Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session Agenda Packet 03-05-2018 STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO March 5, 2018 6:30 p.m. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Sara Spaulding, Public Information Officer 303-235-2877 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. Citizen Comment on Agenda Items 1. Staff Report(s) 2. Anderson Park Baseball Field Relocation Options 3. Tree Grant Program 4. Landscape Inspection Program Update 5. Elected Officials’ Report(s) ADJOURNMENT Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: March 5, 2018 SUBJECT: Anderson Park Baseball Field Relocation Options Issue: The Investing 4 the Future funded Anderson Park Renovation and Master Plan was developed in 2017. Based on that Master Plan, the current regulation size, grass infield, lighted baseball diamond will be removed from Anderson Park. Background: City Council requested that information on alternative relocation options and the costs associated with those options, including lights, be researched and presented for discussion. Field Specifications/Size Requirements: Baseball field: • 3.8 to 4 acres of land (does not include acreage for additional amenities such as parking) o Regulation or full size fields require 400’ x 400’ of land • Backstop and Outfield fence (375 Feet to fence) • Warning Track • 90 foot baseline • Grass Infield • Pitcher’s mound Age group served: 14 years through adult Current Anderson Park user groups: Wheat Ridge High School freshman baseball team, Metro Wide Men’s Baseball League Softball field: • 2.5 acres • Backstop and Outfield fence (260-280 to fence) • Skinned or dirt infield • Baselines lengths are moved depending on age groups • Starting at 50 up to 90 ft. Age group served: 8 years through adult Current Anderson Park user groups: WR Girls Softball, WR Boys Baseball, Adult Softball leagues Anderson Park Baseball Field Relocation Options March 5, 2018 Page 2 Differences between baseball and softball field requirements: • Pitcher’s mound • Size of field • Grass versus skinned infield • Ages served • Base lengths Search Methodology/Criteria: Vacant parcels, both private and city owned of 4 acres or larger within the City were researched by Community Development staff using the city GIS program. This survey included current parkland, open space and parks with existing fields with the potential to be expanded in size, as well as other vacant land parcels. Criteria included the following: • 4 acres or larger • Not a site of impending redevelopment such as Clear Creek Crossing • Vacant sites, or portions of the site which are vacant or underutilized • Potentially accessible from a public street • Are not use restricted by Open Space Resolution o Resolution requires land be used only for Open Space, not developed parks • Existing parks to determine if softball fields could be converted to regulation size fields. Results: • 5 Parcels of 4 acres or larger that met the above criteria o 4 private property • 2 residential lots • 2 commercial parcels o 1 existing park • Fruitdale Park (49th and Miller) – South end o No acquisition restrictions o Master Plan for park created through neighborhood process and adoption • No existing park fields have the space to be converted into a regulation size baseball field o For example there is not enough room to expand the field at Creekside Park/Manwaring Field into the parking lot area o Anderson Park space along W. 44th is approximately 100 feet too narrow. Cost: Construction: Basic regulation-size baseball field estimate $400,000 - $450,000. Lighting: 2018 MUSCO Lighting Estimate $285,000 - $325,000 Estimated Total Cost Range (without land purchase): $685,000 - $775,000 The estimated construction costs are to build a basic regulation-size baseball field with a small allowance for grading, standard fencing and backstop, dugouts, warning track, concrete for Anderson Park Baseball Field Relocation Options March 5, 2018 Page 3 bleacher seating, and simple bullpen areas in an expanded foul ball area near dugouts, scoreboard, and standard turf grass system (in other words, does not use a sand-based artificial turf system). This assumes the field is built as a standalone project. Potential costly variables not included in the cost: • Land purchase • Water tap fees • Retaining walls • Companion parking lot. • A sand-based/sub-drained infield • Scorer's booth • Stadium-style seating/bleachers City Council Direction: Staff is seeking City Council direction on the following options: 1) Gather additional information regarding private properties to include seller interest and cost 2) Hold neighborhood meeting on Fruitdale Park to gather input on location of ballfield with lights 3) No Action Attachments: 1. Baseball field photo 2. Softball field photo 3. Fruitdale Park map Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: March 5, 2018 SUBJECT: Forestry Program Overview/Tree Grant Program City Council requested information on providing a tree grant program to the residents of Wheat Ridge. As part of the development of a Tree Grant program, staff has identified decision points for Council direction to define the parameters of the program. Presentation of the grant proposal is an opportunity to provide both an overview of the existing Forestry Program and additional background regarding the existing urban tree canopy. The attached PowerPoint presentation is an overview of the Forestry and Horticulture Sections of the Park Maintenance Division and includes: 1) Historical and Current Staffing levels 2) Scope of work – Parks and ROW Trees 3) Duties and tasks of the Forestry and Horticulture sections 4) Historical and Current programs offered 5) Tree needs in parks and ROW 6) Tree Grant Program Tasks 7) Cost Examples 8) Decision points for City Council 9) Direction for staff Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. Attachment: Powerpoint Managing the Urban Canopy Forestry and Horticulture - 2018 Staffing and Program History 2002 Staffing –7 Full Time Employees (1) City Forester (1) Forestry Technician (1) Forestry Assistant (1) Forestry Assistant (1) Horticulture Technician (1) Horticulture Assistant (1) Horticulture Assistant 2002/2003 -5 Full Time Employees Laid Off Current Staffing 2018 Staffing levels (1) Forestry Technician (1) Forestry Assistant (1) Horticulture Technician(added back 2012) Existing Open Space Supervisor expanded duties in 2004 to supervise both Open Space and the Forestry and Horticulture Sections (previously supervised by City Forester) 2018 Scope of Work Forestry (2) Full time Employees, (1-2 seasonals depending on availability in labor market) 8,000 trees in the City's tree inventory Located in Parks and Right of Ways Includes alleys, streetscape and traffic calming islands The above inventoried tree numbers do not include trees located in Open Space/Greenbelt or Lena Gulch drainage Tasks for Managing and Maintaining Trees Tree inventory –tracking of individual tree locations, species, condition and heath records Interfacing with residents on trees located in ROW or in front of businesses In-house removals, pruning and planting mulching wrapping watering Forestry Tasks continued Integrated Pest Management Spraying/tree treatment for insect and disease Insect and disease detection includes scouting and trapping Including Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Contract management for safety inspections, removal and pruning and planting Forestry Tasks continued Purchasing Christmas Tree drop off (recycling and chipping) Education and Outreach Development Review –Community Development Herbicide application, certification, record tracking Snow removal team for parks and facilities On-call duties Storm response Wind, hail and snow events average 1-2 per year since 2009 Program and Service Impacts of Employee layoffs and downsizing Eliminated proactive tree programs –No funding, No staff capacity to manage or administer Cost sharing on tree planting with private property owners Cost sharing or “loan” programs for dead tree removal Arborist services and assessments on private property Code Enforcement for hazardous trees and or landscaping on private property Eliminated citizen Arborist Board Current Forestry Programs Happiness Gardens –120 plots TLC Team tree assessments –Police Department Development Review –Community Development Landscape plans Project review –Public Works Tree assessments for interference with construction projects Current programs continued Tree Company licensing Tree City USA Memorial Trees in parks Volunteer projects – IES –Wheat Ridge High School, scout groups Wood Recycling mulch and limited firewood – free program for residents Horticulture Scope of Work and Tasks Maintain 102 annual displays, (71 flower beds and 31 containers) –109 perennial beds and 108 shrub beds Located in parks, streetscape, traffic calming islands and right of way Annual design/redesign of beds Material purchasing/quantities of species, locations, pick up Planting Seasonal weeding/dead heading Mulching Watering Herbicide application, certification, record tracking Snow removal On-call response duties Increase in Scope of Work since 2002 layoffs Addition of 4 parks –Founders’, Hopper Hollow, Creekside and Discovery 38th Avenue Streetscape –Sheridan to Harlan 38th Avenue Pop Up Café planters and street planters ROW Streetscape at TOD site and Tabor Street 32nd Avenue Dudley to Yarrow planting beds –6 unirrigated (hand watered) Kipling and I-70 –Landscaped entry and exit ramps 50th Avenue Median at Target Staff Efficiencies and Crossover As projects and work loads allow, staff in Forestry Horticulture, Parks and Open Space Sections crossover and support projects and workloads of other sections Tree Needs in Parks and ROW 5 year maintenance plan being developed with costs to include: Removals 30 trees per year or 150 trees in 5 in years Rotational pruning -varied cost depending on size of tree 1600 trees touched annually would rotate through 8,000 ROW and Park trees every 5 years Budgeting to inspect the largest trees from an aerial lift, to be aware of the actual condition of the largest 300 plus trees. Currently inspect 30-40 annually. IPM program to trap/detect and treat insect and disease issues in City trees. Tree Needs in Parks and ROW continued Pruning Hazardous Large Tree inspections –limited to 36 Per year with staff capacity Additional Forestry Assistant position request for 2018, will request again in 2019 Current contractual annual budget for Forestry services is $180,000 Budget request based on staff capacity to administer contractual work Tree Needs in Parks and ROW Emerald Ash Borer Plan/Program development –protection, removals, biomass and debris disposal and replant Treating high quality City Ash trees that are an asset. This would be done rotating intervals on an average of every 3 years - depending on chemical and type of treatment used. Removing a select number of Ash trees annually Replanting trees where Ash are lost or removed Tree Grant Program Tasks Identify tasks/costs required to administer program Request for Proposal – Review contract writing and contract monitoring Resident Application –receipt, review and evaluation Program set up -lottery , first come first served, need based –income qualification level Tree Assessment Coordination of work with homeowner Contract signed by homeowner (liability) Monitoring of work Acceptance of work Invoice paid or homeowner reimbursed Cost – Examples -$200,000 budget Contract for vendor –Funds for coordination of assessments and removal Tree removal cost range –$3,500 -$5,500 per tree Approximately 36 trees removed at $5,500 each = $200,000 Approximately 50 trees removed at $4,000 each = $200,000 Approximately 111 trees pruned at $1,800 each = $200,000 Cost Range Variables Cost range dependent on: Size of tree Condition of tree Location in yard Stump removal Backyard, front yard, availability of access, neighbor issues City Council Decision Points Program designed by: Amount of funding Additional funding will be required for administration of program beyond the $200,000 or included in the funding amount appropriated for the grant Geographic area Number of trees to be removed Limited to removal or include pruning One year program –trial program or multiple year program Cost share Income level qualification First come first serve or by tree condition based on assessment Discussion/Questions Memorandum TO: City Council and Mayor THROUGH: Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner DATE: February 23, 2018 (for March 5, 2018 study session) SUBJECT: Landscape Inspection Pilot Program The intent of this memorandum is to update City Council regarding the process and results of a landscape inspection pilot program conducted by the Community Development Department last summer. If there is a desire to continue the program in 2018, there will be a need for a budget supplemental. Purpose of the Program The City Council has identified the physical appearance of the City to be a priority. The primary tool used to achieve this is through code enforcement inspection efforts. One of the identified strategies to maintain high quality community aesthetics in the City is to create a more proactive program for the enforcement of landscaping violations, where required landscaping has died or been removed. Background One of the integral components of the building permit plan review function for multi-family, commercial and large single-family subdivision projects is review of a landscape plan. The plan is reviewed for compliance with the landscaping requirements detailed in the City Code. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for new structures, a landscape inspection is required to verify conformance with the approved plan. However once this final inspection occurs, continued maintenance of a property’s landscaping may not occur or plant materials die and are not replaced. Section 26-502.G of the City Code requires perpetual maintenance of landscaping approved through the building permit and development processes. Process In the summer and fall of 2017, the Community Development planning division created and managed a pilot program for proactive enforcement of landscape plans for existing properties in the City. A temporary intern was hired and was employed from June through mid-November to implement the program. The following is a general summary of steps performed by the intern to assess landscaping and address compliance issues: 2 • A list of properties to inspect was developed by planning staff and provided to the intern. This list included properties that were developed within the last several years. • The originally approved building permits and landscape plans were located for each property in the City’s archive files. • Our intern visited each site and documented the existing landscaping through photographs, maps, and written notes. Items noted included dead or missing plant materials, exposed irrigation pipes and inadequate mulch in planting beds. • For all properties, a follow-up letter was prepared and sent explaining the purpose of the program and notifying the property owner that an inspection had been performed. The findings were documented in the letter and a copy of the original landscape plan. Letters were provided to both compliant and non- compliant properties, and these template letters are attached for reference. (Exhibit 1, Template letters) • The property points of contact were given two weeks to respond back upon receipt of the letter. Those not responding in the specified timeframe were sent follow-up letters. • A subsequent site visit occurred with the property owner (or with their representative or landscaper) to discuss the findings and trouble shoot issues that staff may not have been aware of (maintenance problems, inappropriate species, etc.). • Staff then worked with the property owner and/or landscaper to establish a schedule for remedy of the issues identified. This could include replacing plant species, modifying irrigation, or redesigning landscape plans among other remedies. • Once the improvements were completed, a letter of compliance was provided. It is important to note, that every property and the processes varied slightly with variables such as how quickly they would respond to us, who we were working with (property owner or business manager), the extent of property issues, etc. As the program continued into the fall, some property owners expressed concern for end-of-year maintenance budgets, and end of planting season constraints. A landscaping restoration agreement was created and provided to those who requested to defer until June 1, 2018 to finish their improvements. Attached is an example of the correspondence provided to Chase Bank at 7405 W. 38th Avenue regarding their landscaping. This interaction was considered a success due to their timely response and willingness to work with staff on not only replacement of plant materials, but to address other items on the site. (Exhibit 2, Chase correspondence) Program Results A total of 45 sites were inspected during the 2017 pilot program. As shown in the map below the sites were spread throughout the City. Each site is noted by a red pinpoint. 3 The following are statistics based on the pilot program. • A total of 45 sites were visited, and 35 property owners responded to initial correspondence (a 77% response rate). • Twelve of the sites were brought into full compliance. • Eight of the property owners have done some initial work and executed the Landscape Restoration Agreement which postpones a compliance date until June 1, 2018. • Eleven of the property owners are still in correspondence with staff about next steps. • Ten of the property owners did not respond and need to be contacted again this spring. • Two of the property owners objected to additional investment in their property. • Other than the intern’s wages, there was minimal monetary investment on the part of the City as resources were already on hand (City Hall computer station, city vehicle, office supplies, etc.). • Most of the property owners agreed that quality landscaping is vital to maintain a positive image of the city and were willing to work with us. 2018 Program If there is a desire to continue the program in 2018, there will be a need to assess budget and staffing resources. As noted above the Department will need to hire an intern to start in May 2018. The cost of the program last year was $6240, which allowed us to pay an intern for part-time work for 25 hours per week for five months. 4 Request for City Council Direction If City Council wishes to continue this landscape inspection program, a budget supplemental will be needed. To optimize the program, staff recommends beginning the inspection program in late spring and continuing through early fall at the end of the ideal planting season. A budget supplemental of $10,000 would be necessary and could be brought for City Council action on the March 26 agenda.