My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-06-10-PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2010-2019
>
PC Packets 2010
>
10-06-10-PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/9/2015 2:24:27 PM
Creation date
10/1/2010 3:37:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Description
Planning Commission Agenda
Document
Planning Commission Agenda
General (2) - Date
10/6/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
97
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Other Concerns <br />1. We lose the soccer field the only open space in the area. We have used it ourselves, <br />and enjoyed the youth soccer games. From the time it was a field behind an elementary <br />school it has been a neighborhood resource from which we have derived benefit. In some <br />respects, it served as our commons. It will be missed and we are diminished. <br />2 The brownstone on County D is a very large building (27 units 37,132 sq ft) and <br />aligning it along the roadway creates a wall that encloses the area, creating an <br />inside /outside feel that serves to isolate the space from the surrounding community. <br />Further, it isn't an interesting use of the space. Other PHS facilities have created <br />interesting building shapes that sit at interesting angles to the streets and approach roads. <br />The main building at The Farmstead shown in Figure 7 is one example. <br />3. Trees. The city isn't saving any trees which is supposed to be one of the benefits of <br />P.U.D.s The redevelopment will cover the only primary stand of "unmanaged" woods <br />on site (see Figure 6). There will be a net loss of trees. As for trees for screening, even <br />mature trees won't screen the proposed building. <br />Undue Hardship <br />As you know, "undue hardship" is a legal standard set forth in Minnesota statutes. Even <br />though the P.U.D. process can circumvent the variance ordinances, the concepts of undue <br />hardship on neighboring landowners is still relevant. The idea is to create better developments <br />than strict adherence to statutes, regulations, and codes would allow developments where <br />everybody wins, not developments where some people are manifestly harmed while others don't <br />care. <br />We have focused primarily on the third hardship factor a development "will not alter <br />the essential character of the locality." "This factor generally contemplates whether the resulting <br />structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area." <br />[Source: memo from M. Beekman to the Planning Commission, dated August 4, 2010. League of <br />Minnesota Cities document contained therein] That criterion alone must be met before this <br />development can be proceed. <br />Deviations from statutes, regulations, and codes can be negotiated within the P.U.D. <br />process to mitigate undue hardships on the developer. This raises the question, could PHS put the <br />property to a "reasonable use" without negotiating departures from statutes, regulations and <br />codes? We have not seen this question addressed by PHS or by Arden Hills. We understand that <br />economic considerations alone cannot create an undue hardship. Could the PHS property be put <br />to reasonable use without such a massive main building? <br />Shorewood Drive. Page 11 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.