HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026.01.08 PCAPPLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
REGULAR MEETING
January 8, 2026
Optional public access to the Webex meeting is below:
Online: logis.webex.com | Phone: (312) 535-8110
Meeting Number (Access Code): 2865 898 5563
Passcode: BCPC01082026
1. Call to Order — 7 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
a. Motion to Approve Regular Meeting Agenda for January 8, 2026
4. Election of Planning Commission Chairperson for Year 2026
a. Motion/Second to Nominate Commissioner(s) to serve as Chairperson;
b. Motion/Second to close all nominations;
c. Conduct election; and
d. Motion/Second to Accept the Results and Election of Chair for Year 2026.
5. Appointment of 2026 Vice-Chair by Planning Commission Chairperson
6. Chairperson’s Explanation
The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold
public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes
recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters.
7. Planning Items
a. Planning Commission Application No. 2026-001 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Applicant | Property Owner: The Luther Company LLLP
Addresses | Property ID: 4435 68th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 |
34-119-21-22-0020
Summary: The Applicant is requesting approval of major
amendments to the approved Planned Unit Development
and site and building plans and documents that would
allow for the conversion of the existing, approximately
1,500-square foot trash building to an auto detail shop,
and installation of a new 300-square foot trash enclosure.
8. Presentation
a. General Planning Information and Planning Commission Application Process
9. Discussion Items
a. Upcoming Planning Commission Applications and Development Updates
b. City Council Updates
10. Adjournment
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -1- DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
December 11 , 2025
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Koenig at 7:14 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Chair Alexander Koenig, Vice Chair Stephanie Jones, and Commissioners Paris Dunn, Mark Viste,
Stan Leino (arrived at 7:16 p.m.), and Stephen Schonning were present. Planning Manager Ginny
McIntosh and Associate Planner Krystin Eldridge also present.
Commissioner Randy Christensen was absent and excused.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – DECEMBER 11, 2025
There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Dunn, to approve
the agenda for the December 11, 2025, meeting as presented.
Voting on the motion: Chair Koenig and Commissioners Schonning, Viste, Jones, and Dunn voted
aye. The motion passed unanimously.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4a. August 14, 2025 Regular Meeting Minutes
There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Dunn, to approve
the minutes of the August 14, 2025, meeting as presented.
Commissioner Leino arrived at 7:16 p.m.
Voting on the motion: Chair Koenig and Commissioners Schonning, Viste, Jones, Leino, and Dunn
voted aye. The motion passed unanimously.
5. CHAIR’S EXPLANATION
Chair Koenig explained the Planning Commission’s role as an advisory body. One of the
Commission’s functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the
Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final
decisions in these matters.
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -2- DRAFT
6. PLANNING APPLICATION ITEMS
6a. Planning Commission Application No. 2025-007 (Public Hearing)
Applicant: OGA Madam Kitchen | Brooklyns Cultural Village LLC
Property Address: 6000 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 |
02-118 -21-12-0014
Request: Conditional Use Permit
Summary: The Applicant is requesting approvals to operate a multi-
purpose event space within an existing restaurant at Shingle
Creek Center. Upon review of the proposal, it was
determined that the Applicant will require approval of a
conditional use permit.
Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh reviewed a request for a conditional use permit.
Ms. McIntosh stated that the Applicant, OGA Madam Kitchen, is requesting review and
consideration of a conditional use permit to host private events within the existing OGA Madam
restaurant space located at 6000 Shingle Creek Parkway in the Shingle Creek Center Shopping
Center. She noted that, upon reviewing the proposal, it was determined that the Applicant will
require the issuance of a conditional use permit. She added that the property is owned by
Brooklyns Cultural Village LLC, the whole property is 1.6 acres, and is located within the
Commercial Mixed-Use Zoning District and is future guided as Commercial Mixed-Use.
Ms. McIntosh showed images of the location of the property. She noted that OGA Madam makes
up the largest space building where it is located.
Ms. McIntosh shared that the Applicant originally met with City Planning and the City Clerk in
October regarding the use of the restaurant, and the Applicant was unaware of the conditional use
permit requirement to hold regularly occurring events. She added that the Applicant had heard
from their customer base that there was a need for this type of space in the community. She noted
that the Applicant wishes to follow the correct City process, and that a majority of the clients are
customers from in and around Brooklyn Center. She noted that City Staff notified the Applicant
of the process and the timeline for bringing the application through the Planning Commission and
the City Council.
Ms. McIntosh noted that the Applicant is specifically interested in holding private events within
their existing restaurant space. She added that the Applicant intends to hold both daytime and
nighttime events, with the evening events catering to people who are 21 plus between the hours of
9:00 p.m. and 1:45 a.m., Friday through Sunday. She stated that the Applicant indicated that the
target age is really 25 plus to minimize issues that can occur with the younger groups. She shared
that the Applicant would offer food and drink packages as part of the rental, and provide security
in the form of two licensed security officers, with one dedicated to the inside and one dedicated to
the outside spaces. She noted that there is no plan to alter the interior of the space, with the
exception of perhaps moving furniture to create a dance floor.
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -3- DRAFT
Ms. McIntosh explained that in recent years the City Staff has become increasingly aware of the
multi-use or flex spaces, and oftentimes these are smaller tenant spaces where a smaller wedding
or conference would be able to be hosted in the space. She noted that this type of use is not
specifically addressed in the Unified Development Ordinance at this time, but given the flexibility
in the use, the times used, and the presence of the kitchen space, the conditional use permit allows
the Planning Commission to look at each use on a case-by-case basis. She added that in doing so,
it allows the Planning Commission and the City Council to look at the hours of operation, any
targeted events, the location of the use and its adjacent permitted use, noise considerations, and
traffic/peak parking demands to avoid adverse impacts to other properties and users. She noted
that if any concerns come up as part of the review process, the City may apply conditions on the
approval.
Ms. McIntosh stated that the maximum occupancy for OGA Madam is no more than 109 persons,
which does include staff as well. She noted that the Applicant outlined the hours of operation to
be Tuesday through Sunday, with Mondays being closed, 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., which more than
likely serves as restaurant hours, unless there is a scheduled event. She added that Friday through
Sunday would be 21 plus from 9:00 p.m. to 1:45 a.m.
Ms. McIntosh furthered that the property is located in the Shingle Creek Shopping Center, of which
also includes the former Target site, which is owned by the City’s Economic Development
Authority, and another strip mall owned by ACER. This shopping center is also subject to a
recorded Reciprocal Easement Agreement or REA. She explained that as part of the agreement,
the properties have certain shared access and a common parking agreement. In 1985, the property
needed a minimum of 890 parking spaces, with all the spaces befitting the old Target. She shared
that if the property were looked at today, it would need 587 parking spaces total, and for the use
of this space and not more than 109 people assembling, a maximum of 55 parking spaces would
be required for that use, with the Subject Property parking lot having 79 onsite parking spaces
today, and the adjacent strip mall having 143 spaces.
Ms. McIntosh stated the conditional use permit is a permit that allows uses which have been
identified because of their nature, operations, location, special requirements, or characteristics, and
can only be allowed in a particular zoning district after submittal of an application, review, and
recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. She added that
the Conditional Use Permit regulates the location, magnitude, and design of conditional use, which
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the regulations, purpose, and procedures of the
City’s Unified Development Ordinance, UDO.
Ms. McIntosh noted that the City Council may not grant the conditional use permit unless
particular criteria are met. She explained that the Applicant and the Property Owner will adhere
to the conditional use permit language in the UDO; they would need to file a resolution for the
conditional use against the property at Hennepin County, and they would be subject to revocation
if they do not continue to meet the criteria of those conditions. She added that any expansion or
alteration of the conditional use beyond what was submitted in the application would require an
amendment.
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -4- DRAFT
She stated that the Applicant shall obtain any and all permits and licensing approvals if necessary.
She added that, as the Applicant is functioning as a business right now, they must maintain a City
liquor license and need to maintain an optional 2:00 liquor license as issued by the Minnesota
Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division (AGED) because of the events being held up until
1:45 a.m. with alcohol. She added that the Applicant would also need to apply for a separate
Brooklyn Center entertainment license, which has separate requirements. She noted that any music
or sound emissions need to be confined to the tenant space and not project beyond the property
lines.
She stated that there appears to be a damaged light pole that City staff was made aware of upon a
visit to the Subject Property. She noted that all lighting needs to be functional and would need to
be coordinated with the Property Owner, or it would become a code enforcement issue. She stated
that the drive aisles need to be clear for emergency access, with a 20-foot minimum width to get
around the building in case of a fire.
She added that there cannot be obstructions to the windows and doors, specifically for ingress and
egress for commercially zoned properties. City staff noted to the Applicant at one point that there
were curtains and some vinyl applique on the doors that obstructed views into the space. She
added that flashing or rotating signs are prohibited.
Ms. McIntosh added that a public hearing notice was published in the Brooklyn Center on
November 27, 2025, for the conditional use permit request. Mail notifications were mailed to all
taxpayers and physical properties within 350 feet of the Subject Property, and the notice was posted
to the City of Brooklyn Center’s website and subscribers of the City’s weekly events bulletin.
OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENTS – APPLICATION NO. 2025-007
There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to open the
public hearing on Application No. 2025-007.
Voting on the motion: Chair Koenig and Commissioners Schonning, Viste, Jones, Leino, and Dunn
voted aye. The motion passed unanimously.
Femi K. noted that he had been to the OGA Madam many times and feels very welcome at the
establishment. He shared that it is peaceful and well-controlled with security and good food. He
stated that he feels good about supporting the business and enjoys it every time he has been.
Commissioner Jones asked if he was a Brooklyn Center resident. Femi K. stated that at this time
he is an Anoka resident.
MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS (HEARING)
There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Dunn, to close the public
hearing on Application No. 2025-007.
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -5- DRAFT
Voting on the motion: Chair Koenig and Commissioners Schonning, Viste, Jones, Leino, and Dunn
voted aye. The motion passed unanimously.
Diana Tiremba, the Events Manager and Coordinator at OGA Madam, stated that she started at the
business just after the new year and that hosting events is a passion of hers. She noted that she has
been coordinating events since 2022, and the events she coordinates are purposeful, intentional,
and well-organized. She shared that as a nurse and EMT, she wants a safe and comfortable place
to go and meet with friends who share common things with her instead of going to random places.
She noted that the events started in random places, but upon going to OGA Madam, it felt like a
good opportunity to have a consistent place to host events, which the owners of OGA Madam were
very welcoming of, and it has been successful for her.
She shared that when the owners noted there were some licenses that needed to be put in place,
she was more than willing to work through that. She added that most of the patrons who come are
co-workers, friends, and family. She stated that the goal is to continue to have events where they
feel comfortable and safe. She shared that she would like to continue doing events at OGA Madam.
Arku (Joyce) Aboge, owner of OGA Madam Kitchen, stated that the location feels a little bit dead.
She added that this would bring some life back to the area, to come and have a happy hour with
others in the area. She noted that it would give people a space to go to, rather than having to go
downtown. She noted that as a business owner, it would be very impactful for her, because the
rent is significant and the business is struggling with Target no longer being there, but this would
really help to continue the business.
Commissioner Dunn asked if the two had worked together before and what the biggest capacity
had been.
Ms. Aboge explained this is her first restaurant and Ms. Tirimba added her events are mostly
friends and family, and the most people that the restaurant hosted were 70 people for a doctorate
pinning ceremony.
Chair Koenig asked if Ms. Tirimba is the event coordinator and will be responsible for the events.
Ms. Tirimba noted that she is the one responsible for the security hiring, making sure people leave
on time, setting up for the events after the restaurant closes, and then making sure that the event
goes as planned. She shared that she is also responsible for the bartender, supplies, that bathrooms
are stocked, emergency exits are open, and overall oversight of the whole event.
Chair Koenig clarified that the restaurant currently has a liquor license in place. He added that he
agrees that the area has shown a decrease in the crowds and shares concerns for the business. He
noted that he has certain apprehensions about both the comprehensive plan and what the role is for
the future of the site, and whatever comes to fruition. He noted that there has recently been an
approval for an events center on Humboldt. He shared that as the final decision comes to the City
Council, he likes to ask questions that both find the pros and the cons for Applicants. He noted
that some of the pros are that it meets the community demand, and there is a culturally relevant,
flexible events space. He noted that the Applicant is supporting a business and enhancing the
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -6- DRAFT
existing restaurant for additional business and is aligned with the mixed-use flex space in terms of
the zoning. He added that the nighttime pattern is good for no overlapping in parking because of
the anticipation and at some point, they’ll need the parking from a bustling business. He stated
that security will need to be committed to, as it is very important, especially when liquor is
involved, because it can bring a negative connotation along with it. He shared that some of the
cons are the events running at nighttime, the capacity with the ability to police it will be
problematic with loitering, the multi-tenant aspect of the property, and the long-term
redevelopment of the site. He asked what the difference was between an event center with a liquor
license and a bar.
Ms. McIntosh explained that under the City Code, it is a wide range. She explained that with the
UDO, there is an event banquets and conference center category. She added that there is no
separate category for nightclubs; there is an eating and drinking establishment use, so it ultimately
becomes an in-between use.
Chair Koenig shared that, being in this industry in the past, he has no opposition to the Applicant;
however, for the business owner, if it starts to function too much like a bar, then it could potentially
run into issues. He added that for the City, there have been other applications that have been
similar and have been denied for some of the same reasons, so it is something that needs to be
looked into as to what the difference is between a bar and an events center, and what is that
differentiation for the protection of the owner and the City.
Ms. McIntosh shared that in terms of the nightclub or bar aspect of the business, the City has a
young population, and people want to do things in the City. She noted that liquor licensing is not
the Planning Commission's responsibility and falls under the responsibility of the City Clerk’s
office, but there are food and liquor ratios that need to be adhered to so that not just anyone can
open up a bar.
Chair Koenig shared that some of the issues just need to be thought about and commented on
because if the business eventually gets busy, some of the things will need to be thought through.
Ms. Tirimba noted that there is food offered at night right now, and it is lighter right now because
the restaurant is open all day, but the food is a big seller at the events.
Chair Koenig shared that there is great access and wonderful parking as well. He asked about the
conditions that would need to be adhered to. Ms. McIntosh explained that for conditional use
permits, the resolution from City Council with the conditions of approval is filed against the
property and within 60 days of any approval from the Council.
Chair Koenig asked if those conditions exist currently or if they are going to exist. Ms. McIntosh
shared that what is in the Staff Report and listed for the anticipated conditions approval is that the
use does not exceed 109 persons for building occupancy, no excessive noise, maintaining and
applying for any of the licensing approvals that are needed, specifically the City liquor license and
AGED 2:00 a.m. liquor permit, and the City of Brooklyn Center entertainment license. She noted
that if there are violations of any of these, the conditional use permit could be at risk of revocation.
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -7- DRAFT
Chair Koenig asked about an applicant if there were plans for outdoor seating. The Applicant noted
there were discussions about that in the future.
Ms. McIntosh shared that Section 35-7700 of the City Code outlines provisions for the expansion
or alteration of an approved conditional use. She added that, for instance, if the Applicant were to
open an outdoor patio, they would need to have a conditional use permit for it, which means they
would need to come back before the Planning Commission and City Council. Chair Koenig noted
this is good to know so that the Applicant is aware there are rules, regulations, and procedures in
place to safeguard everyone.
Ms. McIntosh noted that if there is a desire to alter the use or expand the use, which includes
outdoor seating, the Applicant would be looking at an amendment to the conditional use because
there is additional may be additional fees owed to the Metropolitan Council for sewer access for
additional seating or persons, which needs to be taken into account as well.
Chair Koenig stated that this could be something that could be talked about soon, as outdoor
seating is a great idea, especially given the private location of the business. He added that he has
apprehensions about it but is also just offering advice.
Commissioner Jones asked how long the Applicant has occupied the space.
Ms. Aboge stated she had been in the restaurant for about 2 years. Ms. Tirimba took over the events
coordination in the summer.
Commissioner Jones asked if there was a method of keeping track of the number of patrons in the
restaurant.
Ms. Tirimba explained most of her events are personal invites and she keeps track via WhatsApp
or text message and can count who arrives via rsvp.
Commissioner Jones asked about the licensed security and if they would be armed. Ms. Tirimba
stated that the security that they use has that option, but it is not being used by them as it is a higher
charge, and for the safety of the patrons, they prefer not to have it all because you never know.
Commissioner Jones asked what type of food there is. Ms. Aboge stated that it is West African
food, mostly Liberian or Nigerian food.
Commissioner Viste asked about how the liquor license is enforced.
Ms. McIntosh noted that the Applicant already holds a City of Brooklyn Center liquor license. She
added that the 2:00 a.m. permit from the AGED with the State would need to be obtained from the
State, along with the City entertainment license, and that would be a condition of approval, but to
get the approval of a conditional use permit is the first step.
Commissioner Viste asked how parking works on site.
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -8- DRAFT
Ms. McIntosh noted that the Subject Property is located within the Shingle Creek Center shopping
center and is part of a reciprocal easement agreement or REA with the neighboring strip mall
owned by ACER and the former Target site, which is owned by the City’s Economic Development
Authority. The agreement outlines certain provisions that allow for cross-access and shared
parking, although the parking contains an expiration clause. She noted there are 79 parking spaces
on site, and the adjacent neighboring strip center has 147 parking spaces. She shared that there
are time limits on the reciprocal easement agreements, so she calculated the parking as if it were
all shared parking and also separately if it were by itself and shared parking were no longer an
option. She clarified that either way, the Applicant would still be falling within the range that is
needed assuming parking for no more than 109 persons, no matter how it is calculated.
Commissioner Viste asked if ownership of the other businesses were to change, those businesses
would be responsible for maintaining the sites. Ms. McIntosh explained that typical reciprocal
easement agreements will contain provisions that transition the agreement to the next owner and
contain language to address common elements and costs such as snow removal services, or
maintenance of the parking lot. She added that there are maintenance provisions saying these
owners are responsible for replacing this percentage of the parking lot, and this is typically how it
operates to make sure responsibilities are clearly established.
Chair Koenig asked if it is accurate to state that, within a reciprocal agreement, there is the thought
that you can park, you can park there, but there are individual spaces. He noted that there have
been limitations because the future has not always been looked at, and that has caused issues with
who will pay along the way in the future.
Ms. McIntosh stated that it has been looked at in both ways in this situation. She noted that there
are time limits on the shared parking situation and were largely intended to benefit the former
Target. She shared that if the shared parking changes, OGA Madam should be able to adequately
meet the parking needs on-site following a review of their on-site parking spaces and use.
Chair Koenig asked if it was stated that there were once plans to put a standalone restaurant on the
property. Ms. McIntosh stated that initially, in 1985, when the Target was being proposed,
developer Ryan Companies did not fully know what they were going to put in the Subject Property
where the Applicant is now but ultimately landed on a multi-tenant strip center for a total of 8,000
square feet. A previous iteration contemplated a restaurant pad site.
Commissioner Leino stated that a lot of time is being spent on the verbiage of the reciprocal
easement agreement. He noted that those are memorialized at the County Recorder’s Office and
are not just handshake agreements; they are in writing and run with the land. He furthered that
anyone who uses the property knows those are in place and can’t just come and state that they do
not wish to share parking. He added that with a shared agreement, there is also an agreement that
involves things like snow plowing and maintenance, and a portion of rent covers that common area
maintenance. He noted that he has no concern about the agreement.
Commissioner Dunn asked how late the kitchen is open. Ms. Aboge stated that the full kitchen is
open until 8:00 p.m. and then from 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., some light food is offered.
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -9- DRAFT
Commissioner Leino asked if the Applicant would allow caterers to come in. Ms. Tirimba stated
that for the protection of OGA Madam, they would only offer the food from the kitchen.
ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION
NO. 2025-007 SUBMITTED BY OGA MADAM KITCHEN | BROOKLYNS CULTURAL
VILLAGE LLC
There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Dunn, to recommend
City Council approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2025-007 for approval of
conditional use permit for the Subject Property located at 6000 Shingle Creek Parkway to OGA
Madam Kitchen for operation of a Banquet, Conference, and Event Facility within the existing
OGA Madam Kitchen restaurant space, based on the findings of fact, and per the outlined
permitting and conditions of approval.
Voting on the motion: Commissioners Schonning, Viste, Jones, Leino, and Dunn voted aye. Chair
Koenig voted nay. The motion passed 5-1.
Chair Koenig stated that his nay vote was not because he is not on board with it, but rather, he is
on board with reservations. He stated that the nay vote is so that the City Council will review
some of the reservations, and that will be of benefit to the Applicant, so that the information and
knowledge presented will be seen.
Ms. McIntosh explained that there is no second meeting in December for the Council, so the item
would move to the meeting on January 12, 2026.
6b. Planning Commission No. 2025-007 (Public Hearing)
Applicant: Rory Purnell (Melt City Barber School) | Thomas C Kite
Property Address: 6800 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
| 36-119 -21-22-0047
Request: Conditional Use Permit
Summary: The Applicant is proposing to open an approximately 1,500
square foot barber school in the Humboldt Shopping Center.
Upon review of the proposal, it was determined that the
Applicant will require approval of a conditional use permit.
Associate Planner Krystin Eldridge reviewed a request for a conditional use permit.
Ms. Eldridge stated she was presenting for the Melt City Barbering School of Craftsmanship. She
provided background information stating that Rory Purnell is the Applicant and a master barber
who offers vocational training and has been barbering for 20 years. She furthered that he obtained
his instructor’s license in 2019 from the Minnesota Board of Barber Examiners. She noted that
the Applicant has been searching for a unit to lease for a barber school for at least a year. She
stated that the Applicant approached the City Staff in 2024 and has been working with the City’s
Economic Development staff to find space. She noted that initially the Applicant looked at Shingle
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -10- DRAFT
Creek Crossing, but this space did not have enough parking for a particular unit, and the Shingle
Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development would not allow for educational uses.
She shared that in talking with the Economic Development Staff, the Humboldt Shopping Center
came up as an option. She noted that the Applicant started working with Elevate Hennepin, a
business advisor, and submitted an architectural sketch plan for the space. She explained that this
space is about 1,500 square feet with a small entry space, waiting chairs in the front, and a privacy
wall separating the training space from the entry. She noted the Applicant proposes 16 barber
training chairs, eight wash sinks, and a separate section for formal instruction, which would
provide 18 chairs for students and instructors. She added that the unit has one bathroom, and the
Applicant plans to install an additional bathroom with ADA dimensions. She stated that there is
also a washer and dryer in the space for laundering of towels.
Ms. Eldridge shared pictures of the planned space and shared that it is the last unit at the south end
of the Humboldt Shopping Center.
Ms. Eldridge explained that the Staff looks at the parking and lighting, particularly. She noted that
the Humboldt Shopping Center is a traditional strip mall setup, which is mostly comprised of
restaurants and general retail traffic, except for New Horizon Academy; however, they plan to
relocate in 2026. She stated that the shopping center does not have a high traffic demand at this
time. She shared that the restaurants in the area do a lot of food delivery, so parking is generally
brief and transient. She explained that the Subject Property is considered a multi-tenant retail
center in the UDO, where no additional parking spaces beyond those allowed in the retail formula
shall be required of restaurant uses. She added that in instances where eating and drinking
establishments exceed 15 percent of the gross floor area, the parking formula shall apply
proportionally to the seats and employees occupying space in the center.
Ms. Eldridge shared that the parking calculations under the UDO for the multi-tenant retail centers
are calculated based on the entire shopping center, which is approximately 40,000 square feet. She
noted that it was originally approved for 280 parking spaces in 1972; however, there are about 268
parking spaces left, and if the City were to review a shopping center of this size today, it would
only require a maximum of 160 spaces, so it has many more parking spaces than it requires today.
Ms. Eldridge commented that, for lighting in particular, the Subject Property in front of the space
on the south end has two light poles over the parking lot, and there is one wall fixture on the back
of the unit. She shared that the Staff is not aware of any lighting issues, but if there were any, the
Applicant would have to work with the Property Owner to make sure those lighting fixtures are
repaired and operable.
Ms. Eldridge shared that the City Staff has noted the parking lot is in need of some repair and re-
striping and has identified potential areas of improvement to the building façade, but currently
there are no immediate concerns.
Ms. Eldridge shared that for business operations, there is a maximum capacity of 16 students and
one instructor being proposed by the Applicant. She noted that business hours would be from 8:00
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -11 - DRAFT
a.m. to 8:00 p.m. She stated that instructional time will be from 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., training
from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and then the instructor will stay to hold any cuts for personal clients
from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Ms. Eldridge reviewed that for conditional use permits, the nature, operation, location, and any
special requirements or characteristics of the property are reviewed by the Planning Commission
and City Council. She added that the City regulates the location, magnitude, and design with the
conditional uses to make sure they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She shared that
the conditional use permit may not be granted unless specific criteria are satisfied. She provided
those criteria on the slide and stated that the Applicant responded favorably to all of the conditions,
which were included in the Staff Report for review.
Ms. Eldridge explained the anticipated permitting and conditions of approval. She noted that the
Applicant and property owners shall adhere to the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit and
file with the City Council a resolution approving the conditional use with Hennepin County. She
added that the City Staff will work with the property owner to file that with Hennepin County. She
noted that any expansion or alteration of the proposed use beyond what is contained in the
application shall require an amendment to the conditional use permit.
She stated that the Applicant shall obtain and maintain any permits or licensing approvals from the
Minnesota Board of Barber Examiners, Hennepin County Health, the City of Brooklyn Center,
and any other agencies before beginning the use. She stated that the Applicant shall submit a
signed permit application for any proposed signage and should make sure there are no obstructions
to any windows, doors, fire escapes, stairways, or openings intended to provide ingress or egress
to the structure beyond 20 percent of the individual pane. She added that flashing and rotating
signs are prohibited, including those located indoors and visible from public streets.
Ms. Eldrige added that a public hearing notice was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on
November 27, 2025, for the conditional use permit request. Mail notifications were mailed to all
taxpayers and physical properties within 350 feet of the Subject Property, and the notice was posted
to the City of Brooklyn Center’s website and subscribers of the City’s weekly events bulletin.
OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENTS – APPLICATION NO. 2025-008
There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to open the public
hearing on Application No. 2025-008.
Voting on the motion: Chair Koenig and Commissioners Schonning, Viste, Jones, Leino, and Dunn
voted aye. The motion passed unanimously.
No one wished to comment on the public hearing either in person or online.
MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS (HEARING)
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -12- DRAFT
There was a motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Dunn, to close the public
hearing on Application No. 2025-008.
Voting on the motion: Chair Koenig and Commissioners Schonning, Viste, Jones, Leino, and Dunn
voted aye. The motion passed unanimously.
Chair Koenig asked if the Applicant would like to comment.
Rory Purnell, owner of the Melt City Barbering School of Craftmanship (MBSC), stated Melt City
stands for Motivate, Elevate life through changing individuals' thoughts yearly. He added that it
is the goal, and he is trying to help change the narrative for the community. He stated that the
barber school, which he hopes to bring to the City, is pretty major, especially since the narrative
of the young adults and the crime that has affected the community. He stated that he would rather
see the narrative be seen with clippers. He added that a lot of kids do not know what to do or what
they have, and when it boils down to it, it is all about finances, and that is when crime happens.
He shared that he can offer them another way to win instead of being in the dark and offer the
light, and that is what he is there for. He stated that the school is partnering with Brooklyn Center
High School on Mondays to do an after-school program at the Brooklyn Center High School.
He furthered that it will be a six-week program for boys and girls and teaches the etiquette of
shaving and keeping oneself groomed. He noted that not everyone can afford haircuts, so being
taught in high school, it allows the student to take that further into college, as adults, and one day
have children and teach them as well. He shared that the goal is to help 20 to 30 kids with the
program at the school. He stated that with the economy being the way that it is, and barbers
charging $35 or more for haircuts, it is hard. He noted that at MBSC, the haircuts will be a
maximum price of $15, so by being in this community, he can offer lower-priced haircuts, which
will help with confidence. He noted that a mom with three boys could not afford the $35 for them
to get a haircut every two weeks but could maybe afford the $30 for all three. He added that it
would not only help her but also help the students at the school.
He shared that at MBSC, there is an in-house program where each student is given a 20 percent
commission on each haircut they do, which goes towards their tuition. He explained that tuition
is $9,000 for MSBC, which is $725 per month. He furthered that if a student cuts ten heads a day,
and the student stays consistent with that, they could make $600 a month, which goes towards their
tuition. He stated that, as the only owner, this is his way of giving back to the community, because
being a barber saved his life, and he knows how important it is to have a haircut to become a
professional. He knows that it is special to raise a family and do great things in his community.
He stated that he needs the community's support and that by supporting MBSC, it is also supporting
the community and future taxpayers.
Chair Koenig stated that what the Applicant stated is wonderful because the City of Brooklyn
Center does have some core issues, but if the school can help to be an aspect of the school and
community events, then MBSC is providing opportunities and providing guidance, which is so
important to the lives of the young people. He commended him for attempting to give back and
enhance the community. He noted that the Applicant would have to work with City Staff to get
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -13- DRAFT
the building permits and signage. He stated that Humboldt shopping center is improving with a
childcare center, event center, and grocery store. He added that the more tenants that are there,
especially with the same vision as the Applicant, then the City will start to recognize that and the
parking lot will improve, and the signage, and it will become a wonderful spot in the community
again, as it is a great location that has a conglomerate of many communities.
Commissioner Leino stated that he is strongly in support of this but asked if students are eligible
for any kind of student loan program to go to school. Mr. Purnell stated that FAFSA would not
support him as a new start-up, so he would need to make ends meet on his own. He noted that is
where grants, scholarships, all of those things come into play, along with building relationships in
the City. He added that this is why he created the 20 percent commission program, because he
knew it may be hard for some to make the $9,000 tuition work.
Commissioner Leino asked if there is a certain amount of time that the school needs to reach in
duration for FAFSA to be an option. Mr. Purnell stated that after five years, it could be an option.
Commissioner Leino asked how many barber schools there are in the State. Mr. Purnell shared
that there are four of them.
Commissioner Leino asked for more details on barber schools. Mr. Purnell pointed out that with
MBSC, it is not just a barber school but also a transformation school. He added that with that, he
is going out to all the barbershop owners and trying to create relationships with them because he
hopes to show that he will be adding value to the shop by sending students to them and having
them work in their shop. He shared that phase two is to have his own barbershop to send his
students to. He noted that until then, he will continue to partner with other barbers and make sure
that his students are ready to go into the real world fully prepared. He explained that there are
business aspects of the school as well that the students will receive so that they leave all the
knowledge they need to succeed.
Commissioner Leino clarified that the reason he asked was to know how the process works for
new barbers, so there is not just a flood of new workers, and that is what he thought was explained
to him.
Mr. Purnell explained that the students complete 1,500 hours, which goes to the Barber Board,
then the student has to go to the board and do a cut in front of the Barber Board along with the
written exam, and after that, they receive their license. He noted that it used to be the student
would do the cut, then work under a Master Barber, then do the written exam and get their license,
but that was changed due to some of the old barbers feeling threatened by the new ones coming in
and potentially taking income away.
Commissioner Leino asked what additional education was needed to become an instructor. Mr.
Purnell stated that he had school to do through the U of M, which was almost like getting a
teacher’s license, and then teaching a class in front of the Barber Board.
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -14- DRAFT
Commissioner Dunn asked where he received his Barber’s license from. Mr. Purnell stated that it
came from Moler’s Barber School.
Commissioner Dunn stated he likes what the Applicant was doing and the importance of a good
haircut.
Mr. Purnell stated that he cuts hair at the Ramsey County Jail, and that a haircut really helps the
men change their mindset.
Commissioner Dunn asked about the personal cuts to hours of operation from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00
p.m. Mr. Purnell stated that he has 200 clients who will not let him retire and has so many personal
experiences that are important to so many people.
ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION
NO. 2025-008 SUBMITTED BY RORY PURNELL (MELT CITY BARBER SCHOOL) |
THOMAS C KITE
There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to recommend
City Council approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2025-008 for a conditional use
permit for subject property at 6800 Humboldt Ave North to Melt City Barbering School of
Craftmanship for “Nonresidential educational uses including Area Learning Centers, post-
secondary schools, business schools, trade schools, and the like, but excluding public and private
elementary and secondary school,” based on the findings of fact, and per the outlined conditions
of approval.
Voting on the motion: Chair Koenig and Commissioners Schonning, Viste, Jones, Leino, and Dunn
voted aye. The motion passed unanimously.
7. DISCUSSION ITEMS
7a. Recap of November 10, 2025, City Council Meeting Work Session: General
Planning Information and Planning Commission Application Process
Ms. McIntosh stated that a work session was held with the City Council at the November 10
meeting, which gave some general information about the Planning Commission and the application
process. She noted that the copy of the PowerPoint that was used at the meeting was attached to
the Staff Report. She explained that it has some general information about the purpose and history
of planners in the United States, specifically, land use planners. She shared that it would be good
to go through at a later meeting, but the presentation talks through the different types of approvals
and how much flexibility the City has when it comes to different types of reviews, such as quasi-
judicial reviews versus legislative, along with what is allowed to be put down for conditions.
Chair Koenig noted that he would like to see the presentation done at one of the next meetings
because it was a great presentation given at City Council and would be a great review for the
Commission.
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -15- DRAFT
7b. City Council and Planning Commission Updates
Ms. McIntosh stated that the Staff is planning to present the Economic Growth Plan for Brooklyn
Center at one of the January Council meetings. She added that there would be a recording if
someone could not watch or listen live.
Ms. McIntosh shared that she has been busy doing work sessions with the City Council. She noted
that she did present to Council a concept review for 5840 Lilac Drive, which was a former church
by the Extra Space Storage, for a proposal for a new owner of a DHS recuperative care facility.
She explained that a recuperative care facility is new to Minnesota and DHS was issuing
registrations as of January 2025. She added that they are intended to be a stopgap for the homeless
population that has received surgery or had procedures done and are okay to leave the hospital or
clinic, but the likelihood of the person ending up in the ER is elevated because they may get an
infection out on the streets. She stated that the recuperative care facility was designed to provide
a kind of rehab-type or wound care for up to 21 days, with typically no stays of no more than 60
days with a doctor’s note. She explained that there was a recuperative care facility that occupied
the Suburban Studios but was not in compliance with zoning per the City.
Chair Koenig pointed out that the state has many types of these facilities that are on hold, due to
the category in which the facility belongs under the current State and Federal Administration, and
many of the facilities are under a lot of scrutiny. He asked if the City Staff and the Council are
reviewing when to put the brakes on certain things.
Ms. McIntosh stated that recuperative care facilities are unlike other group homes or congregate
care facility types like MDH Assisted Living and DHS Community Residential Settings. DHS
Community Residential Settings licenses recently had a moratorium in place for two years and are
stopping applications that are in process. She shared that the City of Brooklyn Center has a
majority of assisted living facilities with six or fewer persons in single-family neighborhoods,
which has been a very large-scale talking point in the City and at the Legislature. The City has
been working with a cohort of other cities in the northwest metro on legislation regarding
congregate care facilities.
She added that the Community Residential Settings, which are licensed through DHS, typically
have four or fewer clients and are more inclined towards mental or physical disabilities. She stated
that recuperative care facilities, which are also through DHS, are only a registration, not a license.
She shared that the owner of the site at 5840 Lilac currently owns two recuperative care facilities
in Minneapolis and brought a concept review forward to see if the City Council was inclined to
allow for recuperative care, or a flex model with MDH Assisted Living. She noted that the concept
reviews are non-binding and provide Council feedback but based on what was said by the City
Council, there did not appear to be a lot of support for either use.
Chair Koenig noted that the reimbursement would come from Medicaid and that those dollars are
being scrutinized heavily, so the City needs to decide if that is part of the long-term goal of the
City.
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -16- DRAFT
Ms. McIntosh explained that, as of a few years ago, licenses for Assisted Living facilities with six
or fewer persons under state statute 144G, and specifically DHS Community Residential Settings
with four or fewer persons, do not allow for municipal rental licensing whatsoever. There are
around 200 of these facilities in Brooklyn Center. She furthered that Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn
Center have the highest concentrations of Assisted Living, and about half of the licenses in general
are with Hennepin County for Assisted Living. She noted that the City is talking to the property
owner because the property was purchased in August, so the owner will need to determine how
she would like to proceed with the property.
She added that in coordination with the City Clerk’s office, there was a two-parter work session
with City Council in November on hospitality accommodations licensing and hotel zoning. She
noted that there is a pet store ordinance that needs to be worked through, with a group that is
making its way through the metro to have a humane pet store ordinance. She added that the City
does not currently have this type of pet store, but Golden Valley recently passed an ordinance on
it, and the City has been working on one as well.
Ms. McIntosh noted that different sections of Humboldt are going to have upcoming CIP project
improvements. She added that engineering has been working on proposed improvements along
Humboldt Shopping Center, with proposals to have roundabouts installed. She added that the other
section on Humboldt would be towards Minneapolis on the border of 53rd, which has minimal
curbing and is on the proposal for 2026. She noted that there are lighting and traffic improvements
off of Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit because there are issues with lighting, and the City is
planning on replacing all the light poles in the next year.
Ms. McIntosh stated that for the Planning Commission in January, it sounds like there will be one
application that Luther submitted for a major PUD and major site and building plan amendments.
She shared that when Luther constructed the Mazda dealership in 2018, there was a trash building,
which they had decided to convert to a detail shop. This work has already been completed;
however, it requires approval from the City Council as part of a Planning Commission application.
She added that another thing that may come through in February is for Mound Cemetery, as they
have wanted to construct an office and maintenance building.
7c. Development and Construction Updates
Ms. McIntosh stated that many things are happening. She added that CAPI has the framing out
for its expansion. She noted that New Horizon, on 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard, was hoping to have
the parking lot done before winter, but this did not happen. They are still hoping to have things
wrapped up by early May. Brooklyn Blvd Dental Clinic submitted a building permit for an
expansion. She added that Luther Honda is going to be doing a service bay expansion, but it does
not have to go through the Planning Commission because it falls below the threshold and is
considered a minor amendment.
Chair Koenig asked if there is an update on CVS or the triplexes near the Sanctuary. Ms. McIntosh
shared that for CVS, there is a potential user, but nothing official yet. She stated that with C. Alan,
they are in the thick of agreements right now with the lender who is now the owner, and are
PC Minutes
12-11 -25 -17- DRAFT
circulating revised reciprocal easement and operating agreements, a dust easement for drainage
utilities, sidewalks, and trails, and a partial release. She stated that many things need to be redone
because of the foreclosure. The hope is for them to obtain a temporary Certificate of Occupancy
on the two constructed triplexes once all the paperwork is filed and common site improvement
completed.
Commissioner Leino asked if anyone had applied for a marijuana license. Ms. Eldridge stated that
there are many inquiries weekly about it. She added that people need to go through the OCM first,
and then come through the lottery, which has still not been planned. She noted that there are still
three open retailer licenses, but no one has fully done the work needed.
Chair Koenig referred to the City operating a municipal cannabis retail store. Ms. McIntosh stated
that initially Council was receptive to potentially opening one as there is a dedicated municipal
retailer license; however they have since backed off on that idea. She added that many of the
inquiries and approvals through OCM have been looking at the same properties, so it will be a
fight as to who gets what. She added that the City Clerk’s office has been coordinating the process
for the lottery and getting it set up online through the system.
Commissioner Leino pointed out that many of the CBD and hemp store owners may be in for a
shock, as it has to be a standalone business; it cannot just be out of their current shops.
Ms. Eldridge pointed out that the City is hoping to have the lottery process ready to go in January
or February.
8. ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to adjourn the
Planning Commission meeting.
Voting on the motion: Chair Koenig and Commissioners Schonning, Viste, Jones, Leino, and Dunn
voted aye. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:13 p.m.
_______________________________ __________________________________
Ginny McIntosh, Secretary Alexander Koenig, Chair
App. No. 2026-001
PC 01/08/2026
Page 1
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: January 8, 2026
Application No. 2026-001
Applicant | Property Owner: The Luther Company, LLLP (Luther Mazda Mitsubishi)
Location: 4435 68th Avenue North
Requests: (1) Major Site and Building Plan Amendment, (2) Major Planned Unit
Development Amendment
Map 1. Subject Property Location.
INTRODUCTION
The Luther Company LLLP (“the Applicant”) is requesting review and consideration of major amendments
to the site and building plan and 2017 Planned Unit Development (PUD) plans and documents for the
Luther Mazda and Mitsubishi dealership located at 4435 68th Avenue North (“the Subject Property”) to
allow for the conversion of an existing, approximately 1,500-square foot trash building into an auto detail
shop. As the dedicated trash refuse area would be re-purposed, the Applicant also proposes installation
of an approximately 300-square foot trash enclosure for their garbage, recycling, and dead tire storage—
refer to Exhibit A.
• Application Filed: 12/9/2025
• Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 02/07/2026
• Extension Declared: No
• Extended Review Period Deadline:
App. No. 2026-001
PC 01/08/2026
Page 2
Existing Conditions
Image 1. Existing Site Conditions at Subject Property.
BACKGROUND
The Luther Company (“The Applicant”) owns and operates numerous car dealerships along Brooklyn
Boulevard, including the Luther Mazda and Mitsubishi dealership located at 4435 68th Avenue North. This
property is adjacent to three contiguous lots on the western side of Brooklyn Boulevard that were re-
zoned from C2 (Commerce) District to PUD/C2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) District in 2008
to allow the Applicant to develop what are now the Buick/GMC and Chevrolet dealerships.
In 2017, the Applicant acquired and received approvals to construct an approximately 35,424-square foot
Mazda and Mitsubishi Dealership building, which required the consolidation of five (5) lots into three (3)
lots to accommodate the dealership, and the establishment of a new Planned Unit Development (PUD)
under Planning Commission Application No. 2017-010.
City staff met with the Applicant in October 2025 after they were made aware that the trash building,
located at the westerly edge of the Subject Property, had been converted to provide auto detail services
and the City had no record of any building permits being pulled for the conversion. City staff reviewed the
City’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and outlined the City approval process given the alterations
App. No. 2026-001
PC 01/08/2026
Page 3
and determined that the Applicant would need to meet with the City’s Building Official to better
determine what building permits should have been pulled and if any additional work would be required
for the converted use. The Applicant noted they were unaware the conversion would trigger major
amendments to their approvals and have since worked with City staff to provide plans and documents for
review by the City’s respective Planning Commission and City Council.
The Applicant noted that while the trash building was initially identified as a need, the dealership’s
operations have since determined a greater need for auto detailing production space; hence the
conversion of the building use.
A public hearing notice was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on December 25, 2025 and notices
mailed to surrounding properties within 350 feet—refer to Exhibit B.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MAJOR AMENDMENT)
In 2017, Luther Company acquired 4435 68th Avenue North (“the Subject Property”) and established a
new Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Mazda Mitsubishi Dealership under Planning Commission
Application No. 2017-010 and approval of City Council Resolution No. 2017-178. In reviewing Hennepin
County records, it does not appear the Planned Unit Development Agreement was ever recorded with the
County. City staff has notified the Applicant that they will need to work with City staff and the City
Attorney to ensure an amended and restated Planned Unit Development Agreement is filed as a condition
of any approval under this application.
As provided for in Planning Commission Application No. 2026-001, the Applicant converted an
approximately 1,500-square foot building originally intended for the storage of trash and dead tires to an
auto detail shop and storage for a Bobcat and other equipment and intends to construct an approximately
300-square foot trash enclosure for garbage, recycling, and dead tire storage.
In January 2023, the City of Brooklyn Center adopted a new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), which
ultimately retired the C2 (Commerce) District. Section 35-2103 (General District Regulations) provides that
2040 Land Use Plan: Commercial (C)
Neighborhood: Willow Lane
Current Zoning: Planned Unit Development/Commercial 2 (PUD/C2)
Site Area: Approximately 5.84 acres
Direction 2040 Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use
North Public Semi
Public/Institutional
(PSP/Institutional)
C (Commerce —
Service/Office)
Institutional (United States
Post Office)
South Right of Way (Interstate
94)
— (ROW/Interstate 94) Major Highway (Interstate
94)
East Commercial (C) Planned Unit
Development/Commercial 2
(PUD/C2)
Commercial (Luther
Chevy/Buick/GMC
Dealership)
West Public Semi
Public/Institutional
(PSP/Institutional)
C (Commerce —
Service/Office)
Office (North Memorial
Health-Ambulance)
App. No. 2026-001
PC 01/08/2026
Page 4
Planned Unit Developments and parcels zoned as a Planned Unit Development prior to adoption of the
UDO, in accordance with prior zoning regulations, shall remain in effect and shall remain subject to any
and all agreements, conditions, and standards applicable to the Planned Unit Development. Amendments
shall be processed in accordance with the procedures identified for Planned Unit Developments in this
UDO.
Section 35-8304 (PUD Criteria) of the City’s Unified Development Ordinance notes that the City Council
shall base its decision to approve a Planned Unit Development on the following additional criteria:
a. Compatibility of the development plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this Section;
b. Consistency of the development plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
c. The impact of the development plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and
d. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public
facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping.
Section 35-8306 (PUD Amendments) outlines that a “ten (10) percent or greater change in the floor area
of any one (1) structure” shall constitute a major Planned Unit Development amendment and requires the
applicant to go through the same process established in Section 35-8303 for a new Planned Unit
Development, including consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
While the introduction of “new uses” not included in the Planned Unit Development approvals is also
considered a major amendment to a PUD and “auto detailing” was not originally contemplated in the
2017 approvals for the Subject Property, City staff considers this use ancillary to other services provided
by the Mazda and Mitsubishi dealership located on the Subject Property.
While the Applicant intends to utilize some existing parking for installation of a new approximately 300-
square foot roofed trash enclosure, the request is considered a minor Planned Unit Development
amendment as it would result in a “less than five (5) percent change in the number of parking spaces.”
The Subject Property was approved in 2017 with 480 parking spaces; however, only 129 on-site parking
spaces were required by City Code. The plans submitted with the Planning Commission application
identify a total of 469 on-site parking spaces. The Applicant proposes removal of five (5) parking spaces
to accommodate the new enclosure for a total of 464 on-site parking spaces.
Additionally, the new trash enclosure would not impact the existing drive aisle, which is approximately 27
feet in width through the section of parking lot where the existing former trash building and proposed
trash enclosure are located. The minimum required drive aisle for two-way, 90-degree parking is 24 feet
in width.
There are no plans to alter the Subject Property other than minimal interior improvements to
accommodate the auto detailing use within the former trash building (e.g. installation of an eye wash
station, electrical reels, select wire racking) and the removal of select parking and select new curbing to
accommodate the new trash enclosure.
SITE AND BUILDING PLAN (MAJOR AMENDMENT)
Section 35-7600 (Site & Building Plan Approval) of the City’s Unified Development Ordinance provides
that site and building plan approvals are required whenever there is an expansion or change in the use of
a building or parcel of land or modification to a building, accessory structure or site or land feature in any
manner which results in a different intensity of use, including the requirement for additional parking.
App. No. 2026-001
PC 01/08/2026
Page 5
Section 35-7605 (Amendments) notes that a major amendment to the approved site and building plan is
triggered when there is a 25 percent or greater change in the floor area of any one (1) structure, and the
major amendment process must follow the procedure set forth for the issuance of a new site and building
plan approval. Considering the scope of the project and minimal impacts to the Subject Property site
improvements, City staff has waived the provision of certain plans, including revised landscaping and
photometric plans.
Section 35-7604 (Site and Building Plan Approval Criteria) requires site and building plan applications to
meet the following criteria:
a. It fully complies with all applicable requirements of this UDO;
b. It adequately protects residential uses from the potential adverse effects of a non-residential use;
c. It is consistent with the use and character of surrounding properties; and
d. It provides safe conditions for pedestrians or motorists and prevents the dangerous arrangement
of pedestrian and vehicular ways.
Image 2. Conversion of Former Trash Building to Auto Detail Shop.
The former trash building is situated along the west side of the property and is a one-level, approximately
1,500 square-foot space with three (3) existing bay doors that face towards the existing dealership
building. To the west lies the North Memorial Health ambulance operations, which serves the Twin Cities
App. No. 2026-001
PC 01/08/2026
Page 6
metro (4501 68th Avenue North). Interstates 694/94 lie to the south and the Brooklyn Center United States
Postal Service is located across 68th Avenue North on the north (6848 Lee Avenue North).
Both buildings are considered accessory structures per Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances, and
the existing building is situated approximately 11.5 feet from the west property line. There are no plans
to expand the building at this time. The exterior is primarily precast paneled concrete with a ‘sandblast’
finish, and the building is already equipped with wall-pack style lighting, and is supplied with wall-pack
lighting.
The auto detail shop will be equipped with shop vacuums and cleaning supplies, and anticipated
improvements include the installation of an eye wash station, wire racking, and toolboxes. One bay area
is identified on the plans for storage—refer to Image 2 above.
The proposed new trash enclosure would be located approximately 18 feet from the west property line,
as measured from the roof overhang, and approximately 19 feet from the outside wall—refer to Image 3
below:
Image 3. Setbacks from West Property Line (Proposed Trash Enclosure and Existing Building).
City Code requires all dumpsters and waste containers to be contained within an opaque enclosure. As
proposed, the Applicant would relocate the trash facilities to an approximately 300-square foot trash
App. No. 2026-001
PC 01/08/2026
Page 7
enclosure just south of the existing former trash building (proposed auto detail shop) which would require
the removal of five (5) parking spaces. Each receptacle area will have its own wall and locking door
mechanism. The plans provided note a minimum six (6) foot separation from the exterior wall of the
existing former trash building; however, the Applicant will need to coordinate with the City Building
Official to determine if a greater setback is required to meet code provisions.
Image 4. Proposed Trash Enclosure.
City staff reviewed the submitted landscape plans from 2017 and it does not appear any plantings would
be impacted as part of the building conversion and new trash enclosure install.
Building Official Review
A memorandum was provided by City of Brooklyn Center Building Official Dan Grinsteinner—refer to
Exhibit C.
A site visit will need to be conducted; however, building permits will need to be submitted for the work
completed without a permit and any remaining work (e.g. mechanical, plumbing, and electrical). A SAC
(Sewer Availability Charge) determination form will need to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council.
Minnesota Energy Code requires unconditioned spaces or semi-heated spaces to be brought into
compliance when converted to conditioned space. An architect or engineer will need to provide
documentation demonstrating compliance with the energy code provisions under Section 4.1.1.5. With
respect to the proposed new trash enclosure, the enclosure is not permitted within 10 feet of other
buildings, including the former trash building (now auto detail building) where the structure is of Type I
or IIA construction. The Applicant will need to coordinate with the City Building Official to determine if
the new trash enclosure will need to be shifted south to meet code requirements.
ANTICIPATED PERMITTING AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
City staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any positive recommendation on the
approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2026-001 for the Subject Property located at 4435 68th
Avenue North and commonly known as the Luther Mazda and Mitsubishi dealership, which contemplates
approvals for major amendments to the 2017 Planned Unit Development plans and documents and site
and building plan to convert the existing, approximately 1,500-square foot trash building to an auto detail
shop and install an approximately 300-square foot trash enclosure:
1. Any major changes or modifications to the approved site and building plan plans and documents,
App. No. 2026-001
PC 01/08/2026
Page 8
and as outlined within the City Code, can only be made by an amendment to the approved site
and building plan and approval by City Council.
a.Any conditions of approval as contemplated under Planning Commission Application No.
2017-010 and as memorialized under City Council Resolution No. 2017-178 for the Subject
Property remain in effect.
2.The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to
applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits, as outlined in the memorandum dated January
7 ,2026.
3.The Applicant shall work with City staff and the City Attorney to prepare and file an amended and
restated Planned Unit Development Agreement with Hennepin County. Said agreement shall be
filed with the title to the property and shall acknowledge the specific modifications to the C-2
underlying zoning district as well as other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further
assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above-noted findings, City staff recommend the Planning Commission recommend City
Council approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2026-001 for approval of major amendments to
the 2017 Planned Unit Development and site and building plans and documents for the Luther Mazda and
Mitsubishi dealership located at 4435 68th Avenue North, based on the submitted plans and findings of
fact, as amended by the Conditions of Approval in the January 8, 2026 Planning Commission report.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A – Planning Commission Application No. 2026-001 Plans and Documents.
Exhibit B – Public Hearing Notice, submitted for publication in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post, and dated December
25, 2025.
Exhibit C – Review Memorandum, prepared by Building Official Dan Grinsteinner, and dated January 7, 2026.
Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC
Exhibit A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Planned Unit Development Amendment ..................................................................................................... 1
Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
Contact Information ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Luther Brookdale Mazda, Brooklyn Center, MN December 1, 2025
1
Introduction
On behalf of Luther Company, LLLP, Landform is pleased to submit this application for major Planned Unit
Development (PUD) amendment approval to allow the conversion of the existing trash enclosure to a new detailing
area and placement of a new trash enclosure at Luther Brookdale Mazda at 4435 68 th Avenue N in Brooklyn Center,
MN. The PUD includes all the surrounding auto dealerships by Luther in the Brookdale Auto Mall. Our PUD
amendment includes a 1,500 sq. ft. conversion of the existing trash enclosure and a new 300 sq. ft. trash enclosure.
We are excited about the improvements proposed for this site.
Planned Unit Development Amendment
Background
The existing trash enclosure on site is located in the northwest corner and is much larger than what is realistically
needed for the site. The shape and size of the enclosure allowed it to be converted into more production space,
namely detailing services that are already provided on site. However, this requires building upgrades and the
placement of a new trash enclosure that meets all the requirements of the City Code. It is for that reason we are
submitting a PUD amendment for the site (PID #3411921220020).
Proposed Amendment
The addition of the detailing use within the 1,500 sq. ft. trash enclosure requires the modification of adding an
emergency eyewash station.
Finally, the new trash enclosure with be a pre-built unit that measures 300 sq. ft. in size, and additional information,
including the specification sheets, have been provided in this submittal. Overall the new enclosure meets the required
setbacks and design requirements of the City Code. No other modifications to the site or existing PUD are proposed.
Summary
We respectfully request approval of the application for major Planned Unit Development amendment approval to
allow the conversion of the existing trash enclosure to a new detailing area and placement of a new trash enclosure
at Luther Brookdale Mazda at 4435 68th Avenue N in Brooklyn Center, MN. We are excited to work with the city to
enhance this existing business in Brooklyn Center.
Contact Information
This document was prepared by:
Zeke Peters, AICP
Landform
105 South Fifth Avenue, Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Any additional questions regarding this application can be directed to Steve Sabraski, P.E. at
ssabraski@landform.net or 612.638.0243.
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT
VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED
READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT
THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.
PROJECT
CERTIFICATION
LA
N
D
F
O
R
M
c
105 South Fifth Avenue
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: 612-252-9070
Fax: 612-252-9077
Web: landform.net
Landform®and Site to Finish®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
OWNER
MUNICIPALITY
LUTHER MAZDA MITSUBISHI
TRASH ENCLOSURE
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
DECEMBER 31, 2025
LUT17037
20
1
9
THE LUTHER COMPANY, LLLP
3701 ALABAMA AVENUE SOUTH
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416
TEL 952-258-8800 FAX 952-258-8900
CENTER
B R O O K L
Y
N
A T T H E C E N T E R
C201LUT037 - TRASH ENCLOSURE.dwg
TITLE
SHEET
C0.1
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am
a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of MINNESOTA.
Signature shown is a digital reproduction of original. Wet signed copy of this plan on file at
Landform Professional Services, LLC office and is available upon request.
Steven E. Sabraski
License No.Date: 12/31/2025
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
LUTHER MAZDA MITSUBISHI
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
NORTH
NO SCALE
AREA LOCATION MAP
At@
Face of CurbF.C.
Floor Drain
Foundation
Galvanized
Full Basement
Grade Break
Flared End Section
Full Basement Walk Out
Full Basement Look Out
Garage Floor Elevation
General Contractor
Finished Floor Elevation
Field Verify
Fire Department Connection
Horizontal
Information
Hydrant
Inlet Elevation
Inside Dimension
High Density Polyethylene Pipe
High Point
Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning
IN. OR (")
INFO.
I.D.
INL.
Inches
HDPEP
HGT.
HYD
HORIZ.
HVAC
H.
GR.
H.P.
Height
Height
Grade
FT. OR (')
G.C.
GAL.
GFE
GL.
GALV.
FLR.
FUT.
G.B.
Gallon
Glass
Foot
Floor
Future
FBWO
FBLO
FES
FDN.
FFE
F.D.
F.V.
FB
F.D.C.
Side Exit Walk Out
Specification
Thickness
Symmetrical
Structural
Standard
Temporary
Verify In Field
Vertical Curve
Vapor Barrier
Thick / Thickness
Top of Wall
Top of Rim
Storm Sewer Manhole
Unless Noted Otherwise
Vestibule
Walk Out
Welded Wire Fabric
Working Point
Waterproof
V.C.
WithoutW/O
YD.
YR.
WO
WETL.
WT.
WP
Yard
Year
Wetland
Weight
W.PT.
W
W/
W.W.F.
VER.
V.I.F.
VEST.
VERT.
Width
With
Vertical
Verify
TEMP.
THK.
TYP.
V.B.
U.N.O.
T
SYM.
T/W
T/R
Typical
SPEC.
SQ.
STD.
STMH
STRUCT.
SEWO
SIM.
SLNT.
SHT.
Square
Sealant
Similar
Sheet
Additional
Addendum
Alternate
Aluminum
Anodized
Automatic
Average
Back of Curb
Approximate
Area Drain
Anchor Bolt
Air Handling Unit
Adjacent / Adjust
Architect / Architectural
100 Year Flood Elevation
Air Conditioning Unit
Building
Basement
Centerline
Cleanout
Cement
Catch Basin
Cubic Yards
Control Joint
Corner Guard
Cubic Feet
Bottom of Wall
Concrete Masonry Unit
Cubic Feet Per Second
Bituminous (Asphaltic)
Basement Floor Elevation
Cast Iron Pipe
Catch Basin Manhole
U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers
Continuous
Connection
Degree
Copper
Diagonal
Diameter
Drawing
Dimension
Department
Ductile Iron Pipe
Demolition / Demolish
Down Spout
Contractor
Construction
Concrete (Portland)
Corrugated Metal Pipe
Each Way
Emergency
Elevation
Electrical
Engineer
Elevation
Equivalent
Equipment
Existing
Expansion
Entrance
Expansion Joint
Furnished by Others
Furnish and Install
Emergency Overflow Swale
EastE.
ENGR.
EXP.
EXIST.
F & I
F.B.O.
EQ.
EQUIP.
EQUIV.
ENTR.
Equal
EL.
ELEC.
ELEV.
EMER.
E.J.
EA.
E.W.
E.O.S.
Each
DIAG.
DIP
DIM.
DN
DWG.
DIA.
DET.
DEPT.
DEMO.
Down
Detail
CONTR.
COP.
DEG.
D.S.
CU.
CONN.
CONST.
CONT.
CONC.
Cubic
B/W
C.L.
CB
CIP
CEM.
CMP
CBMH
C.O.
C.Y.
C.O.E.
C.M.U.
C.F.
C.J.
C.G.
C.F.S.
BFE
BIT
BLDG
BSMT.
ALT.
APPROX.
AVG.
B.C.
AUTO.
ALUM.
ANOD.
ARCH
100 YR.
A/C
ADD.
AHU
ADJ.
ADDL.
A.B.
A.D.
Property LineP.L. OR P/L
Polyethylene
Point of Tangency
Point of Beginning
Proposed
Preparation
Perforated
Pavement
Pounds Per Square Inch
Pedestal / Pedestrian
Poly-Vinyl-Chloride (Piping)
Point of Vertical Tangency
Point of Vertical Intersection
Point of Vertical Curvature
Pounds Per Square Foot
Radius Point
Rim Elevation (Casting)
Reinforced
Regarding
Rough Slab
Rough Opening
Remove Existing
Side Exit
Right of Way
Sanitary Sewer
Square Feet
Revision / Revised
Regulatory Government Unit
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RadiusR
REINF.
ROW OR R/W
S.
SAN.
SE
SECT.
S.F.
REQ'D
REV.
RGU
South
Section
Required
R.P.
R.S.
RCP
RE.
RE
R.O.
R.E.
RAD.Radius
PED.
QTY.
QTR.
PVMT.
PVC
PERF.
PREP.
PROJ.
PROP.
Quantity
Quarter
Project
P.V.I.
PE
P.V.T.
P.V.C.
P.O.B.
P.S.I.
P.S.F.
P.T.
Lineal Feet
Maintenance
Longitudinal
Light / Lighting
Mechanical
Miscellaneous
Minimum / Minute
Manufacturer
Local Government Unit
Low Point / Liquid Petroleum
Normal Water Level
Not to Scale
Not In Contract
Module / Modular
Overhead
Point of Intersection
Post Indicator Valve
Point of Curvature
Overhead Electric
Outside Dimension
On Center
Normal Water Elevation
Ordinary High Water Level
Minnesota Department Of Transportation
OPNG.
ORIG.
PIV
P.I.
P.C.
O.D.
OH.
OHWL
O.E.
Opening
Original
NOM
NTS
NWL
NWE
O.C.
MUL.
N.
N.I.C.
NO. OR #
Nominal
North
Mullion
Number
MaterialMATL.
MH
MISC.
MIN.
MOD.
MNDOT
MECH
MAX.
MFR.
MED.
Manhole
Maximum
Medium
LT.
LONG.
MAINT.
MAS.
L.F.
L.P.
LB.
LGU
Masonry
Pound
D
&And
Angle
INSUL.Insulation
INV.Invert Elevation
TNH Top Nut Hydrant
Emergency OverflowE.O.
Roof Storm DrainRSD
ABBREVIATIONS
Subsurface drainSSD
Invert ElevationI.E. or IE
JT.Joint
Roof DrainR.D.
Tooled JointT.J.
NEW
CATV UNDERGROUND CABLE/TV
EXISTING DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
STORM SEWER
WATERMAIN
FORCE MAIN
SANITARY SEWER-WASTE
ROOF DRAIN SYSTEM
GAS LINE-UNDERGROUND
FIRE LINE (IF SEPARATE)
FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION
SOIL SUBDRAIN
TELEPHONE-UNDERGROUND
ELECTRIC-UNDERGROUND
LAWN SPRINKLER SLEEVE
>
>
>>
RIPRAP
>>
FM
STS
RD
GATE VALVE
WTR
SAN
BLDG.
FIRE
GAS
HYD
TELE
ELEC
X"SSD
LSS
C.O.
CANOPY/OVERHANG
BIT. EDGE
FES
CATCH BASIN
MANHOLE
SYMBOLS
LANDSCAPING
GRAVEL
FLAG POLE
>
>>
POWERPOLE
GUARD POST
GAS METER
TREES
TRAFFIC SIGN
WATER MAIN
SANITARY SEWER LINE
STORM SEWER LINE
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
MAJOR CONTOUR
SPOT ELEVATION
CONCRETE
BUILDING
CANOPY / OVERHANG
120
GM
12"STS
8"SAN
LT
FENCING
CONCRETE CURB
RETAINING WALL
OE
MANHOLE
WATER VALVE
FIRE HYDRANT
FLARED END SECTION
CATCH BASIN
6"WTR
XX
HEIGHT, TYPE
1 NOTE NUMBER
GUY WIRE
IRON MONUMENT FOUND
WATER SHUT-OFF VALVE
l l
MEASURED DISTANCE
DISTANCE PER RECORDED PLAT
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONEUT
UNDERGROUND ELECTRICUE
GAS LINEG
PAVING BLOCK
PAVING BLOCK
SET 1/2" X 14" IRON PIPE
TRANSFORMER
TREE LINE
MB
MAILBOX
SURVEY DISK (BENCHMARK)
WSO
BITUMINOUS
SOIL BORING
B-X
123.45
%1.00
234.5
LIGHT POLE
MINOR CONTOUR123
SILT FENCE
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
REVISED AREA (THIS ISSUE)
REVISION - ADDENDUM, BULLETIN, ETC.
NOTE REFERENCE
LARGE SHEET DETAIL
COORDINATE POINT
PARKING STALL COUNT
DESCRIPTIONSYMBOL
EROSION CONTROL SYMBOLS
DRAWING SYMBOLS
n n n
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BENCHMARK
INLET PROTECTION
C21
C7.3
1
12
2
PROJECT BENCHMARK:
(PER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT)
TOP NUT OF FIRE HYDRANT
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, AT RANDY ITEN CHEVROLET
ELEVATION = 867.32 FEET
SITE BENCHMARK:
TOP NUT OF FIRE HYDRANT
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SURVEYED PROPERTY, NORTH SIDE OF 68TH AVENUE NORTH, APPROXIMATELY 190
FEET WEST OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD.
ELEVATION = 867.98 FEET
LOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4, BLOCK 2, NORTHTOWN PLAZA 2ND ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
3
OWNER
LANDFORM
105 SOUTH FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 513
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
TEL 612-252-9070
FAX 612-252-9077
CONTACT: STEVE SABRASKI
PROJECT CONTACTS
CIVIL ENGINEER
LANDFORM
105 SOUTH FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 513
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
TEL 612-252-9070
FAX 612-252-9077
CONTACT: GUS LESAVAGE
SURVEYOR
COMPOST/BIO LOG
INTERSTATE HWY. NO. 94
69TH AVE NORTH
B
R
O
O
K
L
Y
N
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
BROOKLYN
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
D
.
8
1
U.
S
.
H
W
Y
.
1
6
9
68TH AVE
THE LUTHER COMPANY, LLLP
3701 ALABAMA AVE S
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416
TEL (952) 258-8800
FAX (952) 258-8900
CONTACT: LINDA MCGINTY
TRASH ENCLOSURE
EXISTING BUILDING
FFE=864.5
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
BLOCK 1
LOT 1
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
ENLARGED PLAN
1
1
2
2BOLLARD
LIGHT
POLE
1.0%
0.7%
1.0%
6.2%
3.9%
1.
0
%
(64.31)
64.24
64.09
64.11
63.67
63.65
63.51
(62.91)
PROPOSED
TRASH
ENCLOSURE
64.22
64.22
3
3
4
5
86
4
8
6
4
64.11
63.86
64.11
64.24
63.54
63.67
2'
TRANSITION
2'
TRANSITION
63.75
63.88 63.88
(64.40)
(63.55)
C2.1
3
VALLEY
GUTTER
6'
18.06'
ROOF OVERHANG
OUTSIDE WALL EDGE
6
6
WARP VALLEY
GUTTER TO MATCH
EXISTING PAVEMENT
EDGE
11.39'
35.07'
27.8'
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT
VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED
READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT
THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.
PROJECT
CERTIFICATION
LA
N
D
F
O
R
M
c
105 South Fifth Avenue
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: 612-252-9070
Fax: 612-252-9077
Web: landform.net
Landform®and Site to Finish®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
OWNER
MUNICIPALITY
LUTHER MAZDA MITSUBISHI
TRASH ENCLOSURE
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
DECEMBER 31, 2025
LUT17037
20
1
9
THE LUTHER COMPANY, LLLP
3701 ALABAMA AVENUE SOUTH
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416
TEL 952-258-8800 FAX 952-258-8900
CENTER
B R O O K L
Y
N
A T T H E C E N T E R
C201LUT037 - TRASH ENCLOSURE.dwg
SITE
PLAN
C2.1
NORTH
0 30 60
10 SCALE
ENLARGED DEMO PLAN1
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am
a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of MINNESOTA.
Signature shown is a digital reproduction of original. Wet signed copy of this plan on file at
Landform Professional Services, LLC office and is available upon request.
Steven E. Sabraski
License No.Date: 12/31/2025
10 SCALE
ENLARGED GRADING PLAN2
SAWCUT / REMOVAL LIMITS
PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURES
INSTALL B412 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
RE-ROUTE EXISTING ROOF DRAIN
INSTALL ROOF DRAIN
RESTORE WITH 3" DEPTH, 1.5" DIA. GRAY TRAP ROCK
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
SITE PLAN NOTES
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND
:PAVEMENT SAWCUT
00.00
(00.00)
:PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
:EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
:TIP OUT CURB
SLOPE
12:1
6.
5
"
18"
8"
36"
NO SCALE
CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER3
12" RAD. (TYP)
1/2" RAD. (TYP)
(5.84 Ac)
IMPERVIOUS
PERVIOUS
TOTAL
S.F.
S.F.
LOT 1 EXISTING AREA:
254,391
227,650
26,741
S.F.100.0%
89.5%
10.5%
6
463
469 EA.
EA.
EA.ACCESSIBLE STALLS
STANDARD STALLS
LOT 1 EXISTING PARKING:
TOTAL PARKING STALLS PROVIDED
(9x18)
(9x18)
6
458
464 EA.
EA.
EA.ACCESSIBLE STALLS
STANDARD STALLS
LOT 1 PROPSOED PARKING:
TOTAL PARKING STALLS PROVIDED
(9x18)
(9x18)
(5.84 Ac)
IMPERVIOUS
PERVIOUS
TOTAL
S.F.
S.F.
LOT 1 PROPOSED AREA:
254,391
227,469
26,922
S.F.100.0%
89.4%
10.6%
GRADING NOTES / DEMO NOTES
:Curb Removal
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT
VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED
READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT
THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.
PROJECT
CERTIFICATION
LA
N
D
F
O
R
M
c
105 South Fifth Avenue
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: 612-252-9070
Fax: 612-252-9077
Web: landform.net
Landform®and Site to Finish®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
OWNER
MUNICIPALITY
LUTHER MAZDA MITSUBISHI
TRASH ENCLOSURE
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL
OCTOBER 29, 2025
LUT17037
20
1
9
THE LUTHER COMPANY, LLLP
3701 ALABAMA AVENUE SOUTH
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416
TEL 952-258-8800 FAX 952-258-8900
CENTER
B R O O K L
Y
N
A T T H E C E N T E R
C201LUT037 - TRASH ENCLOSURE.dwg
TITLE
SHEET
C0.1
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am
a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of MINNESOTA.
Signature shown is a digital reproduction of original. Wet signed copy of this plan on file at
Landform Professional Services, LLC office and is available upon request.
Steven E. Sabraski
License No.Date: 10/29/2025
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
LUTHER MAZDA MITSUBISHI
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
NORTH
NO SCALE
AREA LOCATION MAP
At@
Face of CurbF.C.
Floor Drain
Foundation
Galvanized
Full Basement
Grade Break
Flared End Section
Full Basement Walk Out
Full Basement Look Out
Garage Floor Elevation
General Contractor
Finished Floor Elevation
Field Verify
Fire Department Connection
Horizontal
Information
Hydrant
Inlet Elevation
Inside Dimension
High Density Polyethylene Pipe
High Point
Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning
IN. OR (")
INFO.
I.D.
INL.
Inches
HDPEP
HGT.
HYD
HORIZ.
HVAC
H.
GR.
H.P.
Height
Height
Grade
FT. OR (')
G.C.
GAL.
GFE
GL.
GALV.
FLR.
FUT.
G.B.
Gallon
Glass
Foot
Floor
Future
FBWO
FBLO
FES
FDN.
FFE
F.D.
F.V.
FB
F.D.C.
Side Exit Walk Out
Specification
Thickness
Symmetrical
Structural
Standard
Temporary
Verify In Field
Vertical Curve
Vapor Barrier
Thick / Thickness
Top of Wall
Top of Rim
Storm Sewer Manhole
Unless Noted Otherwise
Vestibule
Walk Out
Welded Wire Fabric
Working Point
Waterproof
V.C.
WithoutW/O
YD.
YR.
WO
WETL.
WT.
WP
Yard
Year
Wetland
Weight
W.PT.
W
W/
W.W.F.
VER.
V.I.F.
VEST.
VERT.
Width
With
Vertical
Verify
TEMP.
THK.
TYP.
V.B.
U.N.O.
T
SYM.
T/W
T/R
Typical
SPEC.
SQ.
STD.
STMH
STRUCT.
SEWO
SIM.
SLNT.
SHT.
Square
Sealant
Similar
Sheet
Additional
Addendum
Alternate
Aluminum
Anodized
Automatic
Average
Back of Curb
Approximate
Area Drain
Anchor Bolt
Air Handling Unit
Adjacent / Adjust
Architect / Architectural
100 Year Flood Elevation
Air Conditioning Unit
Building
Basement
Centerline
Cleanout
Cement
Catch Basin
Cubic Yards
Control Joint
Corner Guard
Cubic Feet
Bottom of Wall
Concrete Masonry Unit
Cubic Feet Per Second
Bituminous (Asphaltic)
Basement Floor Elevation
Cast Iron Pipe
Catch Basin Manhole
U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers
Continuous
Connection
Degree
Copper
Diagonal
Diameter
Drawing
Dimension
Department
Ductile Iron Pipe
Demolition / Demolish
Down Spout
Contractor
Construction
Concrete (Portland)
Corrugated Metal Pipe
Each Way
Emergency
Elevation
Electrical
Engineer
Elevation
Equivalent
Equipment
Existing
Expansion
Entrance
Expansion Joint
Furnished by Others
Furnish and Install
Emergency Overflow Swale
EastE.
ENGR.
EXP.
EXIST.
F & I
F.B.O.
EQ.
EQUIP.
EQUIV.
ENTR.
Equal
EL.
ELEC.
ELEV.
EMER.
E.J.
EA.
E.W.
E.O.S.
Each
DIAG.
DIP
DIM.
DN
DWG.
DIA.
DET.
DEPT.
DEMO.
Down
Detail
CONTR.
COP.
DEG.
D.S.
CU.
CONN.
CONST.
CONT.
CONC.
Cubic
B/W
C.L.
CB
CIP
CEM.
CMP
CBMH
C.O.
C.Y.
C.O.E.
C.M.U.
C.F.
C.J.
C.G.
C.F.S.
BFE
BIT
BLDG
BSMT.
ALT.
APPROX.
AVG.
B.C.
AUTO.
ALUM.
ANOD.
ARCH
100 YR.
A/C
ADD.
AHU
ADJ.
ADDL.
A.B.
A.D.
Property LineP.L. OR P/L
Polyethylene
Point of Tangency
Point of Beginning
Proposed
Preparation
Perforated
Pavement
Pounds Per Square Inch
Pedestal / Pedestrian
Poly-Vinyl-Chloride (Piping)
Point of Vertical Tangency
Point of Vertical Intersection
Point of Vertical Curvature
Pounds Per Square Foot
Radius Point
Rim Elevation (Casting)
Reinforced
Regarding
Rough Slab
Rough Opening
Remove Existing
Side Exit
Right of Way
Sanitary Sewer
Square Feet
Revision / Revised
Regulatory Government Unit
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RadiusR
REINF.
ROW OR R/W
S.
SAN.
SE
SECT.
S.F.
REQ'D
REV.
RGU
South
Section
Required
R.P.
R.S.
RCP
RE.
RE
R.O.
R.E.
RAD.Radius
PED.
QTY.
QTR.
PVMT.
PVC
PERF.
PREP.
PROJ.
PROP.
Quantity
Quarter
Project
P.V.I.
PE
P.V.T.
P.V.C.
P.O.B.
P.S.I.
P.S.F.
P.T.
Lineal Feet
Maintenance
Longitudinal
Light / Lighting
Mechanical
Miscellaneous
Minimum / Minute
Manufacturer
Local Government Unit
Low Point / Liquid Petroleum
Normal Water Level
Not to Scale
Not In Contract
Module / Modular
Overhead
Point of Intersection
Post Indicator Valve
Point of Curvature
Overhead Electric
Outside Dimension
On Center
Normal Water Elevation
Ordinary High Water Level
Minnesota Department Of Transportation
OPNG.
ORIG.
PIV
P.I.
P.C.
O.D.
OH.
OHWL
O.E.
Opening
Original
NOM
NTS
NWL
NWE
O.C.
MUL.
N.
N.I.C.
NO. OR #
Nominal
North
Mullion
Number
MaterialMATL.
MH
MISC.
MIN.
MOD.
MNDOT
MECH
MAX.
MFR.
MED.
Manhole
Maximum
Medium
LT.
LONG.
MAINT.
MAS.
L.F.
L.P.
LB.
LGU
Masonry
Pound
D
&And
Angle
INSUL.Insulation
INV.Invert Elevation
TNH Top Nut Hydrant
Emergency OverflowE.O.
Roof Storm DrainRSD
ABBREVIATIONS
Subsurface drainSSD
Invert ElevationI.E. or IE
JT.Joint
Roof DrainR.D.
Tooled JointT.J.
NEW
CATV UNDERGROUND CABLE/TV
EXISTING DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
STORM SEWER
WATERMAIN
FORCE MAIN
SANITARY SEWER-WASTE
ROOF DRAIN SYSTEM
GAS LINE-UNDERGROUND
FIRE LINE (IF SEPARATE)
FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION
SOIL SUBDRAIN
TELEPHONE-UNDERGROUND
ELECTRIC-UNDERGROUND
LAWN SPRINKLER SLEEVE
>
>
>>
RIPRAP
>>
FM
STS
RD
GATE VALVE
WTR
SAN
BLDG.
FIRE
GAS
HYD
TELE
ELEC
X"SSD
LSS
C.O.
CANOPY/OVERHANG
BIT. EDGE
FES
CATCH BASIN
MANHOLE
SYMBOLS
LANDSCAPING
GRAVEL
FLAG POLE
>
>>
POWERPOLE
GUARD POST
GAS METER
TREES
TRAFFIC SIGN
WATER MAIN
SANITARY SEWER LINE
STORM SEWER LINE
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
MAJOR CONTOUR
SPOT ELEVATION
CONCRETE
BUILDING
CANOPY / OVERHANG
120
GM
12"STS
8"SAN
LT
FENCING
CONCRETE CURB
RETAINING WALL
OE
MANHOLE
WATER VALVE
FIRE HYDRANT
FLARED END SECTION
CATCH BASIN
6"WTR
XX
HEIGHT, TYPE
1 NOTE NUMBER
GUY WIRE
IRON MONUMENT FOUND
WATER SHUT-OFF VALVE
l l
MEASURED DISTANCE
DISTANCE PER RECORDED PLAT
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONEUT
UNDERGROUND ELECTRICUE
GAS LINEG
PAVING BLOCK
PAVING BLOCK
SET 1/2" X 14" IRON PIPE
TRANSFORMER
TREE LINE
MB
MAILBOX
SURVEY DISK (BENCHMARK)
WSO
BITUMINOUS
SOIL BORING
B-X
123.45
%1.00
234.5
LIGHT POLE
MINOR CONTOUR123
SILT FENCE
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
REVISED AREA (THIS ISSUE)
REVISION - ADDENDUM, BULLETIN, ETC.
NOTE REFERENCE
LARGE SHEET DETAIL
COORDINATE POINT
PARKING STALL COUNT
DESCRIPTIONSYMBOL
EROSION CONTROL SYMBOLS
DRAWING SYMBOLS
n n n
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BENCHMARK
INLET PROTECTION
C21
C7.3
1
12
2
PROJECT BENCHMARK:
(PER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT)
TOP NUT OF FIRE HYDRANT
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, AT RANDY ITEN CHEVROLET
ELEVATION = 867.32 FEET
SITE BENCHMARK:
TOP NUT OF FIRE HYDRANT
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SURVEYED PROPERTY, NORTH SIDE OF 68TH AVENUE NORTH, APPROXIMATELY 190
FEET WEST OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD.
ELEVATION = 867.98 FEET
LOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4, BLOCK 2, NORTHTOWN PLAZA 2ND ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
3
OWNER
LANDFORM
105 SOUTH FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 513
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
TEL 612-252-9070
FAX 612-252-9077
CONTACT: STEVE SABRASKI
PROJECT CONTACTS
CIVIL ENGINEER
LANDFORM
105 SOUTH FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 513
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
TEL 612-252-9070
FAX 612-252-9077
CONTACT: GUS LESAVAGE
SURVEYOR
COMPOST/BIO LOG
INTERSTATE HWY. NO. 94
69TH AVE NORTH
B
R
O
O
K
L
Y
N
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
BROOKLYN
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
D
.
8
1
U.
S
.
H
W
Y
.
1
6
9
68TH AVE
THE LUTHER COMPANY, LLLP
3701 ALABAMA AVE S
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416
TEL (952) 258-8800
FAX (952) 258-8900
CONTACT: LINDA MCGINTY
TRASH ENCLOSURE
SealPact 2025-10-22 15:08:54 EST
Click seal or scan QR Code for
verification; otherwise not valid.
See SealPact Verification
SealPact 2025-10-22 15:08:54 EST
Click seal or scan QR Code for
verification; otherwise not valid.
See SealPact Verification
SealPact 2025-10-22 15:08:54 EST
Click seal or scan QR Code for
verification; otherwise not valid.
See SealPact Verification
SealPact 2025-10-22 15:08:54 EST
Click seal or scan QR Code for
verification; otherwise not valid.
See SealPact Verification
City of Brooklyn center NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Details for City of Brooklyn center NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Dec 25, 2025
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY
CONCERN: Please take notice that the Planning Commission of the City of
Brooklyn Center will hold an in-person public hearing on Thursday, January 8,
2026 at approximately 7:00 p.m. Meeting materials can be accessed by visiting
the City of Brooklyn Center's website at: https://www.brooklyncentermn.gov/. A
definite time for this application to be considered cannot be given as it will
depend on the progression of the agenda items. TYPE OF REQUEST(S): Major
Planned Unit Development Amendment, Major Site and Building Plan
Amendment APPLICANT -- PROPERTY OWNER: The Luther Company LLLP
PROPERTY ADDRESS -- PID: 4435 68th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN
55429 -- 34-119-21-22-0020 BRIEF STATEMENT OF CONTENTS OF PETITION: The
Applicant is requesting approval of major amendments to the approved
Planned Unit Development and site and building plans and documents that
would allow for the conversion of the existing, approximately 1,500-square foot
trash building to an auto detail shop, and installation of a new 300-square foot
trash enclosure. Comments and questions may be forwarded to
gmcintosh@brooklyncentermn.gov up until 4:30 pm on the day of the
meeting, or by contacting Ginny McIntosh at (763) 569-3319. Your comments
will be included in the record and addressed as part of the meeting.
Alternatively, you may participate in the Planning Commission meeting via
Webex at: logis.webex.com Meeting Number (Access Code): 2865 898 5563
Password: BCPC01082026 By Phone: 1 (312) 535-8110 (Enter Access Code)
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96
Save Share
12/30/25, 11:24 AM City of Brooklyn center NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING | Notice Of Public Hearing | hometownsource.com
https://www.hometownsource.com/classifieds/sun_post/community/announcements/legal/notice_of_public_hearing/city-of-brooklyn-center-notice-of-pu…1/2
Exhibit B
hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at (763) 569-3300 to make
arrangements. Respectfully, Ginny McIntosh Planning Manager Published in
the Sun Post December 25, 2025 1509396
Learn more about your privacy options
12/30/25, 11:24 AM City of Brooklyn center NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING | Notice Of Public Hearing | hometownsource.com
https://www.hometownsource.com/classifieds/sun_post/community/announcements/legal/notice_of_public_hearing/city-of-brooklyn-center-notice-of-pu…2/2
City of Brooklyn Center | 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy | Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 | (763) 569-3300 |
www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
Community Development
763-569-3300
January 7, 2026
4435 68th Ave N
Mazda Mitsubishi Existing Trash Enclosure
Building review comments for the repurpose of the Existing trash enclosure building located at 4435 68th
Ave N to a Vehicle detailing space.
1.Prior to a Building permit being issued. A SAC determination for the new use of the building will need
to be done by MET Council and SAC determination letter received.
2.A Separate Building permit with signed plans will be required. Permit and signed plans may also be
required for Mechanical, Plumbing & Electrical. MNBC 1300.0120 & MN 1800.4200 subp 4.
3.Changes in space conditioning per MN Energy code requires an unconditioned space or semi heated
space in a building, when converted to a conditioned space, such space shall be brought into compliance
with all the applicable requirements of the MN Energy code standard that would apply to the building
envelope, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, service water heating, power, lighting, and other
systems and equipment of the space as if the building was new. An architect or engineer shall provide
documentation showing compliance with the MN Energy Code. MNEC 4.1.1.5
4.New Trash enclosure shall not be prohibited where the structure is of Type I or IIA construction,
located not less than 10’ feet from other buildings (detail shop bldg.) and used exclusively for dumpster
or containers. MNFC 304.3.3.
Sincerely,
Dan Grinsteinner
Building Official
City of Brooklyn Center
763-569-3313
Exhibit C
12/10/2025
1
Planning and the Planning Commission
Application Process
City Council Work Session | November 10, 2025
Ginny McIntosh, Planning Manager
What is Planning and What Do Planners Do?
•Urban orCity Plannersareprofessionalswhoworkto improvean entirecommunity’squality oflife.
•We work with a wide range of people and groups, including: other government entities, municipal attorneys,
architects, landscape architects, urban designers, civil engineers, real estate developers, land surveyors,
hydrologists, GIS specialists, real estate brokers and agents, private consultants, and community members
(e.g. residents, communityorganizers,businessowners,churches,schooldistricts)
•In theUS:Planning emerged as a profession andpracticein theearly 1900s, although theprofession’s roots
date back to the late 1800s andafter certain key events.
•Rapid population growth during age of industrialization drove people to cities, but a lack in oversight resulted in
slums and tenements, congestion, disorder, and the threat of disease, which demanded improvements to
sanitation and overall public health through improvements to watersupply and sewage.
•A century ago, urban planning and public health were near synonymous professions, with the field of urban
planning serving asa way to promote health and safety of urban residents.
•Once infectious disease (e.g. cholera, yellow fever, typhoid, influenza) were brought under control, planners shifted
more towards addressing economic development, land use, and zoning, and public health workers focused on
education and the social determinants of illness.
•Early origins of planning were alsoheavily focused in architecture and social work.
2
1
2
Item 8. a
12/10/2025
2
What is Planning and What Do Planners Do? (Cont.)
•Emergence of urban planning gave rise to the creation of laws called “zoning ordinances” to
keep people, businesses, and incompatible land uses away from one another.
Example:“EuclideanZoning”or“Exclusionary Zoning”
•Became prevalent in early 1900s as a land-use regulation system designed to divide
community into distinct districts for specific purposes, such as residential, commercial, and
industrial.
•Some have argued “Euclidean Zoning” helps protect residential areas by creating separation
from incompatible uses and stability with predictable land use pattern, but critics argue it
exacerbates urban sprawl, increases car dependency, limits housing supply and affordability,
contributes to segregation, increases infrastructure costs, and damages the environment.
•More modern approaches to zoning focus on creating more flexible and context-sensitive
zoning like“form-based code”and the allowance of mixed-use zoning.
•City of Brooklyn Center adopted mixed-use zoning provisions for the first time as part of the
2040 Comprehensive Plan in 2019 and adoption of new Unified Development Ordinance in
2023.
3
Urban Planning vs. Economic Development
•Planners:Charged with translating what a community wants by helping shape what
can be built (built environment) and how it can be used and through prioritizing long-
term land use and sustainable growth
•Economic Developers:Focused on improving a community’s economic well-being
by creating and/or retaining jobs,courting businesses and expanding businesses,
and boosting tax base, thus enhancing the quality of life for residents.
•Charged with creating a climate attractive for investors and businesses and
place for workers and families to flourish
•Both roles contribute to developing a single, cohesive vision that integrates long-
range community plans and short-term economic development goals.
•At Brooklyn Center, Planning Manager and Associate Planner are partially funded by
EDA and are involved in some economic activities, but not all.
4
3
4
12/10/2025
3
Review Process
In Brooklyn Center,zoning requests are typically reviewed by City Councilas eithera:
1. ConceptReview(CityCouncilonly); or
2. PlanningCommissionApplication(PlanningCommissionCity Council)
ConceptReviews (Planningand Zoning)
City of Brooklyn Center has historically used City Council “concept reviews” to vet out certain
projectson the frontend beforehavingapplicantwork throughthe full City approvalprocess.
•Benefit to City staff, applicant, Planning Commission, and Council because it can save time,
andmitigaterisk/fundsspent onpotential project.
•Depending on scale/complexity of project, a developer can spend anywhere between
$300,000-500,000 on a project prior to receiving community or city approvals (soft costs).
This typically includes costs relating to preparation of engineering/architectural plans,
general due diligence, environmental assessments (e.g. Phase I, Phase II), geotechnical
reports, applicationpreparationfor PlanningCommission,traffic studies,etc.
5
Review Process (Cont.)
ConceptReviews (Planningand Zoning)
•Planning and zoning concept reviews are most often requested where a particular use isn’t
clearly identified in the City’s Unified Development Ordinance or outlined as an approved
use ina particular zoningdistrict.
•Concept reviews are considered “non-binding”but offer an opportunity for City staff and
applicant to highlight request to City Council and to receive feedback with respect to any
concernsor considerations.
•Even if City Council is generally not supportive of a request, this does not prevent an
applicantfromproceedingthroughthe PlanningCommission process.
6
5
6
12/10/2025
4
Review Process (Cont.)
Planning Commission and ApplicationProcess
•City of Brooklyn Center Planning Commission consists of 7 members and is the
designated planning agency advisory to City Council.
•Also serve as City’s Board of Adjustments and Appeals to hear appeals and variance
requests.
•Primary role is to conduct public hearing on zoning requests like site and building
plans, conditional and interim uses, preliminary and final plats, ordinance
amendments, and re-zonings, and to make recommendations to City Council.
•Planning Commission also serves variety of other functions and assists in
development of 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.
7
Review Process (Cont.)
Planning Commission and ApplicationProcess
•When appointing planning commissioners, cities should be aware that appointed
officials are subject to same concerns relating to conflict of interest as city
councilmembers. The Planning Commission is also governed by many of the same
statutes as City Council, like Open Meeting Law.
•Planning Commissioners are to base their decisions on adopted City Code and with
the best interests of the city in mind, rather than those of a particular person or
group, and are directed to objectively review (i.e. not influenced by their personal
feelings or opinions when considering the facts presented)Planning Commission
applications.
•In order to do this, Planning Commissioners are to avoid activities that may make
them appear as though they are not objective.
8
7
8
12/10/2025
5
Review Process (Cont.)
Planning Commission and ApplicationProcess
Prior to a publichearing,PlanningCommissionersshould 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 shall disclose if they have 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.
Example:City of Roseville ousted its Planning Commission chair in 2019 because he failed
to recuse himself from a public hearing after signing a petition in opposition to a project.
9
Review Process (Cont.)
Planning Commission and ApplicationProcess
•Applicants arerequiredto meet withCity staff prior to submittingan application.
•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 for review, other City staff,to prepare any public hearing
notices for newspaper publication, mail notifications, maps, address any outstanding
questionswith applicantor obtainotherdocumentation,andpreparethe staff report.
•Remaining 30 days is set aside to move application through Planning Commission and City
Council.
10
9
10
12/10/2025
6
Role of Planning, Zoning, and Land Use in Local
Government
•“Zoning authority”is part of the city’s general “police powers,” which are its ability to enact and
enforce laws for the promotion and protection of the public’s health, safety, morals, and general
welfare — refer to MN Statutes Sections 462.351 through 462.364
•Municipal (city) planning assists in ensuring the development of lands are to the “highest and best
use” to serve citizens more effectively, to make the provision of public services less costly, and to
achieve a more secure tax base.
•Two main categories of zoning decisions the Planning Commission and City Council should be
aware of:
•(1)Legislative; and
•(2)Quasi-Judicial
Legislative:Broader discretion because you’re setting public policy and affect the general public
(e.g. land use plans, comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances).
Quasi-Judicial:Looking at application of the law to the fact, looking at established policy, and affects
only a few individuals (e.g. variance, conditional use permits, plats).
11
Role of Planning, Zoning, and Land Use in Local
Government (Cont.)
“Findings of Fact”is a term used to refer to a city’s written explanation of a land use decision and
they are critical (!)when it comes to making quasi-judicial decisions.
•If a city is ever sued over a land use decision, the courts will review the record for a sufficient
statement as to why the city granted or denied the request. If a city denies an application related to
zoning, Minnesota’s “60-day rule”requires the reasons for the denial to be put into writing, and as a
best practice, you should put them into writing for an approval as well.
•When reviewing a PC Application, it is exceptionally important to make sure your reason for an
approval or denial is not in conflict with your adopted codes and ordinances.
Example:You deny a PC application because a proposed apartment building is considered “too
dense” or “too many housing units” but your adopted zoning code allows for that many housing
units.
Example #2:You review a PC application to subdivide a property and you deny the application
because of NIMBY-ism/neighborhood opposition only but the application met all the
requirements of the City’s subdivision requirements.
12
11
12
12/10/2025
7
Role of Planning, Zoning, and Land Use in Local
Government (Cont.)
Examples of “Bad”Findings of Fact:
•Conclusionary statements*— your resolution states a conclusion but doesn’t explain the
underlying reasons or evidence.Example:“the proposed project is not in the best interest of
the community.”
•Lack of evidentiary support — the findings mention concerns but do not reference any
specific or expert testimony from the public hearing to support them.Example:A member of
the public commented that, “the installation of the new facility might disturb the root system
of existing trees”andno considerationis givento theCity’sforester or a landscapearchitect.
•Reliance on generalized public opposition — a zoning decision is solely made on general,
unsubstantiated fears or opinions of local residents, rather than objective evidence relating to
the ordinance criteria.Example:“Based on concerns raised by numerous residents regarding
increased traffic and noise, the application is denied.” This is an especially poor reason if the
applicant provided a traffic study showing no significant impacts and no contrary expert
evidencewas presented.
13
Role of Planning, Zoning, and Land Use in Local
Government (Cont.)
Examples of “Bad”Findings of Fact:
•Failure to address specific ordinance criteria — a city resolution must explicitly reference
and apply the relevant legal standards (e.g. variance standards) to the facts of the case.
Example:“the application is denied because it does not meet the standards of the city code.”
This is poor because is does not cite the specific sections of the code, describe the precise
defectsfound,and doesnot explain howthe applicationfails to meet them.
•Inconsistent rulings without explanation — the Commission or Council denies an
application based on certain facts after having approved a nearly identical application in the
past, andwithout providinga reasonto reacha differentconclusion.
•Stick to the facts of the application!
•You can inquire or have an interest in other aspects of an application request, but these
considerationsshould not carry anyweight on approval/denialof application.
14
13
14
12/10/2025
8
Role of Planning, Zoning, and Land Use in Local
Government (Cont.)
NeighborhoodOpposition orNIMBY-ism(“Not in My Backyard”)
•Challenging issue when considering a Planning Commission application, but case law holds
thatthe opinionsof neighbors should not bethe sole basisfor a particularcity action.
•It is important for community members to provide information as it relates to adopted
legal standards and code, but it should never be the sole reason for approving or denying
an application.
•“Missing Middle” legislation has resulted in a bit of a pro-YIMBY (“Yes in My Backyard”)
movement that has brought together private and non-profit housing developers, religious
groups, and social justice organizations. Resulting bills, which have floated through MN
legislature past couple years have gained bipartisan support and would effectively end single-
family zoningin Minnesota.
•Bills contain provisions that would require administrative review approval process for
residentialdevelopmentswithno morethan onepublicmeeting(not a publichearing).
15
Role of Planning, Zoning, and Land Use in Local
Government (Cont.)
•The administrative review provisions proposed under the “Missing Middle” legislation are in
part targeted at avoiding situations where politics are brought into a zoning decision and
NIMBY-ismmight prevail.
•Supporters of the bills argue that because City Councils adopted their respective
comprehensive plans and zoning codes City staff are already reviewing projects against those
provisions.
•Argument is that if a project meets a municipality’s regulations and doesn’t require special
approvals or variances it should be approved without need to go before a City’s Planning
CommissionorCity Council.
•Some cities, like Rochester, Bloomington, Wayzata, Blaine,Lakeville, and Maple Grove have
proactively made amendments to their zoning codes to streamline zoning approval processes by (1)
limiting conditional uses, (2) allowing ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units), and allowing for fully
administrativereview(City staff reviewonly).
•Some cities have seen these changes as providing a competitive advantage with respect to
economicdevelopmentandincreasingvitality ofcity’s businessenvironment.
16
15
16
12/10/2025
9
Role of Planning, Zoning, and Land Use in Local
Government (Cont.)
•Thereare certain limits on a city’szoning authority.
•US Constitution(e.g. Equal protectionsclause, dueprocess,andfirst amendment)
•Federal statutory limitations (e.g. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act or
RLUIPA, FairHousingAct, andAmericanswith DisabilitiesAct or ADA)
•Minnesota State Statute (e.g. protections for certain uses like group homes, common law
limitationsthatprohibitarbitraryandcapriciousdecisions)
•There are limits to what conditions can be placed on a permit like a conditional or interim use
permit,and theymust be withinthescope of theCity’sauthority:
•You cannot attempt to manage a business (e.g. employment policies, pay, insurance
requirements)
•Going “too far” within conditions can constitute an unconstitutional taking (and you do
not want that!)
17
Role of Planning, Zoning, and Land Use in Local
Government (Cont.)
•If a lawsuit were to be filed following a zoning decision, the courts will review these zoning
decisions to determine if they have a reasonable basis and are not unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious (a.k.a. the “Rational Basis Test”). A court can reverse a city’s zoning decision if the
reasons outlined are legally insufficient or without factual basis:
•A “legally sufficient” reason is one reasonably related to the promotion of public health, safety,
morals, and general welfare of a community
•Decisions need to be consistent with and based on the comprehensive plan and ordinances
•The specific provisions of the ordinance are to be cited in the findings of fact
•The rationale for a decision must be writing and in more than a conclusionary fashion (you also
can’t come up with reasons after a zoning decision has been made)
•An expert is not needed to refute an expert, but reasons must be based on concrete observations
and not merely fear or speculation
•A municipality must base a denial or permit on something more concrete than neighborhood
opposition and expressions of concern for public safety
18
17
18
12/10/2025
10
Minnesota’s “60-Day Rule” (MN Statutes Section 15.99)
•There are certain triggers within the City’s Unified Development Ordinance that dictate whether or
not a proposed use or development will require review by the City’s Planning Commission and City
Council and if it falls under the“60-day rule”review window.
•City staff tries to work through any issues with a potential user, developer, or firm prior to their
submittal of a Planning Commission application.
•Once a complete application is received, the City is bound by the “60-day rule,” which requires
approval or denial of an application within 60 days or it is automatically approved.
•“Failure of an agency to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the request. If an agency
denies a request, it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the
request.” An agency can extend the review period by up to 60 days if it provides applicant written
notice and reasons for extension before end of initial 60 days.
NOTE:Just because a Planning Commission application has been submitted and is being brought
before the Planning Commission and City Council does not mean it has City staff’s approval and
backing(!). We as staff are LEGALLY REQUIRED to bring an application through if it has been
determined to be a complete application as outlined in our UDO and State Statute.
19
What Happens After a Decision is Made on a PC
Application?
Denial:Typically no more movement on the request, and certain zoning requests (e.g.
conditional use permits)do not allow an applicant to re-submit an application for the same
requestfor a periodof one(1) yearfrom dateof City Councildetermination.
Approval:Most application requests (e.g. conditional use permits, site and building plans) must
apply for and receive building permits or enact their use within one (1) year following approval by
City Council or approval expires. Applicant can request extension in writing to zoning
administratorwhichwould allow Counciloptionto extendapproval.
•A Planning Commission application is considered a huge milestone, but there is a lot that City
staff is required to address following an approval and before any building permits can be
issuedor a useallowed for.
20
19
20
12/10/2025
11
What Happens After a Decision is Made on a PC
Application? (Cont.)
Typical Post-application tasks within Community Development’s Planning Division can
include:
•Revise Plans for Building Permit Submittal:work with development team to revise submitted
architectural, civil,photometric (lighting),andlandscaping plansto complywith City Code
•Revise Plats for County Filing:work with land surveyors to revise preliminary and final plats, request
title commitments, City attorney review, ensure any easements are vacated via Engineering Division, and
obtain any signaturespriorto Countyfiling
•Obtain Signatures for Real Estate Closings:work with development team/City attorney and obtain
signaturesforupcomingreal estate closingsonEDA andnon-EDAproperties
•Coordination with Engineering Division:ensure Construction Management Plan is completed by
project GC andany constructionescrows are collectedpriorto buildingpermit issuance
•Obtain Financial Guarantees:Obtain estimated site improvement costs to determine financial
guarantees forholdinginadvanceofbuildingpermit issuance
•Schedule pre-construction meeting(s)—incoordinationwith BuildingOfficialandEngineering
21
What Happens After a Decision is Made on a PC
Application? (Cont.)
TypicalPost-application taskswithin Community Development’s PlanningDivision caninclude:
•Grant Management (if applicable):processing of eligible expenses, submittal of reports to agencies,
and claim vouchers to City Finance for projects that obtained grant funding (e.g. Met Council Pre-
Development and Development, Hennepin County and MPCA brownfields, Hennepin County ERF, Met
CouncilTBRA, DEED)
•Preparation of Zoning Letters:as requested by lenders and due diligence companies in advance of real
estate closingsorproject financing(constructionandpermanent financing)
•Attendanceatgroundbreaking ceremonies — incoordinationwithotherCity staff, City Council,etc.
TypicalProject Completion Tasks:
•Attendanceatgrand-openingceremonies/celebrations
•Working with developmentteam/City attorneyto file anyoutstandingagreements
•Obtainproject as-builts forCity record-keeping andEngineering
•Prepare/Process Financial GuaranteeReductions/Release
22
21
22
12/10/2025
12
Questions?
23
23