pf10-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � 52� that is not confined to the dwelling (i.e., building). State law mandates that 52� land use regulations be applied uniformly. See Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 52� (2008)("The regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings, 52s structures, or land and for each class ar kind of use throughout [a zoning] 53o district.")(emphasis added). 53 � Here, there are no special rules for churches so far as I can tell (how could 5s2 there be - see Establishment Clause). So it seems that, because the Church is 533 situated on land presently zoned R 1, that any activity in addition to being a 534 church (which was allowed on R1 land at NCPC's inception) would qualify as 5sF an additional occupation. This would be fine if it followed the same rules for 5:�� home occupations on R1 land. However, because the activity is not confined 5:5 i to the building and contemplates more than one non-resident (26+) being 53�; involved in the occupation, the proposed activity should require a CUP. As I 5s9 wrote before, the fact that I choose to live in my building and the Church s�c technically doesn't have anyone living it its building (other than being a house 54 � of God) shouldn't obscure the reality that both buildings sit on land zoned R1. 542 The R1 rules apply to the Church equally as they apply to me. 54;� The City required the Church to obtain a CUP in 2008 when it decided to 544 lease its land (parking areas) to the State Fair to be used as a"park and ride" 5�.: for the last two weeks in August each year. It seems odd that when the 5�s Church wants to lease its land to the public for a"community garden" that a 54� different approach is now being taken by the planning division. As I wrote 5�� previously to Mr. Malinen, we shouldn't forget that the NCPC land (zoned 5�Q R1) is already being used as a church (an activity that today would require a 55o CUP) and that NCPC is also engaged in the activity of being a school 55� (requiring a CUP), and a state fair parking facility (requiring a CUP). Now it 5F2 wants to lease its land to the public for the purposes of "urban agriculture" in 553 an area densely populated by single family homes as well. This causes me 55� (and I'm sure others) to say: "Enough is Enough." 555 At the risk of going a bit off topic, this neighborhood has had to endure a lot 5Fc of activities by the Church over the years. For the most part, they have not 55� greatly impacted the neighborhood. But, in 2008 the Church began adding to 558 its customary activities with the addition of the state fair parking facility. This 5F� is a miserable two weeks in late summer for us in the affected neighborhood; 5EO having to endure the traffic, noise, and the daily clean up of state fair trash in 5s�� our yards. Now, the Church wants to add to its enterprise by converting its 562 land to a large "community garden." Indeed, the visitors of the Church (its 563 members) who make these land use decisions don't live in the affected 5�4 neighborhood and seemingly don't contemplate (because they aren't 565 personally affected) that their land use decisions have impact on the 5s� surrounding neighborhood. Their current plans even contemplate that we, the 56� affected neighbors, will be the "eyes on the garden... who can welcome and �6� redirect gardeners, or alert coordinators as needed." (See Appeal letter, n. 5). 56� In essence, the Church members making the land use decisions for the Church 5�o want the affected neighborhood to police the "community garden" for them in 5�^ their usual absence. Not only is this presumptuous, it is quite absurd. Really - 5�2 Enough is Enough.