CC_Minutes_2023_0306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 6,2023 Page 8 Board member Schroeder explained what the Board is looking at is what staff pointed out very clearly what has not been followed when it comes to the regulations and zoning for this particular item. That is the part she did not hear any argument against, that it was not in violation. Therefore, the facts and findings listed in the staff report clearly point out that the Board does not have any reason not to continue with their findings. Her point is that there is not any argument against their findings. Board member Schroeder explained she firmly is in favor of supporting an- ything that the City and community can do to help with the homeless and she thought Roseville has done a good job with that. That is a separate issue from this one and to her this is not in compliance but there are some recom- mendations in the packet on how the City can work with the church to bring it along so everyone can work as a partnership to come up with a resolution on what would work in the long run. She indicated they have to move be- yond this piece in order to find solutions. Board member Etten thanked Prince of Peace and so many other in the com- munity who are working with the homeless and homelessness. He believed everyone on the Council,through the votes and staff with the work done over the years are very supportive of solutions to homelessness in this area. Eve- rything from the City's Police Housing Resource person to building hundred and hundreds of new units of affordable housing in the last ten years with the support of City dollars and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and other re- sources and to the City's new Land Trust Program, and working in partner- ship with Habitat for Humanity. He did not think that is the question here tonight, their task is pretty straight forward and has been pointed out by a few people and he agreed that the church at no point addressed the legal arguments of staff around this so he did not know how the Board could not support the legal arguments laid out and he thought it was quite clear that these units do not meet the Code for permanent housing. What he did sup- port is the City staff and Prince of Peace's starting discussions around Code compliant tiny house or cottage home. This is something the City Council added to the City Code a couple of years ago, specifically to look for addi- tional types of housing that would include something like this. He would support that happening on 2555 Victoria, the piece of property where these RVs are currently located. He was supportive of using City resources and potentially including sewer access charges, maybe ARPA dollars, and the City supporting staff to find additional resources for making this possible. Things like talking about sewer connections to the church or if the connec- tions where the home used to be on the property still viable, sewer and water, and easy to hook into. Looking for solutions to making that a permanent piece is something he would support. At this point, he did not support the current situation.