Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.11.10 CCM WORK11/10/25 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 10, 2025 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session called to order by Mayor/President April Graves at 8:22 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President April Graves and Councilmembers/Commissioners Dan Jerzak, Teneshia Kragness, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, City Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. Councilmember/Commissioner Kris Lawrence-Anderson was absent and excused. ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS GENERAL PLANNING INFORMATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION PROCESS Dr. Edwards explained that this was an item that Council had previously requested about applications that come forward for the Planning Commission, with a clear differentiation between this process and the Economic Development process. Dr. Edwards introduced City Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh to present this item. Ms. McIntosh stated she had a lot of information to get through, but would try to go as quickly as possible. She noted that City Planners are professionals who work to improve the quality of life for an entire community. She said that City Planners work with a wide range of people and groups, including government entities, attorneys, architects, landscape scape architects, urban designers, civil engineers, real estate developers, land surveyors, hydrologists, GIS specialists, real estate brokers and agents, private consultants, and community members. Ms. McIntosh explained that City planning emerged as a profession and practice in the early 1900s, as a large number of people were moving to cities at the time, which caused numerous problems. She noted that not too long ago, public health and urban Planning were synonymous professions. She stated that city planning has a lot of focus on architecture and social work. With the emergence of City Planning came the creation of laws called zoning ordinances, which were originally 11 /10/25 -2- DRAFT intended to keep people, businesses, and incompatible land uses apart from one another. She noted that, until a few years ago, the City did not have mixed-use zoning due to changes that had occurred within the City's landscape over the years. Ms. McIntosh explained that City Planners are charged with translating what a community wants by helping shape what can be built and how it can be used through prioritizing long-term land-use and sustainable growth. She noted that economic developers focus on improving a community’s economic well-being by creating or retaining jobs, attracting businesses, and expanding existing ones, while boosting the tax base and enhancing the quality of life for residents. She stated that both roles involve developing a single cohesive vision that integrates long-range community plans and short-term Economic Development goals. In Brooklyn Center, the Planning Manager and Associate Planner are partially funded by the EDA and are involved in some econo mic activities, but not all. Ms. McIntosh detailed the review process and noted that zoning requests are typically reviewed by the City Council as either a concept review or a Planning Commission application. Brooklyn Center has historically used City Council concept reviews to vet out certain projects on the front end before having the applicant work through the full City approval process. This is to the benefit of City Staff, the applicant, the Planning Commission, and the Council because it can save time and mitigate risks or funds spent on a potential project. Depending on the scale of the project, a developer can spend anywhere between $300,000 and $500,000 on a project prior to receiving City approval. These costs are related to the preparation of engineering and architectural plans, environmental assessments, traffic studies, geotechnical reports, application preparation for the Planning Commission, and more. Ms. McIntosh asked that when she comes before the Council with a concept review, the Council give honest and direct feedback during that meeting to save time and frustration for the applicant, because she has had applicants spend $50,000 to $90,000 on a small project just for the concept review. She noted that when clear feedback is not given by the Council, problems can arise that negatively affect the applicant and the project, when the applicant did not know the Council had any issues. Ms. McIntosh stated that Planning and Zoning concept reviews are most often requested when a particular use is not clearly identified in the City's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) or outlined as an approved use in a particular zoning district. Concept reviews are considered non- binding, but they offer an opportunity for City Staff and the applicant to highlight their request to the Council and to receive feedback with respect to any concerns or considerations. She noted that even if the City Council is not supportive of the request, this does not prevent the applicant from proceeding through the Planning Commission process. Ms. McIntosh explained the Planning Commission application process. She noted that the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission consists of seven members and is the designated planning agency advisory to the City Council. The Planning Commission also serves as the City's Board of Adjustments and Appeals to hear appeals and variance requests. The primary role is to conduct Public Hearings on zoning requests like site and building plans, conditional uses, preliminary and final plats, ordinance amendments, and re-zonings, and to make recommendations to the Council. The Planning Commission also serves a variety of other functions and assists in the development 11 /10/25 -3- DRAFT of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. A key distinction of the Planning Commission is that it holds Public Hearings and it does not have a designated Council liaison. Ms. McIntosh noted that when appointing Planning Commissioners, the City should be aware that appointed officials are subject to the same concerns relating to a conflict of interest as City Councilmembers. The Planning Commission is also governed by many of the same statutes as the City Council, like the Open Meeting Law. Planning Commissioners are to base their decisions on the adopted City code with the best interests of the City in mind rather than those of a particular person or group, and are directed to objectively review applications. She noted that before a Public Hearing, the Planning Commissioners should avoid advocating for or against a project, posting about a project on social media, publicly indicating a position on the matter, and contacting the applicant or neighbors. A Commissioner is required to disclose if there is a financial or direct personal interest in a matter before the Planning Commission and may be required to abstain from participating in the discussion on the matter. Ms. McIntosh stated that in 2019, the city of Roseville had to remove its Planning Commission Chair after he failed to recuse himself from a Public Hearing after signing a petition in opposition to a project. Ms. McIntosh noted that applicants are required to meet with City Staff prior to submitting an application. The Planning Commission applications generally operate within a 60-day timeline to meet state statute requirements. The first 30 days are generally set aside to submit application materials to outside agencies or other City Staff for review. This time is also spent preparing any Public Hearing notices for newspaper publication, mail notifications, maps, and addressing any outstanding questions with the applicant or obtaining other documentation, and preparing the Staff report. The remaining 30 days are set aside to move the application through the Planning Commission and City Council. Ms. McIntosh explained that the Zoning authority is in the City’s general police powers, which are the ability to act and enforce laws for the promotion and protection of the public’s general welfare. Municipal and City Planning assists in ensuring the development of lands is to the best use to serve citizens more effectively, and to make the provision of public services less costly and achieve a more secure tax base. She noted there are two main categories of zoning decisions the Planning Commission and City Council should be aware of, and those include legislative and quasi-judicial. The legislative decisions are a broader discretion because they set public policy and affect the general public. This includes land-use plans, comprehensive plans, and zoning ordinances. The quasi-judicial decisions look at applying the laws or the ordinances that have been adopted as a body and established policy. These decisions typically only affect a few individuals and are the heart of the Planning Commission applications that are related directly to a property. These types of applications could include a variance for a particular property, conditional use permits, and plats. Ms. McIntosh explained that "findings of fact" is a term used to refer to a City's written explanation of a land use decision and are critical when making quasi-judicial decisions. She noted that if the City is ever sued over a land use decision, the courts would review the record for a sufficient statement as to why the City granted or denied the request. If the City denies an application related to zoning, Minnesota's 60-day rule requires the reasons for denial to be put in writing, and this 11 /10/25 -4- DRAFT should be done for approvals as well. When reviewing a Planning Commission application, it is important to make sure the reason for approval or denial is not in conflict with adopted codes and ordinances. Ms. McIntosh gave an example of an application denial for an apartment building with the reason cited as being too dense, or too many housing units, but the zoning code allows for that many housing units in that area, which would be problematic for the Planning Commission. Ms. McIntosh gave another example of an application denial for a subdivision of a property due to neighborhood opposition, but it met all the requirements for the subdivision, and stated this would also be problematic for the Planning Commission. Ms. McIntosh explained that City Attorneys were able to provide more examples of poor findings of fact. These include conclusionary statements which do not explain underlying reasons or evidence; these would include statements about the project not being in the best interest of the community. Ms. McIntosh provided another example of bad findings of fact, which is called a lack of evidentiary support, which means that findings do not reference any specific or expert testimony from a public hearing to support them. An example of this would be if a member of the public made a statement that a project would disturb the root system of existing trees with no evidence from the City's Forester or Landscape Architect to support that statement. Ms. McIntosh highlighted that another bad finding of fact is a reliance on generalized public opposition. This would include a zoning decision based solely on general, unsubstantiated fears or opinions of local residents, rather than objective evidence relating to the ordinance criteria. An example of this would be denying an application based on numerous residents' concerns regarding increased traffic and noise. Ms. McIntosh explained other problematic denial decisions, such as a failure to address specific ordinance criteria. She noted that a City resolution must explicitly reference and apply the relevant legal standards to the facts of the case. An example of this would be the denial of an application due to not meeting City code standards, but not citing the City codes or how the application fails to meet them. Other examples of problematic decision-making include inconsistent rulings without explanations. She noted that if the Planning Commission or Council denied an application based on certain facts after having approved an identical application in the past without providing a reason to reach a different conclusion, this would be extremely problematic, and the reason why City Planners are very strict on precedent for projects. She noted that when reviewing a Planning Commission application, it comes down to a zoning decision and is not based on employment methods. Ms. McIntosh noted that neighborhood opposition should never be the sole reason to deny a project, and although it can be challenging, it is important for community members to provide information related to adopted legal standards and City code. Ms. McIntosh explained that “Missing Middle” legislation has resulted in a movement that has brought private and non-profit housing developers, religious groups, and social justice organizations together. This has resulted in bills floated through the Minnesota legislature over the past couple of years that have gained bipartisan support and would effectively end single- family zoning in Minnesota. The bills contain provisions that would require an administrative 11 /10/25 -5- DRAFT review approval process for residential developments with no more than one public meeting, which is not the same as a Public Hearing. Ms. McIntosh stated that the administrative review provisions under the "Missing Middle" legislation are targeted at avoiding situations where politics are brought into a zoning decision. She noted that supporters of the bill argue that because the City C ouncil adopted their respective comprehensive plans and zoning codes, City Staff are already reviewing projects against those provisions. She said that the argument is that if a project meets a municipality’s regulations and does not require a special approval or variance, it should be approved without the need to go before a City’s Planning Commission or Council. Mayor/President Graves said that when Ms. McIntosh was reading through this, she knew of some cities that came to mind that she knows are not following these regulations. Ms. McIntosh confirmed that Mayor/President Graves was correct. Mayor/President Graves said if that was the case, there would not be so many affordable housing units built in Brooklyn Center versus the other parts of the greater Metro area. Ms. McIntosh said to Mayor/President Graves' point, the Metropolitan Council just released their 2050 Housing Plan, and has a chart with estimated numbers of affordable housing units at 30 percent AMI and below 50 to 60 AMI for each city with recommendations of what should be in each city’s comprehensive plan. She stated that despite those recommendations, it is not pushed. Ms. McIntosh continued that some cities like Rochester, Bloomington, Wayzata, Blaine, Lakeville, and Maple Grove have proactively made amendments to their zoning codes to streamline the zoning approval processes by limiting conditional uses, allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and allowing for fully administrative review by city staff only. She noted that part of the reason this was enacted was due to damage done when applicants failed to get through the bureaucratic process of approval. She added that some cities have seen these changes as providing a competitive advantage to economic development and increasing the vitality of the city's business environment. Ms. McIntosh added that cities like Rochester, which have enacted this due to tremendous growth, would have to have their city council in session every day to approve all the applications if they did not streamline their approval process. She noted that unless it requires a variance, or something does not meet their city’s code, it never crosses their city council and goes straight through their city staff and receives a building permit. Mayor Graves said she could see how that would be advantageous, especially when trying to develop a business. Ms. McIntosh explained that there are limits to the City's zoning authority. These limits include the First Amendment, statutory limitations, the Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Minnesota state statute protections on certain uses, like group homes, which is one of the big ones, along with common law limitations that prohibit arbitrary and capricious decisions. She noted there are also limits on the conditions that can be placed on a particular permit, like a conditional or interim use permit. She said that the zoning authority also cannot attempt to manage 11 /10/25 -6- DRAFT a business, so employment policies, pay, and insurance requirements. She noted that conditions that are taken too far could also be considered unconstitutional and should only stick to zoning. Ms. McIntosh said if a lawsuit is filed, the courts would review the zoning decisions to determine if there is a reasonable, rational basis. A court could also reverse a decision made by the City Council if it is determined that a zoning decision was either approved or denied for a legally insufficient reason. Ms. McIntosh told the Council to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and ordinances, and make sure that applications are denied because something does not comply with code, and make sure it is in writing. She noted that the Council does not need an expert to refute an expert but to make sure reasons for denial are based on concrete observations, and not fear or speculation. Ms. McIntosh explained the 60-day rule and said it guides a City Planner's life. She noted there are certain triggers that dictate whether or not the applicant needs to go through the Planning Commission or the Council. She said her Department tries to work through any issues with the potential use and the developer firm prior to submittal because once the application is submitted and it does not have everything required, the applicant will get an incomplete notice from the Planning Commission, and the applicant has to wait another month to resubmit. She said that if project approval is dragged out by the city, and the 60-day deadline has passed, and there is nothing in writing requesting more time to review a project, the project is automatically approved. Ms. McIntosh noted that when she receives a complete application and all fees have been paid , it has to be brought through the process, whether she agrees with the project or not. Ms. McIntosh said that after the denial of an application, there is typically not a lot of movement from that request. Certain zoning requests, like conditional use permits, do not allow the applicant to bring a new request unless there is a substantial change in the request for a period of one year from when the Council made a decision. She said that for approvals, building permits need to be obtained and enacted within one year following approval, or they expire. Extensions can be granted by the Council if a request is received in writing from the applicant. She said that within the Community Development Division, Staff are revising and requesting plans for building permit submittals, and there are multiple iterations of construction sets that come through for approval. She noted that Staff also request title commitments and revisions to plats so they can file with the county, along with land surveyors, to make revisions. She noted that City Attorneys also review documentation to ensure that easements are vacated through engineering and get any required signatures prior to filing with the county. Ms. McIntosh said that Staff work through the City Manager and Mayor to obtain the bulk of the signatures required for all the agreements, and that is for EDA and non-EDA properties, coordinate with City Engineers to ensure a construction management plan is completed, obtain financial guarantees and deposit cash, escrow or letter credit prior to a building permit being issued, and schedule pre-construction meetings with building officials and engineering. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked if the property across from the new CAPI development, which has been sitting vacant and went into foreclosure, had reserve funds. Ms. 11 /10/25 -7- DRAFT McIntosh said that the project went into bank foreclosure, and the lender acquired the property. She noted the lender has been working on the property by installing a new curb, gutter, and pond. The lender has filed a new letter of credit, and all paperwork has to be redone because it was never filed with the county. She said that due to ongoing communication with the lender, her Department worked with them; if they had not been in communication with them, her Department would have gone straight to the bank and pulled funds to get the project cleaned up. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore said that may be one example, but ultimately, she would like the City to be made whole because there are costs to Ms. McIntosh's Department and others in terms of maintenance and upkeep that will have to be recouped from some other line item for that project. She stated she is worried about projects over time that never come to fruition and the costs associated with them. She asked for examples from Ms. McIntosh where the City may have been made whole, but things did not go exactly how she would have liked. Ms. McIntosh said there are limitations on what those funds can be used for, such as curbs and gutters, trash enclosures, landscaping, and sidewalk and concrete work. If the builder just left the site as is and did not make an effort, then City Planning would try to make the builder comply and get those things done. She said if the builder still did not comply, then City Planning has a line item set aside to find contractors to complete that work and do it for the builder. She said that it is an absolute last resort, though, and typically only happens after the builder has already walked off the project, and it is too late. Mayor/President Graves said that the line item is more like insurance. Ms. McIntosh said it really is, and the builder has their own insurance as well, but that would be her Department's own insurance policy. Ms. McIntosh noted that grant planning and management are big priorities, and Associate Planner Kristen Eldridge spends a lot of time doing that. She noted that Ms. Eldridge is also working through the preparation of zoning letters, especially for affordable housing development. She said multiple zoning letters come through from companies asking if a building burns down, if it can be rebuilt, and if properties receive any variances or conditional use permits, and when those were approved. She noted that her Department attends a lot of groundbreaking ceremonies with the Council and other City Staff, while working with the Development team and the City Attorney to file any outstanding agreements with Hennepin County. Ms. McIntosh noted that City Planning also includes obtaining project as-builds, which are difficult to chase and include civil plans that show what the site is supposed to look like and where the building is supposed to be. These plans include a lot of work with surveyors and utility lines because civil plans that the City receives are generally correct, but the as-builds are the actual plans that get used for the project. She noted that City Planning takes a financial guarantee for a project, which runs through the duration of the project until a City Building Official receives a certificate of occupancy to use the space. The developer can request a reduction, usually in landscaping and concrete work, because those have a higher failure rate. City Planning has a one-year warranty period, where they wait to ensure the build does not fall apart. After that, the City releases the rest of the financial guarantee funds. 11 /10/25 -8- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh asked if there were any questions from Councilmembers/Commissioners. Councilmember/Commissioner Kragness said it was a lot of information, but Ms. McIntosh made it very easy to understand, and thanked her for the presentation. Councilmember/Commission Moore asked if the reason Ms. McIntosh made this presentation was due to this Council or previous Councils making decisions on projects based on personal preference. Ms. McIntosh said that has happened before, and Brooklyn Center is not the only City to do that. She said the big thing that comes up with Planning Commission applications is when quasi-judicial decisions are made on particular properties, and decisions are not made based on the adopted code. She said the Council/EDA may want to have a different use for the site, and then things could be looked at and revised if necessary, but in the time frame of when the application has been submitted, the Council/EDA should only be looking at what is on the books for the project. Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak said a project will never be made completely whole, or nobody would ever be able to build anything. He said a lot of times the contractors require a bond, and they do not want a claim made against their bond, which is a good deterrent. He said a lot of times, the contractor's profit is tied up in their final escrow amount, and they want to get those funds out at the end of the project. He said he tries to be as clear as possible during concept reviews so the applicant is not spinning their wheels on a project. He said it is good to get this information, and in his opinion, variances should never be granted because it establishes a precedent that all other Councils will have to deal with later on. He said the Council should stick to the facts and keep emotions out of it, and state for the record reasons for denial. He said it is all about fairness and thinks that the “Missing Middle” legislation is going to become a high priority with legislators. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked how many variances have been granted by Councils over the last 10 years. Ms. McIntosh said she has worked for the City for eight years, and does not like bringing variances to the Council, but said she has brought three, and the only reason they were considered is due to changes made to the UDO in 2023. She noted that the request for variances has been an attempt to comply with the new code by the applicants. She said one of the biggest factors to apply for a variance is that it cannot be granted for something that the property owner created, and that is why she allowed those variances to come forward, because the City inflicted those issues upon the property owner. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked how many conditional use permits have been brought forth in the last five to eight years that Ms. McIntosh has worked for the City. Ms. McIntosh said it has been a lot, and that would be a benefit to the “Missing Middle” legislation coming through because it would cut down on the number of Planning Commission applications that would come through. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked about the hotels that have to be zoned as hotels forever. She asked what needs to happen in order to change that code. Ms. McIntosh responded that seven out of 10 hotels are within PUDs. In the new City UDO, PUDs are no longer rezoning; they are conditional use permits. She said she has not brought forth any new PUDs because applicants should be able to meet the City's code. The businesses that predate the new UDO, those 11 /10/25 -9- DRAFT were re-zonings, paperwork has been filed with the county, and they are locked in. She stated that each PUD is different and all are unique, and would have to be changed property by property. City Attorney Siobhan Tolar thanked Ms. McIntosh for the presentation and reminded Council that when making zoning and planning decisions, they are the judge and the jury, and facts are of the utmost importance. Mayor/President Graves said that the role of City Planning versus the role of Economic Development is cyclical, and Economic Development is going to play into what is planned, and City Planning is going to play into Economic Development. She said the relationship between those two should have a good understanding of each other and a nuanced process. Ms. McIntosh said that in 2019, when the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was made, that was the first time mixed-use for future land was ever considered, and the zoning code needed to interact with that in order to make the process work. She noted that when it comes to Economic Development, having flexibility is one of the key things that have come out of the changes made to zoning ordinances. She noted that even the Industrial District has mixed-use zoning now and allows for grocery stores, restaurants, and hotels. She said the Planning Commission has to pay attention to trends that are coming through, with cannabis being the next one, to ensure that they are not reactive. Mayor/President Graves said the Staff should ensure that all Commissioners have a full breadth of understanding when they are making City Planning decisions. She thanked Ms. McIntosh for the presentation. Dr. Edwards asked what should be considered for concept approval, and what the Council would need to hear when doing a concept review, so City Staff have some consistent guidelines. Mayor/President Graves said that the Staff could come up with a list of strategic priorities that align with Economic Development, which the Council could respond to through discussion. Councilmember/Commission Jerzak said he would like to see if there is a courtship between zoning and approved uses or land uses. He said he is not interested in all the details, but wants to ensure it is not exclusionary and would fit the needs of the strategic plan and the needs of the City. ADJOURNMENT Mayor/President Graves moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak seconded the adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:13 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.