Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />SEPTEMBER 24,1997 <br />The City Administrator pointed out that if bedrooms are to be added in the <br />basement, the windows would have to be acceptable egress windows. All <br />building code requirements would have to be met. <br />Ms. Lunzer acknowledged that requirement. <br />Mr. LaValle introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOL UTION NO. 97-9-226 - APPROVING A CONDITIDNAL USE <br />PERMIT ALLOWING EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING <br />SINGLE-FAMILYHOUSE AT 34 E. OWASSO BLVD. SOUTHAS <br />REQUESTED BYALICIA LUNZER, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE <br />WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THL PLANNING <br />COMMISSIONAS OUTLINED AT THEIR MEETING OF <br />SEPTEMBER 11, 1997 <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Scalze. <br />Ayes (5) LaValle, Scalze, Fahey, Morelan, Pedersen. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />REZONING Fahey opened a public hearing to consider the application for rezoning <br />TO I-P, from General Business (B-3) to Industrial-Park (I-P) as well as a grading <br />GRADING permit, and concept development review of an office-warehouse building <br />PERMIT, & on the site located at approximately 3177 Spruce Street as requested by <br />CONCEPT Mr. Frank Frattalone. It was noted that the Planning Commission <br />DEVELOPMENT recommended approval of the rezoning request. <br />REVIEW - <br />ST. PAUL Fahey asked if the City Council had the ability to rezone to Planned <br />WATER DEPT. Unit Development (PUD) this evening, pointing out that the rezoning <br />PROPERTY - notice was specific to I-P zoning. The City Attorney indicated that the <br />FRATTALONE rezoning consideration was limited to I-P zoning. <br />The City Planner indicated that there are a couple of options for rezoning <br />this property. One would be Industrial-Park (I-P) zoning with a PUD <br />conditional use permit. The other would be to rezone to Planned Unit <br />Development (PUD). <br />Frattalone stated that it was his understanding that the Planner's position <br />was that PUD zoning was most appropriate for the northern parcel owned <br />by the Water Department, while I-P zoning would be appropriate for the <br />southern parcel. <br />The Planner indicated that PUD zoning was discussed for both pieces of <br />property. If the property were rezoned to I-P, however, when a specific <br />