|
AGENDA REVIEW SESSION AUGUST 4 2011 252
<br /> Mr. Littrell stated a moving truck or van will have to deliver from the front of the building and
<br /> questioned if there is sufficient room. Mr. Gilot questioned how many units will be at the site.
<br /> Mr. Coleman stated there will be nineteen (19) units, so that is thirty-eight (3 8) required parking
<br /> spaces. Mr. Gilot noted the density of this development for this single family residential area is
<br /> high. He asked if they could provide pedestrian access on one side and a drive on the other. Mr.
<br /> Coleman stated he was not sure they could do that. Mr. Hunt noted that from the building to the
<br /> alley there is only one (1) property, a rental house. Mr. Gilot questioned if they had considered
<br /> talking to the neighbors about bumping out the alley to afford two-way traffic. He noted they
<br /> could increase the alley to twenty (20) feet wide. Mr. Coleman asked it that would solve the in
<br /> and out traffic flow problem. Mr. Gilot stated it would, but not the truck traffic issue. He noted to
<br /> approve their plan the way it is would invite conflict with the neighbors. He suggested they think
<br /> about trying to acquire six feet on one side or the other of the alley. Mr. Littrell suggested any
<br /> utility poles located in the alley would be an issue. Mr. Coleman stated the poles are only on one
<br /> side. Mr. Gilot questioned if there was a fifteen foot side-yard set-back could they get a variance
<br /> to slide out for pedestrians and a driveway. Mr. Hunt stated they are trying to do this without
<br /> getting a variance. Mr. Coleman questioned if the approach addressed the narrowness of the
<br /> alley, would that be acceptable. Mr. Littrell stated he has no problem with dedicating nine (9)
<br /> parking spaces on the street, but the narrow alley will cause problems. He suggested in the winter
<br /> parking will need to be regulated to prevent turning difficulties at Sorin Street, and
<br /> recommended posting no parking on the south side of Sorin for twenty-five (25) feet from the
<br /> intersection. Mr. Gilot questioned if they had considered reducing their units by four (4) to
<br /> reduce the needed parking. He suggested if the curb-cut went away, that would allow for six (6)
<br /> spaces on the alley side. Mr. Littrell suggested the drive can be in the set-back. Mr. Gilot added
<br /> they Auld encourage a lot of greenscape space if taking the curb-cut away. Mr. Coleman stated
<br /> they have been very helpful and questioned what their next options are; should they bring it back
<br /> to the Board when they look at a different design. Mr. Gilot acknowledged they wanted it on the
<br /> agenda last week and have heard enough of the Board's concerns to be able to work out the
<br /> details. Therefore, Mr. Gilot made a motion to authorize the City Engineer, Carl Littrell, to work
<br /> with Holladay and Coleman Architecture on the details to meet the requirements of the Board.
<br /> Mr. Inks seconded the motion, which carried.
<br /> RATIFY BID AWARD — WESTERN AND CHAPIN INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS —
<br /> PROJECT NO. 110-086 LRSA
<br /> Mr. Robert Nichols, Engineering, advised the Board that on May 9, 2011, bids were received and
<br /> opened for the above referenced project. After reviewing those bids, Mr. Nichols recommended
<br /> that the Board award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder Selge
<br /> Construction Co., Inc., 2833 S. II1h Street, Niles, Michigan, 49120, in the amount of
<br /> $504,158.63. Therefore, Mr. Gilot made a motion that the recommendation be accepted and the
<br /> bid award be ratified as outlined above. Mr. Littrell seconded the motion, which carried.
<br /> RESCIND QUOTE AWARD AND RATIFY QUOTE,AWARD AND APPROVE_CONTRACT
<br /> —ANGELA AND LEAHY POLE FOUNDATION INSTALLATION — PROJECT NO. 111-006
<br /> LRSA
<br /> Mr. Robert Nichols, Engineering, advised the Board that on June 27, 2011, quotes were received
<br /> and opened for the above referenced project. After reviewing those quotes, Mr. Nichols
<br /> recommended that the Board award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder
<br /> Herman and Goetz, in the amount of$2,400.00. After beginning the work, Herman and Goetz
<br /> realized that due to the site conditions and complexity they would be unable to finish the project
<br /> and fulfill the terms of the job. Mr. Littrell stated that Herman and Goetz did not have the proper
<br /> equipment needed to complete the job, and they had no casings to keep four holes open. He
<br /> noted the location was a public safety concern with a high volume of traffic. It was considered a
<br /> pedestrian and traffic hazard. Mr. Littrell stated the contract specifications were clear that the
<br /> ..........
<br /> project needed to start on a certain immediate date. Mr. Gilot added that a professor from Notre
<br /> Dame had been injured at the site, and they needed to make sure nobody else got injured. He
<br /> stated that the owners of Innovation Park were worried about traffic safety in and out of their
<br /> facility. Mr. Nichols stated in his letter that the second lowest bidder, Pemberton Davis Electric,
<br /> Inc. informed Mr. Nichols that they were not able to complete the project in the specified time
<br /> frame due to another job they had since taken on. Therefore, Mr. Nichols requested the Board
<br /> rescind the award to Herman and Goetz, and ratify the award of the project to the third lowest
<br /> bidder, Michiana Contracting, 7843 Lilac Rd., Plymouth, Indiana, 46563, in the amount of
<br /> $7,960.00. Upon a motion by Mr. Gilot, seconded by Mr. Littrell and carried, the quote award
<br />
|