Laserfiche WebLink
end of the exercise, the work groups reconvened in plenary and a volunteer from each group provided a <br />summary. The meeting closed with a question and answer session. Throughout the day's activity, the <br />conversation was respectful, thoughtful, and spirited. <br />Summary of Information Gathered From Entire Corridor <br />Attendees offered nearly 300 comments on the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and the rulemaking. <br />When evaluated together, the most common comments related to regulation, environmental resources, <br />districts, administration, policy <br />and recreational resources Number of M RCCA Comments by <br />(Figure 1). <br />Category <br />The other categories yielded <br />fewer comments; however, the <br />DNR will consider all comments in <br />rule development. Comments <br />included in this report should not <br />be presumed to be included in <br />draft or final rules. <br />Specific Issues <br />Work group members identified a <br />broad array of issues, ideas, and <br />perspectives across the corridor. <br />Within the general categories of <br />comments, common groupings of <br />specific issues emerged. <br />Regulation <br />60 <br />50 <br />40 <br />30 <br />20 <br />10 <br />0 <br />-\oc �oKy t\`�5 o\`oJ �e\oc \�� toz� t`Ze <br />o pyo pyo �cp 0�o <br />o0��� <br />o"o�a��o� <br />� o <br />• Desired consistency with <br />other rules and programs. <br />• Discussion regarding local control versus state oversight. <br />■ Urban West <br />Urban East <br />■ Southeast <br />■ Northwest <br />• Concern about the creation of new nonconformities and the regulation of existing nonconformities. <br />• Discussion on whether the rules should specify permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses. <br />• Discussion on the protection of landowner rights, as well as discussion on community welfare and <br />protection of a regional/statewide resource. <br />2. Environmental, Recreational, Scenic tt Cultural/Historic Resources <br />• Identification, protection, and restoration of these resources were important to all work groups. <br />• Environmental resource issues of most concern included bluffs and steep slopes, vegetation, habitat, <br />erosion, and water quality. <br />• Recreational resource issues of most concern included parks and trails development, public access <br />and connections to the river, and whether different standards should apply to public land. <br />• Scenic resource issues of most concern included how the resources are defined and identified, and <br />standards for protection. <br />3. Districts <br />• General support for the concept of tiered districts. <br />• New districts should consider existing development, geography/topography, and future land use. <br />• Desire by some to have fewer districts that promote consistency corridor wide, and by others to have <br />more districts or overlays with different standards for special features (such as the gorge, bluffs, <br />historic downtowns, urban riverfronts). <br />• Discussion on whether districts should be static or dynamic to change with development. <br />MRCCA Rulemaking Project - March 31, 2010 Work Group Meeting Report <br />