Laserfiche WebLink
Part 6106.0060 Subp 5 <br />Part 6106.0060 Subp 7 <br />Part 6106.0060 Subp 9 <br />Part 6106.0070 Subp 3 <br />Part <br />Part 6106.0080 Subp 2 <br />Part 6106.0080 Subp 3 <br />Can the Metropolitan Council and DNR review run <br />concurrently so that it is more feasible for the local <br />government to adhere to Minnesota Statute 15.99 <br />(60 Day Rule) in circumstances in which an <br />amendment to the local ordinance is required? The <br />current process of sequential review is burdensome. <br />Why was the model ordinance language removed? <br />Having a model ordinance to build off of when <br />developing the local ordinance tailored to local <br />communities' needs would be beneficial. <br />Requiring adjace t jurisdictional review seems <br />excessive, unnecary, and not in line with the <br />spirit of administering the ordinance once the <br />ordinance is approved by the DNR. <br />It w&uld seem that it would be appropriate for the <br />agencies removed from the category of `complying <br />with local ordinances' should remain if they are also <br />reviewing and advising this ordinance. <br />Additionally, Ramsey questions the necessity of <br />notifying the' National Parks Service (NPS) of all <br />public hearings. There appears to be sufficient <br />oversight of the DNR and the Metropolitan <br />Council. Ramsey suggests that it be the <br />responsibility Si the DNR to notify the NPS of <br />Public Hearings der review for advisory <br />purposes. <br />Ramsey's preferences to simply reference existing <br />Minn Statute 15,99 regarding review timeframes. If <br />this language is to remain, additional language <br />should be added that the appropriate agencies <br />reviewing the ordinance shall have 15 days to <br />consider the submittal incomplete. <br />When considering special circumstances to <br />determine flexibility in plan adoption, the term <br />'many years' seems a bit vague and subjective. While <br />Ramsey appreciates the flexibility, we would want to <br />ensure that the number of years used to determine <br />flexibility is applied fairly across the corridor. <br />Ramsey feels that all existing developed areas shall <br />be considered when addressing flexibility in our <br />ordinance implementation to the point where non - <br />conformities are not created and existing non - <br />conformities are no longer classified as such. <br />This is likely covered in the subsequent sections, <br />especially vegetation management, but our residents <br />may still find the term `proportional to the effect <br />requested' as subjective. <br />Ramsey appreciates the new language regarding <br />expansion of existing lawful, non -conforming <br />principal structures. Ramsey desires that this extend <br />to accessory structures as well. <br />