Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTwin Creeks District Park and Educational Campus Master Plan - 5-3-2005, Item 9a 4 Orange County x � Environment &r Resource Conservation 306 A Revere Road/PO Box 8181 Hillsborough,NC 27275 Phone: (919) 245-2590, Fax: (919) 644 3351 //i /wro.,�� Vii'n/�i/ia •rir MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Commissioners John Link, County Manager FROM: David Stancil,Environment and Resource Conservation Director DATE: April 28,2005 RE: Twin Creeks Follow-Up Items for May 3'd Discussion On April 14`x',the Board received the report of the 6-member Twin Creeks Work Group, and asked that adoption of the master plan be placed on the May 3"i agenda,along with information on a number of requested follow-up matters.This memorandum serves to address these items,which were discussed by the staff project team and the Manager 1. Information on Discussions with Piedmont EMC Regarding the Possible BMX Bicycle Course in the PEMC Easement At the April 14`x'worksession,the Work Group report included a suggestion for the Board's consideration for location of a future BMX bicycle course in the PEMC high-transmission powerline easement that transects the property from west to east.The proposed master plan reflects a general outline of a possible course. The location of this course is technically within the educational campus portion of the property, as per the original Preliminary Concept Plan However,it is in an area where little activity is possible by an entity in terms of built facilities. Generally, some facilities such as parking lots and other non-structural components have been permitted from time to time to occur within such easements, with the understanding that the power company reserves the right to take measures necessary for upkeep or emergency access and construction (possibly resulting in the loss of the"facility'within the easement) as needed 5 A request for a meeting to discuss the possibility of the course within the easement has been made,but had not yet occurred at the time of this writing.Any subsequent conversation will be conveyed at the meeting on May 3" 2. Potential Use of Soccer Superfund for Phase I of Park In previous meetings, the Board has briefly discussed the possibility of using Soccer Superfund monies to help augment funding for Phase I of Twin Creeks Park. As noted in December, estimates prepared by a professional construction cost estimating firm in July 2004 reflected a projected cost for Phase I of the park at $1,645,000. These estimates are now 9 months old, and while they did reflect much of the increase in construction costs that began occurring in early 2004, it may be reasonable to add 10%to the estimates—yielding a projected cost of$1.8 million. The 2001 Parks and Open Space Bond allocated $1,200,000 million for Phase I of Twin Creeks Park. There is $1,025,000 remaining in the Soccer Superfund (including some funds projected to come on line in FY 2005-06). As such, the projected funding shortfall to build Phase I is approximately$600,000. The proposed Phase I of the park would include the meadow area, a picnic shelter, trails, 2 lighted full-size soccer fields, and related parking areas and entry road segments. Projected soccer field-related costs for Phase I are likely in the range of $500-650,000, There is another project that has been funded with the Soccer Superfund -- the West Ten Soccer Center on West Ten Road in western Orange County. To date, approximately $975,000 has been appropriated toward the West Ten Soccer Center (this includes funding for land acquisition). The funds expended to date have provided for the land and pre-grading of the Soccer Center,which as designed would include 5 full-size fields and a sixth practice field. With this investment in place,additional funds at West Ten could yield soccer fields that could be constructed in the next few years. A recent cost estimate from the project designers (Corley, Redfoot and Zack) has indicated that two of the soccer fields at West Ten could be constructed and placed in operation for an additional$375,000. However,funding may also be desirable at Twin Creeks,which would be the first County built soccer fields in southern Orange County Splitting the remaining funds between the two projects ($375,000 toward West Ten, $650,000 toward Twin Creeks) would enable two fields at each location to be built and become available for use in subsequent years. 3. Phasing Plan for the Park 1 Carrboro CUP Application As shown in the December 2004 materials,Twin Creeks Park will be a multi-phase facility,which has been acknowledged and reflected by each group that has looked at the design of the site. Staff's proposal for Phase I of the park is designed to get "the most bang for the buck" in terms of building the facilities that are closest to 6 the park entry to minimize infrastructure costs for Phase I given the limited funds available.. The proposed first phase of the park would build a segment of the "Twin Creeks Parkway"(the working name for the entry road from Old 86 into the park) along the existing old farm road and the southern boundary of the site. This would include the entry vista and meadow along Old 86, which would be retained in a largely-natural state with a loop trail (which doubles as a measured walking trail of 1/3 mile) The parkway trail would continue west, past a proposed picnic shelter, and across Buckhorn Branch toward the southernmost two soccer fields of the playing field complex. Between Buckhorn Branch and the playing fields lies an area of mixed hardwood forest which would be retained, and a short loop trail of 1/5 mile would wind through this forested area The southern two soccer fields would be constructed as part of Phase I, and these would be lighted full-size soccer fields A picnic shelter is located near the fields and would be included in Phase I. Finally, a short segment of the park entry drive would be constructed, along with the southernmost parldng area(with approximately 108 spaces). As previously noted, to minimize infrastructure costs for Phase I, it is envisioned that the first phase of the park be constructed with a well and portable toilet facilities. Future phases would include many more facilities and restrooms, and at that time connection to OWASA water and sewer could be made. If funds permit,for economies of scale, staff would like to propose that pre-grading of the remaining playing field complex be completed in conjunction with Phase I (as was done at West Ten) The remainder of the park would be shown as "Future Phases." For purposes of cost estimation, staff identified in 2004 four possible phases to the park - but the exact nature of future phasing would be the subject of a later discussion when more is known about the as-built Phase I, and future construction options and funding opportunities. Regarding the CUP application to the Town of Carrboro, staff estimates that once a master plan has been adopted and authorization to prepare the CUP application received, the application can be completed in 7-9 months. The Cariboro CUP application process, as noted in previous reports, is quite detailed and intensive A few of the items that could be prepared without a master plan have been done, but most of the application materials hinge on the Master Plan. For Phase I of Twin Creeks Park, this will include construction level detail on some facilities and engineering studies for items such as stormwater design, building detail for the picnic shelter, and traffic impact analyses.Some of these materials can be prepared in-house by our landscape architect,but many will require contractual assistance from an engineering firm If the Master Plan is adopted in May and CUP application authorized, it may be possible to get an application to the Board for approval submittal by the end of calendar year 2005 or the beginning of 2006. 7 Town staff has indicated a projected review and approval process of approximately 12 months once the application is submitted. However, the new CHCCS High School #3 appears to have been subject to an expedited review and approval process of 8-9 months The Board may wish to consider asking the Town to expedite the application for Phase I of Twin Creeks, in order to allow for quicker construction of the facilities 4. Breakdown of Water/Sewer Costs Between Park and Educational Campus The County Engineer has estimated the costs of extending water and sewer to the Twin Creeks site in memoranda of January 2005 and September 2004.. In summary, the total cost for extending water (from Old 86) and sewer(from Lake Hogan Fauns or a future subdivision to the south) is around$1.0 million(today's dollars). The County Engineer estimates that the park will represent only a small portion of the demand on and the capacity of OWASA service (perhaps 10-15%,and then only when the park fully is built out). As noted above,Phase I of the park is proposed to be built with well service for water and portable wastewater systems,at a greatly reduced cost,enabling more of the available funds to go toward facilities.The more-intensive future phases of the park will include a variety of additional facilities and restrooms,and at that time the park would need to be connected to OWASA service, As such,it is anticipated that the initial need for OWASA service and extension on the site will come at the time of construction of Elementary School#10,currently projected to begin construction in FY 2007-08 (tentatively opening in Fall .2009). At a more comprehensive scale,a new work group collaborating on possible new construction standards for schools may be able to address the mechanism for incorporating water/sewer costs and cost shares into future school construction estimates_ 5. Staff Review of Recommendations Submitted by an Area Citizen Jay Bryan, an area resident and Chair of the County Planning Board, has submitted a number of comments on Twin Creeks. These were received by the Twin Creeks Work Group and forwarded as part of the Aprill4th worksession agenda. The Board asked staff to review and respond to the comments Many of the comments address suggestions regarding the details of the CUP application process, future programming or facilities, and operational considerations. Most would be the subject of future discussions and decisions by the Board and/or the Town of Carrboro as application review and approval entity. Staff's initial review of these comments is provided as Attachment 1 to this memo. 8 6. Proposed Staff Master Plan Modifications for Site Utility and Safety Staff has identified,over the past few months,some minor modifications to the Master Plan that address the utility of the site's facilities and the safety of park users. One of the proposed modifications carne up at discussion of the recent Twin Creeks Work Group,but because it was outside of the charge of the Work Group, this was not included in their report or proposed Master Plan map. Staff proposes to make the following changes to the Master Plan recommended by the Work Group: • As noted by the Work Group,the four tennis courts (Future Phases,near the baseball/softball fields)might function better(and offer tournament play possibilities)if grouped together rather than the current symmetrical 2-and-2 design. Sta FF agrees with this,and proposes to locate all four courts together at the location of the eastern-most set (please see proposed Master Plan Map 5-3-05). • It was noted that safety issues could exist with the lower parking lot proposed for Phase I,in that the lot is located across the park entry road from the playing fields. The proposed plan (5-3-05)would relocate the lot to the same side as the soccer fields. This would also serve to move the parking area further from Jones Creek • A park operation base was assumed as a given in previous designs and was not physically shown on the map.It may be possible for this activity to be located within the farmstead complex,but the eventual disposition of the farmstead buildings has not been determined and will involve structural assessment and historic building considerations. To provide for a location for the operation base,a site has been reflected on the 5-3-05 master planto the northeast of the playing fields. 7. Other Considerations • Lake Hogan Farm Road Extension:Most of this required Carrboro connector road would be built in conjunction with future schools construction. One segment would likely be required to be built in the second phase of Town Creeks Park. Preliminary discussions were held in 2003 with the Duke representative on the CHATPEC Work Group about the potential of the road traversing the boundary between County and Duke Forest land, and it appeared at that time that an arrangement of this type might be acceptable to Duke.Duke Forest is the adjoining landowner to the northeast, and the section of Duke Forest that is adjacent was recently cut over as part of forest management activity in 2004.The Board may wish to consider whether(and when) to more formally discuss this matter with Duke officials. • Jones Creek Greenway: Carrboro's land use plan shows a greenway along the.Jones Creek corridor,which cuts across the Twin Creeks site. 9 Construction of segments of this greenway would be part of future phases of the park. • Archaeological Site:The cultural and archaeological survey done for the site in 2002 identified a Archaic age rhyolite quarry site on a hill in the western part of the property(Future Phases/Possible Educational Facility or Park). Further investigation was recommended While no activity is planned for this part of the site (a smaller"bartering site"was identified near the proposed schools),the Board may wish to consider when and whether to pursue further archaeological study(perhaps in conjunction with the UNC Department of Archaeology). • Proposed Villages at Berkeley Subdivision:A proposed subdivision on land immediately south of the Twin Creeks property was submitted to Carrboro in 2003 as a concept plan. It is staff's understanding that the developer, MI Homes,has recently submitted a CUP application of their own for the site. The developers have met with staff to review plans,although not in the last several months. County staff propose to meet with Town staff soon to review any recent activity on this property and any proposed plan.. Of note is the fact that the Town staff and developer had previously suggested that the park and subdivision have a shared entrance road(a short portion of Twin Creeks Parkway from Old 86 to the subdivision roads,with the road diverging near the proposed picnic shelter in Phase I).Any additional infonnation received by the time of the meeting will be shared by staff. • Twin Creeks Park Operation and Maintenance Costs: Costs associated with operation and maintenance of Twin Creeks Park were reflected in the draft Recreation and Parks Strategic Management Plan reviewed by the Board earlier this year. 10 Staff Review of Comments from Area Citizen ("Jay Bryan—Comments on Twin Creeks") April 29,2005 Jay Bryan, a landowner near Twin Creeks has submitted a series of 19 comments on Twin Creeks. On April 14t, staff was asked to assess these comments and provide a response,. In general, these comments may be grouped into four categories: • Natural Resource Protection • Conditional Use Permit/Development Standards • Park Construction • Other The comments are addressed below,by category(and by Mr. Bryan's numbering scheme): Natural Resource Protection (1,2,3,7) 1.. The lands described are planned to be left in a largely natural state as per the Master Plan. At this time, pending further analysis,the rhyolite quarry area (the hilly portion of the site to the west along Old 86) is not proposed for any facilities beyond unpaved rustic trails in a possible future phase. While the County is very much an advocate of conservation easements as a preservation tool, staff feels that a conservation easement(which would involve the creation of a legal document, survey of the areas to be covered and possibly a subdivision of the property--as well as a third party to hold the easement and an interest in the land)would be cumbersome and not warranted, and that the lands in question will be protected as part of the park and the adopted Master Plan. 2. All trees of 18-inch caliper and greater were identified in the topographic survey conducted in 2002, Further, evaluation of species of significance on the property has been addressed through two different biological and botanical assessments, Staff expects that further evaluations may occur through the CUP process. Some clarification of what constitutes a"special or native"tree would be needed, as there are several possible definitions. However, an additional walk of the site to look again for botanical significance could be useful, and staff would propose to do so with the Resource Conservation Manager, Open Space Design Specialist, Park Services Director and members of the Biological Resources Committee of the Commission for the Environment who have training in this area, to see if there are any additional species of significance that have not yet been identified, Other persons with specialized training could also be invited to participate in this walk. 3. Staff feels the idea of boardwalks along Jones Creek and Buckhorn Branch is worthy of further consideration, and should be explored in future phases of the park, when detailed drawings of the exact locations for future trails would be finalized. No such trails are planned for Phase I of the park. 11 7. Staff would welcome the opportunity to work with local birding(and other related) organizations regarding possible habitat areas on site within the master plan. However, the locations for these activities would likely occur in future phases of the park or after development. The potential for storrnwater wetlands will be part of the CUP process, Conditional Use Permit/Development Standards (4,5,6,8,9,10,11,14,16,17) 4. The method of curb and gutter and road pavement will ultimately be a matter for the Town of Carrboro, whose development standards would apply. However, Town staff has already indicated an interest in using low-impact design(LID) standards for the connector road, and the County has a long history of preference for the use of swales and on-site infiltration of stormwater. Staff plans to propose similar arrangements (to the degree they are feasible and the Town is willing to receive them) as the CUP application and construction drawings are prepared. Staff would propose to explore LID standards further with the Town, as the CUP is prepared and submitted.. 5. The idea of involving advisory board members in formal negotiations with the application approval process is unprecedented, and staff feels it would be inconsistent with longstanding County policy(and potentially add cost and time to the process)to insert parties other than staff and the elected boards at this level of negotiation. Additionally, there are other advisory boards that have been more involved in the Twin Creeks process (the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council and the Commission for the Environment) that would likely also be interested in being part of an expanded negotiation and application review process as well, 6, The Joint Planning Agreement specifies that development applications in the Transition Area of the Joint Planning Area would have the County Planning Board receiving courtesy review of development applications. The Conditional Use Permit application will include substantial levels of detail, including some drawings at or near construction detail. The Planning Board would have the right to review and comment on the application to the Board of Commissioners. After approval of the CUP, final construction drawings would be developed and the project would be bid,resulting in a contract award by the Board of Commissioners. Advisory boards have not been involved in this level of approval of internal detail in projects, and staff feels that such involvement here (and again, the RPAC and CfE might have similar interests if roles were expanded)would be inconsistent with longstanding County policy. Staff would be interested in receiving the courtesy review and comments of the Planning Board (and other advisory boards) of the CUP application, as per Joint Planning procedures, which may capture much of the desired detail. 8.. The number of parking spaces is an estimate on the master plan, and the exact number of spaces would be subject to determination by the Town staff and addressed in a more exact way in the CUP, The general number of spaces reflected in the master plan is consistent with initial readings and discussion of the Town's development standards, 12 9. Town staff has already indicated an initial preference for a shared entranceway to minimize the number of new roadway cuts on this stretch of Old 86. If the proposed Villages at Berkeley subdivision to the south is approved,Town staff has discussed with the developer and County staff the interest in having one entryway (the "Twin Creeks Parkway") for both the park and subdivision. In earlier discussions, the developers offered conceptually to build this initial segment of the road to "parkway standards"with median plantings, for a short distance until their subdivision road heads south into the Villages at Berkeley development(and the Twin Creeks Parkway continues east into the park). However, ultimately this is a development standard and part of the CUP application that the Town will assess, and eventually recommend as a condition for approval.. As such the disposition of the nature of the road will need to await review of the CUP application, 10.. As noted previously, the Planning Board's specified role in this project is for courtesy review of the CUP application, at which time the Planning Board could make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners regarding bridges, low- impact design and stream crossings. There is only one stream crossing proposed for Phase I of the park, of Buckhorn Branch along the trail connecting the meadow and the playing fields. As previously noted, staff is familiar with low- impact design and has already discussed preliminarily with Town staff the potential for addressing sensitive stream crossings. 11. The offsets and minimization of sewer line easements would be a matter subject to the CUP application with the Town, but staff has already identified this as a topic for review with OWASA (it was originally suggested by the CHATPEC Work Group). 14. Construction drawings would not be finalized until the CUP application is approved for the park (and presumably CHCCS would submit a like CUP for ES#10 at the appropriate time). If this comment is meant to address the visual resources of construction on the higher elevations, it is staff's understanding that this will be part of the Town's review of the applications for site development (both park and schools). 16. The ultimate location of parking lots for the school site would need to be addressed with the Town and CHCCS, and any plans to utilize the Piedmont EMC powerline easement would need approval of that entity as well. If desired, the County could ask CHCCS to consider this as part of their eventual CUP application for this part of the site. It may be premature to change the master plan to reflect this without further discussion among the parties. 17. As staff has learned through the recent Town approval for lighting at Smith Fields (a County 2001 Parks and Open Space Bond project), the Town has extensive and stringent requirements in their development standards for lighting, and those would be part of the approval process with the Town. Park Construction (12,13,15,19) 12. Trails on the property would be designed by the Open Space Design Specialist and Land Conservation Manager in the Environment and Resource Conservation 13 Department, in conjunction with staff from the Recreation and Parks Department. Planning staff have been and would continue to be involved in the design project for the park, but the primary responsibility for park design lies within ERCD and Recreation and Parks. Staff has always envisioned that future trail development (in future phases of the park) would include interpretive trails with an environmental education component There is some limited opportunity for interpretive trails in the short loop portions of trails proposed for Phase I (although this might impact the cost of the project),but would more likely be addressed in a more meaningful way in trails in future phases of the park along the stream corridors.. Staff would be glad to look at possibilities for the trail in Phase I and resultant costs. Comments and advice from area naturalists, including those currently serving on County advisory boards,would be welcomed, 13. The only trails planned for Phase I would likely be of an unpaved, woodland nature trail, County staff has already incorporated the Town of Chapel Hill's Rustic Woodland Trail concept into County park planning, via the 1999 Joint Master Recreation and Parks report (for example,the Northern Chapel Hill Township Rustic Woodland Trail is based on this trail type, and is a current project for land acquisition and eventual construction, tying together existing trails in the Towns,Duke Forest and TLC's Johnson Mill Preserve). Future phases of the park would include additional trails as well as a section of a Town of Carrboro greenway-the Jones Creek Greenway. The Town would specify the trail surface and type for this greenway and may also make recommendations regarding the other trail surfaces,but the County's intent for other trails in future phases of the park is to pursue an ecologically-friendly unpaved surface trail network. 15. One of the original design principles of the site was to design with an "Olmsteadian" vision for portions of the site to accommodate flexible open spaces and buffer active uses from other uses,This has been incorporated into the master plan,with over 50%of the park to be left in stream buffers and vegetated areas, with buffers between the educational campus and playing fields, the meadow area and planning fields, the farmstead/play areas and playing fields, and others. Staff feels this concept has been a basic operating principle in the design and would continue to be so as the site is built. Any specific suggestions on new viewshed opportunities, in addition to those shown in the master plan, would be welcomed. 19. Staff has already discussed the need for environmentally-friendly construction methods, and would pursue in conjunction with the County's legal requirements for construction bids and awards, Other(18) 18. The concept of allowing for private donations toward specific projects on the site is one that may have relevance beyond Twin Creeks. Staff recommends this topic receive further study with a subsequent report to the Board. _.,._ .-___ ...� 1 '_�___� .,,. C --j ,..,._..w.1 ice . ° 4 �� "- S.» 11=1 __� _1"' ......,s�^T...... ,.....— .,„ ,, , t I [ 1 -!- f ^ [ = 1 v0 a I ."•• i 31 tAlk,ray In•kMeel N ) r M 's z -m ” ,-----.-=------r-,--=---t--=—.L.--7---:—_::„---rg-;-tf _,_---:::,,,:.--t---LT,s.,„t„_:,—,:L-._.,,-„-w,,,,,at.,,,,,,.-„_---I.--i-:-7:T7rF,-,Nv,.,:-,Ip,A._,,i-_-..4vk,--..F.,,,, N/4"1-..r.-41 ril:I r , i ...,... j. \".--,-7-Ti.T..-a Yfff,-.:-.A-1=1,t- -;`,,,:.t7g4:7-='.:-I'"--F-.11.7:' .1..__, I 'a �\ 1 ,tip .� .�.� `�. .—�`` I z y.lµ ry s- Ti l• 7E'i' , .J l•'' ;<�' '..� y y s� moo ` ,ydti � � i3 1 u0 ��/\y_��//CJs RT�� ��f[�^} r igi1 l ...- }fir, ... ....._$.?...„....,...„. ...,... .- r, -- . l-: ; / :5f. _._ .w-.....,, 4 nqo.----,1,--arnow• i r f . ,�; .,' 1 r r71 e Twin Creeks* Park and Campus (*Moniese Nomp) �I.�yi' I•-tl0'.€]' Twill Crwks Mosier Plan Work Group-3123105 `I'� 4 .T1.. d.. Otcnoc County "" Environment Aral Rc_awcc Conservniion llcpartt;sent 15 MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners From: Twin Creeks Master Plan Work Group Date: April 14, 2005 Re: Recommendations of the Work Group In January, the Board appointed a 6-member short-term work group to address specific issues related to the design of the planned Twin Creeks Park and Educational Campus. Specifically, the Work Group was charged to: Utilize the October 2004(Design #2)draft Master Plan for Twin Creeks Park and Educational Campus to undertake only the following changes a. Look at relocating/redesigning the proposed Elementary School#10 to the southeastern portion of the site(east of Jones Creek currently shown as "Future Educational Facility") b. Keep the four soccer.field configuration intact in the redesign c. Consider locations for action sports facility/activities in the park d. Look at the,feasibility of relocating the 'stadium field"to the south with the park Address minor modifications needed as a result of the above work,,for the locations of other schools within the schools campus and park facilities within the park site Our Work Group met on February 23rd and March 23rd to consider these questions and issues.. The following recommendations constitute our findings and thoughts on the questions at hand: 1. While there might be benefits to locating the proposed stadium/track in the park, the Work Group felt that the need for keeping the stadium/track with the middle school that is planned for the northern part of the site was an overriding consideration, for programming reasons, It also appears to be difficult to fit this size of facility into the park area, given the topography, stream buffers and the probable need to delete another facility to make room for the stadium/track.. However, the Work Group does think that the proposed loop trail around the meadow could be constructed as a measured walking track of 1/3 mile, as an alternative to meet the needs of citizens who desire a measured walking or running trail.. 2. In considering the action sports facilities requested, the Work Group considered what was involved in construction of such a facility. While there does appear to be a need for such a facility as a BMX bike trail, it was noted that the other proposed park facilities have been identified as needs by both the original work group and individual parks advisory boards, and that these—plus the concept of a community gymnasium—would appear to be a higher priority, That said, staff has identified a potential area within the Piedmont EMC powerline easement that might be able to serve as such a facility, and that might be an issue for the Board to consider further, as desired„ 16 3. Considering the matter of the location of Elementary School (ES)#10, the Work Group found that its current location adjacent to the proposed future middle school was preferable to the possible location in the southeastern corner of the site. In general, the Work Group feels that the benefits of co-locating the two schools together, which can only occur on the educational campus in the northern portion of the site, outweigh the benefits of possible increased walkability for ES #10 in a southeastern location. Keeping the elementary school and middle school together offers synergies for shared supervision, food services,media centers, and other possible advantages. 4. Minor modifications to the Master Plan as a result of the Work Group deliberations include: a. A footprint of a possible Action Sports (BMX bike course) in the Piedmont EMC easement, which would need to be explored further with PEMC and the Board of Commissioners, if desired. While not related to the Work Group charge, the Work Group also noted the benefits of rearranging and co-locating the tennis courts. Staff concurs and would bring this back as a minor"tweak"to the Master Plan for subsequent Board consideration. We hope these recommendations will be of use to the Board as it considers adoption of a Master Plan for the site, and we all look forward the end product of a co-located County district park and educational campus that will meet the needs of our citizens. We will be glad to respond further to additional questions, as desired. Twin Creeks Work Group Moses Carey, County Commissioner Chair Alice Gordon, County Commissioner Nick Didow, CHCCS Board of Education Pam Henninger, CHCCS Board of Education Johnny Randall, Commission for the Environment/NC Botanical Garden Patrick Sullivan, Recreation &Parks Advisory Council/Orange County Soccer Alliance Orange County Park Facility Projects Potential Project Schedule'as of 4130105 NOTE-This is an internal timetable used by staff and has not been adopted by the board of Commissioners Appropriated Project Funds Protect Component FY 2064-05 FY 2005.06 F1'2005-07 FY 2087-08 FY 2008-08 Summer Fall Winter S•rtn• Summer Fait Winter 5•rin• Summer Fail Winter S•tin• Summer Fail Winter 5•rin• Summer Fall S 1.200,000 0 -®=11111_®® S 250,000 = MM - S 850,030 © 1 ��- ®Hillsboro ® '�r - S 250.000 p smnn Field Lighting ®-® l•l•���������1• s 1-200.0 DO p - ®®®®Ganboro Carreare Carrbnro Garrtrdru IMIIIIIIIIIMIIII S 975,000 KJ west Ten Seccor Gaoler MINf:;° S 2,795.000 is Southern Park S11■®-®any- z �- r - --1♦-_ - 5 1,750.000 Q Joint TowniCoun OS Can done�®Bolan Cr::: ®®-®- . r z S 4,300,000 Q Homestead Park••nett CU ®®® ® 'iii :,-- 4.-71 -.0111_- Completed or Not Yet Programmed S 0,000 Ng S Utile River outhern HSC Regional Park Trams fl'-OPEN 12/04 _- �� 5 60,000 3 Skills Devi.Pocket Park DONE 7 4 McGowan Creek Preserve iSP" 7 7 5 New Hope Park-Blackwood ISP' 7 7 6 Seven-Mile Creek Preserve tSP" - 7 7 7 Millhouse Road Park land-banked 7 0 New Hope Preserve 514,595,000 TOTAL Summer=July,August,September(1st Q1rj;Fall=October,November,December(2nd dU);Winter=January,February,March(3rd);Spring»April,May,June(4th) 'Preliminary to Concept Plan JConcept Plan/Master Plan stage i Approva08id/Pre-Construction T Construction ®pads Opening iprotectedt interim Stewardship Plan 412912005,PFP-43005 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 3, 2005 Action Agenda Item No. CI - SUBJECT: Approval of Twin Creeks District Park and Educational Campus Master Plan DEPARTMENT: Environment and Resource PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No Conservation, Recreation and Parks ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1) Proposed Master Plan Map (5-3-05) David Stencil, 245-2590 2) Staff Memorandum Lori Taft, 245-2660 3) 2005 Work Group Master Plan Map (3-23- 05) 4) Twin Creeks Work Group Report (4-14-05) TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 5) Park Facility Projects Timetable, March 2005 Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To consider approval of a master plan for the Twin Creeks (Moniese Nomp) District Park and Educational Campus, review additional information requested on April 14th, and authorize staff to prepare a Conditional Use Permit application to the Town of Carrboro for Phase 1 of the park. BACKGROUND: On April 14th, the Board received the report of the Twin Creeks District Park and Educational Campus Work Group, a 6-member work group with representatives from the Board, CHCCS Board of Education, and parks and environmental interests. Twin Creeks is a 193-acre site with frontage on both Old 86 and Eubanks Road north of Carrboro. The site was acquired by Orange County in 2001 for the purpose of co-locating the planned Chapel Hill Township District Park and a future multi-school campus. At the April 14th work session, the Board asked that adoption of the Master Plan be brought back for action at the May 3rd regular meeting., The Board asked that a number of follow-up items also be addressed on May 3`d. Staff has provided this in a memorandum (attached), along with a few additional matters in need of consideration. Taken together, the follow-up items include: 1. Information on discussions with Piedmont EMC regarding the possible location of a BMX bike course in the PEMC powerline easement; 2, The potential for use of Soccer Superfund to augment funding for Phase I; 2 3, A phasing plan for the park, and information about the pending Carrboro CUP application; 4. The breakdown of water and sewer costs between park and campus; 5. Staffs review of recommendations submitted by an area citizen; and 6, Some minor staff-recommended modifications to the master plan to address site utility and safety issues. The primary action needed at this time is the adoption of a Master Plan and authorization for staff to proceed with a Conditional Use Permit application to Carrboro. As shown in the attached timetable, the preparation of the Conditional Use Permit application to Carrboro is intensive and is expected to take 4-6 months, due to the level of detail needed for the application and the need for contracted engineering drawings. Subsequent review and consideration of the CUP has been estimated by Town staff to take approximately one year. However, the Board may wish to consider asking the Town to expedite the review timetable, as was recently done for the CHCCS high school #3. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no cost associated with adoption of the Master Plan. The proposed Phase I of the park is estimated to cost in the range of$1.6-$2.0 million, depending on future construction costs and the amount of pre-grading that is done for future fields as part of Phase I.. A total of $1.2 million is available from the 2001 Parks and Open Space bond toward this project. In terms of other possible funding sources, the Board has previously briefly discussed the Soccer Superfund as a possibility ($1,025,000 remaining). Recent discussions with the designer for the West Ten Soccer Center have indicated that $375,000 would yield the construction of two soccer fields at that site. The Board may wish to consider allocating the remaining $650,000 toward Twin Greeks and the two new fields in Phase I of the park. Other possible funding sources might include the Chapel Hill District Park payment-in-lieu fund (around $20,000), and a potential N.C. Parks and Recreation Trust Fund grant application (a grant of up to $500,000 can be submitted in January 2006). RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board: 1, Adopt the proposed Master Plan (including the staff-recommended utility and safety modifications) dated May 3, 2005; 2. Authorize staff to begin the process of preparing the Conditional Use Permit application to the Town of Carrboro, utilizing the proposed Phase I as shown in the Master Plan (pending further discussion at the time of CUP application completion later this year); 3. Authorize the Chair to send a letter to the Town of Carrboro asking that the CUP application review process for phase I of Twin Creeks Park be expedited; 4. Agree to earmark $650,000 from the Soccer Superfund to help construct Phase I of the park, and authorize staff to submit an application to the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund in January 2006 (in an amount up to $500,000 to be determined later); 5. Take under advisement the citizen comments received and staffs review of those comments, for action at the appropriate time when park construction and future phases are discussed and approved.. 3 _. - _,_ c - C--- 7:! - . .. - 4 nn�u mu rr�wanw w ::-,-0'i - y Q F . -� " \ e#4 W■lkmy to School m It\ ,„,,,_..„,. r-- . - _w_ V 1 _ - ��� \-',,,,,,,,,,,,-.-±7.51 4.:"C",:::•;.:;.;;;;IL.7- --71 Mita,„.. 'ma-1 1 4: tt ▪F�a- `fy \ -1 . ., i 1 r r I �I li {~-1 /n/. � ▪ ...,w.. dw 11. ; { T m.a anox r .....:...«, -i-1-J I OM... i Twin Creeks* Park and Campus :°t= -' (FManiese Namp} -�400{I Stiff Prvirosed MndiGcntion5-513105 4-a711r—e, pmngaCauniy .... Envitonusrnt and nese.= Conzervalinn Lkryrtmeul