Loading...
City Council Minutes 05-28-1985MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL May 28, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Mayor Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held May 13, 1985. 4. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for the Construction of the Monticello Fire Hall. On May 21, 1985, the following bids were received for the construction of the new Fire Hall: Fullerton Lumber Company $456,900.00 Peterson Construction $475,000.00 Terwissche Construction, Inc. $4991450.00 W. Gohman Construction Co. $525,180.00 Great River Construction, Inc. $607,500.00 The architect reviewed the bids submitted and felt that Fullerton Lumber Company was the lowest responsible bidder on the project and recommended awarding the contract to them. Building Inspector, Gary Anderson, questioned information supplied by Fullerton about projects currently being constructed by their firm and whether the City's Fire Hall project would be delayed because of the number of projects currently under construction by the firm. A representative of Fullerton Lumber Company noted that the listing of current jobs submitted with their bid was outdated and that most of the projects were already completed, and their supervisor for this job would be available almost immediately. Other concerns of the Council were whether the project would take the maximum 240 day time period listed in the bid proposal, which would put it into winter construction. The Fullerton representative felt confident that construction could be substantially completed within 6 months and hoped that construction could start within a couple of weeks. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution accepting the low bid from Fullerton Lumber Company in the amount of $456,900.00 and authorizing the entering of a contract for the construction of the Fire Hall. See Resolution 1985 # 9. Council Minutes - 5/28/85 5. Consideration of a Leaf Composting Site. Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the Council the proposed leaf compost site being planned adjacent to the City's dump site and Wright County Park off of West River Street. The proposed facility as designed would require leasing approximately 14,000 sq. ft. of land in Montissippi Park and would require the lease from the Wright County Board. Mr. Simola noted that the County Board has indicated they would look favorably upon leasing this property to the City for the compost site. The facility would be screened by natural trees on the west side of the property and would have a fence and Class V driveway constructed on the balance of the property to completely enclose it. The estimated cost of preparing the site, including driveway and fencing, was estimated at $1,200.00. If approved, the site would be ready for leaf disposal starting this fall, with the compost available for usage in approximately two years. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize the Public Works Director to obtain a lease from Wright County for the 80' x 173' parcel in Montissippi Park; and if approved by Wright County, authorizing the expenditure of approximately $1,200.00 to build the compost site. 6. Consideration of Variance Request Appeal to Allow an Additional Sign to be Placed on an Existing Building Site - Applicant, Dave Peterson's Ford. Mr. Dave Peterson, owner of Dave Peterson's Ford, requested approval to place an additional pylon sign at his dealership to advertise Ford Trucks. The Planning Commission, at their last meeting, denied the variance request to allow the third pylon sign because the property was already granted a variance a number of years ago for two signs, whereas the ordinance only allows one pylon sign. The applicant, as a result of the Planning Commission denial, was appealing the decision to the City Council. The representative of Monticello Ford requested that the additional sign be allowed to advertise truck sales and to gain additional exposure from I-94, which they felt their present signs were not visible from I-94. The representative noted that Ford Motor Company owns the larger pylon sign that reads "Ford and Mercury", and the Company would not allow the dealership to place an additional sign on this pylon advertising Ford Trucks. In addition, the representative felt that the variance request was reasonable because the dealership does have over 1000 feet of highway frontage, which they felt would be adequate area to allow for additional pylon signs. -2- Council Minutes - 5/28/85 After further discussion on the number of signs currently existing at the site, the Council indicated they may look favorably upon a request to replace the existing smaller Used Car sign with the Ford Truck sign and allow the owner to relocate the sign on the property. The Council noted that a new variance application would have to be filed with the Planning Commission if this alternative was pursued by Monticello Ford. After further discussion, motion was made by Maxwell to approve the variance requested by the applicant to allow three pylon signs. The motion died for a lack of a second; and as a result, the Planning Commission's denial of the variance stands. 7. Consideration of Preliminary Plan and Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development - Applicant, John Kornovich. Mr. John Kornovich, owner of a 3.94 acre parcel of land lying north of County Road 39 and adjacent to Kampa Estates, presented a revised preliminary plan and concept plan for developing the parcel into four 12 -unit apartment buildings. The preliminary concept plan was presented to the Planning Commission earlier that consisted of four 12 -unit buildings and one 8 -unit structure for a total of 54 units. At the public hearing held by the Planning Commission, numerous objections to the development were presented by the residents of Kampa Estates, including the large density of the project and potential traffic hazards in a primarily residential, single family area. The developers noted that they met briefly with the concerned residents in the area to address their concerns, and as a result revised the concept plan and reduced the number of units to 48 from 54 to allow for more green area and wider parking lanes and access drives. Additionally, the developers are willing to meet all other requirements and concerns expressed by the City Planner and City staff when the development stage is started. Some concerns of the Planner included reducing the size of the garage buildings to allow only six or eight garage structures per building rather than having one long, continuous garage building. The developers also agreed to provide whatever screening the City desires adjacent to the residential Kampa Estates, whether it would be in landscape architecture or a screened fence. The proposed development would be constructed over a 2 -year phase with initially two buildings or 24 units being constructed this year, with the second two buildings in 1986. Mr. Joe Schanen, resident of Kampa Estates, questioned why the Planning Commission didn't accept a petition against the project signed by area residents and felt the development of this property should remain single family. Council member Bill Fair noted -3- Council Minutes - 5/28/85 that the property has been zoned multiple family for a number of years and that the community has to be receptive to all types of housing, including multiple; and the revised plan presented meets current City regulations regarding this type of development. After further discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the preliminary plan and concept plan as presented for a Planned Unit Development consisting of 48 units. 8. Consideration of Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Sealcoating Project. Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the Council the proposed areas scheduled for sealcoating during 1985. The estimated cost of the sealcoating program was $28,500.00 and would consist of sealcoating the following four areas: 1) Country Club Estates; 2) Prairie Road and north Marvin Elwood Road; 3) West River Street from County Road 75 to I-94; and 4) Dundas Road within the Monticello Oakwood Industrial Park. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the plans and specifications for sealcoating program and to authorize the advertising for bids. 9. Consideration of Repairs to the Existing Water Tower. During the fall inspection of the water tower by the Water Tower Paint and Repair Company of Iowa, some rivets in the tank were separating and pitting had occurred to the point that it could cause leakage in the near future. It was the company's recommendation that repairs be done with the annual cleaning scheduled for 1985. The Public Works Director noted that there are several alternatives in regards to repairing the water tower which hinge upon whether the City will in the near future construct a new reservoir on the Monte Hill. If a definite decision was made not to continue to use the existing water tower when a new tank is placed on the Monte Hill, minor repairs could be done at the existing water tower to keep it in a serviceable condition for approximately three years. The estimated cost of these improvements was $4,737.00 to extend the life at least three years. If in the future the City has plans to keep the existing water tower even if a new one is built, a full welding repair and wax coating of the existing water tower to give it an expected life of an additional 10-20 years was estimated at $9,908.00. To completely repair the seams and pitted areas and also coat the interior with an epoxy coating, which would be needed if the tower was to stand empty and still be part of the system after a new water tower was built, was estimated at $16,716.00 by the repair firm. -4- Council Minutes - 5/28/85 In looking at the three alternatives presented, it was recommended by the Public Works Director that a full weld repair job be authorized with a new wax coating for approximately $9,900.00, which would give the water tower an estimated 10-20 year life and keep the tower in a serviceable condition, at which time later a decision could be made as to whether the tower should be dismantled and sold or kept within the present water system. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize repairs to the water tower by Water Tower Paint and Repair Company in the amount not to exceed $9,908.50. The actual repair cost will be on a time and material basis not to exceed this amount. 10. Consideration of Removing the Concrete Planters from Broadway and Returning Ownership to the Monticello Rotary Club. A number of years ago, the Rotary Club donated to the City 16 concrete planters that were placed in the downtown business area as a beautification program. Because of annual problems in maintaining each planter, the Rotary Club suggested that the concrete planters be removed. Although the Rotary donated the planters to the City, the City Public Works Department has agreed to remove all 16 planters and deposit them on City property owned adjacent to Jones Manufacturing. At that point, the planters would be turned over to the Rotary Club to sell as they wish. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to authorize the Public Works Department to move all the planters from public property right of ways and relocate the planters to City property adjacent to Jones Manufacturing Company and authorize the Rotary Club to dispose of them. It was noted as part of the motion that none of the businesses would be allowed to purchase the planters and place them back on public property in the downtown area. 11. Consideration of Ratification of Mayoral Appointment(s) to HRA. Recently, HRA member, Jack Reeve, resigned from the Committee leaving a vacancy on his term until December 31, 1988. Mr. Roger Hedtke has agreed to serve on the HRA Committee if appointed to fulfill the remainder of Mr. Reeve's term. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the appointment of Mr. Roger Hedtke to fill the unexpired term of Jack Reeve on the HRA Committee. 12. Consideration of Bills for the Month of May. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of May as presented. -5- Council Minutes - 5/28/85 13. Clarification of Recent Planning Commission Variances Granted to Doug Stokes. At the last Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Doug Stokes reapplied for variances to build a garage in his front yard four feet from his house and 27 feet from the front property line. All three of the requests still required variances,as 1) a garage is not allowed in a front yard unless it is attached to the house, 2) any detached accessory building must be 10 feet from an existing building, and 3) 30 feet is the minimum setback requirement from the front property line. During the Planning Commission's reconsideration of his request, a compromise was reached and variances granted to allow the garage to be located five feet from the house and to be down sized to a 26' x 38' structure with a 32 -foot front yard setback. The 32 -foot setback and 26 -foot wide garage were based on footages provided by Mr. Stokes, which turned out to be in error after actual measurements were taken on his property. As a result, if Mr. Stokes were allowed to build the 26 -foot wide garage as he proposed, the building would either have to be placed closer to his house or additional variances would have to be granted from the front yard setback requirement. The Building Inspector noted that to meet a 30 -foot setback and build a 26 -foot wide garage, the house would only be two feet from the garage, which did not allow enough room between the two buildings. It was recommended by the City staff that the garage be attached to the house to meet the setback requirements and still provide a 26 -foot width as Mr. Stokes had requested, or the garage would have to be reduced in width to meet all setback requirements. Based on the new data supplied regarding the actual footage available for building the structure, motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to reverse the Planning Commission's variances granted and require that the garage be attached to the house if Mr. Stokes wishes to build the 26 -foot wide garage in order to meet all setback requirements of the ordinance. Glot Rick Wolfstellor Assistant Administrator EM