Agenda - Council - 08/24/2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 2 This is not the path that has been taken thus far. Separately, we have submitted mapping of a possible districting scheme that responded less to land use patterns, and more to the core systems Critical Area is designed to protect. We hope at the very least that the final districting scheme moves decisively toward a districting system not based on land use, but based on the key resources and functions the Critical Area is designed to protect. One of the challenges of a districting scheme that is more rooted in fine-grained land -use patterns is that it raises the question of how districts are to adapt and change as the land uses change. As soon as we identify uses that could change or expand over time, we must build in a mechanism for these districts to grow, change and evolve over time, or we risk the districts becoming stale and out-of-date. One aspect that must be addressed is parkland. One area of parkland poised to grow, for example, is around the Ford Plant site in St. Paul's Highland Park neighborhood (Map 32), where the area currently designated F will likely become parkland in the not -too -distant future, and likely become part of the surrounding regional park. How can this land be protected like the property surrounding it as part of a Zone A? Should we protect this land now, believing it will soon become public parkland? Or will there be a mechanism to review this and other similar changes? We don't have answers for these questions, but we hope the DNR has thought about this issue. Permanently protecting the public values of the river in a growing, changing metropolitan area is the challenge — and the promise of these rules. This process has unfolded quickly, and the stakeholder workshops and intervening days have given us an opportunity to reflect on the districts in their full interrelated complexity. To that end, we offer a cohesive set of comments here, suggesting several changes to the draft districts, based on how well the districts work toward achieving the intent for rulemaking that is set forth in state statutes. There are two parts to our comments. Many of our comments are overarching in nature – questions about the principles and approaches behind the districts, which are incorporated into Part I of our comments. Part I is organized in general to address the districts in the order of their letters. It is organized around a series of principles, under which we provide one or more recommendations or options to help realize those principles. Part II includes more site-specific issues.