Laserfiche WebLink
March 3, 2001 <br /> <br />Planning and Zoning Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />manager. Mr. Sadelack stated that he may be able to be at the facility regularly or could <br />hire someone, but anticipated this to be a low maintenance business. Mr. Sadelack stated <br />that in his opinion, he is not selling something and does not feel the need to have an on <br />site manager. Mr. Sadelack stated he was unaware of another mini-storage facility other <br />than those with on-site caretakers and franchised mini-storage facilities that have an on- <br />site manager during business hours. He then noted he did not see the necessity for same. <br /> <br />Council Liaison Broussard Vickers questioned the type of construction requirements the <br />Commission would place on mini-storage facilities. Consensus was that the construction <br />would conform to the Industrial requirements for the business park. Council Liaison <br />Broussard Vickers stated that the City can not modify the requirements for individual <br />businesses. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers also stated the City recently modified the <br />requirements for buildings in the Industrial Park when re-writing Ordinance #4 and took <br />into consideration that it would increase the cost of construction, but the City desired to <br />require a specific type of structure. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers questioned whether the City could require an on-site <br />manager. Commissioner Kilian did not believe there was a necessity to provide same. <br />Commissioner Brainard stated that there has been problems with vandalism and <br />maintenance at other facilities and an on-site manage would deter vandalism and ensure <br />that the facility is maintained accordingly. <br /> <br />Commissioner DeVine questioned the type of fencing proposed by developer. Mr. <br />Sadelack stated that fencing is undetermined and understands the aesthetic concerns <br />expressed by the Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Sadelack stated that the requirements the Commission outlined are ultimately <br />advantageous to him as it will force him to provide a better facility and people will use <br />the facility due to the enhanced safety features. Mr. Sadelack also stated that while the <br />requirements may be advantageous they are also a hindrance due to additional costs not <br />taken into consideration. Mr. Sadelack also stated that he was not planning on installing <br />a sprinkler system or concrete construction requirements that the Commission is <br />requiring. <br /> <br />Commissioner DeVine stated that the valuation of the building must conform to the <br />average valuation per square foot of the surrounding buildings in the Industrial Park. <br /> <br />Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated that if the Commission adheres to the <br />construction standard, there would be consistency. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers <br />also stated that Mr. Sadelack would need to meet the industrial building standards due to <br />the fact that he does not meet the standards for obtaining a Variance; and cost is not a <br />reason for granting a Variance. Council Member Broussard Vickers suggested that the <br />architect sketch plans that take into account current ordinances and Mr. Sadelack could <br />determine cost effectiveness. <br /> <br />Commissioner McLean questioned whether the architect had reviewed the industrial <br />building code requirements. Mr. Sadelack stated that he was unsure of same. Mr. March <br />stated that Mr. Sadelack had been presented with an entire copy of Ordinance #4. <br />Page 3 of 8 <br /> <br />