Laserfiche WebLink
<br />f~.o~ <br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />CITY OF ROSEVILLE <br />PLANNING REPORT <br /> <br />DATE: 01-11-95 <br /> <br />CASE NO.: <br /> <br />Planner Approval: <br /> <br />Department Approval: <br /> <br />Agenda Section: <br /> <br />7(a) <br />Item Description: Ken Kath request for interpretation of Section 8.235 of the City <br />Code - Night Watclunan's residence for his retail center in the <br />southwest quadrant ofHamline Avenue and County Road C, <br /> <br />1. Background <br /> <br />In the summer of 1994, Mr. Kath began construction on a spec retail building <br />that is approximately 20,000 sq. ft. in size on the property located in the <br />southwest quadrant ofHamline Avenue and County Road C. The property is <br />zoned B~3 General Business District and most retail uses are permitted uses <br />in that district. Mr. Kath recently submitted construction plans for tenant <br />finish out for his building that call for a single family residential unit that is <br />approximately 1400 sq. ft. in size with an 866 sq. ft, garage attached to the <br />space. Mr, Kath is calling this space a night watchman's residence and under <br />Section 8.235 of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance, feels that it is a permitted <br />accessory use in business districts. <br /> <br />When the plans for the building were first presented for building permit <br />applicatiQn, the night watchman's residence was shown as a part of that <br />application. At that time, staff indicated that we could not interpret this space <br />as simply a night watchman's residence. At that point, in order to receive a <br />building permit, Mr. Kath removed the residence plans from his application <br />and the permits were issued, The building shell is now up and Mr. Kath has <br />returned to the City seeking a pennit for the residential portion of his plan. <br />Staff has again indicated to Mr. Kath that we do not think this could be <br />legitimately described as a night watchman's residence but explained that he <br />had the right to appeal this interpretation to the City Council. He has asked <br />for this now and is scheduled to discuss this issue with the Planning <br />Commission at your meeting of January 11, 1995. To facilitate this <br />discussion, staff has asked the City's legal counsel for an opinion on this code <br />issue. This opinion will be presented at Wednesday's Commission meeting. <br /> <br />The zoning code does not define a night watchman's residence. ill fact, staff <br />