CC_Minutes_2010_0524 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Another point of contention has been the number of employees that will be involved in this garden. I would point to the roster of the planning committee (RCA attach. p. 78) showing 19 members of the church. If you add that to the 8 plots reserved just for church members (Kimberly Spears letter, RCA attach. p. 26), I think we have clearly met the employee requirements for "moderate impact quasi public use," which -again - requires a CUP. Obviously, each side tries to make their argument appear right. We have the church describing a garden that will rival those of Versailles3 and the neighbors who correctly feel it will look closer to the eyesore the City had years ago on Larpenteur between Dale and Rice. Who is right? I say: a picture is worth a thousand words. The picture below is of the Falcon Heights Community Garden. It is definitely not like the gardens of Versailles (or for that matter the Gardens at Hidcote Manor4). But it does share one thing in common with Roseville's Oasis garden (pictured above), and that is: hardly anyone can see it. There is a reason you do not find community gardens on busy streets. It's because they do make a statement and they do significantly impact the surrounding neighborhood. Apparently, the City of Roseville agrees whole heartedly with this because of its decision to remotely locate the Oasis Park Community Garden years ago. 3 http://en.chateauversailles.fr/gardens-and-park-of-the-chateau- ° http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w- hidcotemanorgarden/w-hidcotemanorgarden-history.htm The remotely located Falcon Heights Community Garden (taken 5-2-2010).