Agenda - Council - 02/08/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

removed is beneficial because it is likely that the wetlands would dry up over time due to the proximity of the homes. Public Hearing Mayor Kuzma called the public hearing to order at 7:17 p.m. Citizen Input Shar Rubineye, 1260 142nd Avenue, Andover, stated her father is Bill McCowsky. She asked what assurances the Council had that the Metropolitan Council will approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Planning Manager McGuire Brigl replied Staff has been working with the Metropolitan Council behind the scenes on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The draft was done based on Andover's amendment that is similar so it has all of the same conditions. A couple of other reasons were added why someone could qualify for this tool in the future. Staff worked with the Metropolitan Council to get information on the back end and have worked to lay out the process with them on administrative next steps. If approved tonight, there would be an adjacent jurisdiction notification for the next 60 days. After that, they submit to the Metropolitan Council who has another 60 days for a review period. Staff is fairly confident it will be approved because it is based on one that the Metropolitan Council has approved before and they have met with the sector representative about it as well. Jeff Uecker, 17121 Variolite Street, questioned if residents were supposed to be notified of a public hearing about something that is happening next to their property. He stated he didn't get a notice about tonight's meeting but heard from someone else, which is why he is here. He has been consistently against the project from the beginning because he doesn't feel there is a meaningful buffer. He was unclear why, if a project like this has to go in, there can't be larger lots on the outside. He noted at the last meeting, the developer said that was possible but it would create problems. He thought that was suggested at one point but the developer was told to do something different. Mr. Uecker stated from a resident perspective, it would be something that could be considered, even half -acre lots and have the smaller lots on the inside to get to the density. Then more of a buffer could go on the edges. He stated he was unclear why that isn't being considered. Planning Manager McGuire Brigl responded to the question of notification. She stated there have been multiple public hearings held related to this case and the City has actually held more public hearings than required. During the last meeting, it was stated that this issue would be continued with tonight's meeting for public hearing. No additional notifications were sent for this meeting because it was a continuation. She believed this met the requirements. City Attorney Knaak confirmed this, adding that if it is a continuation of a previously noticed meeting, no additional notice needs to be given under the law. The assumption is that the interested parties would have been at the meeting or participating in some other way. There is no legal requirement for a second notice. City Council / January 11, 2022 Page 7 of 25