07/26/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~.. ""'lIIl e ~5~ 7/26/71 r ;i ,I I 1: I I: i .1 Public Works Director outlined bids and recommended that they be awarded to low bidcler in I I !! all cases except for the sanitary and storm sewer in Mark J. Plat. Award of this contract I I[ d It should be subject to approval of the subdividers. ,. I' II i: Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the Council approve the contracts and award Ii .1 to low bidders on Items one through nine and authorize city staff to award the contract in p event of subdivider approval on Mark J Plat, and to bidders on all non-competitive bids. :, Ii Regarding Item 1, Mrs. Floyd Hughes, 1320 Jacobs Drive, requested information about the :' 'I charge for paving Jacobs Drive. Public Works Director clarified that the bid had been II )i i: wri tten to allow ,for. three different widths, and he explained the charges that would be I[ II levied under each' proposal. Mrs. Htighesfelt the price was a-little high. Public Works Director agreed, but said there was no way it could be reduced by rebidding. Mr. Paul Hansen, 1500 Highway 99 North, explained that the only advantage to his establish~ ment to paving of the street would be elimination of a dust problem.. They had no intention e of utilizing the street. There was further discussion whether this street should be constructed with a parking lane, and the necessity for parking, even though the commercial did not at this time utilize the street. , ,. , Mrs. Hughes commented that Mr. Hansen had suggested that the 32' street be constructed with I each side paying the same amount, which would amount to $12.00 per foot. On Item 2, Mr. McDonald had a question concerning the alternate bid with addendum #1, and whether the bids were on an equal basis. Manager explained that the city has two methods for storm sewer which meet specifications, sne with pre-cast concrete and one poured in place. In this instance the low bid was for poured-in-place. I I, Public Works Director explained the reason for giving a choice and that both met performance " requirements. II " " Regarding Item 6, Mr. Walter Nichols said he had petitioned for sewer in 1969, and still wanted it done. He did think the cost was rather high. Public Works Director explained that it had taken some time to acquire easements. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to modify the motion to provide that the cost for 32' paving in Item 1 be allocated equally among the property owners. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the motion carried. C. Appeal from Planning Commission Permit, Day Care Center, 934 Washington Street Planning Commission approval was based on the need in the area. City Manager read an appeal filed by Mr. Carl A. Lemke which cited lack of parking, excessive traffic and proximity to a neighboring apartment house as reasons for his opposition. I Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the Planning Commission decision be upheld. John Norem felt the day nursery would fulfill a great need. Carl Lempke, 934 Washington, said he lives in the apartments immediately to the rear of the proposed nursery. He asked how the owner proposed to fulfill the Planning Commission requirement for two parking spaces without utilizing those provided for apartment dwellers. : He was very concerned that the play area was not adequate for twenty children, and that e " children could possibi7' be injured because the busy street was so close to the yaRd and the ., 'I house. He also pointed out that the apartments adjoin the play area, and the noise would be very disturbing to tenants, especially those who sleep during the day at times, as he must do. " In answer to Mr. Teague, Mr. Lempke explained that he had not been aware of the Planning \1 Commission public hearing, that he did see a notice on a pole, but had not learned in time " 'I to attend the hearing. Planning Director explained that written notices are sent to property i 'I owners, and as renters, individual tenants would not have been notified. " ': d ~ I There was discussion about the size of the play area and how it would be fenced. Planning , ,. Director showed slides delineating the area. He explained that there was a need in the I' ., area, and that it was felt some children might be brought to the facility on foot. The Planning Commission had been very concerned about the proximity of the arterial. I Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Gribskov to amend the motion to postpone this item until II the Council has an opportunity to view the area on tour. Vote taken on amendment. All ,I ., Councilmen present voting ay~ the motion carried. .1 II A short break was taken. : " ~ : e 7/26/71 - 7 ...Ill