Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Notice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council amends site-plan notice rule to notify councilmembers instead of mandated mailings; public hearing deferred
Summary
Councilmember Huffman’s substitute to require planners to notify district council members (rather than developers mailing notices to neighbors) passed as a substitute; the item was then deferred to allow the planning commission and public hearing process to run. Members debated who pays for mailings and whether downtown areas should be excluded.
The Metropolitan Council amended a proposed change to require notice of final site plan filings to go to district council members rather than mandating mailed notice to nearby addresses.
Councilmember Huffman, sponsor of the ordinance, explained the substitute aims to give district council members an automatic heads-up when a final site plan is filed so they can decide whether to notify constituents. “The intent of the substitute is for the council member to make the judgment call on how they wanna notify their constituents,” Huffman said. Council staff clarified that the substitute eliminates a mandatory mailed notice requirement; the applicant would instead send an email notifying the councilmember.
Members pressed for detail on who would pay if a councilmember chose to mail notices. Huffman said that if a mailer were undertaken, it would be paid from Metro’s funds, not the councilmember’s personal funds. Planning staff explained the substitute is limited to an email notification and that anything beyond that — a mailer, newsletter or door-to-door outreach — would be at the discretion of the councilmember.
Planning staff also explained the substitute excludes properties in the downtown code (DTC) because of the dense development pattern and high volume of filings in that area; councilmembers questioned that carve-out and staff said it could be amended on third reading.
After adopting the substitute, the sponsor moved to defer the public hearing until the first meeting in August so planning could finalize the substitute language and the planning commission could consider it. The council approved the deferral. Members who supported the substitute said it is a narrowly targeted, “fail-safe” to ensure council members are informed when a final site plan moves from zoning to permitting, especially on older SPs that may have been approved years earlier. Others said more public notice and a requirement for developers to mail neighbors would better protect nearby residents.
The substitute carries a budget implication if the council elects to mail notifications; Budget & Finance and the council office will provide guidance about costs if members request mailed notices for specific cases. Planning staff said they would work with the sponsor and planning commission on the downtown exclusion before third reading and that the substitute remains amendable on third reading.
