Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 1990 <br /> Regular Meeting Page Three <br /> • Chair Mountin directed Staff to review the code for <br /> possible revisions to allow continuing non-conformance <br /> uses when there is restoration, rather than a new <br /> addition. <br /> Ms. Hren reviewed the request of the applicant 9. Consideration <br /> for site plan approval for their building expansion of Resolution <br /> and for a variance from the surfacing requirements No. 294-90 <br /> for parking lots and curbing requirements. The Regarding Site <br /> property is located at 4751 Mustang Circle, in the Plan Review <br /> industrial park, and is zoned I-1 . Dynex Industries, and Variance <br /> the applicant, is proposing a 6, 000 square foot Request by <br /> addition onto their building, on the west side. Dynex Indus- <br /> tries, Inc. , <br /> Dennis Soehl, representing Dynex Industries, Inc. , 4751 Mustang <br /> reviewed the planned expansion and further explained Circle, <br /> their plans for expansion again in 1993. They are Planning Case <br /> requesting a variance from the surfacing requirements No. 302-90 <br /> so they do not have to rip up the blacktop in three <br /> years when they continue. They propose using <br /> crushed rock, with interlocking curbing which could <br /> be taken down and moved. <br /> Chair Mountin noted the Planning Commission had <br /> • received a similar request not too long ago, and <br /> had approved a plan for staging . She reviewed <br /> the criteria for granting a variance and suggested <br /> the Planning Commission could address staging <br /> requirements, rather than a variance, as a variance <br /> would stay with the property forever. <br /> Mr . Soehl clarified that crushed rock is already <br /> in the area in question, and they are requesting <br /> to be allowed to leave it to the north of the <br /> building because of the planned 1993 addition. <br /> Chair Mountin noted a variance is needed because <br /> when the building is constructed, they need to <br /> bring the property up to code. However, they <br /> would only have one year to begin construction, <br /> and she questioned whether they would have to <br /> renew yearly. She suggested addressing the pro- <br /> posal as a PUD, and she explained the PUD process. <br /> and the steps to be followed. <br /> Motion/Second: Jones/Miller to table this item to <br /> the agenda session immediately following this meeting. <br /> 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried <br /> • Staff had no report. 10. Staff Report <br />