pf10-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2 � 2 I suppose the scenario is analogous to when I have friends over to help catch my koi from my 2i 3 garden pond for the annual spring cleanout. Its obviously a fine activity on residential land 2� 4 (maintenance- landscape - beautification et cetera) but if I were cultivating and then catching 2 � 5 my koi to sell them to the public it would be a different situation altogether. And, if I were to 2�6 do so on a larger scale (to provide the fish for the food shelf for instance) it most certainly 2� � would have a larger public impact and be an obvious public and commercial purpose. 2�� I guess I somewhat get lost in the church aspect of it all too. I just think that the fact that I 2�9 choose to live in my building and the church doesn't have anyone living it its building 22o shouldn't obscure the reality that both buildings sit on land zoned R1. The R1 rules must be 22� applied in a uniform manner. In this instance, the moment the word "community" is attached 222 to the word "garden" changes the substance of the activity to one that is very public in its 223 scope. The size is also significant 26 plots (with plans to grow to the East in year 2011) 224 Further, the fact that the land is being leased for a price (albeit small) certainly makes the 2z5 endeavor a commercial activity. z26 So, I guess I'm back to focusing on the land use activity on R1 land - which I believe is more 227 true to the zoning regulations and the public policy supporting them. If you want to add this 22s email to the appeal I would appreciate that as well. 229 With Respect, 230 Larry 2s� NCPC Appeal 2s2 Mon 5/10/2010 9:19 PM 233 From: Larry Leiendecker, J.D. 23a To: Bill Malinen, Bryan Lloyd 235 Dear Mr. Malinen and Mr. Lloyd: 236 It has been brought to my attention that the City Parks and Rec. Department is advertising the 23� NCPC Community Garden (see attached). As I speak only for myself, I personally have to say 23� that this is rather disconcerting to me. Considering that the City is now doing the advertising for 23y the NCPC "community garden" it creates the impression that the appeal (now containing 64 2ao signatures) might be meaningless. I'm absolutely certain that this is not the impression that you 24� or the city wishes to convey. However, others may not see it that way. 242 But, interestingly enough it also illustrates the very point that the endeavor planned by NCPC is 243 not your run of the mill neighborhood "garden." Here, NCPC has put the word "community" in 244 front of the word "garden" and plans to put a sign up on Larpenteur Avenue advertising it to the 245 public. Now, the City is clearly doing the advertising for it as well. 2a6 This planned land use activity is not a"garden" as used by the planning division's administrative 24� determination. The moment the word'community" was placed in front of the word "garden" the 24B nature of the activity is obviously altered. Now it is being advertised to the "community" by the 249 City Parks & Rec. Department. Say what you will about the other reasons put forth in the Appeal 25o petition, it now unmistakably appears to me that this is indeed a"moderate impact quasi public 25� use" requiring a conditional use permit. Ord. §§ 1002.02; 1004.015. One also has to seriously 252 wonder if it is not only "quasi public" but "public" due to City involvement in promoting it - a 253 governmental promotion regarding land owned and operated by a religious institution no less. 25a Here, the activity clearly involves at least 26 people; to begin with; (and remembering that 255 "gardeners" can bring spouses and children to the community garden too - 26 can easily be 50- 256 100 persons). The advertisement also says the planned garden will be "large." Indeed, looking at � � --�