pf10-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

��3 I don't wish to come across as draconian in my views - I'm sure my neighbars 5�a don't want to either - but it seems to me that the city ordinances clearly 5�> regulate "urban agriculture" or "community garden" activities under its 5�s "public use" provisions. To be sure, the moment the word "community" is 5�� placed in front of the word "garden" the public nature of the activity becomes 5�B absolutely certain. I just don't know how the planning division missed this. ��9 Beyond this, the Appeal letter also argues that the City can regulate a land use 5BO activity that is presumptively a non-conforming use for R 1 zoned land. This 581 is where I believe the letter speaks about the city code implicitly allowing the 5H2 city to regulate land use activities. I can appreciate that implicitly regulating s83 land use (as opposed to expressly regulating land use) can have its due process 5Ba implications. But, like the letter mentioned, a fertilizer/manure factory (for 585 instance) is not mentioned as an envisioned use in a residential district - it sss appears nowhere on the list/chart. See Ord. § 1004.15. Clearly, that would not 5s� be a permitted activity on Rl zoned land because of the inevitable nuisances 5s� that it would cause. "Urban agriculture" is also not envisioned. While not as 589 alien as a fertilizer/manure factory in a residential district, the urban 590 agriculture activity brings with it its own inevitable nuisances to a 591 neighborhood densely populated by single family homes. Any possible notice 59z issues must be balanced with the police powers that municipalities enjoy to 593 protect the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. The 59a manner of use (as opposed its label), size, and location are all part of the 595 analysis that should go into any land use decision by the city in fulfilling its 596 broad mandate to protect the general welfare of the community. See s9� Wedemeyer v. City of Minneapolis, 540 N.W.2d 539, 542 (Minn. App. 1995) 59B (recognizing Minnesota's long history of acknowledging the right of 59y municipalities to exercise police powers by regulating land use and 60o development). 60� I hope this clarifies matters for you. It may have taken the long way, but so'? people who know me well (namely my wife) would think that this is brief for 603 me. :-) I have copied Mr. Malinen and Mr. Trudgeon so that they will include 604 this correspondence in the official Appeal packet. I have also copied the other so5 City Council members anticipating that it may answer, in advance, any 6os questions they may have. If I can be of further assistance please feel welcome so� to contact me. Thank you. 60� With Respect, so9 Larry Leiendecker 610 983 Larpenteur Ave W. 6� � Appeal of Community Garden s�2 Thu 5/6/2010 12:27 PM 613 From: BT'j�an Lloyd s�a To: Spear, Kimberley M. 615 Ms. Spear, s� 6 Mr. Leiendecker, presumably with the support of the folks who signed the petition, submitted an 6� � appeal of our (i.e., Roseville's) determination that the community garden is not a regulated use. 6� � I've attached the appeal letter and supporting attachments for your reference. According to •-. �-,.