CC_Minutes_2010_0524 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

First, placing a community garden on land zoned POS is quite different than placing a community garden on land zoned R 1. For land zoned POS it is highly conceivable that the community will congregate on the land for the various outdoor activities associated with public parks and open spaces. The same is not true for land zoned R1; the most restrictive residential district; where the NCPC is situated. Second, the five residents abutting the Oasis community garden do not have frontal views of the garden. Rather, the community garden is an extension of their backyards. (See Satellite Picture, Ex. 1)." To be sure, the five abutting R 1 landowners to Oasis Park obviously anticipated the public and outdoor aspects of the park and woodland area when they purchased their homes. Third, the City of Roseville manages and maintains the community garden in the Oasis Park. Apparently, it has successfully done so for many year:. So, the City of Roseville is already in the business of regulating and managing the activity. Moreover, the City obviously has long been aware of the public nature of the activity - so much so that it restricted the placement of the community garden to land zoned POS that was in an area tucked away from significant exposure to single family homes. Despite claims to the contrary, this speaks very loudly to the moderate impact associated with the public nature of community gardens. (5) THE ZONING CODE REQUIRES THAT NCPC OBTAIN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The RCA emphasizes that the planning division "does not find room for legitimate debate about whether a church achieves the status of a residential dwelling by virtue of it being a 'house of God."' (RCA, p. 3, ¶ 4.6.) Regrettably, this view is indicative of the overly simplistic examination that the planning division has given to the issue that was placed before it. See supra note 8. Any references made to the NCPC building being a "house of God" simply acknowledges that it is NCPC's (i.e., the land owners') view and belief. Whether we might agree with it or not; or give credence to the belief or not; I believe that we should not summarily discount the land owners' belief in this regard. In summarily discounting the land owners' belief, the planning division overlooks that the NCPC building is actually situated on land zoned Rl. Certainly, it must follow the Rl rules just as I have to follow them. Despite the implication to the contrary, there are no special rules for churches in an R1 district. Just because the land owner is a church does not mean that it can engage in activities, in this case outdoor activities, that other landowners in the same RI district are prohibited from doing. Any contrary view or implication is just patently wrong.12 As a matter of fact, the planning division admits that land use as a church today in an Rl district would require a conditional use permit. (RCA, p. 2, ¶ 4.2.) This reflects that somewhere along the line the City of Roseville made the determination; in the furtherance of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community; that church use on R1 land required regulation because of the impact that such use has on the surrounding neighborhood. So, ~ ~ This is not new evidence as the City is deemed to have been aware of this at the time of its "formal action." 12 See Minn. Stat. § -162.357, subd. 1 (2008)("The regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings, structures, or land and for each class or kind of use throughout [a zoning] district.")(emphasis added).