HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-03-2005-9a 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 3, 2005
Action Agenda
Item No. q -- Q
SUBJECT: Approval of Twin Creeks District Park and Educational Campus Master Plan
DEPARTMENT: Environment and Resource PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
Conservation, Recreation and
Parks
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1) Proposed Master Plan Map (5-3-05) David Stancil, 245-2590
2) Staff Memorandum Lori Taft, 245-2660
3) 2005 Work Group Master Plan Map (3-23-
05)
4) Twin Creeks Work Group Report (4-14-05) TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
5) Park Facility Projects Timetable, March 2005 Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To consider approval of a master plan for the Twin Creeks (Moniese Nomp)
District Park and Educational Campus, review additional information requested on April 14" ,
and authorize staff to prepare a Conditional Use Permit application to the Town of Carrboro
for Phase I of the park.
BACKGROUND: On April 14`h, the Board received the report of the Twin Creeks District
Park and Educational Campus Work Group, a 6-member work group with representatives
from the Board, CHCCS Board of Education, and parks and environmental interests. Twin
Creeks is a 193-acre site with frontage on both Old 86 and Eubanks Road north of Carrboro.
The site was acquired by Orange County in 2001 for the purpose of co-locating the planned
Chapel Hill Township District Park and a future multi-school campus.
At the April 14th work session, the Board asked that adoption of the Master Plan be brought
back for action at the May 3'd regular meeting. The Board asked that a number of follow-up
items also be addressed on May 3`d. Staff has provided this in a memorandum (attached),
along with a few additional matters in need of consideration. Taken together, the follow-up
items include:
1. Information on discussions with Piedmont EMC regarding the possible location of a
BMX bike course in the PEMC powerline easement;
2. The potential for use of Soccer Superfund to augment funding for Phase I;
2
1 A phasing plan for the park, and information about the pending Carrboro CUP
application;
4. The breakdown of water and sewer costs between park and campus;
5. Staffs review of recommendations submitted by an area citizen; and
6. Some minor staff-recommended modifications to the master plan to address site utility
and safety issues.
The primary action needed at this time is the adoption of a Master Plan and authorization for
staff to proceed with a Conditional Use Permit application to Carrboro. As shown in the
attached timetable, the preparation of the Conditional Use Permit application to Carrboro is
intensive and is expected to take 4-6 months, due to the level of detail needed for the
application and the need for contracted engineering drawings. Subsequent review and
consideration of the CUP has been estimated by Town staff to take approximately one year.
However, the Board may wish to consider asking the Town to expedite the review timetable,
as was recently done for the CHCCS high school #3.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no cost associated with adoption of the Master Plan. The
proposed Phase I of the park is estimated to cost in the range of$1.6-$2.0 million,
depending on future construction costs and the amount of pre-grading that is done for future
fields as part of Phase I. A total of $1.2 million is available from the 2001 Parks and Open
Space bond toward this project. In terms of other possible funding sources, the Board has
previously briefly discussed the Soccer Superfund as a possibility ($1,02,5,000 remaining).
Recent discussions with the designer for the West Ten Soccer Center have indicated that
$375,000 would,yield the construction of two soccer fields at that site. The Board may wish
to consider allocating the remaining $650,000 toward Twin Creeks and the two new fields in
Phase 1 of the park. Other possible funding sources might include the Chapel Hill District
Park payment-in-lieu fund (around $20,000), and a potential N.C. Parks and Recreation Trust
Fund grant application (a grant of up to $500,000 can be submitted in January 2006),
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board:
1. Adopt the proposed Master Plan (including the staff-recommended utility and safety
modifications) dated May 3, 2005;
2. Authorize staff to begin the process of preparing the Conditional Use Permit
application to the Town of Carrboro, utilizing the proposed Phase I as shown in the
Master Plan (pending further discussion at the time of CUP application completion
later this year);
3. Authorize the Chair to send a letter to the Town of Carrboro asking that the CUP
application review process for phase I of Twin Creeks Park be expedited;
4. Agree to earmark $650,000 from the Soccer Superfund to help construct Phase I of
the park, and authorize staff to submit an application to the Parks and Recreation
Trust Fund in .January 2006 (in an amount up to $500,000 to be determined later);
5. Take under advisement the citizen comments received and staffs review of those
comments, for action at the appropriate time when park construction and future
phases are discussed and approved.
3
o C.
u ..
1 .-
o r
I
m41 I l�S"�"} \\ I Wtlkxrylo 3r8001
ME
s� S
4Q
y{1
i f
r
Twin Creeks* Park and Campus
(*Moniese Nomp)
&n0'Pq.m Modirimuuns-5/3105 °
dam. OmnGeCanny
�+ GnvLonmaa onJ Rrnnirn
Cmemolion fJelmlmn0
4
Orange County
x � Environment &r Resource Conservation
306 A Revere Road/PO Box 8181
Hillsborough,NC 27275
Phone: (919) 245-2590, Fax: (919) 644 3351
//i /wro.,�� Vii'n/�i/ia •rir
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Commissioners
John Link, County Manager
FROM: David Stancil,Environment and Resource Conservation Director
DATE: April 28,2005
RE: Twin Creeks Follow-Up Items for May 3'd Discussion
On April 14`x',the Board received the report of the 6-member Twin Creeks Work Group,
and asked that adoption of the master plan be placed on the May 3"i agenda,along with
information on a number of requested follow-up matters.This memorandum serves to
address these items,which were discussed by the staff project team and the Manager
1. Information on Discussions with Piedmont EMC Regarding the
Possible BMX Bicycle Course in the PEMC Easement
At the April 14`x'worksession,the Work Group report included a suggestion for the
Board's consideration for location of a future BMX bicycle course in the PEMC
high-transmission powerline easement that transects the property from west to
east.The proposed master plan reflects a general outline of a possible course.
The location of this course is technically within the educational campus portion of
the property, as per the original Preliminary Concept Plan However,it is in an area
where little activity is possible by an entity in terms of built facilities. Generally,
some facilities such as parking lots and other non-structural components have been
permitted from time to time to occur within such easements, with the
understanding that the power company reserves the right to take measures
necessary for upkeep or emergency access and construction (possibly resulting in
the loss of the"facility'within the easement) as needed
5
A request for a meeting to discuss the possibility of the course within the easement
has been made,but had not yet occurred at the time of this writing.Any
subsequent conversation will be conveyed at the meeting on May 3`d
2. Potential Use of Soccer Superfund for Phase I of Park
In previous meetings, the Board has briefly discussed the possibility of using Soccer
Superfund monies to help augment funding for Phase I of Twin Creeks Park. As
noted in December, estimates prepared by a professional construction cost
estimating firm in July 2004 reflected a projected cost for Phase I of the park at
$1,645,000. These estimates are now 9 months old, and while they did reflect much
of the increase in construction costs that began occurring in early 2004, it may be
reasonable to add 10%to the estimates—yielding a projected cost of$1.8 million
The 2001 Parks and Open Space Bond allocated $1,200,000 million for Phase I of
Twin Creeks Park. There is $1,025,000 remaining in the Soccer Superfund
(including some funds projected to come on line in FY 2005-06). As such, the
projected funding shortfall to build Phase I is approximately $600,000.
The proposed Phase I of the park.would include the meadow area, a picnic shelter,
trails, 2 lighted full-size soccer fields, and related parking areas and entry road
segments. Projected soccer field-related costs for Phase I are likely in the range of
$500-650,000.
There is another project that has been funded with the Soccer Superfund — the
West Ten Soccer Center on West Ten Road in western Orange County. To date,
approximately $975,000 has been appropriated toward the West Ten Soccer
Center (this includes funding for land acquisition) The funds expended to date
have provided for the land and pre-grading of the Soccer Center,which as designed
would include 5 full-size fields and a sixth practice field.
With this investment in place, additional funds at West Ten could yield soccer fields that could be
constructed in the next few years, A recent cost estimate from the project designers (Conley,
Redfoot and Zaclz) has indicated that two of the soccer fields at West Ten could be constructed and
placed in operation for an additional.$375,000. However,finding may also be desirable at Twin
Creeks,which would be the first County built soccer fields in southern Orange Conity Splitting the
remaining funds between the two projects ($375,000 toward West Tenn, ,$650,000 toward Twin
Creelzs) would enable two fields at each location to be built and become available for use in
subsequentyears.
3. Phasing Plan for the Park I Carrboro CUP Application
As shown in the December 2004 materials,Twin Creeks Park will be a multi-phase
facility,which has been acknowledged and reflected by each group that has looked
at the design of the site Staffs proposal for Phase I of the park is designed to get
"the most bang for the buck." in terms of building the facilities that are closest to
6
the park entry to minimize infrastructure costs for Phase I given the limited funds
available
The proposed first phase of the park would build a segment of the "Twin Creeks
Park way"(the working name for the entry road from Old 86 into the park) along
the existing old farm road and the southern boundary of the site. This would
include the entry vista and meadow along Old 86, which would be retained in a
largely-natural state with a loop trail (which doubles as a measured walking
trail of 113 mile) The parkway trail would continue west, past a proposed picnic
shelter, and across Buckhorn Branch toward the southernmost two soccer fields of
the playing field complex. Between Buckhorn Branch and the playing fields lies an
area of mixed hardwood forestwhich would be retained, and a shortloop trail of
115 mile would wind through this forested area The southern two soccer fields
would be constructed as part of Phase I, and these would be lighted full-size
soccer fields. A picnic shelteris located near the fields and would be included in
Phase 1. Finally, a short segment of the parr entry drive would be constructed,
along with the southernmost parking area(with approximately 108 spaces).
As previously noted, to minimize infrastructure costs for Phase I, it is envisioned
that the first phase of the park be constructed with a well and portable toilet
facilities. Future phases would include many more facilities and restrooms, and at
that time connection to OWASA water and sewer could be made.
If funds permit,for economies of scale, staff would like to propose that pre-grading
of the remaining playing field complex be completed in conjunction with Phase I
(as was done at West Ten)
The remainder of the park would be shown as "Future Phases" For purposes of
cost estimation, staff identified in 2004 four possible phases to the park - but the
exact nature of future phasing would be the subject of a later discussion when
more is known about the as-built Phase I, and future construction options and
funding opportunities.
Regarding the CUP application to the Town of Canboro, staff estimates that once
a master plan has been adopted and authorization to prepare the CUP application
received, the application can be completed in 7-9 months. The Canboro CUP
application process, as noted in previous reports, is quite detailed and intensive A
few of the items that could be prepared without a master plan have been done, but
most of the application materials hinge on the Master Plan.
For Phase I of Twin Creeks Park, this will include construction level detail on some
facilities and engineering studies for items such as stonnwater design, building
detail for the picnic shelter, and traffic impact analyses, Some of these materials can
be prepared in-house by our landscape architect,but many will require contractual
assistance from an engineering firm If the Master Plan is adopted in May and CUP
application authorized, it may be possible to get an application to the Board for
approval/submittal by the end of calendar year 2005 or the beginning of 2006.
7
Town staff has indicated a projected review and approval process of approximately
12 months once the application is submitted. However, the new CHCCS High
School #3 appears to have been subject to an expedited review and approval
process of 8-9 months, The Board may wish to consider asking the Town to
expedite the application for Phase I of Twin Creeks, in order to allow for quicker
construction of the facilities
4. Breakdown of Water/Sewer Costs Between Park and Educational
Campus
The County Engineer has estimated the costs of extending water and sewer to the
Twin Creeks site in memoranda of January 2005 and September 2004. In summary,
the total cost for extending water (from Old 86) and sewer(from Lake Hogan
Farms or a future subdivision to the south) is around$1.0 million (today's dollars).
The County Engineer estimates that the park will represent only a small portion of
the demand on and the capacity of OWASA service (perhaps 10-15%,and then only
when the park fully is built out).
As noted above,Phase I of the park is proposed to be built with well service for
water and portable wastewater systems,at a greatly reduced cost,enabling more of
the available funds to go toward facilities.The more-intensive future phases of the
park will include a variety of additional facilities and restrooms,and at that time
the park would need to be connected to OWASA service.
As such,it is anticipated that the initial need for OWASA service and extension on
the site will come at the time of construction of Elementary School#10,currently
projected to begin construction in FY 2007-08 (tentatively opening in Fall 2009).
At a more comprehensive scale,a new work group collaborating on possible new
construction standards for schools may be able to address the mechanism for
incorporating water/sewer costs and cost shares into future school construction
estimates.
5. Staff Review of Recommendations Submitted by an Area Citizen
Jay Bryan, an area resident and Chair of the County Planning Board, has submitted
a number of comments on Twin Creeks. These were received by the Twin Creeks
Work Group and forwarded as part of the Aprill4th worksession agenda. The
Board asked staff to review and respond to the comments
Many of the comments address suggestions regarding the details of the CUP
application process, future programming or facilities, and operational
considerations. Most would be the subject of future discussions and decisions by
the Board and/or the Town of Carrboro as application review and approval entity.
Staffs initial review of these comments is provided as Attachment 1 to this memo,
8
6. Proposed Staff Master Plan Modifications for Site Utility and Safety
Staff has identified,over the past few months,some minor modifications to the
Master Plan that address the utility of the site's facilities and the safety of park
users. One of the proposed modifications came up at discussion of the recent Twin
Creeks Work Group,but because it was outside of the charge of the Work Group,
this was not included in their report or proposed Master Plan map.
Staff proposes to make the following changes to the Master Plan recommended by
the Work Group:
• As noted by the Work Group,the four tennis courts (Future Phases,near
the baseball/softball fields)might function better (and offer tournament
play possibilities)if grouped together rather,than the current symmetrical
2-and-2 design Staff agrees with this,and proposes to locate all four courts
together at the location of the eastern-most set (please see proposed
Master Plan Map 5-3-05).
• It was noted that safety issues could exist with the lower parking lot
proposed for Phase I,in that the lot is located across the park entry road
from the playing fields. The proposed plan (5-3-05)would relocate the lot
to the same side as the soccer fields. This would also serve to move the
parking area further from Jones Creek.
• A park operation base was assumed as a given in previous designs and was
not physically shown on the map, It may be possible for this activity to be
located within the farmstead complex,but the eventual disposition of the
farmstead buildings has not been determined and will involve structural
assessment and historic building considerations To provide for a location
for the operation base,a site has been reflected on the 5-3-05 master planto
the northeast of the playing fields
7. Other Considerations
• Lake Hogan Farm Road Extension: Most of this required Carrboro
connector road would be built in conjunction with future schools
construction. One segment would likely be required to be built in the second
phase of Town Creeks Park. Preliminary discussions were held in 2003 with
the Duke representative on the CHATPEC Work Group about the potential
of the road traversing the boundary between County and Duke Forest land,
and it appeared at that time that an arrangement of this type might be
acceptable to Duke. Duke Forest is the adjoining landowner to the northeast,
and the section of Duke Forest that is adjacent was recently cut over as part
of forest management activity in 2004 The Board may wish to consider
whether(and when) to more formally discuss this matter with Duke officials.
• Jones Creek Greenway: Carrboro's land use plan shows a greenway along
the Jones Creek corridor,which cuts across the Twin Creeks site.
9
Construction of segments of this greenway would be part of future phases of
the park.
• Archaeological Site:The cultural and archaeological survey done for the site
in 2002 identified a Archaic age rhyolite quarry site on a hill in the western
part of the property (Future Phases/Possible Educational Facility or Park).
Further investigation was recommended While no activity is planned for this
part of the site (a smaller"bartering site"was identified near the proposed
schools),the Board may wish to consider when and whether to pursue
further archaeological study(perhaps in conjunction with the UNC
Department of Archaeology)
• Proposed Villages at Berkeley Subdivision:A proposed subdivision on land
immediately south of the Twin Creeks property was submitted to Canboro
in 2003 as a concept plan. It is staff's understanding that the developer, MI
Homes,has recently submitted a CUP application of their own for the site.
The developers have met with staff to review plans,although not in the last
several months. County staff propose to meet with Town staff soon to review
any recent activity on this property and any proposed plan. Of note is the fact
that the Town staff and developer had previously suggested that the park and
subdivision have a shared entrance road(a short portion of Twin Creeks
Parkway from Old 86 to the subdivision roads,with the road diverging near
the proposed picnic shelter in Phase I).Any additional information received
by the time of the meeting will be shared by staff
• Twin Creeks Park Operation and Maintenance Costs: Costs associated
with operation and maintenance of Twin Creeks Park were reflected in the
draft Recreation and Parks Strategic Management Plan reviewed by the Board
earlier this year.
10
Staff Review of Comments from Area Citizen
("Jay Bryan —Comments on Twin Creeks")
April 29, 2005
Jay Bryan, a landowner near Twin Creeks has submitted a series of 19 comments on
Twin Creeks. On April 14"i, staff was asked to assess these comments and provide a
response.
In general, these comments may be grouped into four categories:
• Natural Resource Protection
• Conditional Use Permit/Development Standards
• Park Construction
• Other
The comments are addressed below,by category(and by Mr. Bryan's numbering
scheme):
Natural Resource Protection (1,2,3,7)
1., The lands described are planned to be left in a largely natural state as per the
Master Plan. At this time, pending further analysis, the rhyolite quarry area (the
hilly portion of the site to the west along Old 86) is not proposed for any facilities
beyond unpaved rustic trails in a possible future phase. While the County is very
much an advocate of conservation easements as a preservation tool, staff feels that
a conservation easement(which would involve the creation of a legal document,
survey of the areas to be covered and possibly a subdivision of the property—as
well as a third party to hold the easement and an interest in the land)would be
cumbersome and not warranted, and that the lands in question will be protected as
part of the park and the adopted Master Plan.
2. All trees of 18-inch caliper and greater were identified in the topographic survey
conducted in 2002. Further, evaluation of species of significance on the property
has been addressed through two different biological and botanical assessments.
Staff expects that further evaluations may occur through the CUP process. Some
clarification of what constitutes a"special or native"tree would be needed, as
there are several possible definitions. However, an additional walk of the site to
look again for botanical significance could be useful, and staff would propose to
do so with the Resource Conservation Manager, Open Space Design Specialist,
Park Services Director and members of the Biological Resources Committee of
the Commission for the Environment who have training in this area, to see if there
are any additional species of significance that have not yet been identified. Other
persons with specialized training could also be invited to participate in this walk.
3. Staff feels the idea of boardwalks along Jones Creek and Buckhorn Branch is
worthy of further consideration, and should be explored in future phases of the
park, when detailed drawings of the exact locations for future trails would be
finalized. No such trails are planned for Phase I of the park.
11
T Staff would welcome the opportunity to work with local birding (and other
related) organizations regarding possible habitat areas on site within the master
plan. However, the locations for these activities would likely occur in future
phases of the park or after development. The potential for stormwater wetlands
will be part of the CUP process.
Conditional Use Permit/Development Standards (4 5 6 8 9 10 11 14 16 17)
4. The method of curb and gutter and road pavement will ultimately be a matter for
the Town of Carrboro, whose development standards would apply, However,
Town staff has already indicated an interest in using low-impact design(LID)
standards for the connector road, and the County has a long history of preference
for the use of swales and on-site infiltration of stormwater. Staff plans to propose
similar arrangements (to the degree they are feasible and the Town is willing to
receive them) as the CUP application and construction drawings are prepared.
Staff would propose to explore LID standards further with the Town, as the CUP
is prepared and submitted.
5. The idea of involving advisory board members in formal negotiations with the
application approval process is unprecedented, and staff feels it would be
inconsistent with longstanding County policy (and potentially add cost and time
to the process) to insert parties other than staff and the elected boards at this level
of negotiation. Additionally, there are other advisory boards that have been more
involved in the Twin Creeks process (the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council
and the Commission for the Environment) that would likely also be interested in
being part of an expanded negotiation and application review process as well.
6. The Joint Planning Agreement specifies that development applications in the
Transition Area of the Joint Planning Area would have the County Planning
Board receiving courtesy review of development applications. The Conditional
Use Permit application will include substantial levels of detail, including some
drawings at or near construction detail. The Planning Board would have the right
to review and comment on the application to the Board of Commissioners. After
approval of the CUP, final construction drawings would be developed and the
project would be bid,resulting in a contract award by the Board of
Commissioners. Advisory boards have not been involved in this level of approval
of internal detail in projects, and staff feels that such involvement here (and again,
the RPAC and CfE might have similar interests if roles were expanded)would be
inconsistent with longstanding County policy. Staff would be interested in
receiving the courtesy review and comments of the Planning Board (and other
advisory boards) of the CUP application, as per Joint Planning procedures, which
may capture much of the desired detail.
8. The number of parking spaces is an estimate on the master plan, and the exact
number of spaces would be subject to determination by the Town staff and
addressed in a more exact way in the CUP. The general number of spaces
reflected in the master plan is consistent with initial readings and discussion of the
Town's development standards.
12
9. Town staff has already indicated an initial preference for a shared entranceway to
minimize the number of new roadway cuts on this stretch of Old 86. If the
proposed Villages at Berkeley subdivision to the south is approved, Town staff
has discussed with the developer and County staff the interest in having one
entryway (the "Twin Creeks Parkway") for both the park and subdivision. In
earlier discussions, the developers offered conceptually to build this initial
segment of the road to "parkway standards" with median plantings, for a short
distance until their subdivision road heads south into the Villages at Berkeley
development (and the Twin Creeks Parkway continues east into the park).
However, ultimately this is a development standard and part of the CUP
application that the Town will assess, and eventually recommend as a condition
for approval. As such the disposition of the nature of the road will need to await
review of the CUP application.
10. As noted previously, the Planning Board's specified role in this project is for
courtesy review of the CUP application, at which time the Planning Board could
make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners regarding bridges, low-
impact design and stream crossings There is only one stream crossing proposed
for Phase I of the park, ofBuckhorn Branch along the trail connecting the
meadow and the playing fields. As previously noted, staff is familiar with low-
impact design and has already discussed preliminarily with Town staff the
potential for addressing sensitive stream crossings.
11. The offsets and minimization of'sewer line easements would be a matter subject
to the CUP application with the Town, but staff has already identified this as a
topic for review with OWASA (it was originally suggested by the CHATPEC
Work Group).
14. Construction drawings would not be finalized until the CUP application is
approved for the park (and presumably CHCCS would submit a like CUP for
ES#10 at the appropriate time). If this comment is meant to address the visual
resources of construction on the higher elevations, it is staff s understanding that
this will be part of the Town's review of the applications for site development
(both park and schools).
16. The ultimate location of parking lots for the school site would need to be
addressed with the Town and CHCCS, and any plans to utilize the Piedmont EMC
powerline easement would need approval of that entity as well. If desired, the
County could ask CHCCS to consider this as part of their eventual CUP
application for this part of the site. It may be premature to change the master plan
to reflect this without further discussion among the parties.
17. As staff has learned through the recent Town approval for lighting at Smith Fields
(a County 2001 Parks and Open Space Bond project), the Town has extensive and
stringent requirements in their development standards for lighting, and those
would be part of the approval process with the Town.
Park Construction (12,13,15,19)
12. Trails on the property would be designed by the Open Space Design Specialist
and Land Conservation Manager in the Environment and Resource Conservation
13
Department, in conjunction with staff from the Recreation and Parks Department.
Planning staff have been and would continue to be involved in the design project
for the park, but the primary responsibility for park design lies within ERCD and
Recreation and Parks. Staff has always envisioned that future trail development
(in future phases of the park) would include interpretive trails with an
environmental education component. There is some limited opportunity for
interpretive trails in the short loop portions of trails proposed for Phase I
(although this might impact the cost of the project), but would more likely be
addressed in a more meaningful way in trails in future phases of the park along
the stream corridors. Staff would be glad to look at possibilities for the trail in
Phase I and resultant costs. Comments and advice from area naturalists, including
those currently serving on County advisory boards, would be welcomed.
13. The only trails planned for Phase I would likely be of an unpaved, woodland
nature trail. County staff has already incorporated the Town of Chapel Hill's
Rustic Woodland Trail concept into County park planning, via the 1999 .Joint
Master Recreation and Parks report (for example, the Northern Chapel Hill
Township Rustic Woodland Trail is based on this trail type, and is a current
project for land acquisition and eventual construction, tying together existing
trails in the Towns, Duke Forest and TLC's .Johnson Mill Preserve). Future phases
of the park would include additional trails as well as a section of a Town of
Carrboro greenway-the .Tones Creek Greenway, The Town would specify the
trail surface and type for this greenway and may also make recommendations
regarding the other trail surfaces, but the County's intent for other trails in future
phases of the park is to pursue an ecologically-friendly unpaved surface trail
network.
15. One of the original design principles of the site was to design with an
"Olmsteadian" vision for portions of the site to accommodate flexible open spaces
and buffer active uses from other uses, This has been incorporated into the master
plan, with over 50% of the park to be left in stream buffers and vegetated areas,
with buffers between the educational campus and playing fields, the meadow area
and planning fields, the farmstead/play areas and playing fields, and others. Staff
feels this concept has been a basic operating principle in the design and would
continue to be so as the site is built. Any specific suggestions on new viewshed
opportunities, in addition to those shown in the master plan, would be welcomed.
19. Staff has already discussed the need for environmentally-friendly construction
methods, and would pursue in conjunction with the County's legal requirements
for construction bids and awards.
Other U 8
18. The concept of allowing for private donations toward specific projects on the site
is one that may have relevance beyond Twin Creeks. Staff recommends this topic
receive further study with a subsequent report to the Board.
i4--
iw!a Er
o � � � _,_ . I rAmc...m,wvvoo•
I f W.1¢,..ymsa�ool
Twin Creeks* Park and Campus
(*Moniese Nomp)
P aeUa Tvin Cmeks M smr P)m Work Oroup-3n3A)5
Omngc County
-°' Lnvirunmm�r-d rsnnwcc
cmrurvnliu0 U:MOtrruil
15
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Twin Creeks Master Plan Work Group
Date: April 14, 2005
Re: Recommendations of the Work Group
In January, the Board appointed a 6-member short-term work group to address specific
issues related to the design of the planned Twin Creeks Park and Educational Campus.
Specifically, the Work Group was charged to:
Utilize the October 2004(Design #2)draft Master Plaa for Twin Creeks Park and
Educational Campus to undertake only the following charges
a. Look at relocating/redesigning the proposed Elenrealary School#10 to the southeastern
portion of the site(east of.Jones Creek car reutlyshown as "Future Educational
Facility")
b Keep the four soccer field configuration intact in the redesign
c. Consider locations for action sports facility/activities in the park
d. Look at the feasibility of relocating the "stadium field"to the south with the park
Address minor modifications needed as a result of the above work,,for the locations of other
schools within the schools clue pus and park facilaies within the park site
Our Work Group met on February 23`d and March 23`d to consider these questions and
issues. The following recommendations constitute our findings and thoughts on the
questions at hand:
1. While there might be benefits to locating the proposed stadium/track in the park,
the Work Group felt that the need for keeping the stadium/track with the
middle school that is planned for the northern part of the site was an
overriding consideration, for programming reasons. It also appears to be
difficult to fit this size of facility into the park area, given the topography, stream
buffers and the probable need to delete another facility to make room for the
stadium/track. However, the Work Group does think that the proposed loop trail
around the meadow could be constructed as a measured walking track of 1/3 mile,
as an alternative to meet the needs of citizens who desire a measured walking or
running trail.
2. In considering the action sports facilities requested, the Work Group considered
what was involved in construction of such a facility. While there does appear to
be a need for such a facility as a BMX bike trail, it was noted that the other
proposed park facilities have been identified as needs by both the original work
group and individual parks advisory boards, and that these—plus the concept of a
community gymnasium—would appear to be a higher priority. That said, staff
has identified a potential area within the Piedmont EMC powerline easement that
might be able to serve as such a facility, and that might be an issue for the Board
to consider further, as desired.
16
3. Considering the matter of the location of Elementary School (ES)#10, the Work
Group found that its current location adjacent to the proposed future middle
school was preferable to the possible location in the southeastern corner of the
site. In general, the Work Group feels that the benefits of co-locating the two
schools together, which can only occur on the educational campus in the northern
portion of the site, outweigh the benefits of possible increased walkability for ES
#10 in a southeastern location. Keeping the elementary school and middle school
together offers synergies for shared supervision, food services, media centers, and
other possible advantages,.
4. Minor modifications to the Master Plan as a result of the Work Group
deliberations include:
a. A footprint of a possible Action Sports (BMX bike course) in the
Piedmont EMC easement, which would need to be explored further with
PEMC and the Board of Commissioners, if desired.
While not related to the Work Group charge, the Work Group also noted the
benefits of rearranging and co-locating the tennis courts. Staff concurs and would
bring this back as a minor"tweak"to the Master Plan for subsequent Board
consideration.
We hope these recommendations will be of use to the Board as it considers adoption of a
Master Plan for the site, and we all look forward the end product of a co-located County
district park and educational campus that will meet the needs of our citizens. We will be
glad to respond further to additional questions, as desired.
Twin C7 eels Work Grorm
Moses Carey, County Commissioner Chair-
Alice Gordon, County Conunissioner
Nick Didow, CHCCS Board of Education
Pam Henuninger, CHCCS Boat d of Education
Johnny Randall, Conunission,for the Environment INC Botanical Garden
Patrick Sullivan, Recreation &Pat 14 Advisory Council/Orange County Soccer Alliance
Orange County Park Facility Projects
Potential Pmfoct Schedule as of 4730105
NOTE-This is an internal 0melable used by s1e0 and has not been adopted by the Board of Commissmners
Appropriated
Project Funds Project Caron pnent FY 200445 FY 200546 FY 200647 FY 200748 FY 200849
Summer Fall Winter 1 Son Summer Faii Winter San Summer Fail Winter S On Summer Fail Winter 5 rin Summer Fail
51,204000 1 NoMem Park NHSC DONE
5 250.000 2 Rom `
5 B54000 3 Fairview Park fen il Hiilsbom
S 25o.000 4 Smith Feld LlghOng
5 1.200.000 5 Twin Creeks Park(Ph 1) Conan Carrome Caobom
S 975,000 6 West Ten Soccer Center 7
S 2.795.000 Bo.them Park
S 1.750.000 B Joint TowNCOUn 05 Cairene. Ch H41 BoRn G
S 4,300.000 9 Homesteatl Park uakc CV
S 956.000 t lJtOe Rrver Re ionai Park OPEN 12104
S 10,000 2 Southem HSC Trails 2/0
$ 60,000 3 Sk01s OeN Pocket Park IFMM
7 4 McGowan Creek Preserve tSP^ ` 7
7 5 New HO ePark-Biarkwoatl ISP" 7
7 6 Seven-Mile Creek Preserve ISP^ 7
7 Milihouse ROatl Park land-banketl
7 New Hope Preserve 7
514,596.000 TOTAL
Summer=July,August,September(1st Owl;Fall=October,November,December(tad qh);Winter=January,Febmary,March(3rd);Spring=April,May,June(41h)
O Prelimmary to Concept Plan
Concept Plan/Master Ran stage
AppmvrdIS dlPre-Cans W coon
Construct.
®Park Opening(projected)
'-Interim Stewardship Plan
42912005,PFP43005