CC 07-31-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I. I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I .. I ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JULY 31, 1995 10 Mr. Ringwald felt exploring options would be beneficial to botl1 tl1e City and tl1e developer. Councilmember Aplikowski expressed sensitivity to wanting to develop the most and best on the site. She expressed concern for tl1e injector systems and tl1e turn around radius for emergency vehicles. She also felt it beneficial for tl1e City and developer to explore all options. City Attorney Filla explained tl1e City Council may deny tl1e application, approve the application or refer the application back to tl1e Planning Commission witl1 tl1e consent of the applicant. MOTION: Keim moved and Aplikowski seconded a motion to refer the Planning Case 95-16, BaIfany Preliminary Plat to tl1e Planning Commission for further research witl1 tl1e consent of the developer. The motion carried unanimously (3-0). Resolution 95-58. Accepting Bids and Authorizinl! Execution of Contract for the Perry Park Redevelopment. Parks & Recreation Direetor,WaIsh, reviewed tl1e many problems eurrently existing at Perry Park such as: safety issue of overlapping ball fields, erosion, ADA inaccessibility, lack of adequate parking, and quality of ball fields. Ms. WaIsh indicated tl1e redevelopment will address all tl1e above concerns. The new park will contain three adult ball fields, and one little league field. The erosion will be addressed by catch basins. The ADA requirements will be met. Additional parking will be constructed and per the request of neighbors and tl1e Sherifl's department, the parking lot will be serviced with lighting. The lighting will serve one field and tl1e parking lot. City Engineer Stonehouse noted tl1e bids have been received and tl1e low bid is from Veit & Company witl1 a bid of $222,575.00. Mr. Stonehouse indicated he finds Veit & Company to be a responsible and competent contractor, and would recommend ti1at tl1ey be awarded tl1e contract for the Charles Perry Park improvements project. Mr. Stonehouse discussed tl1e alternates, he recommended the irrigation, sodding and lighting of one field witl1 tl1e availability of lighting a second field in the future. Mr. Stonehouse recommended to award tl1e contract to Veit & Company in the amount of $256,575 to include the installation oftl1e irrigation system as proposed in Alternate 6.0 Additionally, iftl1e Council wishes to include field lighting in one of the ball fields, MSA would recommend accepting botl1 Alternate 7.0 and 7.1. This would result in a total contract award amount of $306,975.00 witl1 estimated total project cost of approximately $362,000 based upon a 5% contingency cost and associated overhead costs. Mr. Stonehouse additionally recommended: