HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 02 10 Informational B Irrigation at Moss Park
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM B
CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL X
PUBLIC HEARING
REGULAR
02 110 I 03
Meeting
MGR. .~EPT (2(y
Authorization
REQUEST: The Parks and Recreation Department would like to inform the City Commission of
the status of irrigation at Moss Park.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this item is to clarify the irrigation status of the irrigation at Moss
Park.
CONSIDERATION:
. On January 27,2003, The City Commission discussed options for additional park
screening at Moss Park that is not budgeted and would require new appropriation.
. Commission McLeod asked staff to bring back the status of the irrigation.
. There is irrigation at Moss Park for a Hedge Row Planting.
. The cost of$ 12.00 per lineal Ft. is only for the hedge material.
FUNDING:
NI A. Informational.
RECOMMENDATION: NI A Informational.
1
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment # 1
SRI Neighborhood Property Screening Study.
COMMISSION ACTION:
2
~ . .
ATTACHMENT #1
. ,
Planning and Architecture Inc
'iI5=
~ Ranaldi
17 Jan 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].
The prices in the table of our 30 April 0] letter, are reasonable and do not need to be adjusted to meet
current prices. If any thing they are conservative and likely 5 to ] 0 % high.
The only clarification we would like to add is that the wood stockade fence (item 3 in the table) is high at
$ ] 5 per foot, and can be reduced to $] 0 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 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 descriDtion cost jlf wall'!A" wall"B"
1 4' to 5' wax myrtle hedge $ 12.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 7,440.00
2 6' hioh chain link fence with planted vines $ 13.00 $ 5,200.00 $ 8,060.00
:3 6' hioh wood stockade fence $ 15.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 9,300.00
4 6' hioh wood shadow box fence $ 25.00 $ 10,000.00 $15,500.00
5 6' hioh concrete block and stucco wall $ 65.00 $ 26,000.00 $40,300.00
6 6' hioh SDlit 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
Conclusion:
As you can see the cost for screening runs from a low of $ ] 2 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
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 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 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 information or assistance you may need.
Regards
Wm E. Stanner NCARB
President
1 4 year old 5' high wax myrtle hedge (trimmed)
2 4 year old 5' high wax myrtle hedge (untrimmed)
g".~'..;,~,,~.,...: :." ~
:\' ;
. ., .,1 " ~
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
.~~.....;:..:,8{
8 5' high split face decorative concrete block wall
9 6' high brick wail
/.//
/
,-/
<,/\
)
<,'
NORT~
MOSS PARK SITE PLAN ~
WALL OPTION 'A' INCLUDES THE 125' AND 215' LEG FOR APPROXIMATEL'( 400 LF
WALL OPTION '6' INCLUDES ALL THREE LEGS FOR APPROXIMATEL'( 1720 LF
f
L,~
[--k ~ -=--
) \~~)
./ ['
~- /
/
/
//j:lf
/
,///-
/,,/