— if they need to change, they have to the variance, what did they state for? I don't know, because if they're being told they have to take it down, they would be obviously compensated. And then another thing is with the corner stores and them being restricted to certain areas, my thought is like, will those areas become saturated with corner stores, you know, because now those are where they can be and other places they can't continue to be or, you know, start over again? Like, you know, you can't start a new corner store now that they put this into place, but does that mean areas where they are allowed are going to be— or not just corner stores, they refer to as food establishments. So my only concern there is, are those areas going to be saturated with that type of— Business. Business, which we already know a lot of areas are saturated. And the goal of this is to stop having certain areas be saturated by putting this restriction. But then it's just, you know, where are they allowed? I think that makes those neighborhoods— to the decline because that's what they have to do.
Corporation Counsel Warth: If I remember correctly, they require special permits
Commissioner Davis: Yes.
Corporation Counsel Warth: It's not automatic.
Commissioner Pichardo: I think they have like some almost—I think they have to go very specific scope ..so it's not even part of the existing scope. It's almost like they have to go and apply for a very specific use
Commissioner Davis: Yeah, they create— yeah.
Commissioner Carleton: The actual use of the land is what we're sort of looking at.
Commissioner Davis: Yeah.
Commissioner Carleton: You know, there's going to be steps for everybody to get through to establish those businesses.
J. Myers: Right. So, you know, now we see requests if there is an existing school and that goes vacant for a while and a new operator comes in and they are proposing a school, again, maybe some exterior changes, then that could be something that goes in front of Planning Commission for a special permit.
Alternate Rebholz: I would tell you that it's a little bit of a— we tried to regulate what people could sell before, and that it was not something that was illegal, but if it's not a use, and the use is described as to where it can be or especially permitted. I think it's a very, you know, kind of limited description. It's not— it takes into account a lot of regional differences. So I think it's worth doing. I think it's tightened up a little bit, and hopefully we'll get a chance to look at a number of those other 2 of the districts are permitted and the rest are special permitted. So, if one of those spots will be ready to hold more of those, rather than not regulating them at all because of the previous building. So, I think it's a good addition and hopefully it works.
Alternate Rebholz: All right, any other concerns, comments? When you look at the 4 Planning Commission review items, you look at the 6 areas, I think I hear us saying that in general we don't need to have any special conditions placed on our decision. So we have the choice of either voting to recommend the staff, recommend the changes, or to deny. So how do you feel about wanting to vote, or do you need some more discussion regarding that?
Alternate Rebholz: I think we should be fair. I'll be recommending with the prioritization of those 6 tweaks.
J. Myers: Or recommending with modifications. I think it's not the code.
Alternate Rebholz: Modifications to ordinance
Chairman Watson: Yes, yes, that's
Alternate Rebholz: the tweak to the motion that I'd like to get.
Chairman Watson: I don't have a problem with that. I think it makes sense. I think we all understand and agree that those changes or those specific reasons why they were included makes sense.
Alternate Rebholz: Ultimately, City Council's got to hear that again. If I were on City Council. I would want to hear what we think about them
Chairman Watson: That it makes sense and it's reasonable. Okay. All right, so, um, I understand or hear everybody saying that they agree with adding that as a— not a condition, but as a— no, modification.
Commissioner Carleton: Modification.
Chairman Watson: Okay, people are you okay with it? (heads not all around) I am, yes. Okay, all right, so with that modification, um, ready to vote? So we're voting on making a recommendation to the city council to approve the ZAP with the modifications of those things that we've identified. All those in favor? (all hands raise) Opposed? 6-0- 0 6, Yeah, 6 votes. All right, uh, thank you for moving the recommendation to the council. And congratulations. Thank you all. Thank you very much.