HomeMy Public PortalAbout1976-031City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Hamel, Minnesota 55340
RESOLUTION NO. 76-/ , REGARLING PROPOSER RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
REVIEVt OF UTTERS OF METROPOLITAN SIGNIFICANCE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Medina City Council strongly urges the fol.-
lowing amendments to the proposed Rules ar:d Regulations for Review
of Matters Alleged to be of Metropolitan Significance (matter eresse4
eiit would be deleted; matter underlined would be added):
"MC2 (c) Accepted Local Comprehensive Plans. A matter aet-eeasisteet
that is substantially at variance with the local comprehensive plan
accepted by the Council or adopted pursuant to Laws 1976, Chapter 127,
Sections 8 to 12;-er-t-eatter-the.t-ie-met-eeasisteat-with-the-metre-
eelitae-eystem--leee-ee-whiela-the-ieee.i-ee trehelieive-pian-has-been
base4."
COMMENTS
1. The word "substantial," used in so man;iT other areas of the proposed
rules and regulations, also seems appropriate heter.
Every local government grants variances from time to time because of
special factors which make it impossible to apply zoning regulations
strictly to every single piece of property. It would not seem likely
that every local variance would be a matter of metropolitan signifi-
cance.
It does not seem to be necessary to measure each matter against both
the local comprehensive plan and the metropolitan system plans. What
if they differ for some reason? If the comprehensive plan is approved
by the Metropolitan Council, it would seem sufficient to measure each
proposal against that. We think the Council would have a good reason
for approving any comprehensive plan that might be at some variance
from a systems plan, and would not want to come back and review every
proposal that followed such a variance,
"MC 4 CATEGORIES OF EXEMPT MATTERS. Proposed matters within the follow-
ing categories shall not be determined to be of metropolitan signifi-
cance and way shall be exempted from review in accordance with MC 10
(e) or at the conclusion of an initial metropolitan significance review."
C ORIENT S
2. The mandatory determination must result in mandatory exemption.
MC 7 (c) (2) and (3), which require submission of information to the
hearing; MC 10 (h) and (i) retention and confidentiality of information.
COMMENTS
3. These provisions would permit a hearing officer and the Metro-
politan Council to make decisions on information that never would be-
come public. We feel this would be an extremely poor policy decision,
as well as a possible violation of the laws on open meetings and open
records.
a.
CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION ON METROPOLITAN SIGNIFICANCE - Page 2
If there is material involved which is of a confidential business
nature and is not in the public domain, there ought not to be a
right to demand thpt information in the first place. Nor ought
information to be retained for three years if the return of that
information to its source is necessary to run a business or a
local government.
We ask that the above -numbered sections be reworded to provide
for necessary safeguards in accordance with these comments.
Approved by the Medina City Council this 3rd day of August, 1976.
DONNA ROEHL WAYN NEDDERMEYER
Clerk Mayor