Laserfiche WebLink
1 than :the.'orie' ca-rei taker residence already allowed in this. particular • <br /> 2 mini-warehouse, which is the* only , facility of this type -in- St.. <br /> 3 Anthony:: ' 'He indicated it was . -therefore hard .for .him to. conceive <br /> 4 how this. would open the City- to a deluge of similar requests for <br /> 5 other types . of .-buildings. - Commissioner Werenicz. responded that he <br /> 6 agreed with _the . Chair that the precedent would be established for <br /> 7 other types - of businesses to ask �for similar treatment which would <br /> 8 favor their own business. <br /> 9 Commissioner Madden pointed out that this particular Ordinance had <br /> 10 apparently been on the books for at least nine years . Mr. Childs <br /> 11 had confirmed that, in the six years he had been with the . City, no <br /> 12 business had come in- to him to- ask -for a caretaker residence in <br /> 13 their own building because the -precedent for doing- that had .been <br /> 14 established with the mini-warehouse facility. <br /> 15 The Manager reported he was aware of instances where the code had <br /> 16 been enforced and the property owners had not asked. to have.. the <br /> 17 Ordinance changed. One of these had been when the proprietor of <br /> 18 Craig & Company had rented space in his basement but made the <br /> 19 family leave after the City had told him the Ordinance didn' t <br /> 20 permit that. Mr. Childs said staff had also been keeping a close <br /> 21 eye .on the Northgate Office Park to see unit owners didn' t try to <br /> 22 use the space above their offices; which have water and plumbing <br /> 23 fixtures . None of these owners had yet asked for an Ordinance <br /> 24 change, he added. <br /> 25 Commissioner Werenicz quoted the suggestion Mr. Childs had made in <br /> 26 his memorandum that "the major question the Commissioner had to <br /> 27 address with the mini-warehouse request was whether a facility this <br /> 28 small really needs two on-site resident. caretakers" and reiterated <br /> 29 that it was - his own position that the applicant had. failed to <br /> 30 demonstrate there was ."a real .need" for the second residence,, in <br /> 31 this building. <br /> 32 Mr. Solie conceded that the caretaker would not normally let <br /> 33 tenants into their units after hours, but persisted in saying this <br /> 34 is a 7 day, 16 hour operation, which demanded the presence of <br /> 35' someone on the site at all times. He told Commissioner London <br /> 36 there is plenty of work to keep that person occupied because with <br /> 37 about a 5% turnover every week,:. the caretaker keeps busy showing <br /> 38 the units to new tenants , signing leases and performing other <br /> 39 general .duties like maintaining the units and collecting the rents <br /> 40 and locking *and unlocking the units each day. The Chair told him <br /> 41 she found those duties to be analogous to the responsibilities .of <br /> 42 an apartment caretaker. <br /> 43 Mr. Childs drew the Commission' s 'attention to the fact_- that,,:•. <br /> 44' although the caretaker unit in the mini-warehouse was a condition <br /> 45 ally' permitted use in the current Ordinance , in the event the <br /> 46 facility' was. burned down or -otherwise destroyed, the owners would <br /> 47 have to ­return to the City for a` reviewal of the conditions placed <br /> 8 <br />