City Council Unanimously Approves Two Major Housing Subdivisions
Westbury First and Century Valley 5th plats receive green light, aiming to address Rochester's single-family housing shortage and facilitate planned community growth.
The Rochester City Council has unanimously approved two significant major land subdivisions, Westbury First and Century Valley 5th, at its recent meeting. These approvals pave the way for the development of new single-family residential units and signify a commitment to planned community growth within the city. The projects are anticipated to play a crucial role in addressing the ongoing demand for housing in the area.
Westbury First Subdivision Advances
The Westbury First subdivision, proposed by Bigalow Homes LLC, is planned for an area near 60th A Northwest and Kingsbury Drive Northwest. The approved plat includes provisions for the continuation of local streets and comprehensive stormwater management, with proposed treatment areas detailed in the General Development Plan (GDP). This development is set to add much-needed single-family homes to Rochester's housing inventory.
This plat provides continuation of local streets stormwater management and the stormwater management will be addressed by utilizing proposed treatment areas shown on the GDP. The proposed subdivision helps address the city's current shortage of single family residential units.
Century Valley 5th Receives Approval
Concurrently, the City Council also granted unanimous approval to the Century Valley 5th subdivision, an application from Roger Payne. This project is situated on Silver Creek Road Northeast in the Bella Vista area, directly adjacent to the existing Century Valley 4th development. The plat was presented as consistent with R2 zoning regulations and aligned with the 2023 revised general plan for Sentry Valley, indicating a continuation of established development frameworks.
This plat is consistent with the R2 zoning, the 2023 revised general plan for Sentry Valley. The previous plat submitted for this site is identical, and commission unanimously recommended that the council approved the subject application subject to the four conditions of approval.
With both major subdivisions receiving full council backing through unanimous votes, Rochester is poised to see progress in its efforts to alleviate housing pressures and foster well-planned residential communities. The decisions underscore the Council's confidence in the projects' adherence to established planning and zoning regulations and their anticipated positive impact on the city’s continued growth trajectory.
Our proprietary artificial intelligence agent analyzed publicly available documents including meeting agendas, minutes, and transcripts to write this story to help inform local residents. Feedback helps us improve, so please consider rating how we did with the thumbs up or down below.
Go deeper on this topic
Research related meeting documents and build a brief — without rewriting the story.
Full analysis
Votes (5)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by MJK, LLC
Dissent: None
Moved by Council member Palmer [0:40:17] · Seconded by Council member Wall [0:40:24]
The applicant requested a continuance for their Conditional Use Permit application to a later date (September 9th, 2026) to allow for further review and presentation, particularly concerning specific items with airport staff. The public hearing was opened but will remain open until the item is brought back.
Appeal by Broadway Enterprises LLC (CD 2026-002AP)
Dissent: Council members Frederick's and Palmer voted Nay, opposing the denial of the appeal.
Moved by Council member Keane [1:16:03] · Seconded by Council member Miller [1:16:32]
This appeal concerned an expired site development plan for a commercial project on Broadway Avenue North. The applicant sought to proceed with a previously approved design (22 ft height) that no longer met the current UDC's minimum height (40 ft) and other standards. Arguments for the appeal cited external delays (pandemic, road construction) and reliance on the original approval, emphasizing the integrated nature of the two-phase development. Staff and council members debated whether the practical difficulties were self-created by the developer's inaction, the importance of upholding the UDC's new standards, and the precedent of allowing expired plans to be revived.
Major Land Subdivision by Bigalow Homes LLC (Westbury First) (CD 2026-014 PLAT)
Dissent: None
Moved by Council Member Frederick's [1:23:40] · Seconded by Council Member Doring [1:24:08]
This item involved the final plat approval for the first phase of the Westbury development, creating 105 single-family lots. Staff confirmed consistency with the approved General Development Plan and prior major land subdivision approval. The applicant agreed to the proposed conditions, emphasizing the project's contribution to the city's housing needs.
Major Land Subdivision by Roger Payne (Century Valley 5th) (CD 2026-00009 PLAT)
Dissent: None
Moved by Council Member Frederick's [1:29:05] · Seconded by Council member Keane [1:29:32]
This was a final plat application for 16 residential lots in Century Valley 5th. The previous preliminary plat had expired, leading to this revisiting. Staff noted that the plan was consistent with zoning and the revised general plan for Sentry Valley, and that the applicant had met two of the initial four conditions. The motion for approval was made with the remaining conditions.
Elton Hills Drive Northwest Traffic Study and Alternative Selection (Project J7313)
Dissent: Discussion was ongoing, with Council Member Palmer advocating for Option 3, and others voicing concerns about the staff recommendation (Option 1) and supporting the motion for Option 2.
Moved by Council Member Doring [1:57:48] · Seconded by Council Member Miller [1:58:32]
The council debated three options for Elton Hills Drive: Option 1 (staff recommended, 3 lanes, parking both sides, no bike facility), Option 2 (PBAC recommended, 3 lanes, parking one side, two-way cycle track), and Option 3 (4 lanes, parking both sides, no bike facility). Key points included balancing traffic speeds, safety for all users (especially children near schools), cost implications of different bike lane barriers, snow removal, garbage collection, and adherence to the city's Complete Streets and Active Transportation policies. Some council members and residents emphasized neighborhood preference for four lanes and avoiding bike facilities, while others advocated for protected bike lanes and road diets to improve safety and encourage active transport, citing the long-term vision and grant opportunities. The discussion ended mid-sentence during comments on the motion for Option 2.
Notable Quotes (11)
I've been having some going back and forth with the airport staff on some items here really to answer any questions you may have. I understand we asked for the continuance. Uh we do have the blasting expert um here. We don't know if we'll have him at the next available meeting.
We're not asking you to approve a new development... is a continuation of a previously approved project. We're not asking you to take any steps to weaken the newly adopted UDC. We're simply asking you to allow completion of what is a two-phase project that the city has previously approved.
I think that's an important standard that if nothing's done in a year or whatever a time frame is or no extensions are requested, the plan is null and void.
This seems to me like we're getting caught up in policy, this, that, and everything. Just use some common sense on it. That's that's where I'm at.
we're making a quasi judicial decision. And so we've been down this path before where feelings get in the way of the quasi judicial nature of a city council.
This plat provides continuation of local streets storm water management and uh the storm man storm water management will be addressed by utilizing proposed treatment areas shown on the GDP. Um, uh, the proposed subdivision helps address the city's current shortage of single family residential units.
This plat is consistent with the R2 zoning uh the 2023 [snorts] revised general plan for Sentry Valley. Uh the previous plat submitted for this site is identical. uh and commission unanimously recommended 80 uh that the council approved the subject uh application subject to the four conditions of approval.
Our recommended option, not spoil the presentation, but three lanes with parking on both sides.
My frustration is that this council and the previous councils voted for complete streets and they voted for active transportation. Those are the policies that we're supposed to be working within. And here we are bringing back recommendations that don't follow the two policies that the board has adopted already.
With no perfect answer, it's going to be hard for me to vote against the people who actually live in the neighborhood. ... So the issues are many ... I'm in favor of uh option three, keeping the road at four lanes, but adding safety features that were suggested six and seven years ago...
I move to approve the design concept and advancing to final design a threelane street with a two-way cycle track and parking on one side along Elton Hills Drive Northwest from Broadway Avenue North to 500t east of a CC drive northwest. Project number uh J7313.
Ordinances & Resolutions (15)
Cited by citizens advocating for bike infrastructure and by staff as a policy to align with.
New zoning code central to the Broadway Enterprises appeal, replacing the LDM.
Previous zoning manual under which Broadway Enterprises' initial plan was approved.
City's long-term development strategy, cited in Broadway Enterprises appeal.
Application ID for Broadway Enterprises LLC's appeal.
Original variance request for Broadway Enterprises LLC, denied by ZBA.
Approved plan for Broadway Enterprises' project that later expired.
Application ID for Westbury First subdivision.
Overall development plan for the Westbury area.
Application ID for Century Valley 5th subdivision.
Overall development plan for the Sentry Valley area.
The subject of a council discussion on redesign alternatives.
City policy advocating for safe access for all modes of transportation.
Committee's recommendation for Elton Hills Drive design.
Committee's stance on Elton Hills Drive design, no preferred alternative.
Source document
Was this story helpful?
Other Topics from This Document
Public Safety and Traffic Calming
Land Use and Development (Annexation)
Elton Hills Drive Traffic Study and Redesign
Civic Center North Redevelopment
Development Plan Expiration and Variances (Broadway Enterprises)
North Loop Maywood Bike/Pedestrian Path
City Operations and Public Engagement
Want to know when new stories arrive?
Enter your email to receive updates.
We will not use your email for any other purpose. You can unsubscribe at any time.