Laserfiche WebLink
::�?;;: RICKSON, <br />-� <br />� � � ELL, <br />'' � ECKMAN & <br />UINN, P.A. <br />TO: <br />CC: <br />FKOM: <br />DA"1'E: <br />RE: <br />� <br />1700 West Highway 36 <br />Suite 110 <br />Roseville, MN 55113 <br />(651)223-4999 <br />(651) 223-4987 �ax <br />www.ebbqlaw.com <br />MEMORANDUM <br />Mayor and City Council Members <br />Attachment B <br />)ames C. Erickson, Sr. <br />Caroline Bell Beckman <br />Charles R. Bartholdi <br />Kari L. Quinn <br />Mark F. Gaughan <br />James C. Erickson, Jr. <br />Robert C. Bell - ofcounsel <br />Mr. Bill Malinen, Mr. Pat Trudgeon, Mr. Thumas Paschke, <br />Mr. Bryan Lloyd <br />MarkGaug n� <br />May 3, 2010 <br />Appeal of City Planning Divisiods "Administrative Determination" <br />on the proposed usc of thc North Como Presbyterian Church <br />property <br />1 have reviewed Attomey Liendecker's appeal materials in the above-referenced mattec 1 have <br />also reviewed the materials forwarded to our office including the appeal documents, pictures, a <br />Diggit Landscaping design, and various correspondcnce between NCPC personnel, Bryan Lloyd, <br />and Larry Leiendecker. <br />l he issues are primarily factual issues. However, the appeal does cite Minnesota statutes and <br />caselaw, so review of those citations is appropriate. <br />7�he appeal raised four bases to overturn the Planning Division's administrative determination: <br />(1) the proposed land use is agricultural; (2) the proposed land use violates the R-1 zoning <br />ordinance; (3) the proposed land use violates Minn. Stat. s 315.47; and (4) the proposed land use <br />is likely to cause public nuisances. <br />The tirst two bases for the appeal dovetail with each other. The appeal first argues that the <br />community garden is an outright agricultural land use, rather than a typical residential garden, <br />and as such is not a permitted use under the City's R-1 zoning ordinance. Regarding the appeal's <br />citation of Minnesota Statutes section 273.13 (see pages 2 and 3 of the appcal) as evidence that <br />the land use is purely agricultural, that statute was expressly enacted solely for the purposes of <br />taxation of property. Therefore, this statute does not provide any precedent or authority upon <br />which the City must re]y in characterizing the proposed land use. Similarly, the appeal's third <br />basis claims that the proposed land use ��iolates Minnesota Statutes section 315.47. This statute, <br />Page 1 of 4 <br />