pf10-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4�� Thank you. 4B? Sincerely, a�3 Craig Klausing ��a RE: NCPC Appeal 4a5 Tue 5/18/2010 7:28 PM 4�6 From: Larry Leiendecker, J.D. 487 To: city.council@ci.roseville.mn.us, Bill Malinen, Pat Trudgeon 488 Dear Mr. Mayor (and City Council members): 4s9 (Mr. Malinen & Mr. Trudgeon please include this email with the Appeal 490 packet). 491 I do believe that the city code; in addition to expressly requiring a CUP; 492 implicitly requires a CUP for the type of land use NCPC proposes - as I will 493 further explain below. I also think that we need to look beyond the label that 494 is placed on the activity and examine the substance of the activity. While 495 "garden," "community garden," or "urban agriculture" is not specifically asb defined or addressed by the ordinances, I should point out, as referenced in the 497 Appeal letter, that the ordinances expressly require a CUP for any activity that 49B is a"moderate impact public or quasi-public use." See Ord. § 1004.15. In 499 pertinent part, the city ordinance defines moderate impact quasi-public use as: 50o Moderate impact public or quasi-public uses include activities with more than 50 � ten (10) employees on site for any one activity, requiring more than fifteen 5oz (15) parking spaces for any one activity.... A quasi-public use is any use so3 which is essentially public as in its services rendered, although it is under 5oa private control or ownership." 505 Ord. § 1002.02. Thus, I believe that a"community garden" involving 26 plots 506 (initially) that contemplates community leaseholders and their family 50� members (26-100 persons) farming the plots clearly qualifies as a"moderate 50� impact quasi-public use" of the land. I also believe that the City has all but so9 admitted the public nature of the activity by its promotion of the Church's 5 i o planned "community garden" to the community at large on the city website. 5 � � In fact, the city advertisement (see attached) noted that the "community s�2 garden" was going to be "large." So, this dispels any notion that the size 513 would qualify for "low impact quasi-public use." 514 Perhaps not as clear as the "public use" provisions, the ordinance provisions 5 �� relating to a"home occupation," I believe, can also be applied to the proposed 5�s land use. The NCPC building sits on land zoned R1. The single family 5� � homes in the surrounding neighborhood are similarly situated being zoned R1 518 as well. If I were to farm my land, or allow others to do it for me, I would 519 have to apply for a CUP because I would be engaging in an occupation that is 52o not confined to my home. Ord. § 1004.01(G)(2)(a)-(b). To illustrate, even if I 52 � were to farm my grass I would need a CUP. Growing grass is fine in a 522 residential district (for the most part we all do it), but the moment I convert 523 my lawn to a"sod farm," then I have just converted my residential land to use �24 as an occupation that is substantially outside of my home. One would think 52� that the NCPC planned land use would also qualify for such an occupation � -�.,