pf10-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-�, — 25� the NCPC community garden plans, the current location of the plots allows growth to the East - 25a toward the sunny area of the property and toward the parking area. This fact is not lost on those 25� living in the neighborhood. It also coincides with NCPC's admitted plans to start smaller and 26c grow in size to meet demand. (see Appeal Letter, p. 2 n. 6)(citing Kim Spear April 18, 2010 26�� email to Larry Leiendecker) 2E2 Plus, let's not lose sight of the fact that the neighborhood (public) impact of the activity is 26:'s amplified by the fact that NCPC is not only engaging in the activity of being a Church (an 26� activity that today would require a CUP), it is also engaged in the activity of being a school 26F (requiring a CUP), and a state fair parking facility (requiring a CUP). Now it wants to lease its 2cc land to the public for the purposes of urban agriculture in an area densely populated by single 26� family homes as well. This causes me (and I'm sure others) to say: "Enough is Enough." 268 Please include this email in the appeal for the City Council to review. Plus, I encourage the City 26y Planning Division to reverse its administrative determination on its own initiative and require 2�o that NCPC apply for a CUP for its planned land use activities. 2�^, Z7L 273 L%4 2�� 276 277 With Respect, Larry Leiendecker RE: NCPC Appeal Fri 5/14 2010 1 1:57 AM From: Bill Malinen To: Larry Leiendecker, J.D., Bryan Lloyd Mr. Leiendecker: 2�a Thank-you for bringing this to our attention. The Parks & Rec. webpage reference to the �� NCPC garden plots has been removed. I hope you and your neighbors have received my 2�o letter notifying you of the hearing of the appeal before the City Council on May 24th. z�� 2�z 2£33 284 2�35 286 Have a great day! RE: NCPC Appeal Fri 5/14/2010 3:28 PM From: Larry Leiendecker, J.D. To: Bill Malinen, Bryan Lloyd Dear Mr. Malinen: 2�� I appreciate your response and I trust that my emails to you (specifically those of 5-6-10, 2��3 5-10-10 and today's email) have been; or will be; provided to the City Council as part of 2�� the appeal as I have requested. I believe that, because of the subsequent conversations 2�� with Mr. Lloyd and the City promoting the NCPC "community garden," there is 2g� important information to be gleaned from these subsequent events, and my response to 2y2 them, that may help clarify the NCPC matter for the City Council. 293 In particular, the City promoting the NCPC "community garden" (that NCPC intends for 2y< the purposes of enhancing its own membership) to the general public on the city website 29 ; reflects the City's clear understanding that this so-called "garden" is a public use of the 236 land and not a private one. I don't think we need to even discuss the Establishment 2Qi Clause issue associated with the City promoting such an activity for a religious 2�� institution. I trust that this promotion was an innocent oversight that will not likely 299 happen again.