Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 05 27 Regular F Moss Park Wall 052703 Regular Agenda Item "F" Moss Park Wall Page 1 of2 COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM F Consent Informational Public Hearing Regular X May 27, 2003 Meeting Mgr. jJ- / Dept. Authorization REQUEST: Commissioner Edward Martinez, Jr. requesting that the April 28, 2003 Regular Agenda Item "E" regarding the wall for Moss Park to be reconsidered for approval. PURPOSE: This Agenda Item is needed for the Commission's reconsideration of the above referenced item. CONSIDERATIONS: On April 28, 2003 the Commission voted 3-2 against a supplemental appropriation to construct a wall at Moss Park as presented in Regular Agenda Item "E" attached hereto. Commissioner Martinez was on the prevailing side and desires to have the matter placed on the May 27,2003 Agenda for reconsideration In the Agenda Item staff recommended approval of 400-linear feet of a 6-foot high brick wall at an estimated cost of $36,000. This continues to be staffs recommended alternative if the Commission decides to build a wall. FUNDING: Funding for this Agenda Item is in the Parks Land Acquisition and Improvements Fund. The current balance in the Park Land Acquisition and Improvements Fund is $142,000. Cost related to Consent Agenda "A" and this Agenda item will reduce the fund to $59,331 as follows: Current Fund Balance Consent Agenda item "A" Regular Agenda item "F" $141,378 [ 46,669] r 36.0001 $ 58,709 052703 Regular Agenda Item "F" Moss Park Wall Page 2 of2 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Commission reconsider approval of the April 28, 2003 Regular Agenda Item "E" at a cost of $36,000. ATTACHMENTS: April 28, 2003 Regular Agenda Item "E". COMMISSION ACTION: COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM E CONSENT , - INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING REGULAR X 04/28/03 Meeting MGR. Autho /DEPT (!.',\? REQUEST: The Parks and Recreation Department is requesting the City Commission to consider again options for additional park screening at Moss Park that are not budgeted and would require new appropriation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this item is to review options for additional park screening at Moss Park, and receive direction from the City Commission. CONSIDERATIONS: . The City Commission discussed additional park screening at the June 11,2001, City Commission Meeting. The motion was to consider it at budget time. This was done and funds were not provided. . The City Commission discussed Park Screening at the January 27,2003 meeting and directed staff to come back with the status of irrigation at the park. /",.,." At the City Commission meeting on February 10, 2003, staff informed the Commission that .~ irrigation is present and the cost for hedge material would be $ 12.00 per lineal ft. No action was taken. . The City of Winter Springs has expended for Moss Park from the Park Improvement Program, $ 409,441.00, ,~ A 3-gallon size Viburnum Hedge 400 ft. long was planted, However, due to the plants size and close proximity to the playground & basketball court it did not survive. . Moss Park is used extensively by the public and is very attractive, . The neighbors screening on their property is of various types and styles that boarder the park and distract from its appearance. . SRI has completed a screening study of the park with several options with estimated costs, The cost of a 6ft. high vinyl or PVC shadow box fence would be $ 27.00 per ft. or $ 10,800 per wall "A" or $ 16,740 for wall "B'~. . 1 FUNDING: Additional screening is not budgeted and would require from $ 4,800 to 55,800 depending on the option selected, from the Land Acquisition & Park Improvements Funds, 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 would hold up under park usage, the best selection is a 6 feet high structural brick wall option / A" at a cost of $ 36,000 from the Land Acquisition and Park hnprovernent Fund. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: May, 2003 June, 2003 Aug., 2003 Sept, 2003 Begin preparing take off for screening. Begin preparing bid documents or obtain price quotes, Award contract. Estimated Completion. ATTACHMENTS: Attaclunent # 1 SRI Moss Park Neighboring Property Screening Study. COMMISSION ACTION: 2 ATTACHMENT #1 Planning and Architecture Inc -. .... ~ Ranaldi l7Jan 03 Chuck Pula, Director Park and Recreation Department City of Winter Springs 1000 East SR 434 Winter Springs, Florida 32708 Re: Moss Park Neighboring Property Screening Study Chuck Pursuant to your recent request to review the costs offencing for the above referenced project please accept this letter as an update to our letter to you dated 30 April 0 I. The prices in the table of our 30 April 01 letter, are reasonable and do not need to be adjusted to meet qJrrent prices. If any thing they are conservative and likely 5 to 10 % high. The only clarification we would like to add is that the wood stockade fence (item 3 in the table) is high at $15 per foot, and can be reduced to $10 per foot, and the shadow box fence (item 4 in the table) is high at $ 25 per foot and should be reduced to $ 15 per foot. Also we included a vinyl or PVC shadow box fence in our pictures but did not provide a price, and for your information this type fencing can be installed for approximately $ 27 per foot. We trust this brief analysis is of value to you in making an informed decision and would be happy to provide any addition information or assistance you may need. 890 Northern Way Suite E 1 ph 407 977 1080 fx 407 977 1019 Winter Springs, Florida 32708 email info@sriarch.com AA-002984 = 30 Apr 01 Chuck Pula, Director Park and Recreation Department City ofWuiter Springs 1000 East SR 434 Wmter Springs, Florida 32708 Re: Moss Park Neighboring Property Screening Study Chuck Pursuant to our recent conversations and a request from the City Commission to look at the options to enhance the appearance of the above referenced project. please accept this brief analysis for your consideration, Objective: Provide some fonn of screening between the park and the adjoining neighborhood 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. Options: There are several alternatives to accomplish this goal and the following chart shows their representative cost per lineal foot. The wall "A" and wall "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 plan sketch, o tion descri tion 7 cost Ilf wall 'W' wa""S" $ 12.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 7,440.00 $ 13.00 $ 5,200.00 $ 8,060.00 $ 15.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 9,300.00 $ 25.00 $ 10,000.00 $15,500.00 $ 65.00 $ 26,000.00 $40,300.00 $ 75.00 $ 30,000.00 $46,500.00 $ 90.00 $ 36,000.00 $55,800,00 Condusion: As you can see the cost for screening runs from a low of$ 12 to a high of$ 90 per lineaJ foot and each alternative bas 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 iniprovement. The solution providing the best maintenance cost, best aesthetic improvement, and excellent sight and sound improvement is (nC? 7) the brick wall, however it is the most expensive and may be cost prohibitive. The least expensive solution (no.]) the wax: myrtle hedge will provide ex~ent 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 respoDSlbility, and will the screen be installed on City property or private property, If installed on private property there may be additional costs involved such as demolition and removal of existing fencing, as well as preparation of some fonn 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 happy to provide any addition infonnation or assistance you may need. Regards Wm E. Starmer NCARB President 1 4 year old 5' high wax myrtle hedge (trimmed) 2 4 year old 5' high wax myrtle hedge (untrimmed) :.:,.".".'....~...... -: . },..:." '.~:;'{ > 3 4 year old 5' high wax myrtle hedge (trimmed) 4 4 year old 5' high wax myrtle hedge (untrimmed) 5 6' high wood shadow box fence painted 6 6' high vinyl shadow box fence 7 6' high concrete block and stucco wall .~ ~ . ""-'~,.~'. f:\~ 8 5' high split face decorative concrete block wall , U:':'~' :~{,':,';:5:'\ ;::;';"7"7.', '" ':,:-;:,~~:-7,::-:~: .,.. ,.,;,!;-,:;,;,;\~~;~;;~~i~il-~ .~ - .. ~""~':":~.' ~~~'i~~:;~~~!4~~~it.~;:~/,,'";::',.:.. ~ -.'. ,. 9 6' high brick wall r'-'-'~ I '~ -'--'-'", ; ;' .- _7":" NORTW ~ MOSS PARK SITE PLAN WALL OPTION 'A' INCLUDEe Ti-lE 12:" AND 21:" LEGI FOR APPROXIMATELY 4/Zl/Zl LF WALL OPTION '6' INCLUDEe ALL T"REE LEGIS, FOR APPROXIMATEL Y b2/Zl LF - _0- . .... __..11" '\ '\ \, 220' ---~-'''''~'j , ....--- / ' / / ,JI" " .,..,.,-, /' .......... ..- ~;........ ...