Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHATPEC 021303Memorandum 11 ,, To: CHATPEC Work Group From: Margaret Brown and Alice Gordon Co- Chairs Date: February 6, 2003 Re: February 13 Work Group Meeting ro...... .... .... .. .... . ......... Please find attached the agenda and materials for the next meeting of the At this meeting we plan to begin the important task of listing an initial "menu of potential uses and facilities" for the site. Correspondence has been received from each of the parks and recreation boards regarding community facility needs (as requested on November 12), and from the school board on uses of the educational campus portion. We plan to brainstorm the comprehensive list at the meeting, and then ask everyone to vote by placing dots on the list for which uses are most needed /appropriate in your mind. This initial list of potential activities will be pared back and refined over future meetings, but members are encouraged to be comprehensive and include "outside of the box" possibilities at this point in time. Staff will also provide updates on new information received, and planned site visits. A light meal will be provided. If you will be unable to attend the meeting, please contact Carol Melton at 245 -2590 (cmelton @co.orange.nc.us). �.n. �. �.�u' � " .. 2. 3. 4' �� z� D� u� � � � Q� " AGENDA Chapel Hill Township Park and Educational Campus (CHATPEC) Master Plan Work Group February 13, 2003 5:30 p.00. Southern Human Services Center 2505 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill, NC Time Agenda Item 5:30 Call tnOrder 5:30 Additions Qr Changes +n the Agenda 5:35 Approval nfMeeting Summary (11-14) 5:45 Identified Community Facility Needs Ad the November 14vvorkseaoion. representatives of recreation advisory boards agreed to solicit thoughts on community facility needs tobe shared with Task Force. These comments are provided aa Attachment 1. Community needs were also identified in the 1Q00 Joint Master Recreation and Parks (JyWFlP) report (excerpt au Attachment 2).Previous information from the Board of Education regarding school facilities io included aa Attachment 3. The Task Force may wish to use these ideas, along with those identified by the work group itself, to generate the Master "Menu" List of Potential Facilities. 6:15 Creation (]f Master "K8eDU" List nf Potential Facilities A November 27 m email asked Work Group members to begin thinking about potential facilities for the park and educational campus site. To facilitate this diouusaion, staff has created a draft master list (final page of Attachment 4) using the advisory board comments and the 19QQ JK8RP report needs (from item 4ebove). and other potential facilities au identified by staff. The planned format for generation of the Master Menu nf Potential Facilities, and how it might be used, is described in Attachment 4. 7:00 Plans for March 13 Meeting / FUfUFe Schedule 7:15 Interim Report fC]the Board of Commissioners Draft hobe prepared for March 13 work group agenda. 7:30 Adjourn m^ Chapel Hill Township • and Educational • • • naffff • • • 11 Members Present: Wendy Bryan, Jay Bryan, Gloria Faley, Delores Simpson, Judson Edeburn, Johnny Randall, , Doris Murrell, Robb English, Judy Margolis, Terri Tyson, Matthew Barton, Kathy Kaufman, Nick Didow, Patrick Sullivan, Jeanette Moore, John Herrera. Members Absent: Joe Herzenberg, Elizabeth Brown, Margaret Brown, Alice Gordon, Renee Price, Bill Strom, Kory Wilmot Staff Present: David Stancil, Lori Taft, Steve Scroggs, Bill Mullin, Kimberly Siran, Tina Moon, Carol Rosemond, Craig Benedict, John Link, Gwen Harvey. David Stancil called the meeting to order, and asked for the group's agreement to serve as convener for a worksession of the Work Group (which was agreed to by consensus). Stancil suggested that for this evening, having visited the site and learned about the site, the Work Group begin to move into the implications of what the site information means. Kimberly Siran would be asked to pick up with where the group left the October meeting, and discuss how the site analysis map was created and other ways to look at the site using the available data. Once that is done, feedback could be received from the group on opportunities and constraints that are seen (from site visits and the information presented). A summary list of opportunities and constraints was distributed. It was proposed that the meeting conclude with requests for information and wrap up with the information on the field trips. Siran explained that the goal of site analysis is to reflect allow the natural features of the land to reflect the traditional pattern of rural development — in this case the site has always been a farm, so where was the farmstead, cropland; the pastures? Once this is know, the designer tries to embed this new pattern of playing fields, schools into that traditional pattern. The site analysis maps involve an overlay process, using orthophoto maps (1993 & 1998), wetlands & hydrology maps showing stream and slopes, streams, a land use map, topography and soils maps shows severe slopes and suitable soils for development potential, and vegetation patterns. All of these combine all the information to develop the site analysis map. From that map the land unit areas that are suitable for development should begin to emerge, to reflect the land's traditional rural pattern. A discussion followed on the possible developable areas, how to determine where soil borings should be pursued, suggestions of providing cut outs to place and move around on the scale, building on the land without disturbing it as much as possible. Siran displayed two perspectives that were drawn to provide another look at the lay of the land. Stancil added that the dividing lines of the pods on the map should not be seen as lines that cannot be crossed, only natural dividing points for the purpose of site evaluation. Information from the previous meeting discussion was noted regarding the opportunities and challenges was reviewed. Others identified were: • One of smaller schools sites (12 -15 acre) may be separated by the connector road. • Consider moving connector road up so the schools campus would not be bisected. • But the separation of one school site might not be a bad thing • Keep the road from crossing Jones Creek. • Lot of opportunities to create place for folks to enjoy the property. • More parks needed to accommodate county residents for active recreation. • There is enough land to put elementary school co- located with active recreation facility similar to Efland Cheeks. draft MN j� C • Helpful to have how many acres exist and are needed for active recreation such as soccer, baseball fields, or active park. • How much acreage is needed for school building, parking lot, and recreation area • Shape is important — rectangle best and doesn't need to be contiguous. • Two multipurpose fields. • Like to see a footprint of fields to see what could be done. • Stormwater management will be an issue at the site Stancil reviewed discussions with OWASA about extending sewer to the property from the south, which is currently at Lake Hogan Farms. Their plan has been to extend sewer along the Jones Creek corridor to the north and then extend the line into the draw area to utilize gravity flow. However, there are examples of places where the sewer line is along the stream such as Booker Creek. In other cases the line can be offset from the stream as long s the topo still works (gravity flow). Carrboro noted that 20 foot setbacks required. If one looks at the topography the gravity can be maintained, and so it may be possible to offset a line along the Jones Creek corridor. Another potential extension could be along Buckhorn Branch. Anything other than that would involve pump stations, which are much more expensive. The best approach from an engineering standpoint would be to keep within the general topography, using gravity flow lines to pipe wastewater. A draft Activities Timeline for the project was distributed and reviewed. Items one through four have been done. Stancil noted that there are two parts to pickup with at the next meeting before talking about the specifics of what the park and school campus is, and breaking into subcommittees. Those are to talk about public outreach, and begin thinking about a menu of activities. Stancil also noted that one approach often used is "dot voting," where the (group as a whole, subcommittees) is to create a list of all potential needs that we think exists either from inventories of needs or committee knowledge of needs or interests and use that menu for people to look at and agree. Then give all members five green dots and ask them to vote what are the most important activities. This process is the first step to developing a draft concept plan. The other thing needed for discussion was public outreach. The Work Group is to provide an interim report to the Board of County Commissioners in January /February, and it might be useful to hold an initial public forum. After the group has talked about the menu of activities and at least gotten a sense of what might be appropriate, have a public forum and get a reaction from local folks and interested folks. Looking into February and March the work group needs to accomplish pieces that we need for the final design to be completed. Talk about how the subcommittees are going to work, how many on each, how we will communicate and begin to use design charettes to focus in on specifics about the site. Subcommittees would begin meeting possibly twice a month to crunch down on what the master plan looks like for the individual sites. In April, the timetable would have the work group looking at draft concept plans for the two pieces, having communicated each other about how to provide that seamless transition asked to include. Then finalize the concept plans, discuss how we integrate them, and talk about phasing, final design issues. Once the group has a final draft master plan, a second public forum asking people to react what has been done might be prudent. After that the group may want to make changes to the report, and send the master plan on to the county commissioners in June. The Work Group was asked if any additional information needs existed based on the discussion to date. It was noted that several informational pieces had been included in the agenda packet. draft Additional information requested was identified as: • contacting the three parks and recreation departments and advisory boards and asking them what they want to see at the site; • what is the current low impact recreation acreage in Orange County; • what is the available active recreational acreage in the county. • important to know where these recreational needs are coming from i.e., south or north of the county? • info about bond money - what money is currently . available and any existing financial resources. • Does the school district have any policy or desire as to whether two schools should be physically connected. Possible field trips were briefly discussed, and a suggestion was made to select a delegation to go on site visits to New Hanover and Wake Counties, including meeting with people who are familiar with the whole process for interviews /comments. Pictures or video was encouraged to help those not present see 'the sites. Staff to investigate time for Veteran's Park/Campus site visit (Wilmington). Try to schedule something informal for Cary. The next work group meeting is December 121h at the Southern Human Services Center at 5:30p.m. The meeting adjourned at 7:30p.m. draft • r • -i TO: Mayor Foy and Council FROM: Andrea Rohrbacher, Chair, Parks and Recreation Commission RE: Potential Amenities at the Chapel Hill Township Parks & Education Campus DATE: January 13, 2003 At its November 20 meeting the Commission discussed potential parks and recreation elements for the Chapel Hill Township Parks & Education Campus (CHATPEC). This was in response to a request for Town input from Patrick Sullivan, the Chair of the County Parks & Recreation Commission. The Commission voted unanimously (8 -0) to forward the following to the Council: The Chapel Hill Parks & Recreation Commission strongly supports the development of the Chapel Hill Township Parks & Education Campus site to serve the county's growing leisure needs. We recommend that several active /improved facilities be included at the park including • Large, multipurpose athletic fields available for public use • Winterized restrooms • Picnic shelters • A large playground structure • Loop trails • Activities targeted for seniors While the Commission believes that school /park joint use of facilities is workable at the elementary school level, we believe it is extremely difficult to effectively share facilities at the middle and high school levels due much increased demand by school programs. We thank the County Parks & Recreation Commission for seeking the Town's input and respectfully request that the Council forward this information to the County, specifically the CHATPEC Work Group. Margaret Brown is the chair of the CHATPEC Work Group. The Parks and Recreation Commission voted to forward this recommendation, with voting as follows: For Against Andrea Rohrbacher, Chair none Pam Hemminger, Vice Chair Terry Blalock Paul A. Caldwell Paul P. Caldwell Pete Schwartz Terri Tyson Diane VandenBroek 1 06, W F*N To: Margaret Brown and Alice Gordon CHATPEC Co-Chairs From: Doris Murrell Carrboro Recreation and Parks Commission Chairperson Subject: Community Recreation Needs —Recommendations for the Chapel Hill Township Park Site Date: January 17, 2003 The Carrboro Recreation and Parks Commission discussed this project at several meetings. The Commission approved the following recommended list of community recreation needs on January 6, 2003. • Soccer Fields • Multi purpose fields • Play fields (baseball, softball, etc) • Tennis Courts • Basketball Courts • Volleyball Court • Track • A large gymnasium • Pool • Spray park • Hedge Maze • Playground equipment • Picnic shelters • Trails • Park accessibility to all citizens I presented this list to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on January 14, 2003. Also during that time I provided a project update. The Board accepted the report and emphasized three points. The Committee should stay focused on the mission and provide active recreation. The Board also wanted clarification of the potential school site's location on the map. Finally, the Board requested that they be kept informed of progress. M Attachment 2 Excerpt from "Report of the Joint Master .Recreation and Parks Work Group" (May, 1999) a, Develop Phase II - Efland-Cheeks School/Community Park. (In progress) b. Develop Courthouse/River Park (jointly with Town of Hillsborough). c. Develop Fairview Community Park & renovate playground. d. Develop a Master Plan for Northern Human Services Center Park and renovate the building. e. Renovate the Central Recreation Center Heating and Air System and replace windows. f. Acquire parkland in Little River and Chapel Hill/Bingham Township. g. Develop a joint Park planning effort with OWASA. h. Continue joint planning efforts with the school systems for locating schools and park sites and to construct larger gymnasiums at future schools to address the overcrowding of indoor recreation activities. 2. Town of Chapel Hill The Town has recently begun updating its comprehensive plan. The new plan will: • Include a section on parks and recreation • Call for plan to be completed in fall of 1999 The Town's comprehensive plan was last updated in 1989. The Town Council adopted a Greenways Comprehensive Master Plan on May 26, 1998. Needs identified include: a. Future Development of Northern Community Park At its September 28, 1998 Council adopted the following actions; 1) from FY98- 99 budget appropriated for conceptual plan process of aquatic facility/community center; and 2) $200,000 in Town park bonds allocated for development of M batting cage project. Possible development a. aquatic facility, b. Community Center. b. Future Development of Southern Community Park • No Council decisions made at this point, except soccer field at school • No conceptual plan at this point Staff and the Town Parks & Recreation Commission will soon recommend a parks and recreation master plan process that will: • Identify community leisure needs, values • Clarify/revise Department mission • Perhaps develop community standards for park and recreation planning/development 3. Town of Carrboro a. Acquisition and Development of a Northern Community Park b. Community Gymnasium c. Provide general on-going renovations to all existing facilities at all community, neighborhood, and mini-park sites. d. Along with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School System, provide expanded recreation facilities at existing and new facilities. e, Begin acquiring property along Morgan creek and Bolin Creek Greenway corridors and start developing facilities where possible. Accept all previous offers of dedication and easements along Morgan and Bolin Creek for greenway system. f. Fully develop the "Morgan Creek Neighborhood Park." g. Acquire property for "Bolin Creek Neighborhood Park" and fully develop. h. Fully develop "Odum Mini-Park" L Acquire additional property for "Pathway Drive Mini-Park" and fully develop. CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516-2881 Telephone: (919) 967-8211 Neff G. Pedersen Nettie Collins-Hart, Assistant Superintendent Superintendent of Instructional Service Stephen S. Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent Of Support Services Raymond J. Reitz, Chief Technology Officer TO: John Link Barry Jacobs FROM: Neil G. Pedersen ,Superintendent RE: Plans for New Facilities and High School Transition DATE: October 28, 2002 Attached is the resolution adopted by the CHCCS Board of Education on October 17, 2002. Revisions made by the Board the evening of October 17 are in bold. Attachment Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 Telephone: (919) 967-8211 Neil G. Pedersen Superintendent Raymond J. Reitz Chief Technology Officer TO: Board of Education FROM: Neil G. Pedersen Superintendent Nettie CoWns-Hart, Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services Steve Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services SUBJECT: Issues Related to New Facilities DATE: . October 5, 2002 At it's October P meeting, the Board of Education clarified its position on several issues related to planning for new education facilities. The resolution below has been written to capture the consensus of the Board. It should be clearly stated from the outset, however, that long-range facility planning is challenging in a community such as ours. We must continually adjust to changes in enrollment trends; therefore, although these plans reflect our best thinking based on current enrollment projections, they are subject to change as conditions necessitate. RESOLUTION Be it, therefore, resolved that the Board of Education adopts the following statements as the official position of the Board as it moves forward with the provision of adequate facilities for its students and staff through the year 2010-11: The Board of Education, via this resolution, formally requests the Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to authorize the use of 2001 bond funds originally associated with Elementary School No. 10 for a third high school. These funds will be combined with funds from previously identified revenue sources to build a comprehensive high school with a capacity as close to 1000 students as the budget will permit. The projected budget, based on currently available funds, is approximately $28 million. The school will be located on the southern side of the school district. The target opening date is 2005-06 although it is recognized that this will be a difficult deadline to meet. If possible, the site that is selected and the 25 design of the school should accommodate expansion of the school to 1500 students I in the event that this should become necessary. 2. The Board of Education will move as quickly as possible to acquire a site in the southern end of the district. In the event the Board finds that the site along the Smith Level Road is the best site for a third high school, it will request that the appropriate governmental entities move the Urban Services Boundary line to include three properties along Smith Level Road, north of Dogwood Acres. If it would be helpful, the Board would support a provision that would restrict development of these properties for school purposes. The attached map outlines the very minor change that may be requested. 3. The school district's Capital Investment Plan (CIP) will include plans for the conversion of the current Lincoln Center facility to a high school providing alternative and/or magnet programs to serve an enrollment of up to 500 students. This plan will include the renovation of existing space and add approximately 36,000 square feet to the building. A very preliminary estimate of the cost of this project'is $11 million. The cost of this renovation is projected to be less than expanding the third high school to a capacity of 1500 and it would have the added advantage of providing community resources to the Lincoln neighborhood. This facility will open by 2010. Funding does not exist in the current CIP for this purpose. 4. . A new central office facility will be constructed and opened no later than 2008 to accommodate a growing staff, to provide a healthier work environment, and to eliminate the need to rent office space in the community. At this time, plans call for the construction of this facility adjacent to the Transportation Center and across the street from Chapel Hill High School. Funding for this facility in the amount of $5.8 million currently exists in the CIP. 5. The Board of Education, via this resolution, requests the BOCC to work in conjunction with the Board of Education to develop and commit to a new financing plan that will allow for the construction of Elementary No. 10 that is projected to open between 2006 -07 and 2010 -11 consistent with the Level of Service parameters adopted in the final version of the Memorandum of Understanding for the Schools Adequate Public Facility Ordinance and with class size reductions set at either the state or local level. It is anticipated that this elementary school will be constructed on the Old 86/Eubanks Road Site. 6. The Board directs the school administration to pursue plans to locate up to 15 additional mobile classrooms on the two high schoor- campuses to accommodate increased enrollments until a third high school is constructed. This total will include mobiles relocated from other elementary campuses as well as purchased and/or leased mobiles. The 3Board further directs the redistricting committee to give strong consideration to plans that will balance the enrollments between the two high schools until a third high school opens, and mobiles should be located as necessary to meet the needs of student enrollments. As the administration moves forward with such plans, it should consider other opportunities for reducing overcrowding in the high schools, especially collaboration agreements with local community colleges and the Orange County Schools and continue our current practice of approving transfer out requests as the first formal step to enable students residing in this district to transfer to another school district of their choice. The administration also will take into account the need for additional resources in overcrowded schools and the need to create smaller learning communities in our high schools as it plans for the transition and prepares for future high school reforms. 7. The Board of Education believes that a fifth middle school will need to open by 2007® 08 and is receptive to this school being located on the Old 86/Eubanks Road site. At this time there are no provisions for, funding this project in the CIP. The Board requests that the BOCC begin planning now for how this facility will be I -. 8. The Board of Education anticipates locating at least three comprehensive schools on the Old 86/Eubanks Road site and looks forward to participating as an active partner in the master planning process for this piece of property. 9. The Board of Education will seek to identify and reserve additional sites for schools within the next year. UN Attachment 4 To: CHATPEC Work Group From: David Stancil, Environment and Resource Conservation Director Date: February 6, 2003 Re: Draft "Menu" List of Potential Facilities One of the important steps in designing the park and educational campus is the brainstorming of a master list of potential facilities — a list that can be refined and "whittled down" over time to a final set of recommended facilities for the site. To facilitate the discussion, staff has taken 1) the submitted community needs from the advisory boards and school board, 2) the needs identified in the 1999 Joint Master Recreation and Parks (JMRP) report, and 3) other ideas that have been generated by staff, to develop a list to start the discussion. Another way to consider this list is as a "menu," options that the work group (and the soon- to -be- formed "Schools" and "Park" subcommittees) might choose and select from. Eventually, as it is refined, the master list will form the basis and framework of the eventual recommended facilities and design, and the ultimate Master Plan. In order to start with as broad a palette as possible, the attached staff draft list is comprehensive of many potential facilities as we could identify — without regard to desirability, practicality of siting, or cost. The goal of this initial discussion is to think "outside of the box," and make sure the base is as broad as possible for initial consideration. Relative desirability of facilities, cost, what the• site can feasibly sustain from a natural and structural standpoint — all are important issues, but ones that would be the focus of future meetings and discussions. As such, this staff list should be viewed as simply a starting point. The action we propose for this meeting is review, and then an initial refinement of the master list. We propose to conduct the exercise of generating /refining a "Master List" in' the following fashion: 1. The Work Group will be asked to review the recommendations from the County and Town advisory boards, the needs identified in the 1999 JMRP report (asking clarifying questions as needed), and the staff draft master list (attached herein - which includes all of the above as well as additional potential facility ideas) I (i- 2. The Work Group would then discuss the draft master list, adding any other potential facilities that are desired to be discussed or considered for the subcommittees use. 3. At conclusion of the master list discussion, the transcribed list will be posted on the meeting room wall. 4. Each member will be given 10-15 adhesive "dots" and asked to register Y preferences by "voting" on the individual concepts by placing a dot next to the items you feel are the 10-15 most important for future discussion. 5. The result of this will be a refined Master List #2, which will be transcribed and brought to the March 13 meeting. At that meeting we anticipate further refinement of the list, as the subcommittees are formed and begin their design work in March /April. Staff feels that accomplishing the above task at the February 13 meeting will position the Work Group to further refine the list of potential facilities, and create subcommittees on March 13. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Copies: Anita Jones-McNair, Carrboro Recreation and Parks Director Roy Williford, Carrboro Planning Director Lori Taft, Recreation and Parks Management Director Kimberly Siran, Open Space Design Specialist Craig Benedict, Planning Director Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager .--i Mul Potential Facilities 216/03 - M ➢ Elementary School ➢ Middle School ➢ High School ➢ Other School Facilities? (Athletic Fields) ➢ Multi-purpose athletic fields ➢ Soccer fields ➢ Baseball/softball fields ➢ Walking/running Track ➢ Disc ("frisbee") golf course ➢ Mini-golf ➢ Par-3 golf (Buildings/Structures) ➢ Restrooms (winterized) ➢ Picnic shelters ➢ Gymnasium (large) ➢ Cultural/Interpretative Area or Museum (Cate house) ➢ Ice rink ➢ Dance floor (barn) ➢ Park office (house) ➢ Maintenance storage building ➢ Concession stand, ➢ Community Center ➢ Exercise equipment facility (Children/Youth Play) ➢ Large playground structure ➢ Small playground ➢ Spray park ➢ Rock-climbing wall (silo climb?) (Courts) ➢ Tennis courts ➢ Basketball courts ➢ Volleyball court ➢ Roller hockey rink ➢ Skateboard/rollerblade facility ➢ Batting Cage ➢ Bocce Ball court ➢ Shuffleboard court ➢ Croquet area ➢ Racquetball courts ➢ Horseshoes ➢ Chess/backgammon tables (Water-based) ➢ Swimming Pool ➢ Fishing ➢ Paddleboats (Trails /Low- Impact) ➢ Greenway ➢ Loop trails ➢ "Vita Par" course ➢ Mountain bike trail ➢ Equestrian trail ➢ Hedge maze (Other) ➢ Archery area ➢ Dog park ➢ Art/Sculpture garden ➢ Picnic tables ➢ Park benches ➢ Outdoor grills ➢ Camping areas ➢ Amphitheatre/performance area ➢ Meadow (grow hay?) Other / Program Ideas (for later consideration) Senior-oriented activities Accessibility to all citizens M