HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 05 14 Regular G Additional Park Screening
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM G
CONSENT
INFORMA TIONAL
PUBLIC HEARING
REGULAR , X
Mav 14,2001
Meeting
r --....""'-
MGR. " IDEPT
Authorization
C-\?
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.
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
ATTACHNENT it 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
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 form 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.
option description cost / If wall "A" wall"B"
1 4' to 5' wax myrtle hedge $ 12.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 7,440.00
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 $ 1 0,000.00 $15,500.00
5 6' high concrete block and stucco wall $ 65.00 $ 26,000.00 $40,300.00
6 6' high split face decorative concrete block wall $ 75.00 $ 30,000.00 $46,500.00
7 6' high structural brick wall $ 90.00 $ 36,000.00 $55,800.00
Stanner Ranaldi Planning and Archilecture Inc. AA-002984
890 Northern Way Suite E-l Winter Springs. Florida 32708 Phone 407 977 1080 Fax 407 977 1019
info@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
~~~w .
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 of logistical 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. 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 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
happy to provide any addition information or assistance you may need.
Regards ,I
)l)~ler~
PresIdent
MOSS PARK SITE PLAN ~
NORTH
WALL OFTION 'A" INCLUDES THE 12:;' AND 21:;' LEG FOR APPROXIMATELY 400 LF
WALL OPTION 'e' INCLUDES ALL THREE LEGS FOR AFPROXIMATEL Y 020 LF
./
/
\
)