10-06-10-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Other Concerns 1. We lose the soccer field the only open space in the area. We have used it ourselves, and enjoyed the youth soccer games. From the time it was a field behind an elementary school it has been a neighborhood resource from which we have derived benefit. In some respects, it served as our commons. It will be missed and we are diminished. 2 The brownstone on County D is a very large building (27 units 37,132 sq ft) and aligning it along the roadway creates a wall that encloses the area, creating an inside /outside feel that serves to isolate the space from the surrounding community. Further, it isn't an interesting use of the space. Other PHS facilities have created interesting building shapes that sit at interesting angles to the streets and approach roads. The main building at The Farmstead shown in Figure 7 is one example. 3. Trees. The city isn't saving any trees which is supposed to be one of the benefits of P.U.D.s The redevelopment will cover the only primary stand of "unmanaged" woods on site (see Figure 6). There will be a net loss of trees. As for trees for screening, even mature trees won't screen the proposed building. Undue Hardship As you know, "undue hardship" is a legal standard set forth in Minnesota statutes. Even though the P.U.D. process can circumvent the variance ordinances, the concepts of undue hardship on neighboring landowners is still relevant. The idea is to create better developments than strict adherence to statutes, regulations, and codes would allow developments where everybody wins, not developments where some people are manifestly harmed while others don't care. We have focused primarily on the third hardship factor a development "will not alter the essential character of the locality." "This factor generally contemplates whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area." [Source: memo from M. Beekman to the Planning Commission, dated August 4, 2010. League of Minnesota Cities document contained therein] That criterion alone must be met before this development can be proceed. Deviations from statutes, regulations, and codes can be negotiated within the P.U.D. process to mitigate undue hardships on the developer. This raises the question, could PHS put the property to a "reasonable use" without negotiating departures from statutes, regulations and codes? We have not seen this question addressed by PHS or by Arden Hills. We understand that economic considerations alone cannot create an undue hardship. Could the PHS property be put to reasonable use without such a massive main building? Shorewood Drive. Page 11 of 15