Laserfiche WebLink
MLNUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />SEPTEMBER 24, 1997 <br />REZONING <br />TO I -P, <br />GRADING <br />PERMIT, & <br />CONCEPT <br />DEVELOPMENT <br />REVIEW — <br />ST. PAUL <br />WATER DEPT. <br />PROPERTY — <br />FRATTALONE <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. Lnn7er acknowledged that requirement. <br />Mr. LaValle introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 97 -9 -226 — APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE <br />PERMIT ALLOWING EXPANSION OF A NON - CONFORMING <br />SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE AT 34 E. OWASSO BLVD. SOUTH AS <br />REQUESTED BYALICIA LUNZER, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE <br />WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING <br />COMMISSION AS OUTLINED AT THEIR MEETING OF <br />SEPTEMBER 11, 1997 <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Scare. <br />Ayes (5) LaValle, Scare, Fahey, Morelan, Pedersen. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />Fahey opened a public hearing to consider the application for rezoning <br />from General Business (B -3) to Industrial -Park (I -P) as well as a grading <br />permit, and concept development review of an office - warehouse building <br />on the site located at approximately 3177 Spruce Street as requested by <br />Mr. Frank Frattalone. It was noted that the Planning Commission <br />recommended approval of the rezoning request. <br />Fahey asked if the City Council had the ability to rezone to Planned <br />Unit Development (PUD) this evening, pointing out that the rezoning <br />notice was specific to 1 -P zoning. The City Attorney indicated that the <br />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 />Page 29 <br />