pf10-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� — �o� Mr. Leiendecker. While the process doesn't guarantee any additional public input, I �05 would be completely surprised if you weren't given the opportunity to say everything you �cb feel needs to be said. 70� The appeal is being heard by the City Council because the City Code requires it. There's �ct� no process for determining whether an appeal has a certain level of inerit to qualify for �cG Council review. And, while the only real issue that the Council needs to address is i�,;; whether Planning Division staff properly/appropriately interpreted the zoning code, it'll �� be impossible to divorce community gardens from that discussion. Since the Parks and i�� Recreation department already operates a community garden elsewhere in Roseville, my �°? guess is that the conversation will be more about where/how community gardens can be �' � appropriately allowed rather than whether community gardens should be prohibited �' S outright. � � 6 According to the appeal review process established in the City Code, the only materials �' � that the Council will receive in advance of the meeting are: the plans and � �� communications pertaining to staff s review and determination (most of which was �� contained in the attachments submitted with the appeal), the appeal itself, and analyses by �2o City staff of the zoning and legal issues raised in the appeal. We can't include a response �2' from the church, or any additional communication from Mr. Liendecker or the other i22 neighbors but, as I indicated above, I'm sure that the City Council will be interested in �2? hearing all of that during the meeting. �24 I hope that helps to shed the needed light on the appeal process for you. Please let me �2� know if you have additional questions. �26 Bryan �2� City Attorney Interpretation �2� Wed 5/19/2010 10:31 AM �2� From: Bob Koppy �3c To: Craig Klausing, city.council@ci.roseville.mn.us, Pat Trudgeon, Bryan Lloyd �s� dear mayor & city council members; �s2 I would like to have this email be included with the appeal packet that was recently sent to you �:�3 by Larry Leiendecker. the most important issue is the CUP requirement be made on the NCPC �3� community garden. I FOR ONE CANNOT SEE HOW THIS IS CONSIDERED AS A LOW i3� IMPACT GARDEN PROJECT. ORIGINALLY I UNDERSTOOD THAT IT COULD BE AS �36 LARGE AS 50 PLOTS OF LAND THIS IS NOT SMALL HOWEVER AT ONE OF THE �3 i MEETINGS WITH THE NCPC GARDEN CORDINATORS IT WAS REDUCED TO 12 �s� PLOTS THEN IT WAS CHANGED TO 15-18 PLOTS AND NOW AT LAST COUNT IT i3.�i WAS UP TO 20 PLOTS. I BELEIVE NOW IS THE TIME TO HAVE SOME RESTRICTIONS ��o BY HAVING A CUP REQUIREMENT.