7. CompPlan_Comments_Pam Arnold (002)12 February, 2018
To: Scandia Planning Commission, Dan Squyres
Re: Comp Planning Moving Forward
Dan, fellow Commissioners:
The last Planning Meeting, a work session, included a presentation of a partial draft of the next Comp Plan by
Bolton Menk. I write with concerns and questions. This is a request for discussion that includes the larger
community of Scandia.
My questions, and concerns regard prioritizing watershed/GROUNDWATER as a basis for planning. My hope is that
Scandia will use science, and mapping of natural resources, arable lands, existing parks and trails, and other
features that contribute to Scandia as a sustainable natural resource, and offer intelligent and innovative solutions
that support inevitable population increases/needs into the unforeseeable future WHILE CREATING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROGRESSIVE GUIDELINES AND OPPORTUNITIES.
Towards this goal, would the Planning Commission and Steering Committee consider the following questions?
1. Could mapping existing environmental challenges in Scandia be included among the base information from
which to plan for development? Including:
–Failed septic systems, contaminated wells, and impacted waters
–Areas where erosion is of concern
–Watershed/groundwater flows
–Geologic mapping of lakes, streams, wetlands, flows
–Areas where previous construction has created environmentally and financially costly fixes (w/costs t.d.)
–Areas where roads have caused divisions/obstacles to quality of life
–Specific occurrences where planning was not able to anticipate regrettable outcomes
–Inaccessible parks/valuable open spaces, shoreline and other water features where open space and park
development could create new public spaces and development “pockets”
2. Is there information to contribute to a mapping component that responds to “The Smart Growth Manual”
strategy referred to in a recent C. Messenger editorial “Community Growth: Expect it, plan accordingly”
(Messenger February 7th).
(1) Map natural resources. That’s wetlands, floodplains, aquifers, woodlands, productive farmland, large
wildlife habitat, historic and cultural features, scenic overlooks. Legal teeth are not required here.
(2) Map the rural preserve. Some places are legally protected from future development by agreements
such as conservation easements or scenic easements. It makes sense to see these as the core of future open
spaces.
(3) Map the rural reserve. Using the first two maps, outline a system of intersecting or continuous natural
corridors. This map shows high-priority areas for protection and can get everyone on the same page so pockets of
open space add up to something larger. Eventually, programs such as transfer of development rights (through
which development value is sold) can help reserve high-priority land.
(4) Map areas best suited for growth. It makes sense to fill in or revitalize already -developed areas, where
growth will have the greatest economic and social benefit. Established as policy, this map gives local government a
way to direct development to high-priority areas. As a Maryland governor put it, “We told communities they’re still
free to sprawl — we’re just not going to subsidize them anymore.”
(5) Map neighborhoods. Identify the present neighborhood structure to help make land use and
transportation decisions.
(6) Map districts. Some areas — industrial, medical, agricultural — need single-use zoning. In other places,
restrictive zoning might be causing social fragmentation and traffic congestion. Rezoning can encourage use of
these areas, as in the case of struggling malls turned into mixed-use town centers.
(7) Map corridors. Waterways, highways, railways, bike paths — connections to the wider world.
“Suburban sprawl does not just happen,” say the authors of the smart growth manual. It is creat ed via existing
codes and market forces. These maps may be the first steps in designing a future free of it.
Mapping should illuminate ideas, not confuse them. Previous comp plan mapping devises are really good. This
comp plan should be up to a similar code.
3. Would the Planning Commission consider a model for MY vision, the way I want to live out my life in Scandia, as
a planning model from which to consider zoning/planning and districting? I want specific features that I know will
sustain my love of life I now enjoy in Scandia while providing the same for all of us into the future. These include
retaining biodiversity (undisrupted ecosystems/open undeveloped spaces), soil that is suitable for growing food,
retaining forests, and raising animals sustainably, AND most importantly–watershed. I want us to consider Scandia
as a model for futuristic thinking. I want so much to invite open minded conversation on this subject.
There is too much in my heart and mind to vet in what needs to be a concise conver sation at this point. Is there a
commitment to create a structure for civic conversation that leads to real and lasting solutions without parameters
that might jeopardize flexibility into the future?
Remember all of our EIS discussions re. the Zavoral Mine ? One requirement (of the EIS), was to include a “no build
alternative”–aka WHAT IF the mine remained unopened, undisturbed? This category of the EIS didn’t see the light
of day. The argument for a “no build” alternative became a backdoor justification for the reclamation opportunity
that hadn’t been completed in previous mining events. I would very much like to see Dan Sqyure’s idea, contiguous
development areas punctuated by open spaces/undisturbed areas permanently protected to retain biodiversity,
undisturbed forests, grasslands, wetlands and streams, etc. This would offer a prescription for long-term health
and sustainability of our very fragile natural resources and position Scandia as a futuristic model for sustainable
lifestyles and development modeling.
Thank you so much,
Sincerely,
Pamela Arnold 612 202-2847
Salt-n-Pepper Farm LLC
Scandia, MN
I don’t think we should underestimate the role, power and value of visualized information (“Mapping”)…
Disconnects between stats, narrative, goals, values, etc. and the presentation of visual information will
cause skepticism. Mapping should illuminate ideas, not confuse them. Previous comp plan mapping
devises are really good. This comp plan should be up to a similar code.
Lindgren offers an excellent argument for “mapping” as a “foundation for future action”… And refers to
“The Smart Growth Manual” strategy.
The Comp Plan purpose, outlined on the city’s web site, states this:
"The City of Scandia Comprehensive Plan will address the following:
Future Land Use
Housing Needs
Natural Resources
Transportation
Public and Individual Utilities
Parks and Trails
Economic Opportunities”
All of these should be referred to, justified, and explained by a qualitative visualization of information in
my opinion, aka an overlay of maps. Each category should be quantified in many ways, as well as
explained/qualified. Maps should be presented big enough to read, and in color.
Remember all of our EIS discussions re. the Zavoral Mine? One requirement (of the EI S), was to include
a “no build alternative”–aka WHAT IF the mine remained unopened, undisturbed? This category of the EIS
didn’t see the light of day. The argument for a “no build” alternative became a backdoor justification for
the reclamation that another mining program would offer. I would very much like to see Dan’s idea,
contiguous development areas punctuated by open spaces/undisturbed areas permanently protected to
retain biodiversity, undisturbed forests, grasslands, wetlands and streams, etc. This would offer a
prescription for long term health and sustainability of our very fragile natural resources and position
Scandia as a futuristic model for sustainable lifestyles and development modeling.