HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 06 11 Regular C Additional Park Screening at Moss Park
COMMISSION AGENDA
CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL
ITEM C
PUBLIC HEARING
REGULAR
June 11. 2001
Meeting
MGR. IDEPT
Authorization
REQUEST: The Parks and Recreation Department is requesting the City Commission to
consider options for additional park screening at Moss Park that is not budgeted
and would require new appropriation.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this item is to review seven (7) options for additional park
screening at Moss Park, and receive direction from the City Commission.
CONSIDERATIONS:
. The City of Winter Springs has expended for Moss Park from the Park Improvement
Program, $ 409,441.00.
. Moss Park is used extensively by the public.
. The Park currently has 3-gallon size Walters Viburnum hedge material for screening.
. The neighbors screening on their property is of various types and styles, and the neighbors
have requested that the city provide better screening.
. SRI has completed a screening study of the park with several options with estimated costs.
FUNDING:
Additional screening is not budgeted and would require from $ 4,800 to 55,800 depending on the
option selected, from General Fund Reserves.
x
.G~
1
RECOMMENDATION:
The Parks and Recreation Department recommends that if the City Commission desires to
improve screening with a consistent appearance to better provide a site and sound buffer that the
best selection is a 6 feet high structural brick wall at a cost of $ 36,000 from General Fund
Reserves.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:
May 15,2001
June 2001
July, 2001
Estimated Completion
Begin preparing take off for screening.
Begin preparing bid documents or obtain price quotes.
A ward contract.
August-September, 2001.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment # 1
SRI Moss Park Neighboring Property Screening Study.
COMMISSION ACTION:
2
ATTACHMENT If. 1
.
srI
30 Apr 01
Chuck Pula; Director
Park and Recreation Department
City of Winter Springs '
1000 East SR 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
Re: Moss Park
Neig~boring Pn?perty Screening Study,
Chuck.
Pursuant to our recent conversations and a req~est from the City Gommission to look at the options to '
enhance the appearance of the, above referenced project, please ac'cept this brief analysis for your,
, . '- .' .
, yonsideration. " ,
Objective:
, ,
, ,. Provide some fo':fl1 of screening between the park and theadjoinffig ne!ghborhood to the north and
west. .This screening will serVe to visually dress up the park by replacing a variety of existing .
fencing with a-consistent appearance as well as provide those neighbors 'a site and sound buffer
from the. park activities: ,.'
, I
, Options:
. ,,'
There'are several alternatives to accomplish this goal and the following chart shows their
representative .cost:per lineal foot: Thewal\." An and wali "B" column shows what the total cost
. would be for 400 feet and 620 feet respectively for the wall as shown on the attached site plait,
sketch. ' . - - '
, '
option description cost Ilf wall':A" walllB"
, .
.' .,' $ 12.00 $ 4,800~00 $ 7,440.00
1 4' to 5' wax mvrtle'hedge
2 6' high chain link fence with planted .vines $ 13.00 $. 5,200.00 $ 8,060.00
3 6' high wood stockade fence .- $ 15.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 9,300.00
4 6' high wood shadow box fence $ 25.00 $ 10,00'0.00 $15,500.00,
5 6' high concrete block and stuCco wall . $ 65.00 $ 26,000.00 $40,300.00:
6 6' hiah split face'decorative concrete block wall $75.00 ' $ 30.000.00 $46,500.00
7 6' high structural brick wall' $ 90.00 ' $ 36~00O.00' $55,800.00
. ,
Starmer Ranaldi Planning arid Architecture. Inc. AA-002984
890 Northern Way Suiie &1 Winter Springs, Florida 32708' Phone 407 977 J 080, Fax 407'977 10 19
- )nfo@sriarch.com .
Conclusion:
As you can see the cost for screening runs from a low of$ 12 to a high of$ 90 per lineal foot and
each alternative has it's pros and cons.
In analyzing which is the most appropriate alternative consideration must be given to initial cost,
maintenance costs, and whether the objective is primarily aesthetic improvement or sight and sound
improvement.
The solution providing the best maintenance cost, best aesthetic improvement, and excellent sight
and sound improvement is (no.7) the brick wall, however it is the most expensive and may be cost
prohibitive.
The least expensive solution (no.1) the wax myrtle hedge will provide excellent aesthetic
improvement, good sight and sound improvement, reasonable maintenance costs, but will take a
minimum of two years to establish sufficient growth to adequately provide the screening desired.
In closing there are a couple oflogistical issues that would need to be resolved prior to making the
screening improvement, namely who will have maintenance responsibility, and will the screen be
installed on City property or private property. Ifinstalled on private property there may be
additional costs involved such as demolition and removal of existing fencing, as well as preparation
of some form of agreement or easements to construct the new screening.
We trust this brief analysis is of value to you in making an informed decision and we would be
hap yto provide any addition information or assistance you may need,
R~\rds
WI S
Presi nt
~
NORT>l
~
MOSS PARK SITE PLAN
WALL OPTION 'A' INCLUDES THE 12~' AND 21~o LEc:. FOR APPROXIMATELY 400 LF
WALL OPTION '13' INCLUDES ALL THREE LE6S FOR APPROXIMATELY 020 LF
I
L.,~
-
L
220'
/'
<'"
./
,/,'