HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-24-2005-9aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 24, 2005
Action Agenda
Item No. C(-Q
SUBJECT: Twin Creeks Park- Follow-up Report and Potential Decisions
DEPARTMENT: ERCD, Recreation and Parks PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
* - Staff Follow-up Report and
Attachments, 1/24/05
* - Staff Memorandum of 12/1/04
* - Master Plan (Design #1), 2003
* - Alternative Scenario (Design #2),
October 2004
* - Citizen Plan #3
* - 12/22/04 USA Today Article
INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Stancil, ext 2590
Lori Taft, 245-2660
Marabeth Carr, 960-3880
Paul Thames, 245-2303
Craig Benedict, 245-2575
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To consider follow-up information of the Twin Creeks (Moniese Nomp*) Park and
Educational Campus project, with possible decision points.
BACKGROUND: On June 8, the Board of Commissioners considered the Twin Creeks (Moniese
Nomp) master plan, and authorized staff to conduct several activities regarding the project:
1. Convey Smart Growth for Schools principles to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
(CHCCS)
2. Ask CHCCS for a timetable for the construction and opening of the planned Elementary
School #10, as well as any infrastructure construction estimates generated to date
1 Create an alternative design scenario, with a focus on smart growth for school
construction and sharing of facilities
4, Hold an open house/public input session on the plans for the site
5. Prepare a report evaluating projected water and sewer demand from the site, and
develop park construction cost estimates
6. Discuss with Chapel Hill Transit potential future service to the site (both park and
educational campus), and
7. Begin the process of preparing a Conditional Use Permit application for submittal to the
Town of Carrboro
A pubic input session/open house was held in October, and in December staff reported back on
these topics (which are summarized in the attached December 6, 2004 memos).
At the Board's December 6th meeting, additional information was requested on the following
topics:
1, An assessment of the feasibility of a redesign process for the site based on principles
introduced in Citizen Plan #3
2. Projections for potential users of park facilities at the site, including traffic estimates
3. Further research into the costs of extending water and sewer to the site (and evaluation
of potential cost savings with a redesigned layout)
4, Additional information on the "action sports" concepts mentioned at the December
meeting by citizen speakers
The attached staff report dated January 21, 2004 includes information on these topics. In
summary, the main points of the report are:
• Staff has identified three possible courses of action for moving ahead or considering
redesign options, listed in order of time delays and complexity:
o Option A - proceed with one of the existing plans, with minor modifications as
identified by the Board (this would result in an estimated Phase 1 park opening in
42 months after approval of Master Plan)
o Option B - engage in a limited scope moderate redesign, with a 6-member short-
term ad hoc work group of Commissioners, parks and recreation representatives,
and School Board members (results in estimated Phase 1 park opening at 44
months from approval of master plan)
o Option C-1 - a full redesign of the site, using the principles of seamless transition
("no boundaries") and location of compatible uses without regard to ownership,
going back to the site constraints map (results in estimated Phase 1 of park
opening at 46-50 months from approval of master plan)
o Option C-2 - an assessment of whether Plan #3 could be designed as sketched,
followed by a full redesign based on Citizen Plan #3 (inverting the proposed park
and campus), going back to site constraints map (results in estimated Phase 1 of
park opening at 46-50 months from approval of master plan)
• Anticipated usage of the full park (all phases as designed) are estimated by the
Recreation and Parks Department to be 4,372 maximum daily visitors, with an average
"in-season' weekly visitors tally of 10,956,
• The Planning Department estimate -- at full buildout of both schools and park (full park
plus two schools and a third facility) -- that daily vehicle trips would be 3,155 for
weekdays, 1,760 for Saturday and 1,508 for Sunday.
• The County Engineer estimates that little cost savings will be realized by reconfiguring
the site as per Plan #3
• Action sports facilities information is been compiled by staff, along with pictures of a
facility in Greenville, NC (this material to be provided at the meeting)
The report also notes that, regardless of the option chosen, at a minimum there are 41 months
of activity after approval of a Master Plan - to prepare the Town's permit application (with
detailed drawings), secure Town CUP approval, develop construction drawings and bids, and
begin/complete construction - for Phase 1 of the park,
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no cost involved in receiving this report and considering the
Master Plan for approval. Funding for Phase 1 of Twin Creeks Park was included in the voter-
approved 2001 Parks and Open Space bond in the amount of $1.2 million, The County
3
Engineer has provided a preliminary estimate of connection for water and sewer of $575,000.
However it is recommended that water/sewer connection may be deferred to future phases of
the park. No portion of the planned connector road (total cost estimated at $950,000) is
proposed for Phase 1 as currently shown (however, alternative design options may change
this), but a portion of the park entry road (southern boundary) would need to be constructed. To
address anticipated shortfalls, in December staff had proposed considering a grant application
for up to $500,000 to the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund. However, the grant deadline of
January 31st makes this option impractical (though it could be pursued in January 2006) prior to
an construction. The possibility also exists to employ Soccer Superfund monies to advance
creation of fields in Phase I. Approximately $1,380,000 remains in the $2.0 million Soccer
Superfund as identified in the 2001 bond.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the BOCC consider the attached
information and provide direction to staff on next steps for a Master Plan and other
considerations.
q
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
John Link, County Manager
FROM: David Stancil, E&a:RC Director
DATE: January 24, 2005
RE: Twin Creeks (Moniese Nomp) Park and Educational Campus -
Follow-Up from December 6 Discussion
On December 6, 2004 the Board received a follow-up report from staff on a number of
questions related to the Twin Creeks site, which is located near Old 86 and Eubanks
Road north of Carrboro. At that time, the Board also received information about - and a
preliminary staff analysis of - a proposed citizen alternative layout (Citizen Plan #3).
The Board asked that staff return on.January 24th with the following information:
1. An assessment of the feasibility of a redesign process for the site based on
principles introduced in Citizen Plan #3
2. Projections for potential users of park facilities at the site, including traffic
estimates
3, Further research into the costs of extending water and sewer to the site (and
evaluation of potential cost savings with a redesigned layout)
4. Additional information on the "action sports" concepts mentioned at the
December meeting by citizen speakers
1. Next Steps / Feasibility of a Redesign Process Based on Plan #3
The proposed Citizen Plan #3 would rearrange the park and schools campus by placing
the schools campus in the southern portion of the site designated for park use, and
moving park uses to the northern "schools campus" area. Materials received regarding
this proposal, along with a preliminary assessment of the pros and cons of such an
approach, were provided on December 6`h and are included as Attachment 4 to this
document
Before considering the potential for options for proceeding with this project, and the
potential for redesign, a brief bit of background may be useful on the project to date:
Date
June 2001 Activity
Properties acquired (193 acres)
November 2001 Preliminary Concept Plan identifying areas for schools and park
approved by Board
February-April 2002 Discussion and revision of proposed Master Plan process
-
May 14, 2002 Master Plan Process adopted (including Preliminary Concept Plan and
5
23-member citizen task force appointed)
October 2002 CHATPEC Master Plan Work Group begins work (9-30)
May 2003 CHATPEC Master Plan Work Group final meeting and review of final
report (Design #I)
December 2003 Status report on project
Early 2004 Information gathering and discussions with Carrboro about CUP process
June 2004 Board review and discussion of project, with requests for additional
information
Summer/Fall 2004 Staff works on Alternative Scenario design (Design #2) as instructed,
along with other information
October 2004 Public Input Session / Open House held to review plans and solicit
comment
November 23 Citizen Plan #3 information conveyed via email
December 6 Board review of new information, including preliminary staff assessment
of Citizen Plan #3
Staff's preliminary pros and cons from December 6th raised questions as to whether the
facilities planned for the park could in fact be located on the northern portion of the site.
It was also noted that, since Citizen Plan #3 (henceforth referred to as Plan #3) has not
gone through the detailed site analysis review that was performed for the original work
group product of May 2003 (Design #1) or the staff-created Alternative Scenario (Design
#2), the degree to winch Plan #3 is a viable alternative is not known.
Plan #3 calls for a very substantive redesign of the site, with dramatic changes to the
2002 Preliminary Concept Plan as well as longstanding expectations of the site design.
The pros and cons identified in December included:
Pros
Schools would be closer and thus more
walkable?
Potential short-term cost savings for
water/sewer? (note - County Engineer has
since determined little savings)
Potential for more comprehensive look at
co-location of like facilities (full seamless
site design)?
Cons
Unknown whether park facilities in Plan
#3 could be designed in this way? The 4-
field configuration may not be practical on
the northern part due to slope
if this redesign is possible (see above), it
could take 6-12 months to produce a new
Master Plan
Plan #3 is no consistent with the
Preliminary Concept Plan (2002)
Schools runpus as shown in Designs #1
and #2 fall within 1.5 miles walking
distance or much of area (note - additional
information about actual walkability based
on transportation patterns may alter this)
Possible loss of park facilities due to lack of
space?
Plan #3 makes the park less walkable as
the schools become more walkable
No time savings or road design delay in a
redesign based on Plan #3
Site was purchased with intent of park in
the southern portion (initial evaluations
for purchase)
Some areas for future development exist to
east, southeast and possibly northwest
that would be closer to schools campus in
Designs #1 and #2
As such, a key question is whether a redesign based on Plan #3 would yield a master
plan that includes the planned park facilities in the previous designs,
Staff's initial reading of Plan #3 appears to indicate that some park facilities would be
difficult, if not impossible to design on the northern portion of the site. The footprint of
these facilities are quite different from those of the schools, and some uses may not fit.
However, it is not possible to truly answer this question without going back to the
starting point of much of the design work of 2002-03 - the site analysis map.
Undertaking a thorough and comprehensive redesign based on the principles of Plan #3
would not quite necessitate "going back to the drawing board," but it would require a
trip back to the earlier site analysis stage of the project, where the land's natural and
cultural resource constraints and opportunities were assessed Using that information,
and looking at it through the lens of a redesign option such as that proposed for Plan #3,
one would be able to fully assess important considerations - such as whether playing
fields could in fact be relocated as proposed, how traffic patterns might change, what the
impacts on stream buffer and stormwater design would be, among other issues,
As noted below, such an approach would take staff resources from ERCD, Recreation
and Parks, Planning, and the County Engineer. With many parks projects already
underway in different phases at this point in time, such an effort would draw staff resotnzes
away from efforts like Efland-Cheeks Phase.2, Northern Park andplans for Fairview Park in the spring
and fall of thisyea-. If other park design projects were put on hold for a comprehensive look
at whether a redesign based on Plan #3 could be done, staff estimates that time needed
would be 60 days from inception. if this effort were undertaken with the existing
projects continuing as scheduled, staff estimates this assessment of a possible redesign
would take 120 days (not including public meetings and public input processes). This
does not include any subsequent redesign, only the assessment of whether it could be
done.
Taking this into account, there a number of different options that could be pursued.
Three such options are identified below by staff, ranging from least time-
intensive/complexity to most time-intensive/complexity:
Option A - Proceed with Current Master Plans, with Limited Scope Changes
The "status quo" option would proceed with one of the basic design configuration as
shown (Design #1 or #2), but would accommodate some limited modifications to the
plan within a short timeframe, if desired. An example of a limited-scope modification
would be the change in location (or addition/deletion) of one or two small facilities
that do not have significant site impacts on the larger design, and do not alter the
site's functional synergy.
Process: This option would allow for the project to proceed without arty f urther committee or format
processes.
Approval of a Master Plan in this approach could occur as soon as the Board is ready,
or within approximately 1-2 months, if limited scope changes were made.
Option B - Intermediate Scope Redesign
An option that expands on a limited redesign approach would be an effort based on a
limited and fixed set of parameters and principles. This could be similar in some
respects to each of the options listed above. It would retain the basic premises and
site layout of the Master Plan in Designs #1 and #2, but provide for some aspects to
be reconsidered. For example, a moderate-scope redesign might include things such
as:
• Considering whether locating Elementary School #10 on the southeastern
portion of the property (east of Jones Creek and closer to existing
neighborhoods, in Designs #1 and 2, the area identified as "future educational
facility") would meet some of the interests in Plan #3?
• Consideration of moving a few park facilities to the northern portion of the
site in exchange for creating room for a school footprint in the southern
(park) portion of the site?
• A look at realigning the proposed connector road on the edge of the property ?
• Moving the stadium field to the south side of Jones Creek, closer to the park?
There may also be other moderate redesign components to be reviewed. At some point,
the redesign effort would become large enough that a full-scale redesign (a la Option C
below) would be just as efficient. However, if only a few major changes were desired -
and those changes could be accommodated in a manner that works within the site
constraints and does not require a full rethinking of design principles - this type of
redesign could accomplish some of the ideas in Plan #3 in a fashion that preserves the
Master Plan concepts in the first two designs.
Process: An intermediate scope redesign could be accomplished with a small ad hoc workgroup of 6
members (2 commissioners, 2 school board members, and 2 recreation and park representatives),
working with staff, and perhaps utilizing a public input session before completing work, There may
also be other possibilities for process.
This intermediate scope redesign might be accomplished over a period of 3-4 months
The final option, Option Chelow, offers two approaches it a fitUredesign is desired
Option Cl - Full "Seamless" Redesign
As noted on December 6`h, many of the underlying principles of Citizen Plan #3 are
based on sustain ability and improving walkability from existing neighborhoods to
the schools campus However, from such a standpoint, there are not only school but
also park destinations within the project that would benefit from a design with
greater attention to integration and walkability. The original principles of this
project (as expressed in the May 2002 process) included the intent to provide for as
much of a "seamless transition" as possible between the schools campus and the
park, as part of a truly coordinated and co-located master plan.
As learned in the Master Plan development, there are some inherent natural barriers
to this goal, primarily the Piedmont EMC powerline/easement, and the Jones Creek
corridor - both of which serve to separate the site into the two subareas that were
reflected in the basic dividing line of the Preliminary Concept Plan However, if a full
redesign were pursued where were no longer any "lines" drawn between park uses
and schools campus uses, some components of each could be designed in a different
fashion School buildings could be in closer proximity to park facilities in some
portions of the site, as part of a carefully-designed "mix and match" approach that
looks at consistency and compatibility (and walkability) of uses - regardless of
whether they are "park" or "school" Conceptually, this was looked at to some degree
in the 2003 Design #1, as the Work Group sought to co-locate park facilities that
were compatible with other park facilities, and schools uses adjacent to other
compatible school uses. But the concept has not been extensively studied without
the Preliminary Concept Plan dividing line between campus and park.
This type of redesign would be a substantive one and require going back to the site
analysis stage. If this option were to be deemed most appropriate it would likely
entail 6-12 months of additional work (depending on the process) to emerge with a
new Master Plan.
Option C2 - Assessment of Plan #3 / Redesign Based on Citizen Plan #3 Model
As with the option above, if the Board wished to pursue redesign based on the layout
presented in Citizen Plan #3 (as is), a comprehensive assessment of the feasibility of
this redesign - at the site analysis stage - would need to be undertaken. If the
feasibility finds that Plan #3 could be made to accommodate the planned facilities, a
full redesign effort from the site analysis stage could be undertaken. Without the
preliminary assessment, a design that emerges from this model may find that some
facilities may not be able to located as shown in this sketch (for example, the four-
field configuration in the north in Plan #3 may not prove to be practical from an
engineering standpoint because of slope and other factors).
In this option, following a successful assessment, the boundary lines would be
essentially reversed and park facilities would be designed based on whatever could
fit into the new park portion of the site, and school facilities designed based on
whatever could fit on the new schools campus section The Board may wish to
9
consider whether a new Preliminary Concept Plan should be a precursor to such an
effort.
Because this will involve a dramatic departure from original plans and studies, staff
estimates that this type of redesign would also take 6-12 months (depending on the
type of process) to emerge with a new Master Plan.
Process: There are a number of different methods for Options Cl and C2. A new work group could be
created to conduct the redesign - and the model for Option B above (a smaller, ad hoc work group)
could also be that vehicle. Otherpossibilities undoubtedly exist.
The above options have been developed with the knowledge that 2 r/ years have elapsed
since the Board appointed the CHATPEC Master Plan Work Group. The Work Group
met from October 2002 - May 2003 and included 23 persons, with representatives from
County and Town elected and advisory boards, both schools boards, parents, and area
citizens Staff has attempted to convey options above that do not attempt to duplicate
that effort.
Finally, there are two important considerations.
L As noted above, Options B, Cl and C2 will require moderate to significant time
and resources toward redesign efforts for the project. This would have
implications in the way of delays for other park design and/or construction
projects. At this time, construction on components of Efland Cheeks Park Phase
II and Smith Fields is underway The design process at Northern Park is nearing
completion, Current timetables call for design work for the Fairview Public
Campus and Park to get underway in the spring. If a moderate or full redesign is
pursued for Twin Creeks, sufficient resources will not be available to conduct all
of these activities, and may require Fairview and perhaps the pre-construction
phase of Northern to be delayed until later in 2005 or early 2006.
2. In each of these options, the end product will be a master plan to guide site
approvals and eventual construction. At the end of the options above, there will
still be many steps for Twin Creeks before phase 1 of the park can be constructed:
• 6-9 months of preparing the Carrboro Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
application (pre-construction drawing details will be required for Phase 1 of
the park, including engineering work on stormwater and road design)
• Approval of the CUP application by the BOCC
• Subsequently, 12 months for Carrboro consideration and approval of the CUP
application for Phase 1 of the park
• 3-6 months of pre-construction detail (finalized construction drawings,
construction bid development, solicitation and recommendation)
• 1 month for approval of a construction bid for Phasel of the project
0 8-12 months for actual construction of Phase 1 of the park
10
2. Projections of Facility Usage and Traffic at Twin Creeks
The Recreation and Parks Department has undertaken an assessment of anticipated
usage for Twin Creeks Park (this includes facilities in all phases). This usage table may
be found as Attachment 1, and it includes both a "Maximum Daily Visitors" tally and an
"Average In-Season Weekly Visitors" listing.
Summing the anticipated usage figures for the fully-built Twin Creeks Park yields an
estimate of 4,372 maximum daily visitors, with an average "in-season" weekly visitors
rate of 10,956.
Attachment 2 contains a memorandum from the Perdita Holtz of the Planning
Department on trip generation estimates for Twin Creeks. This memo uses trip
generation rates for certain categories of uses from the standard trip generation
estimating manual of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
The estimate is for the time of full buildout of the site, and summaries are provided for
rates of an elementary school, a middle school, an office building used as a school,
another "undesignated" office building, and both a "County" and "Regional" park.
Page 2 of the memo provides a summary of average trip generation based on:
• An elementary school
• A middle school
• A 50,000 square foot office building
• Average of the two park trip estimates
This yields an estimated trips per day of 3,155 average trips for weekdays, with 1,760
on Saturday and 1,508 on Sundays.
Water and Sewer Extension - Potential Cost Implications of Redesign
Attachment 3 is a memorandum from County Engineer Paul Thames on the potential
cost implications for water and sewer extension if the proposed Citizen Plan #3 were
pursued The County Engineer has re-evaluated the costs (original estimates by
memoranda of 11/1/2000 and 9/23/2004) of providing water and sewer utilities to serve
the school/Twin Creeks Park facilities as per the layout shown by the Plan #3 He has
determined that location of the park and school sites (on either the northern or
southern-most of the County-owned parcels) is essentially immaterial insofar as the
total cost (range of $650,000 to $812,500) of extending sewer service to both the park
and school sites. This circumstance occurs as a consequence of OWASA's policy of
requiring that service extensions cross all the way across properties receiving the service
extension In this case, regardless of which use was made of the County's northern and
southern parcels, sewer line probably would have to be extended from its current
terminus on the northern boundary of the Lake Hogan Farms subdivision to the northern
boundary of the County parcels or the Eubanks Road right-of-way. There is, however, a
question as to which project might have to bear the greatest share of the overall cost. If
the initial phase or phases of park development on the southern and central parcels were
to occur with on-site wastewater treatment facilities and there was no connection to
municipal sewer service until sewer was extended all the way to Eubanks Road as a part
of school construction, sewer construction costs assigned to the park project would be
much reduced. However, if nearly half of the sewer costs were assigned to the park
project (regardless of its location) sewer construction costs assigned to the school
project would be much (approximately 50%) reduced. It should be noted that sewer
extension costs would be a much greater share of the park budget than the schools
budget.
As the school will require the extension of a 10" to 12" waterline to accommodate fire
suppression demands, costs associated with the extension of water service to the school
is nearly the same (approximately $100,000 to $120,000), regardless of its location on
either the northern or southern parcels (the school would be located approximately 1700
feet east of the existing 16" OWASA waterline on Old NC 86). However, providing
water service via a 3" waterline (with no fire suppression provisions) to the park located
on the southern parcel would cost only in the $50,000 to $75,000 range (if an automatic
flushing device were required), Locating the park on the northern parcel would have the
same water extension cost ($100-$120,000) as that for the school. This occurs because
the extension of the 3" main to serve the park on the southern parcel would be a simple
service extension (connection of a service line to an existing, though inactive, water
main), while extension of water to the northern site would require a system extension
(no existing water main on Eubanks Road)
Additional Information on Action Sports
At the December 6"' Board meeting, several citizens spoke in favor of including an
"action sports" component at Twin Creeks Park In 2002-03, the 23-member citizen
work group charges with developing a master plan for the pant considered a wide variety
of uses, including solicitation of facilities from each of the Town and County parks
advisory boards and a work group list of possible uses which was later pared down to
the eventual facilities shown in the master plan. A roller hockey facility is shown as part
of the Master Plans (both Master Plan #1 from 2003 and Alternative Scenario Design #2
from 2004), and there are a number of proposed hiking trails that could also include a
cross-country course, but the type of action sports facilities proposed by the speakers on
December 6"' were not identified as a priority and not discussed. The type of facilities
that are being proposed, as staff understands it, would include:
• BMX bike course with mounds and other obstacles
• Skateboarding facility
The existing Designs #1 and #2 do provide for a roller hockey facility in future phases of
the park, which could perhaps be converted to meet skateboarding activity, if desired.
Staff from ERC:D and Recreation and Parks made a site visit to an action sports facility in
Greenville, NC. on ianuary 21", and pictures of this visit will be handed out at the
meeting. No information was received from proponents of these facilities by the time of
the agenda distribution, If the Board would like to pursue the inclusion of some facilities
in this vein, some components of the park site will need to go through at least a limited-
scope redesign
k-ac hmerTl I
Twin Creeks Park
Proposed Facilities
Anticipated Usage
Facility
Maximum Daily Visitors Average "In-Season"
Weekly Visitors
Multi Purpose Field 1 240 480
Multi Purpose Field 2 240 480
Multi Purpose Field 3 240 480
Multi Purpose Field 4 240 480
Ballfreld 1 240 600
Ballfreld 2 240 600
Termis Courts 1-4 252 640
Basketball Courts 1-4 384 960
Volleyball Courts 1-4 640 1600
Street Hockey Court 160 400
Water Playground 240 720
Playground 240 720
Picnic Shelter 1 (Large) 375 1250
Picnic Shelter 2 (Medium) 225 750
Walking Trails n/a n/a
ADA Trail n/a n/a
Croquet Field 80 170
Bocce Field 80 170
Horseshoe Pits 1-8 256 456
Visitor Center/Farmstead rda n/a
Meadow Wa n/a
I?
1105
Alia6 M 2
13
Memorandum
Date: December 23, 2004
To: Craig Benedict, AICP, Director of Planning and Inspections
From: Perdita Holtz, AICP, Special Projects Planner
Subject: Twin Creeks Property Trip Generation Information
In response to the Board of Commissioner's request regarding traffic generation at the Twin
Creeks site, I calculated expected rates using ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers)
guidelines for the various uses. The following table depicts the average trip generation for each
use and the range of rates within the ITE guidelines.
Use Average Trip Generation* Range of Trip Generation
Rates
Elementary School by 654 270 -1272
Number of Students (600)
Middle School by Number 763 315 -1484
of Students (700)
50,000 square foot 575 (Single Tenant Office Building) 267 -1784 (Single Tenant
building as offices 3447 (Government Office Building with Office Building)
only 1 sample)
50,000 square foot 536 (Elementary/Middle) 195 - 1508 (Elem/Middle)
building as school 545 (High School) 200 - 1328 (High School)
County Park by Acreage 314 (weekday) 18 - 5608 (weekday)
(105 ac) 1275 (Saturday) 424 - 2598 (Saturday)
491 (Sunday) 34 - 9450 (Sunday)
Regional Park by Acreage 2011 (weekday) 538- 4102 (weekday)
(105 ac) 2244 (Saturday) 357 -4519 (Saturday)
2525 (Sunday) 830 - 4632 (Sunday)
* - In and Out combined
Expected Daily Trips (in and out)*
iq
Da of Week Average Trip Generation
Weekday 3155
Saturday 1760
Sunday 1508
* - Table uses data for Elementary School (654), Middle School (763) a 50,000 square foot
building for offices (575), and an average of county park and regional park trip generation (1163
weekday, 1760 Saturday, 1508 Sunday)
each meet 3
15
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Stancil, ERCD Director
FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer
DATE: January 13, 2005
SUBJECT: Water and sewer utility extension costs to serve Twin Creeks property
under Citizen Plan 3 scenario
As per your request, I have re-estimated (original estimates by memoranda to you
11/1/2000 and 9/23/2004) the costs of providing water and sewer utilities to serve the
school/Twin Creeks Park facilities as per the layout shown by the Detailed Site Plan:
Citizens' Plan #3. 1 have included one small topo/property map (scale 1 "=600') to show
potential sewer utility routings (shown as solid lines) across County owned property. I
have also shown potential routings (shown as dashed lines) for sewer utility extensions
that may be desired by OWASA to optimize OWASA's sewer collection system for
areax beyond the school and park sites. I have not estimated costs for the extensions
that may be desired by OWASA since, as they do not provide any enhancement of the
County owned sites, should be provided - if at all - at OWASA's expense. It is also
possible that OWASA might wish to have line sizes and carrying capacities increased
for those portions of the sewer extensions that do serve the proposed school and park
facilities so that wastewater flows from beyond the County sites can be accommodated.
Additional costs incurred in this manner should also be born by OWASA and have not
been included herein.
As noted in my 9/23/04 memorandum, I estimate the cost of 8" gravity sewer lines (this
is the minimum diameter allowable for public sewer extensions and is more than
adequate to accommodate flows that would be generated by either or both a school or
park) at between $100 and $125 per linear foot (as per recent information provided by
OWASA) and 12 water line at $75 to $100 per linear foot. Per foot prices are inclusive
of the costs of construction, design, project administration, some rock excavation,
permitting fees, easement acquisition, etc.
As noted in my 9/23/04 memorandum, OWASA requires that extension of water and
sewer utilities extend all the way across the property being served by extension. This
provides the opportunity for other property owners to obtain utility service by the
extending the utilities onward across their properties and so on. The costs shown
herein for utility extensions take into account that utilities are to be extended all the way
16
across each parcel rather as opposed to the point as which they could provide sewer to
just that parcel.
The cost to extend 3400 linear feet of 8" sewer line along Jones Creek from the nearest
existing OWASA sewer line (from a point in Jones Creek on the north side of the Lake
Hogan Farm subdivision) all the way across the southern-most County owned parcel to
at least its common east-west property line with the middle County owned parcel is
estimated to fall between $340,000 and $425,000. This cost would be incurred
regardless of whether the southern parcel would be occupied by either the school or the
park. The cost to extend 3100 linear feet of 8" sewer line further along Jones Creek to
near the northern boundary of the middle County owned parcel and thence north
overland across the northern County owned parcel to Eubanks road is estimated to fall
between $310,000 and $387,500. Again, this cost would be incurred regardless of
whether the middle and northern parcels would be occupied by either the school or the
park.
If it were to be assumed that a sewer extension cost comparision could be made
between two potential scenarios: 1) in which the park, located on the southern and
central parcels, would extend a sewer line to the northern boundary of the southern
parcel (there is no sewer demand from or need to extend sewer to and through the
center parcel) from Hogan Farm; and the school, located on the northern parcel, would
extend a sewer line from the southern boundary of the middle tract to Eubanks Road;
and 2) in which the school, located on the southern parcel, would extend a sewer line to
the northern boundary of the southern parcel (again, there is no sewer demand from or
need to extend sewer to and through the center parcel) from Hogan Farm; and the park,
located on the northern parcel, would extend a sewer line from the southern boundary
of the middle tract to Eubanks Road; it would be found that there would be a slight
sewer extension cost savings to the park project (in the range of $30,000 to $37,500) to
have the park located on the northern parcel. However, it is possible that a park located
on the southern parcel would not extend OWASA sewer to serve its concession/
restroom facility (depending instead on the use of on-site wastewater treatment options)
until the sewer line had been extended to serve a school located on the northern parcel.
Under this scenario, the cost to the park associated with sewer utility construction would
be limited to approximately $160,000 ($100,000 for a phase I on-site system and
$60,000 for a full phase development sewer connection) and the bulk of the sewer
extension costs (in the $650,000 to $812,000 range) would fall to the school.
In terms of the cost of extending water service to the park or the school, there is a
significant difference in expenditures to extend service to the northern parcel as
opposed to the southern parcel for park use. As the southern parcel abuts the existing
OWASA waterline, extending water service to that parcel is a service connection. The
park, under the assumption that fire protection is not necessary and irrigation will be
provided by well water, needs only a 3" service line with a construction cost of
approximately $50 to $75,000 (with an automatic flushing system as noted in the
9/23/04 memorandum). However, if the park is located on the northern parcel which is
not adjacent to the existing OWASA waterline, OWASA will probably require that a
0
water main be extended from Old NC 86 along Eubanks Road to the eastern boundary
of the Northern parcel. If a 12" main is required, 1700 linear feet at approximately $50
to $60 per foot (and the automatic flushing system) results in a cost in the range of $100
to $117,000. . The school with its fire protection requirements, on the other hand, will
probably require the extension of a 12" waterline, regardless whether it is located on the
northern or southern parcel and the cost of providing water to the northern site should
be nearly the same for either a school or park. Locating the school on the southern
parcel will involve extending a 12" line from Old NC 86 along the southern boundary of
the southern parcel for approximately 1700 linear feet at a cost equivalent to the cost of
extending service to the northern parcel site.
If I may provide additional information or clarification of the information provide herein,
please advise.
c?
0
w..n
Mwra?a.
piv0?.inYlGa.lYn1
?Y
m?w•m„mun
0
This map contains parcels prepared for the inventory of real propely within
Orange County, and Is compiled from recorded deed, plats, and other public
records and data. Users of this map are hereby notified that the aforementioned
public primary information sources should be consulted for verification of the
information contained on this map The county and Its mapping companies assume
no legal responsibility for the Information contained on this map
1:7200
iq
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Commissioners
John Link, County Manager
From: David Stancil, E&RC Director
Date: December 1, 2004
Re: Preliminary Review - "Citizen Plan #3"
On November 23rd, staff received an email from Matthew Barton, who served on
the CHATPEC Work Group, regarding a proposed re-design of the Twin Creeks
site. This redesign, referred to as "Citizen Plan #3," appears to essentially invert
the existing plan by moving the schools campus to the southern portion of the
site and shifting the park to the northern portion of the property. Given the recent
notice of this new plan, staff has not had sufficient time to thoroughly examine
the proposal or offer definitive comments. The following may serve as preliminary
comments based on our cursory review to date. The plan, along with maps and
supporting materials, is provided as Attachment B.
Background
The CHATPEC Work Group, appointed by the Board of Commissioners in May
2002, was comprised of 23 persons including:
Appointed by Orange County.'
• 2 County Commissioners (Work Group Co-Chairs)
• 3 citizens at-large
• 1 Commission for the Environment member
• 1 Recreation and Parks Advisory Council member
• 2 Intergovernmental Parks Work Group members
• Duke Forest Resource Manager
• 1 Carrboro Northern Transition Area Committee member
• 1 Orange County Planning Board member
• 2 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools parents
• 1 Orange County Schools parent
Appointed b,y the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board:
• 2 CHCCS School Board members
Appointed by the Town of Carrboro:
• 1 Carrboro Alderman
• 1 Carrboro Parks and Recreation Commission member
Appointed by the Town of Chapel Hill:
• 1 Chapel Hill Town Council member
• 1 Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission member
• 1 Chapel Hill Greenways Commission member
acs
Appointed by the Orange County Board of Education:
• 1 Orange County Board of Education member
Mr. Barton suggested the concept of taking a second look at schools campus
versus park location at the last meeting of the CHATPEC Work Group on May
22, 2003. It was briefly discussed at that meeting, but was not pursued, as there
were no further scheduled meetings. However, Appendix 7 of the Work Group
report includes this proposal. Appendix 7 (in which members were encouraged to
submit any final comments or revisions to the May 22 Work Group report) notes
that the proposal was not pursued, and that a "school board member noted that
the schools as designed were within walking distance of the schools (defined as
1.5 miles)."
In the adopted CHATPEC Master Plan Work Group Process of May 14, 2002,
the charge to the Work Group included a guiding principle that stated that the
work group should develop a master plan for the site that was "within the
framework of the Pre-Concept Plan, Guiding Principles... and other
direction provided from the Board of Commissioners on October 22, 2001,
November 13, 2001, February 18, 2002 and at subsequent meetings."
On November 13, 2001, the Board adopted a Pre-Concept Plan to guide the
further site planning. This map was incorporated into the adopted May 14, 2002
process as noted above (please see Attachment A).
The purpose of a Pre-Concept Plan (short for Preliminary Concept Plan) is to
identify the general types of uses for portions of the site (i.e., schools campus,
active recreation, low impact recreation, etc.). In the CHATPEC Pre-Concept
Plan, this map shows the portion of the site generally north of Jones Creek as the
"Educational Campus," and the areas generally south of Jones Creek as the park
(except for an area designated "Potential School Site, Pending Further Study").
To my recollection, the Pre-Concept Plan reflects these locations based on the
following reasons:
1. Prior to the County taking over and completing negotiations for all of the
properties at Twin Creeks, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
(CHCCS) had been considering purchase of the 44-acre former Hunter
property along Eubanks Road, and the County was involved in
discussions with John and Roderick Cate for 149 acres to the south. The
Pre-Concept Plan thus reflected the original land acquisition targets for
schools and parks, with additional lands from the Cate properties added
to the schools target site for the future educational campus.
2, The County's interest in locating a park site had begun by identification of
a number of different sites for the planned Chapel Hill Township District
Park (a park that was identified in the adopted 1988 Parks Element of the
Orange County Comprehensive Plan) by looking at their potential for a
combination of active and low-impact recreation. The existence of the
P)
pond, relatively flat former farm fields, and Jones Creek had made the
Cate property a prime candidate for the park, These features and the
prior consideration of a park on this portion of the site were reflected in
the Pre-Concept Plan.
3. The funding for the land acquisition was accomplished primarily through
the 1997 Parks Bond. The 149-acre Cate properties (3) south of the
power line easement were funded by the following sources:
• $2,700,000 from the 1997 Parks Bond (76%)
• $800,000 from the School/Park Reserve Fund (22.5%)
• $50,000 from payment-in-lieu funds (1.5%)
The funding for the 44-acre Hunter property along Eubanks Road came
from the School/Park Reserve Fund ($1,065,000).
Preliminary Review of the Proposed Citizen Plan #3
As previously noted, time has not permitted a thorough review of the proposed
new plan. Based on the correspondence received, the proposed inverted
redesign is suggested with the following rationale:
• It is asserted that the current designs do not contribute to the model of
walkable neighborhoods
• It is asserted that the current designs do not help in addressing childhood
obesity by encouraging daily activity
• It is asserted that the current designs present safety risks to children
walking to school through the forest
• The proposed Citizen Plan #3 would feature closer car and bus access to
existing neighborhoods for the schools
• It is asserted that park playing fields could be built along Eubanks Road
without a need for an access road
The proposed "Citizen Plan #3" has been developed, apparently using the
County's jpeg GIS file, with rearranged elements. This design and supporting
materials can be found as Attachment B.
Time has not allowed for a thorough evaluation of the pros and cons of this
proposal. What can be stated is that the goals of promoting walkability, providing
for child safety, and minimizing infrastructure costs are goals that are shared by
the County as well as the proposed redesign.
As a preliminary assessment, staff would offer the following possible pros and
cons to Citizen Plan #3, These preliminary points make reference to the map and
supporting documentation in the attached proposal:
as
Preliminary "Pros"
1. Promoting walkability to the future schools campus is an important goal,
and the proposed redesign would have schools located closer to existing
neighborhoods to the south, However, it should be noted that the "redline"
in the October 2004 staff "Alternative Scenario" was designed for this very
issue and would greatly streamline the walking trip for students to the
school,
2. The greatest demand for water and sewer to the site will almost certainly
be from the schools, and location of the campus closer to existing sewer
lines to the south would reduce infrastructure costs to an as yet
undetermined degree
3. If it were to be found that there are safety and distance issues with
students walking along the proposed "redline" trail to the schools, the
walking distance would be shorter in the proposed redesign.
4. Finally, the proposed new plan leads staff to wonder what might be gained
by taking the concept a step further. Using the principles of walkability and
smart-growth, among others, it might be intriguing to examine all potential
walkable destinations together - whether a park playing field or a school.
Such a review might yield a comprehensive, completely-integrated
"seamless" design, with no boundaries between the park and the campus.
Staff would be glad to pursue a process for such an approach and report
back, if desired.
Preliminary "Cons"
1. Time would be an issue. Soccer groups, among others, have pressed for
fields to be constructed as soon as possible to meet the existing lack of
availability. Reviewing and considering a redesign based on this
schematic, to be comprehensive, would take 6 months based on current
projected workloads and the time needed to consider and approve such a
change, and the total project delay would be around one year. The time
elapsed to date on this project is already three years, from the date of the
Board's adoption of the pre-Concept Plan in November 2001,
2. The proposed redesign is not consistent with the Master Plan Process and
Charge (Pre-Concept Plan), and was not pursued by the CHATPEC Work
Group in May 2003. The entirety of the CHATPEC/Twin Creeks process,
from original vision to the current date, has been a construct of the Pre-
Concept Plan and the defined general locations of the campus and park. It
is not clear what underpinnings of the process/project would be altered by
reversing this construct as proposed in the new plan.
3. The schools campus as shown in the original plan and the "Alternative
Scenario" is already located within the CHCCS walkability zone of 1.5
miles for most of Lake Hogan Farms (please see the map in Attachment
5-b), and this was noted by a CHCCS Board member in the CHATPEC
a3
Work Group when this concept came up. Based on GIS analysis, 906
homes are currently located within 1.5 miles of the proposed schools
campus in the original and alternative scenario designs (please see
Attachment C). Additionally, concerns have been raised in the new
proposed plan about goals of increasing physical activity and reducing
childhood obesity. A longer daily walk to school of %-mile to one mile may
help enhance this goal.
4. Based on our initial assessment, staff thinks it is unlikely that the four field
configuration as shown in the proposed Citizen Plan #3 could be built as
shown, due to topography and resultant costs. There is a grade differential
of 45-feet in elevation within the proposed field location. Trying to locate
the park on the northern portion of the property may result in some
facilities not being sited, due to topography and stream buffers. While
building footprints are often larger for schools, there are many more field
footprints that would need to be accommodated. In general, staff feels that
school campuses and associated fields may more easily be
accommodated where topography causes multiple elevation levels to be
created, and efficiently designed multi-purpose sports fields may benefit
from a more level area where lighting can be shared and the stray balls
don't roll to a lower field. This scenario exists in the current plans, but may
not in the proposed Citizen Plan #3
5. While the schools may become more walkable in the proposed new plan,
the redesign conversely may make the park less walkable and more
dependent on individual vehicles
6. The road access issue noted in the proposed Citizen Plan #3 would not
speed up the timetable for the park, in our estimation. The proposed
redesign would provide for one parking lot directly off of Eubanks Road,
but two others would be off of the connector road. In this proposed
redesign, the soccer fields, expected to be the first built facilities, are
located away from Eubanks Road and would be accessible only by
building part of the connector road and adjacent parking, or by walking '/2
mile from the proposed Eubanks Road parking lot. In addition, this land
may be less conducive to easy field development, perhaps driving up the
cost of construction. Regardless of the park location, the time needed for
Town CUP approval and eventual construction would remain the same,
and actually increase, due to the needed comprehensive redesign that is
estimated to take 6-12 months
7. The Citizen Plan #3 Analysis Table ("Road use and construction") states
that the "east-west access road from Old 86 would need to be completed
in conjunction with the first school construction, but it is already planned
for the Harmony Farms development." The writer may be thinking of the
proposed Villages at Berkeley development due south of the Twin Creeks
property, for which Town staff has proposed a shared entrance road. (The
development proposed for Harmony Farms is located further to the south).
However, the status of this proposed development is still up in the air, and
the development has not been approved.
a?
& The Analysis Table ("Location of School/Park Facilities") states that the
school playing fields are more important to be located closer to the
neighborhoods, since the park fields "are intended for countywide use"
and the school fields "are open for casual use when not in use by middle
school teams." It is not clear to staff that either the school or park fields
would be available/unavailable in this fashion, pending further discussion.
9. In the Analysis Table ("Topography"), it is noted that the former farmland
(park playing fields in the current plans) can support schools and fields
without undue cost. It could be argued that the same is true for the park
fields - one of the main reasons the site was purchased for the park.
10, In the Analysis Table ("City growth planning"), it is stated that wetlands to
the north and Duke Forest make future residential development unlikely in
those areas." While true, there are 70-plus undeveloped acres to the east
and southeast that could at some future time contain 140 or more
residences on half-acre lots or smaller. These residences would be within
% mile of the campus in the current designs, well within the 1.5-mile
walkability zone. The Town's Transition Area also continues to the north
and northwest, which could see future urban scale development as well.
Preliminary Conclusion
The proposed inverted redesign is an interesting alternative, and staff thanks the
citizens for bringing it to our attention. There are a number of challenges that
such a redesign might bring, including some that will remain unknown until a
more thorough assessment and site analysis is performed.
If the Board would like to examine this possibility further, staff would be glad to
look at it in more detail and report back in January. We anticipate that a full
redesign along these lines would take 6 months and delay the project by
approximately 1 year, based on a process that takes into consideration current
workloads, public input and needed approvals.
AMCNAAENT R
I
SURAt
_ 7 -ci
I
F
-_ 1 I
Id,
/ I
? I
i
1
1
`; I\ Pme4
Q Chapel Hill Township District Park and I/ Existing Farm Road (unimproved)
Educational Campus M Structure
Educational Campus /Proposed Carrboro Greenway
A
School Site 58 3 acres .
School Recreation Area 14 5 acres • Utility Poles
® Potential School Site 19 3 acres, A/ Streams
Pending Further Study Pond
Low-Impact Recreation
"
Parcel Boundary
- Low-impact Recreation 34 6 acres
Active Recreation / Proposed Connector Road
Active Fields 50 8 acres Proposed Sewer Line
Farm House Complex ^/ Existing Water Line
=Picnic Area 3 9 acres
Entrance/Meadow 5 7 acres
Parking (P)
Chapel Hill Township Park
and Educational Campus
Pre-Concept Plan
adopted 11/13/01
0 400 800 Feet°
Citizen Plan #3 for Twin Creeks Park/School Campus
8
Citizen Plan #3 For Twin Creeks Park/School Campus
Orange County has purchased land for a joint park/school campus south of Eubanks Rd
and east of Old NC 86. The current county plans isolate the main elementary/middle
school site from the nearest dense neighborhoods, with a half mile of greenbelt. This
does not contribute to the Carrboro model of walkable neighborhoods, and presents
safety risks to children walking to school through the forest. The Citizen Plan #3 shows
that all the facilities and features of the county plans of'2003 or 2004 can be retained,
while moving the main school site almost one half-mile south, creating a walkable
neighborhood school site. See www.orangecitizens.org for the Citizen Plan #3 in
electronic form. See http•//www.co.orange.nc.us/ercd/parks/parlonain.hthn for the county
plans.
Proposed Resolution:
Whereas we support integrating schools and parks into town planning, and
Whereas we support providing opportunities for moderate physical exercise such
as walking and biking as part of daily life to maintain and improve health, and
Whereas we support efforts to reduce automobile usage and encourage alternative
transportation, and
Whereas the Board of County Commissioners requested their staff to apply the
principles of "Smart Growth" planning to the Twin Creeks park/school site, and creating
walkable/bikable neighborhoods is one of these principles, and
Whereas Citizen Plan #3 for Twin Creeks would ensure a walkable neighborhood
focus by locating the combined elementary/middle school within walking/biking distance
of the 500 homes of Lake Hogan Farm development without losing any other features of
the park/school campus, with no cost penalty, and
Whereas other Orange County residents in nearby housing and/or mixed-use
developments could also benefit from this proposed location,
Now therefore be it resolved, that we request the Chapel Hill/Carrboro City
School Board, Town of Carrboro and Board of County Commissioners to consider
asking county staff to prepare and analyze an alternate plan similar to Citizen Plan #3
which places the main school site at the southern end of the Twin Creeks campus.
11/29/2004 Page 1 of 6
Citizen Plan #3 for Twin Creeks Park/School Campus
a?
Map of Twin Creeks and surrounding neighborhoods
Hcmitex Ra
Source - Town of Carrboro subdivision map.
The big red X shows the county plan school site.
The big green O shows the Citizen Plan #3 school site.
The following existing or planned neighborhoods are shown in dark brown near the
proposed school site:
Highlands
Lake Hogan Farms,
Meadow Run,
Morris Grove,
Rogers Rd,
Winmore
Duke Forest is shown in light brown.
11/29/2004 Page 2 of'6
Citizen Plan 93 for Twin Creeks Park /School Campus
A
Analysis of Citizen Plan #3
Feature
_. .... _..... _ Analysis v
. --
-
Neighborhood schools as Puts the combined elementary/middle school within 1.5 mile of 500
community centers homes of Lake Hogan Farm, and future possible homes to the east and
south-east. School system will not have to provide bussing within these
developments, After-school use will not require bus/auto use for local !
1 residents. Walking/biking to school both during and after school will
---_..__...... .._____--_. occur' more frequently.
Road use and construction Allows phase 1 park facilities to be immediately accessible from
Eubanks Rd with minimal or no new road construction. The east-west
access road from Old NC 86 would need to be completed in conjunction
with the first school construction, but it is already planned for the
Harmony Farms development. Automobile traffic within the site is not
increased. Vehicular miles traveled are reduced due to about 100-200
students and other neighborhood residents potentially walking/biking to
the school/gym/park site on a daily basis.
Local use of school / park i This plan puts the park playing fields farther from Lake Hogan Farm
facilities i development, but these fields are intended for county-wide use, and will
be intensively scheduled for use on a county-wide basis, not generally
available for casual use. The school playing fields will be closer to the
1 homes, and are open for casual use when not in use by middle school
teams. The proposed community gym is also now within walking
j distance of homes. Young families prefer to use a playground near a
neighborhood school.
Utility costs The ES/N4S site is the major user of water/sewer utilities. Placing it
immediately adjacent to Lake Hogan Farm development possibly saves a'
couple of hundred thousand dollars by shortening the distance sewer,
would be extended. Costs for water are unclear and need OWASA effort ''.I
to estimate, but will not be higher than the county plans. Daylighting of
the schools requires the corridors in east-west axis, resulting in lower,
power consumption,
Topography Only land already designated for clearing and grading, about one-quarter'
of the acreage of the site, is affected by the revision proposed in Citizen
Plan #3. This land is already flat enough to build fields and schools
without undue cost. This land was chosen for intensive development by
the CHATPEC working group because it had historically been used as
farmland, and no old-growth forest was affected
City growth planning j The wetlands to the north and the Duke Forest property to the north and
east of Twin Creeks make future residential development unlikely in
those areas. Placing a neighborhood school adjacent to those features has
no benefit. Land to the east-southeast is currently lightly undeveloped, in
private hands, and could become a mixed-use development in the future.
11/29/2004 Page 3 of'6
Citizen Plan #3 for Twin Creeks Park/School Campus
a/1
FFeature Analysis
Shared use of parking Co-location of schools and parks is intended, among other benefits, to
allow shared use of parking lots for over-flow panting during special
events, reducing the amount of impervious surface and the cost of
paving. This benefit remains unchanged.
Conformance to All of the guiding principles, except the arbitrary requirement that the
CHATPEC "Guiding ' school sites be north of the creek, continue to be met to the same extent
Principles" document that they are met by the county plans. This includes but is not limited to
the goals of. preservation of stream corridors, open space, active and
passive recreation components, preservation of historic farmstead and
pre-historic sites, sensitivity to neighboring homes, seamless integration
j of school and park usage, community gym at the ES.
Historical note: the county guidance to the CHATPEC committee restricting the school
sites to the north side of the creek appears to have been based on the fact that the CHCCS
School Board had been attempting to purchase the former Hunter tract adjacent to
Eubanks Rd, before the county purchased the combined Hunter and Cates tracts. No
justification for continuing this restriction was ever presented to the CHATPEC
committee.
Contact Information:
The following people are coordinating the effort to obtain consideration for the citizen-
created plan #3:
Bhavna Patel (919) 967-8167 bhavna a)nc.rr.com - Lake Hogan Farm resident
coordinator
*Matthew Barton 967-1943(h), 465-2266x16(w) Matthew.Barton(@,iece.org
*Judy Margolis 968-3423(h) imar olis a(),bellsouth.net
Pam Hemnringer (919) 942-2273 Qhemminaer(ftellsouth.net
* indicates they were a member of the CHATPEC planning committee and participated in
the planning sessions for the campus.
11/29/2004 Page 4 of 6
30
,
Twin Creeks* Park
(*Moniese Nomp)
R,1N,d In 30.3004
?,.3m.m Citizen Plan 3
Citizen Plan 93 for Twin Creeks Park/School Campus
Detailed Site Plan: Citizen Plan #3
00
o
n'
W
___ _
r??M' a .TMJ ? ? I I
'}`i't 1 ?y r J ?? •5 /? ICI
J ?Z
'i?'?,. 0-71
C ^-
L
Twin Creeks* Park
(*Moniese Noznp)
Reused 1030 2004
d?w4r Citizen Plan #.'3
Walking trails are shown in brown. Roads are shown in gray. School facilities are shown
in dotted lines. Every facility included in the county plans of 2003 and 2004 is also
included in Citizen Plan #3. The compass orientation is also maintained, which is
important for energy conservation planning, and to keep the sun out of players eyes.
3)
11/29/2004 Page 5 of 6
Citizen Plan #3 for Twin Creeks Park/School Campus
For Reference: County Plan #2 -- Plan of summer 2004 3a
LOO J j
O
r r ?
J '
?VN
_ .v+.. _ A Val
J l Y ?L?/ 1 l,'
t
ITa '' I
E -1,
Twin Creeks* Park 1V
(*Moniese Nomp) !_
_ Reviec? IOA. un
1'-SiU?P' (1rn4RCUVmry
? f my mmcen nv! Itouma
c ?? uu,?um?wn.m
11/29/2004 Page 6 of 6
DESIGN # 1
I 1
t 1 = ? /L /j? L J
I 0 I ? II ?//j/ = ? /.
? / lam. I D 's y I 11 1 1 1 i
L U lJ
? L_J 1
It 1- j It I
/ r ? ®? = 1 ?. -mac I I I I i
/ ..?.? / _ 1, ? i 1 1 1 I I I I
1 . 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
YY LLw
.. , .w I 1 ,.,"-u.w
Twin Creeks* Park.
(*Moniese Nomp)
Revised Q6pml 12.02.03
\
?-
\J
S
w.e.<r..
Il/ W.? m
i
o„? comely
co?,cvstioe nrpaximanse>nesc
Covscss? De xc
DF--S1GN 4*2
6
p I I I .w.amuiw \I I 'a
COD
^.-`ry r ---------
i
\\ / SI
..? ? _c guy
OUR-
'I
Twin Creeks* Park
® (*Moniese Nomp)
A[te Live Scenario 10.4.04 • •,•,
C?Iim ?, omagc camly
cartzn t
Citizen Plan #3 for Twin Creeks Park/School Campus
Detailed Site Plan: Citizen Plan #3
35
0
°/o
Twin Creeks* Park
® (*Moniese Nomp)
ncvIscu 1030-2004
'4ws
egxa„ Citizen Plan #3
Walking trails are shown in brown. Roads are shown in gray. School facilities are shown
in dotted lines. Every facility included in the county plans of 2003 and 2004 is also
included in Citizen Plan #3. The compass orientation is also maintained, which is
important for energy conservation planning, and to keep the sun out of players eyes.
MnMnnc n,,,.... c mrc
36
C
O
yy?
c 5 " v
yt O o a ?.?
b9
y?? O C v 2 .C ? L' v C
evn
N C N- N- C N N .y. pp C
N m OC C.E OO T j 0p C G D
, u.E1?o $S E o °u °u n
°w L y ? J T
Bs o
'?vo ...cv8ro ?•„
a,?.5 ? ? ? a 5?.=9
a?oo as°°u$°'
eo.=o EL'S e"L E
?M ?•u 0i ?9 ps N'O ?
T?mg9m D,=L ?
u m?cE a°Y"° S
VO
e ?eo-?-?'89?mE o
L ? ry D U
4? cC''aa?H.nO
» ao a? o=%°ca
c oo 0,9 V-?U ¢.c
O" 93x??.?cav
?wo'go??a'OV_o
O Pq..°°ccaoE
L.y ga`?%s w m? aYl
('0 u°`°3 wuo3 ?,`aE
pv `ae H °
g `o ?Nm a y?t.?
O nOa p?HZ a?'o
ry ?3.cs? ???'
r+-M 9
?n'O ri` m??w paE
re E? p°p?°c.5 ,o $a
? °o v'a ?n m°E°H
WN 6t.= 9??m
.c .,H c.h ? v5
cm s_C?c?u-'?o?zm
?v ?.5 ?i'v `o dF C S 3 5
.U i.o veA 5.+
?LWU?
V?C> m0
'i°?,6Ei3v
OaU p E!R
fl l 6: q (9Y H 6.=
N..900 EOO V°t YI V
r7 19
viE?v?,,H3
w a? ooa?e?a =
mo 3?3?'?°?3
16A WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2004 USA TODAY
Nati
Safety
outweighs
children's
need for
adventure,
parents say
Continued from 15A
Students don't walk for a variety
of reasons. Parents fear for their
child's safety , whether from heavy
traffic or possible abductions.
Schools are often too (anon die out-
skirts of town or far from the sub-
division instead of in the neigh-
borhood. Parents who wade and
don't have time to walk their dig-
dren to school like knowing their
kids are safely delivered by car or
suppervised on the bus.
'-lie result is many students miss
an important part of growing up.
the CDC and groups concerned
with the issue say. The freedom
and adventure of wailing to school
has been replaced with oversche-
duled and oversuPervised kids. As
Royce Yeater of the National Trust
for Historic Preservadon outs it,
r
a to encourage ? g{?uaij u Y a? fk"?(i 4tiy
gasidewail<as a 1"fi''E <,u.c-C .1 3.., AW
a small grove of µ?„tow..^?^,^:.row
nearbyhouses.A Exercise: Frank Prince, 10, rides to Oak Creek Elementary But hell tale
grader stand as a bus to middle school nextyear because there are no sidewalks
v dime students
this fall, the county health a
sc
school u tried to start "walking
school bus"sote to to could nuld meet t
g n I i n u
ikon a set mute walk ro Oak
Creek with adult supervision But v?±^r•^^^'_^^"e (''aw'l
the principal, Jeff Brown, said no. -" } onto
He feared potential liability issues. wikw+x! io " '?
'Today, every time a kid walls m
school, I'm like. 'good job,'" says
Carolyn Nelson. Oak Creeks pI s-
icai education teacher. When her I cohlmlrut
children were young, she says, "it
had m be something really special ^^^^^^'^. ?....wuz.*owr
that I picked them up at school.
Now we have kids that are picked It could be dangerous.
upevery day" Tina Schnieder is an Oak Creek
be
ride
says
10, rides his bike to
eels out ofthe ram-
:40 a.m. After two
intersections, he's
e in the mclc But
IC will go to sixth
e Middle School,
his house and the
igintersection.
wants to ride his
Walking m school 'builds char-
acter. It gives diem moxie:' says mom and a private invest!gamt5he
knows that abductions of children dropped this fall because of a fi-
nancial crisis. But the police
lk
b
Wendi Kaliins, national coord nator by stringers are rare-2,000-3,000 .
e-
warned students not ro wa
for Safe Routes to School, a conked- a year in a nation of 71 million chil- cause the school is on a busy road
coition orlocal and state pro grams dren, according to federal crime among shopping centers and parka
d
h
id
lk
to impprave pedestr an condition
d amt tla. But file Dawn Gmdhwoi, ing to san
t
ere are no s
ewa
s.
o
b
lki
t
'd
i
h
for ciul
ren walking to school. Schroeder says her biggest (ear h e wa
ng
o
You
e
t
er
Some students ride a bus far "'n anger danger." So she doesn't dose to traffic or in a ditch," says
from their neighborhood mattend lether9-year-old son. Ryle, walk to police LL Ken Colburn Fairfield's
a magnet school or an integrated sdtooL especially not on the short- fiscal woes eased when voters
school- reasons parents think out- art through the treesItoniy talres passed a school tax in November,
weigh the benefits of walking. And onetime. "she says. so busing would resume. But in the
time-stopped families may relish Patens also fear their child could nearby Lakrom school district, bus-
the few minutes in the car for a be struck by a car. Being killed by a ing for all high schools will be sus-
Reasons for riding children younger reran 14, second father to drive his 15-year-olu son
only to being killed while a pas- to class "It's busing by grandpa"
Now it reqyuires volunteer efforts
likethe"waikingschoolbus"ordhe senger in a car, according to the Na-
banal Safe Rids Campaign. The Coburn says.
Fears about liability and poten-
national KidsWallc-m-School pro-
d group's 2001 surv%9 of 9.000 in-
d
l
d
h
gram mgetstu
ents outofthecar mrsecbons near sc
s s
owe
go
and on their feet. Why the resis- that nearly 60% include unsafe
once? walking condidam,suchasaladcof
sidewalks or speeding drivers.
3?
2000, the National-Rust for Historic
Preservation pointed out this trend
and included neighborhood
schools on its annual list of en-
dangered historic bu8dings..
In Ohio, a large pot ofst re mon-
ey for school construction is en-
couraging communities to build
newschoois.
'Abu can almost throw a stone in
con-
Orange'
Plato to
some in
every-
.. "'"" '"
get m wade most acconn Ply their was a consideration. says school
board member Chuckjolnrson
kids into the building. Mitre Lau-
berCs house is on the comer of Oak ^Heigghborhoods are great, and
W
's,
'
Creek'sdriveway, Buthedrives Lib- Cs un
innamthat wecan
t con-
it
tine in that way, but them wasn't
by, 6, and Jeffrey, 8, to the door for the space avagable."
early drop-of partly to save time
getting to wodc and party to avoid
retorting home and sending the 'Missed opportunity'
(amity dog into a frenzy. Does he
feel slightly ndiculous driving his The issue of walking to school is
rid ran 30 yards to school? "All being studied by the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency as a possible
the time; he says.
People have developed habits
now, and they don't really want to
" way to decrease auto emissions. A
2003 study by the agency of car
haffic to two Florida !ugh schools
KziBns says about
change diem,
parentswho dove their .s. "i-rey
' showed thahhe(ghbmhood schools
vinuldinc 1111alki
gby 13% and
s more convenient, even
think it
though they have m get up early, %
reduce auto emissions byl5%.
'
fight the school lines."
' Samh Martin of the CDC
s Phys-
ical Activity and Health Branch says
t get there from
? They cat
here increazin the number of clukhen
'
.
Sometimes it's just too far to who walk to school won
t solve the
problem of overweight kids. But
walk. In 2001, half of all kids lived
3 mile or more from school
mm- walking to school could provide 20
,
ac-
with
o
pared to 40 minutes of the hour of exer-
rise children need each day. "It's a
n ousc
confi
the Nati
cording to the National Nmeholit real missed opportunity. Not only
7tansponadon Survey.
As school Iff"n s expand or re- for physical activity, but I believe
kids gain pedestrian skBls and also
place old build gs new comnuc-
non is often on la Eger Sims on the a sense ofindependence, a same of
"
edge of developed areas -away she says
accomplishment
Cam, the teacher who patrols
from ceflat in Iocamd neighbor-
hoods
That makes [hem too farm the shortcut through the woods,
.
walk m,atieastuntii residential de- says she has gotten to know the
three students who routinely use
velopment spreads farther out In the oath. On a recent morning. thev
a good way to start your