pf10-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

30o As far as communications with Mr. Lloyd, I believe that his belief that there are different 30� rules for churches or schools that operate on land zoned residential (R1) from that of 302 individuals who reside on land zoned residential (R1) is mistaken. As I explained to him, 303 I don't recall ever seeing any special rules for churches (or schools for that matter) that 304 are situated on R1 land. I also believe that state law prohibits special rules for land 305 similarly zoned. See Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1(2008)("The regulations shall be 3os uniform for each class or kind of buildings, structures, or land and for each class or kind 30� of use throughout [a zoning] district.") As I said in my previous 5-6-10 email to Mr. sos Lloyd that was copied to you: "The RI rules must be applied in a uniform manner." (see 309 also Appeal Letter, p.4-5, n.13) 3�o So, I'm left puzzled by the differing approaches to land use determinations by the 311 planning division as it has always been my understanding that if I can't do something on 312 my R1 land, then my neighbor who is similarly situated can't do it either. Here, I think 313 we can all agree that if I started inviting the public to share-crop (aka farm) my yard that 314 it would not be allowed without a CUP. However, if I am sorely mistaken about this and 315 it is the case that I can farm my land (or allow the public to do it for me for a nominal 316 price) without a CUP, then maybe I'll just have to start farming my land to supply the 317 organic produce section at the nearby Rainbow grocery store. As you know, times are 318 tough - we could all use the extra income. 319 ;-� 32o As I have previously explained, I am of the strong belief (and I'm not alone in this belie� 32� that the administrative determination is clearly erroneous. If nothing else, the NCPC 322 planned "community garden" is obviously a moderate impact quasi-public use of the land 323 that requires a CUP under the ordinances. Therefore, I again encourage the city planning s2a division to reverse its administrative determination on its own initiative. 325 As for the letters, although I cannot speak for my neighbors, I can confirm that I have 32s personally received your letter to my address. I suspect that my neighbors have received 32� theirs as well. 3z� Have a great weekend, and thanks again for your following up. 329 With Respect, 33o Larry Leiendecker 331 NCPC Appeal 332 Fri 5/14 2010 4:23 AM 333 From: Pat Trudgeon s3a To: Larry Leiendecker, J.D. 335 cc: Bill Malinen, Bryan Lloyd 336 Mr. Leiendecker, 3s� Hello, we haven't met, but I am Patrick Trudgeon, Roseville's Community 338 Development Director. Mr. Malinen asked that I respond to you regarding the 339 inclusion of your more recent emails about the community garden along with the 34o appeal City Council case. 341 We checked with the City Attorney to determine what additional information can be 342 included and considered as part of the appeal. The City Attorney cited City Code s43 1015.04 (C)(3) that limits the information that will be reviewed by the City Council saa to only that which was considered as part of the original decision and subject to the •-. -�