CC_Minutes_2023_0306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,March 6, 2023 Page 11 The Board discussed the timeline with staff Mr. Michael Stetzler explained at the beginning of his prepared remarks, he asked the Board to think outside the box a little bit and what he is hearing is thinking inside the box. He stated the box is that these could be viewed as RV units, as in fact they are, which would exempt them in some ways from the Code as sited by City staff Staff has already mentioned that in one of their recommendations. It is kind of selective enforcement, given that the City has ignored an RV parked on the church property for a long time without citing any Code compliance, and that is what this is. The church agrees that there may be good reasons to enforce Code,safety,public health,public wel- fare reasons. However,the church sees no reason why,if the City of St. Paul and other jurisdictions around the Country can accept these units as living dwelling units, that the City cannot consider that as well. Therefore, the church is not really comfortable at all with some limit of time after which the City says these are not fit for dwelling because the fact is they are and the City is not considering them as RVs because the current Zoning does not allow for RVs. On the other hand, RVs are parked in residential yards all over the place and sometimes people live in those without having any Code compliance brought upon them so it is a bit of selective enforcements. He stated whatever consideration the City takes here, please understand that classifying those as not fit for dwelling is not an acceptable outcome in the view of Prince of Peace or him personally as a representative of Prince of Peace. Mr. Evan Bergquist, representing Prince of Peace Church, explained he has had the privilege of working with a couple other religious land use matters in the City of St. Paul. He got involved with this client a couple of months ago and in the short amount of time since they got the February l st letter from City staff, they have looked at this pretty carefully and disagree respectfully with the way that the Chair and some other Board members framed up the issue tonight. The issue, in their view, is not whether these tiny homes meet all of the Codes and regulations in the City of Roseville. The issue is whether it was the right thing to do for the City to apply these regulations to this particular Church. What the reason was for it and whether there is a lawful basis to bring these Code enforcement problems down on the church and tell them that they have to move them, because as far as he is aware, he has not heard anything tonight about anyone complaining about these two tiny home units. There was no need, really, to make this a dispute about whether the Code and regulations are being correctly interpreted by staff and respect- fully,they thought the right thing for the City Council to do is to do nothing. He felt this does not need to be regulated at all and under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act and under the First Amendment,if they want to regulate it the City needs to have a good reason to do it and the