CC_Minutes_2010_0524 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The RCA goes on to explain that mere absence of a use from the list of permitted uses does not necessarily mean that the use should be prohibited in every instance. (Id., p. 2, ¶ 4.1.) But, in trying to substantiate this point, the planning d'ivision's use of cellular phone stores not being on the list of permitted uses in a business district is very disingenuous and is quite misleading. Indeed, the business district ordinances specifically list "[t]elevision , radio, electronice• and repair" as a permitted use in a business district. Ord. § l 005.15 (emphasis added). So, cellular phone stores (clearly involving the retailing of particular electronic devices) are expressly permitted.8 In the RCA, the planning division clearly acknowledges that, like a "metal foundry," "urban agriculture" or "community garden" activities are nowhere to be found on the "most restrictive" R 1 list of uses. Here, while out of one side of its mouth it tries to discredit the Appellants' reference to the agricultural nature of the "community garden" activity, the planning division out of the other side of its mouth acknowledges that the zoning codes prohibit such activities in the R1 district by the absence of the use from the RI district list. (Id., p. 2, ¶ 4.1.) The planning division furthermore agrees that the proposed activity - no matter its label - is public in its nature.9 (4) THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ALREADY REGULATES "COMMUNITY GARDEN" ACTIVITIES. It is also disingenuous to argue that the "urban agriculture" or "community garden" activity is an acti •ity that is consistent with the residential scheme; as the administrative determination noted; when heretofore the City of Roseville has restricted such activities to land zoned as Public Park and Open Space (POS).10 The Oasis Park community garden is part of a large park and woodland area that abuts residential property. a Regrettably, I believe that this is indicative of the level of examination that has gone into the administrative determination. See RCA Attachment D, p. ] 6 (PDF p. 95)(May 13, 2010 email from Bryan Lloyd to Kim Spear stating that: "The frank-but-oversimplified reality is that we looked at the plans and the zoning code, shrugged our shoulders, and said that the zoning code doesn't regulate it."). But now the planning division acknowledges that such a use can be prohibited due to the absence of the use from the list of R1 District uses. (RCA, p. 2, ¶ 4.1.) 9 The RCA states: Whether "community garden", "urban agriculture", or some other terminology is used to describe the activity, the nature of the use remains the same. A community garden may well be larger than a typical private, suburban garden, but it is nonetheless the activity of a group of people who are exercising careful, intentional stewardship of a relatively small area of lay d for their own enjoyment or for the charitable benefit of others in the community.... (RCA, p.3, ¶ 4.5)(emphasis added);(see also RCA, p. 6, ¶ 5.2(e))(acknowledging that community gardening is "essentially-public activity."). 10 Any reference to the garden at the Greenhouse Village Condominiums is a red herring. The small garden at Greenhouse Village (measuring approximately 30 x 60 feet) is a private garden. It has wood fencing around three of its sides with the remaining open side exposed to the parking lot. It is tucked away and is restricted only for the use of the condominium residents at Greenhouse Village. No members of the public at large are able to use it. 4