Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />January 8, 1987 <br />CUP For Mr. Ken Bergman, representing Donovan Construction, appeared before <br />Donovan the Commission requesting approval of a conditional use permit for <br />Construction a trailer to be used as a temporary office. Bergman reported that <br />eventually the Donovan property will have road access and at that <br />time a building permit will be requested for an addition to the <br />Donovan building. <br />The City Planner reported that the Council recently held a public <br />hearing to consider the improvement of Soo Lane, which would give <br />the Donovan property road access. Action on the improvement was <br />tabled until the second Council meeting in January, however, it <br />appears that that Council will consider extension of the road to <br />serve the Donovan property and the Roseville Plumbing property <br />without requiring utilities. This will satisfy the access questions <br />for these two sites so that the moratorium on these two properties <br />could be released. <br />Mr. Bergman pointed out that sewer and water could be brought to <br />the Donovan property from South Owasso Blvd. <br />The Commission questioned why utilities would not be included with <br />the road improvement. <br />The Planner replied that utilities could be brought in with <br />separate easements, so that if utilities were not included with <br />the road, the road would not have to be torn up. <br />Mr. Costa asked why there was a need for a trailer on the Donovan <br />property. <br />Mr. Bergman replied that the trailer would be used as an office <br />until the road issue was resolved. At that time Donovan Construction <br />would be requesting a building permit for an office addition. <br />Davison pointed out that the conditional use permit would need <br />to be reviewed every six months. <br />Costa asked about the cost of assessments for the road improvement <br />in this area. <br />The Planner replied that the Engineer's proposal included every <br />possibility for road and utilities as part of the public hearing. <br />It was determined that portions of the proposal could be eliminated <br />and this would lower the cost which was estimated at about $30,000 <br />per acre. However, McGough Construction indicated that they have <br />no intention of ever improving their property beyond its present <br />use as a storage lot. Therefore, they are not in favor of an <br />assessment. The Planner also explained that the Engineer included <br />all the possibilities in the public hearing as items can be <br />deleted from an improvement, but another public hearing would have <br />been necessary to include additional items in an improvement. <br />Page -3- <br />