Council approves rezoning for 94-unit Veldco apartment project at Bridal Road and Overland Drive

The Rochester City Council voted unanimously Aug. 18 to approve a rezoning request from developer Veldco that will change a 5.48-acre parcel at the southeast corner of Bridal Road NW and Overland Drive NW from MXS (Mixed use–Street) to MXC (Mixed use–Center).

The change was requested so the applicant can build a seven-building, three‑story apartment complex with 94 residential units. Desmond McGill, a planner in the city’s Community Development Department, told council members the MXC district allows a larger front-yard setback than MXS and therefore better accommodates the property’s irregular shape and elevation changes.

The rezoning was the subject of a public hearing. Kathy Donahoe, who lives on Bridal Drive, said she has lived next to the site for more than two decades and is concerned about increased noise, light pollution and safety as the area densifies. Alex Peterson, whose property abuts the site, said he was “not against the proposal” but questioned the basis for rezoning, noting that community development staff had said site layout is not a typical criterion for rezoning and arguing the record did not clearly show why MXC better aligns with the comprehensive plan.

Mark Wells, a civil engineer representing Veldco, told the council the property’s grade and utility constraints make the MXS requirement — which places buildings within 15 feet of the right-of-way — impractical. He said the MXC zoning provides the flexibility needed to keep parking and headlights away from existing single-family yards and that a site development plan had been submitted and was under review.

Council members questioned whether changing zoning without a binding site plan could allow more intensive commercial uses in the future. Staff responded that the two districts are similar in allowed uses and that the five uses added in MXC but not in MXS (including heavy commercial services, recycling transfer, mini‑storage and certain vehicle services) are limited in scope; staff also noted surrounding parcels already include more intense MXG and light industrial zoning. Council members asked about alternatives, including a variance, and were told a variance was possible but the applicant chose rezoning because it better addressed the site’s physical constraints.

Councilmember Mike Keane moved to approve the zone change (CD 2025‑004 ZC). Councilmember Cindy Palmer seconded the motion. The motion directs the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for first reading. The motion passed unanimously.

The project remains subject to site development plan review; staff said the rezoning would have applied to most development scenarios for that parcel and that the current site plan is the example used in the application, not a guaranteed final layout.

Council discussion and public testimony emphasized the differences between rezoning and site-level approvals: rezoning changes the permitted uses on a parcel, while the site development plan will control building placement, parking layout, lighting and mitigation measures. Residents urged the city to require lighting and parking configurations that limit glare on adjacent R‑1 properties.

The council’s approval directs staff to prepare the ordinance for the required first reading; no building permits or demolition were approved by the council at this meeting.