pf10-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2so e. "Community gardening" would seem apt to fit the description of an essentially- 23� public activity. 232 5.3 As noted above, a community garden already exists in Roseville at Oasis Park. It has 233 been operated by Roseville's Parks and Recreation staff in this location for at least 20 234 years, it is approximately 4 or 5 times the size of the proposed community garden, and it 235 shares a property line with five single-family residences. Neither Roseville's Parks and 23s Recreation staff nor Code Enforcement staff inembers have received a single complaint 23� regarding nuisances generated by the community garden at Oasis Park. This track record 23� further suggests that the impacts of even a 35,000 square-food120-plot community 239 garden can be something less than "moderate". 240 5.4 241 242 243 6.0 To address nuisance situations, should they arise, Chapter 407 (Nuisances) of the City Code establishes the authority and procedures for Code Enforcement staff to correct and/or abate nuisances as necessary. FUTURE IMPLICATIONS 2a4 6.1 Section 1013.01 (Conditional Uses) of the City Code requires the Planning Commission 245 and City Council to consider the following specific criteria when reviewing a conditional 246 use application: 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 • Impact on traffic; • Impact on parks, streets, and other public facilities; • Compatibility of the site plan, internal traffic circulation, landscaping, and structures with contiguous properties; • Impact of the use on the market value of contiguous properties; • Impact on the general public health, safety, and welfare; and • Compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 254 Borrowing from the analyses discussed in previous sections of this report, Planning 255 Division staff has found that community gardens have, and could be expected to have, 256 negligible adverse impacts on traffic; parks, streets, and other public facilities; and the 25� general public health, safety, and welfare. Further, Planning Division staff believes that 2ss the proposed community garden is compatible with schools, churches, and other uses z5s intended for properties such as this that are guided by the Comprehensive Plan for 2so Institutional land uses. And staff is unaware of any formal market studies which suggest 26 � that community gardens have negative impacts on residential property values. The 2s2 remaining, unevaluated criterion pertains to the compatibility of the layout and activities 263 on the site with contiguous properties; staff's original determination that a community 2s4 garden is not a regulated use is evidence that a communiry garden is believed to be 2ss compatible with a neighborhood setting. 26s The preceding paragraph is an indication that Planning Division staff has found that the 26� potential negative impacts of community gardens are slight enough that the standard 2ss conditional use criteria do not offer any meaningful help in identifying and mitigating 26s such impacts. If the City Council believes that community gardens need to be regulated 2�o as conditional uses (either specifically as community gardens or as moderate-impact 2�� quasi-public uses), Planning Division staff would request that the Council identify other 2�2 criteria that may be more helpful in addressing potentially negative impacts. Appeal_RCA 052410 Page 6 of 7 � .�