pf10-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 8 of 11 —� — resident district that only allows home occupations to be conducted within the dwelling and pertormed by the resident plus one non-resident at any given time.(/d.) The renting of 26 plots for share-cropping (for charity or otherwise) is obviously outdoor and involves more than the resident plus one non-resident. Similarly important to recognize is that a"metal foundry" for instance (as Bryan Lloyd noted to me) is not listed as a permitted use, non-permitted use, or conditional use in an R1 district, but the city would obviously not permit that being placed in an R1 area. Likewise agriculture (or share cropping) can also be constitutionally regulated as well under the city's mandate to regulate the general welfare of the city. So, I am quite baffled at the city planning departmenYs cursory and very simplistic view of the "garden" label that has been conveniently placed on the proposed activity which has blindly led the department to its hands off approach to a"land use"that manifestly does not fit within the residential scheme as is illustrated by both the current zoning code and the comprehensive plan. Moreover, the proposed use also qualifies as a home occupation that is clearly not permitted by the current residential ordinance. Apart from the legalistic "land use" dispute that is going on here is the concern from some neighbors that if the grown product is for public consumption (food shelf or otherwise) then it might well be regulated by the state agriculture rules, if not the USDA regulations. (I have no personal knowledge of the specifics of these rules BTW.) WhaYs more, one neighbor also brought up a pollution concern. They recalled that when the condominiums were proposed nearby the contractor and land owner involved had to make sure the MN Pollution Control Agency performed soil testing to make sure any possible contaminants wouldn't be spread by the moving of diR during construction. This neighbor has concerns that without similar testing one shouldn't be growing food for public consumption on land without knowing that it is environmentally sound (safe) for such use. Another neighbor explained that she works for the landscape arboretum and works with many growers who might be willing to donate screening type plants to the project. While she too had concerns over the size and scope of your planned project; because of the pests, deer, and other nuisances (noise, blowing diR, eye sore, etc) that it might attract; she suggested that if there is enough screening, management, and irrigation (to keep blowing dirt down) she would be more accepting of the proposed community garden idea. So, as you can see, everybody has varying degrees of concern and obviously impact. To be sure, the initial impression is negative, but with more thorough information the project might garner neighborhood acceptance in the end. I've expressed to you my deep concerns and I will repeat them briefly below just to make a written record of them. Full and complete disclosure will go along way to dispelling all the neighborhood's concerns. May I suggest once again that you be very diligent in your efforts to provide notice to all affected neighbors. This is what good neighbors do. They work together. Like I explained to you last Saturday evening, I would expect no less of a religious institution that promotes righteous conduct toward others. My primary/initial concerns: 1) Size, scope, and purpose of the project is agricultural (for a public purpose) and not a private "garden" as contemplated in R1 district - or by the conditional use as a church, school or interim parking facility for the state fair. Rather, as one neighbor has pointed out - its character is "share-cropping" - not gardening. Thus, it requires public notice and regulation. It also qualifies as a home occupation in a residential district - such an occupation is not allowed 4� 19i2010