Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 12-06-2004-9a
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 6, 2004 Action Agenda Item No. q-a SUBJECT: Twin Creeks Park— Follow -up Report and Potential Decisions DEPARTMENT: ERCD, Recreation and Parks PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No ATTACHMENT(S): * - Memo, "Twin Creeks - Follow -up Report from June 8" * Memo, 'Preliminary Review - Citizen Plan #3" * - Letter from CHCCS Chair and Superintendent * - Article, 'Parks: How Far Is Too Far ?" INFORMATION CONTACT: David Stancil, ext 2590 Lori Taft, 245 -2660 Marabeth Carr, 960 -3880 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Durham 688 -7331 Mebane 336- 227 -2031 PURPOSE: To consider a report on 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 3. 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 Since that time, staff has worked to complete these actions, and reports the following progress to date (covered in greater detail in the attached memorandum): A. The Smart Growth for Schools principles were conveyed in June. Based on the Debt Issuance Schedule that the Board reviewed on October 25th, Elementary #10 would open in fall of 2007. There is some evidence that this timetable will be extended in response to projections related to the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Additional information would be available for Board consideration following the SAPFO - related student membership projections later this year. CHCCS staff has indicated that the 2004- 14 system CIP includes $2,620,000 in an unfunded section of the plan to address infrastructure improvements estimated for the Elementary School #10 site. This includes funding for the planned connector road and water /sewer service, and the estimate was developed based on conversations with OWASA, Town officials, and civil engineers. CHCCS staff also notes that delivery of utilities to the school site may involve securing easements from private property owners, and expenses for this process were included in the estimate. B. From July to September, staff members from ERCD, Recreation and Parks, Planning and the County Engineer developed an "alternative scenario" master plan design, focusing on smart growth design for the schools campus and increasing the opportunities for sharing of facilities. The alternative scenario, along with the original master plan, is provided in the attached memo. C. An open house /public input session was held on October 4 at the Homestead Community Center, and 12 persons attended the back -to -back one -hour sessions. Response to the alternative scenario was generally favorable, and comments provided by the attendees are provided as in the attached memo. D. The County Engineer has prepared a memorandum outlining water and sewer issues for the park site (attached). The cost of connecting the projected restroom /concession facility (in proposed Phase 2) to OWASA sewer is estimated at $500,000, and extension of water service from Old 86 is estimated at around $75,000. However, costs of line extensions to serve the schools campus have not been calculated and could impact the park site service plans and costs, as would other facilities in future phases, such as a water playground. E, Preliminary cost estimates for park construction, based on the 2003 design, were prepared earlier this year and indicate a Phase estimate of $1.6 million and a total park design (all phases) of around $5 million, However, increases in construction costs and the new "alternative scenario" have not been factored into these estimates. A new phasing plan, based on the "alternative scenario" design, has been prepared and is included in the attached memo. An updated estimate for a revised Phase 1 could be obtained by January. F. Staff met with Chapel Hill Transit and Orange Public Transportation regarding possible service to the site, and this information is also provided in the attached memorandum. Generally, Chapel Hill Transit would look to a request from the Town of Carrboro and the County before evaluating service to this site. Until such time as ridership meets Federal guidelines for matching funds, service to this site would need to be funded by the requesting local governments. There are currently no plans to provide service in this area, although service to Lake Hogan Farms has been discussed. Orange Public Transportation is currently in the midst of an updated Transportation Improvement program, and if proposed changes to routes are made this could open up additional areas for service, possible including the Twin Creeks site. 3 G. Staff has begun work on the background materials for those portions of the Town's CUP application that can be prepared at this point, and has met with Town staff to review the plans and discuss general concepts. However, the majority of the application materials cannot be completed until a Master Plan and proposed Phase 1 of the park is approved by the Board. Once the Board has reviewed and approved a master plan, and designated a Phase 1 for the project, a Conditional Use Permit for Phase 1 of the park could be prepared. The CUP application would contain detailed construction drawings of portions of the project, as well as contextual portions of the Master Plan. Some portions of the drawings and specifications could be done in- house, but other portions will require civil engineering, stormwater design and other outside assistance. It is anticipated that the preparation of the CUP application, with requisite drawings and detail, will take approximately 6 -10 months, depending on the amount of detail that the Town requests for the CUP, Note., On November 23rd, staff was made aware of a proposal by a citizens group for a redesign of the park and campus that essentially inverts the two portions of the site, moving the schools to the south and the park to the Eubanks Road area, While a thorough assessment of this concept, known as "Citizen Plan #3, "has not been completed, a preliminary evaluation is provided in a separate memo (attached). Additionally, on November 29th a letter was received from the CHCCS Board Chair and Superintendent asking the County to consider this proposal (attached), 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 Engineer has provided a preliminary estimate of connection for water and sewer of $575,000, although staff recommends that water /sewer connection 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, but a portion of the park entry road (southern boundary) would need to be constructed. In order to address anticipated shortfalls, staff suggests consideration of a grant application for up to $500,000 to the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (application due January 31), and 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 review both master plans and follow -up materials compiled by staff, and -- at this meeting or a subsequent meeting -- consider adoption of a Master Plan for the park. At a subsequent meeting, staff will present a proposed phasing plan for approval, as well as preliminary cost estimates. Once a Phase 1 has been designated, staff would continue work toward the CUP application to the Town of Carrboro. In addition, there are a number of other issues for future Board discussion - both related to recent developments (Citizen Plan #3 and CHCCS letter), and outlined in the attached staff memo. The Board may wish to consider when to address these matters. 8 Memorandum To: Board of Commissioners John Link, County Manager From: David Stancil, E &RC Director Date: November 22, 2004 Re: Twin Creeks (Moniese Nomp *) Park and Educational Campus — Follow -up Report from June 8 Discussion On June 8th, the Board considered the proposed master plan for the Twin Creeks (Moniese Nomp *) Park and Educational Campus, The Board asked staff to explore and /or evaluate several components of the project and report back: 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 3. Create an alternative design scenario focused on addressing smart growth for school construction and shared 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 to develop park construction cost estimates 6. Discuss with Chapel Hill Transit potential future service to the site (both park and educational campus), and T Begin the process of preparing a Conditional Use Permit application for submittal to the Town of Carrboro The sections that follow summarize the work of staff to date on these topics. Note.: In recent weeks, a proposal to redesign the site orienting the schools and park in a different configuration has been proposed This concept was originally suggested in the additional comments solicited at the conclusion of the CHATPEC Master Plan Work Group process, but was not examined as it was inconsistent with the Board's adopted charge to the Work Group.. A preliminary assessment of this concept by staff is included in a separate memo. * - Tutelo- Saponi for 'Twin Creeks "Pronounced Mo- nee -ay -say -nom -p 5 a) Communication with CHCCS Regarding Smart Growth / Schedule for Elementary School #10 The Smart Growth Principles discussed by the Board on .June 8th were conveyed to CHCCS in late -June. Based on the Debt Issuance Schedule that the Board reviewed on October 25th 2004, Elementary #10 would open in fall of 2007. However, there is some evidence that this timetable will be extended in response to projections related to the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Additional information would be available for Board consideration following the SAPFO - related student membership projections later this year. The proposed Debt Issuance Schedule is provided as Attachment 1, Regarding infrastructure costs for the school, CHCCS staff reports that the CHCCS 2004 -14 GIP includes $2,620,000, in the unfunded section of the plan, to address infrastructure improvements anticipated for the Elementary School #10 site. This includes funding for the planned connector road and water /sewer service. The estimate was developed based on conversations by CHCCS staff and their consultant with OWASA, Town officials, and civil engineers. CHCCS staff also notes that delivery of utilities to the school site may involve securing easements from private property owners, and expenses for this process were included in the estimate. b) The "Alternative Scenario' Design (County staff, Summer 2004 As requested by the Board, staff members from ERCD, Recreation and Parks, and Planning began working in July to develop an alternative design for the site focusing on two factors: 1) assessing and applying smart growth principles to the schools campus layout, and 2) increasing the possibilities for sharing of facilities between the park and campus. Over four meetings, staff met to create and then review a revised "Alternative Scenario" design, drawn by Open Space Design Specialist Marabeth Carr based on the work of the group, including a staff charette. The "Alternative Scenario' design, which was presented at the October 4th public input session, continues to feature all of the facilities that were identified by the CHATPEC Work Group in their June 2003 design. Some aspects of the layout are very similar — the protection of the stream corridors, hardwood forest areas and the archaeological site, the general corridor of the proposed connector road, and the proposed loop trail system. m Features of the new "Alternative Scenario" design that are different from the June 2003 Work Group version include: • Re- orientation of the playing fields to place all four full -size multi -use (soccer) fields together, for economies of scale in construction and lighting, and coordination of play (such as tournaments) • Relocation of the parking areas and the park interior road to avoid separation of individual playing fields by the road, and re- orientation of parking for better ingress /egress • Introduction of the 'Red- Line," a wider, paved trail that would directly connect the schools campus to existing and proposed residential areas to the south. This was seen as a safer access pathway to the schools than the more - natural loop trails and greenway. The 'Red- Line," near its intersection with the proposed Jones Creek Greenway, also offers a possible pedestrian node as a junction between the schools and park destination points. This node could feature a gazebo or other feature as the central point for pedestrian traffic to either part of the site, as well as proximity to a potential transit stop along the connector road. This path could also be constructed in a manner to provide for emergency 4 -wheel vehicle access • Reorientation of the schools toward Eubanks Road, and realignment of the playing fields and stadium /track closer to the park, to increase potential for shared use • Realignment of the parking areas at the school campus to provide for better ingress /egress and closer proximity to facilities • Relocation of one parking lot closer to the park, for possible joint use • Redesign of the sharp curve in the lower segment of the proposed connector road, to eliminate a hairpin curve that would possible not be approved by the Town • The addition of 4 tennis courts to the park site Included in Attachment 2 are both designs (4 maps total) — Attachment 2 -a is the original Master Plan (6/03, modified 12/03) from the Work Group, and Attachment 2 -c is the new "Alternative Scenario" (dated 10/04). Attachments 2 -b and 2 -d are phasing plans for each, as discussed in the following section. c) Cost Estimates and Phasing of the Park When the CHATPEC Work Group Master Plan was created in 2003, Work Group members were encouraged to be comprehensive in their vision for the park, and "think outside of the box" in terms of possible future facilities and design - knowing that financial limitations, phasing of facilities, and subsequent changes to the master plan would later modify and refine the plans. The facilities that were designed reflected both needs assessments and facility preferences from the Work Group, as well as area Parks and Recreation boards. 7 In order to get a more accurate sense of the cost of building the facilities proposed by the Work Group, in the spring of 2004 preliminary construction estimates were prepared by a professional construction cost estimating firm. Staff provided the 2003 design and a possible phasing plan (Attachment 2 -b) for comparative purposes, in order to get a sense of costs by possible phase. After reviewing the Master Plan, the cost estimating firm responded that definitive estimates would not be possible until more - detailed drawings were prepared, but based on their evaluation of the design (Attachment 2 -b), they estimated the costs of building Twin Creeks Park by possible phase as follows: Phase 1 $1,645,000 Phases 1 -Athru 4 $3,375,000 Total (all phases) $5,020,000 The firm provided specific breakdowns of each proposed facility and other associated costs (such as grading, roads and infrastructure). It is important to note that these preliminary estimates are based on the 2003 plan, and that two factors would tend to increase these estimates — 1) the increases in construction costs of the last several months, and 2) the passage of time since preparation. Town CUP application costs are also not included (as yet The phasing plan that was used for the estimates is based on the 2003 version of the plan (Attachment 2 -b). This potential phasing system was developed in the winter and spring of 2004 by staff, with the goal of creating a minimal cost Phase 1 project, given the amount of available funds ($1.2 million) and the anticipated need to defer some of the off -site and on -site infrastructure costs (roads, water and sewer extension) to future phases to ensure adequate funds for some playing fields in Phase 1. Because of increased construction costs, and the need to build at least a segment of the parkway (the entry road from Old 86), it was anticipated that only two fields could be built in Phase 1. The cost estimates tend to confirm this, with a $450,000 projected shortfall for Phase 1, even with only two fields. Since the Parkway would pass by the meadow, picnic shelter and a loop trail to get to the lower two playing fields, these facilities were also proposed to be included in Phase 1. Staff has also completed a new phasing plan that identified a different Phase 1, based on the "Alternative Scenario." This Phase 1 would still include two fields, a picnic shelter and loop trails, but would also propose to pre -grade the remaining areas of playing fields (shown as "Phase 1 -a "in Attachment 2 -d) to achieve economies of scale. Rather than identifying phases 2, 3 and 4 at this time, this phasing plan would leave the remainder of the park as "Future Phases" at this time. With a new potential design, staff has asked about a revised cost estimate for a redesigned Phase 1, based on the "Alternative Scenario." These new estimates, if pursued, could be completed in mid- January. Anticipating that the $1.2 million from the 2001 Parks and Open Space Bond allocated to Twin Creeks Phase 1 will not be sufficient, staff would like to propose a grant application to the N.C. Parks and Recreation Trust Fund for a grant of up to $500,000 to help build Phase 1. Funds from the Soccer Superfund have also been mentioned by the Board in previous discussions as a potential funding source. At this time, $1,381,000 remains unallocated from this source. d) October 4t" Public Input Session / Open House On October 4t ", an open house was held at the Homestead Community Center for citizens to review the master plan and the new "Alternative Scenario," and offer comments and reactions. Flyers advertising the event were mailed to 118 persons, including the CHATPEC Work Group, relevant advisory boards, interested citizens on the mailing list, and the Town of Carrboro (provided as Attachment 3). Notice of the meeting also ran in area newspapers, including a front -page notice on October 4t". For schedule convenience, the evening was structured as two sixty- minute sessions, allowing people to arrive and depart as needed.. A total of 11 citizens, plus staff and two Commissioners, attended the event. At the open house, an update on the project was provided, followed by a presentation of both designs. Reaction was generally positive to the "alternative scenario" among those present. Comments provided by citizens in attendance included the following: • Will the playing fields be lighted? • Like the new design • Need lot of space for walking /running trails • Don't like parking lot separating fields in original plan • Consider putting all tennis courts together • Security and limits on access to adjacent property near pond — need a fence or some clear demarcation of park boundary • ADA- accessibility for the barn and outbuildings for those who can't participate actively? • Like the circulation pattern better on "Alternative scenario" • The pedestrian node on "redline" is important — highlight it to convey significance • Like the "redline" trail to promote connectivity and provide direct route to schools • Safety issues with the school fronting on Eubanks Road? Need to talk with CHCCS • Who will be the users of this park —just Chapel Hill and Carrboro residents or countywide? I • The location of the school building is almost the same as current designs for Elementary #10, but CHCCS moving away from conjoined school designs for elementary and middle • Could use the Eubanks segment of the connector road as turn -in for school • How long is the "redline" path from southern boundary to school? (1/2 -mile) • Walkability issues — the original design had the schools closer to the neighborhoods to the south • Future access designs from the north (Eubanks) should plan for bike and pedestrian users • Bikelanes on Old 86? • Schools are far from the neighborhoods, with park in between • How much of the educational campus property would be cleared? e) Water and Sewer Demand The County Engineer has prepared a memorandum (Attachment 4) outlining the steps involved in providing water and sewer service to the park. In order to reduce costs, staff feels that the limited scope of Phase 1 of the park could be built without connection to OWASA water and sewer service, freeing up more of the available funds for actual park facilities (eventual connection to OWASA in future phases would be advised). The cost of connecting the projected restroom /concession facility in the park to OWASA sewer is estimated at $500,000, and extension of water service from Old 86 is estimated at around $75,000. However, costs of line extensions to serve the schools campus have not been calculated and could certainly impact the park site service plans and costs. It is estimated that the water /sewer demand from the site during Phase 1 period (defined here as the years 2006 -09) would be exclusively for Elementary School #10. Generally, at the eventual site buildout, a substantial majority of the water /sewer demand generated onsite would be from the schools facilities, even with a proposed water -play feature as proposed in future phases of the park. A general estimate of demand might be 5 gallons per day (gpd) per user for the park and 15 gpd per student at any school that does not provide showers. A 500 - student elementary school which does not provide showers (this is typical of nearly all elementary schools and many middle schools) would be expected to generate a daily wastewater load of 7500 gallons, Similarly, a park facility projected to experience 1500 patrons per day would also be expected to generate a wastewater loading of 7500 gpd, A water playground feature, in which water is discharged to the sanitary sewer system as opposed to a storm sewer system, could be expected to generate an additional wastewater load. 0 f) Potential for Public Transit Service In September, staff from ERCD, Planning and Recreation and Parks met with the director of Chapel Hill Transit, regarding the potential provision of service to this site. Currently, there is no service provided in the immediate Twin Creeks area, but the Town of Carrboro had been discussing the potential for a route in the Lake Hogan Farms area, It was noted that a new limited service was being provided twice a day up Seawell School Road to Chapel Hill High School, which was being funded by the Town of Chapel Hill, New service routes are required to be requested by the proposing local government, and must be funded initially by the local government(s) until such time as ridership reaches levels that qualify for federal matching grants, Thus, service to the Twin Creeks site would need to requested by the Town and /or County, which would precipitate an evaluation of potential routes and an estimate of costs. Chapel Hill Transit also noted that it would be unlikely that they would want to take a route internally into the park site, and they would likely prefer a route that served along the proposed Lake Hogan Farm connector road, perhaps with one stop near the pedestrian node along the proposed "Red- Line" trail, Staff feels that, because of the size of the site and distance between some activities, two other stops along the connector road may be needed for eventual service — one for the schools campus, one for the park. Staff met with Orange Public Transportation in November to discuss this project. OPT staff is bringing forward in coming months a long -range transportation plan for OPT, which includes the possibility of the OPT Hillsborough - Chapel Hill route being taken over by TTA. If this occurs, the potential for additional routes may open up, g) Preparation of Carrboro Conditional Use Permit Once a master plan for the site has been approved, the next step would involve submittal of a formal proposal for phase 1 of the park to the Town of Carrboro, The Twin Creeks site is located in the Joint Planning Area, Carrboro Transition Area, an area where Carrboro exercises permit approval and planning jurisdiction authority. County staff met informally with Town staff on several occasions during the past year, including an informal "preview" presentation at the Town's October 2004 Development Review Board meeting. The submittal would take the form of a Conditional Use Permit application for Phase I of the park, as no rezoning or land use plan change would be required. The Town's Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application involves a significant level of detail for construction drawings and documents that go well beyond the level of detail in the Master Plan conceptual design. Some of the background work that could be completed without an adopted master plan has already been done, and some of the CUP application materials could be created in -house by staff. However, most of these materials will need an adopted Master Plan to show the locations of facilities, and much of the work will require outside assistance from structural and environmental engineers, because of the scope of the project. The following is the list of information required for the CUP application. Items with a check mark (✓ ) are underway or have been completed, items that would be done in -house at a later date are shown as 'TBD," (to be developed), and items with an asterisk ( *) will require a consulting engineering firm. The Open Space Design Specialist would work closely with the firm selected to prepare these drawings and materials to ensure consistency, along with other staff members. Town of Carrboro CUP Application Information Required ✓ - Done or underway TBD — To be developed at appropriate time * _ Rani iirpc rnnci dtinn pnninpprinn nr nthar firms 1 Recorded Plat or deed ✓ 2 Notification Map and list, 1000 feet from property boundaries ✓ 3 Stamped/addressed envelopes for ro erty owners w/I prescribed distance ✓ 4 Major Subdivision Site Planning information (from Carrboro LUO) ✓ 5 Transportation Impact Statement 6 Completed Neighborhood Meeting Information Form TBD 7 Driveway Permit from NCDOT 8 Detailed site plan (including construction drawings for structures) 9 Grading and drainage lan (including stormwater control structures and design) 10 Utility Plan (electrical, water and sewer) I I Lighting Plan (by licensed electrical engineer) 12 Sign Plan / Elevations TED 13 Detailed Landscape Plan (including tree protection plan) ✓ 14 Recreation and Open Space Plan ✓ 7-5-179u—ilding elevations and floor plans 16 Development/subdivision fact sheet ✓ 17 Proof of Legal Interest to Seek Permit ✓ 18 Drainage calculations and water quality/ quantity Statement and Improvements 19 Documentation from Professional regarding Floodway /Floodplain/Wetlands impacts or permits 20 Tree Removal Justification Letter TBD 21 Satellite Parking Agreement TBD 22 Detailed Phasing Plan (master plan) ✓ 23 Environmental Impact Re orC 24 Engineer Documentation Regarding 2.150, 4.000, and 9.400 Classification Uses 25 Erosion Control Plan with Latter indicating Preliminary Approval bt Erosion Control Officer 26 Final Construction Plans 27 OWASA or Orange County Environmental Health Appi oval TBD 28 Appropriate Residential or Commercial Preparation Checklist ✓ I i — Some of the water quality /quantity assessment could be performed in house, but the drainage calculations would need to be contracted out 2 — Some of this work could be performed in- house, but EIS preparation is time - intensive and may best be accomplished by contracting out this work While all park master plans (and construction drawings for smaller -scale park projects) can be prepared in -house by the Open Space Design Specialist, the scope of the Twin Creeks project and the myriad of engineering needs will require that substantial portions be contracted out as shown above. A few of the items listed above could possibly be accomplished by staff (such as water quality /quantity analysis and Environmental Impact Statement), but given existing workloads, and the fact that other closely- related work would be contracted, it may be more efficient to simply add these activities to the contracted design work. Next Steps /Other Issues Needing Discussion As we move into the permit/approval /pre - construction phase of the project, several other issues may need to be addressed by the Board: 1. The method and degree of coordination between CHCCS and the County on the Master Plan, and the permit approval processes for the schools. 2. The potential for coordination with proposed development activity to the south (the proposed Villages at Berkeley), on issues such as the parkway, 3. Funding for future phases of the park 4. Ownership of land on the educational campus portion of the site 5. Agreements on sharing of facilities & Uses of the existing farmstead buildings, and plans to stabilize and renovate the structures 7. Discussions with OWASA and Carrboro about stream corridor protection and sewer outfall offsets along Jones Creek. 8. The ultimate location of the proposed Lake Hogan Farm Road Extension, including issues of timing of construction 9. Potential programming opportunities at the park 10.Further archaeological work to determine the extent and significance of the rhyolite quarry area. 11. Potential environmental initiatives, including coordination with Duke Forest on environmental education opportunities, and the potential for re- creation of a "Piedmont Prairie" perhaps in conjunction with Piedmont EMC. In terms of scope and size, the Twin Creeks (Moniese Nomp) Park and Educational Campus may be the largest coordinated design and construction project in the County's history. As this site begins to take shape over the next several years, communication and coordination will be needed with CHCCS and the Town of Carrboro, among others, to ensure that Twin Creeks becomes the 13 type of master - planned, co- located, and multi- functional destination that was envisioned at the outset of the original vision in 2001. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions (245 -2598, dstancil6a co.orange.nc.us). Copies: Gwen Harvey, Assistant Manager Craig Benedict, Planning Director Pam Jones, Purchasing Director Lori Taft, Recreation and Parks Management Director Paul Thames, County Engineer Marabeth Carr, Open Space Design Specialist Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager Tina Moon. Preservation Planner L4 L 9 ro � y. o m CL CZ N Q LL L m U U > 7 O N N L U V% N U � C .0 ro � N ro VI C a LL (V ro L w E. N w V P N b H 0 O N N O 0 OIp ag l° N 88°$w $° $$N �. N°8°$ .08 69 6 Rif M S S rw.5p8 $ $ N.y $NN SN $N$ ': $$ go¢ Rj p0 E ' „S ii W .:� $ 1 1 M ° w w III O° N N N N N N N p a7 8 $ a 0 N N o as N N N gia : $ h g S. R N O � N O q anS N V8V N'' NN V 11r� N N N N g ppN N N N N w N oo N Ow N pp Ci q .M ..r S &�v°iBSi�Ra g `d N Si :.91 p gQ gg 919 D; 3 o N. g �$ i � N U U U U is U 64 O . 0 O W O 0 O N 11 P N tl 1` [O N O •' N N P N N r 0 N A�tnchm�nt 1 14 'o a 10 c m L ro � � o � a a N Q W N tl] � d � Ct y N V' N N v � m 'u N � N C � LL d O u V d L V 11 6 5, O o N N N N 1 t N $ pD TIT $ S RR y Q Q .off N N wD N N N N O N N N N N D N° o D DN N N N p N N N N N S$ p N N N N N N ° g N N Dn VD1 TIT � S� pN N P, N p N N H p N O N p g0 G o aoa pry p OoG n n � � W v N N mFm N N N N p N N N D N p N yDl N p DN N p N DN N N 03oLS » N N N NO o N VI p N N Ei p N N N N p N N p N w u°i N N N N N n N N N N N N M M N $ i O Ny1 G o p O$ O$ N S S op S O q q a a N u{ D $$ S N N $i��R gg g8g g 5�OR N N R FYI N N O� fl LL E- V. W 11 6 _.. -.- I ' O ' ' 1' J i i i 1 I LJ �..., r L� �S' ___ v^ 1� v� 1 If Twin Creeks" Park ( *Moniese Nomp) ltcviscd Od,i..l 12,02 03 1+ -IW-0' �IpnBe Caumy �� Cnvimnmenl pnJ itnaurze COKe,+'pllOn Dcpvlllrtnl 0 3 IJL JL Ji�J d I \ I � I vm, w.+a ry I 0111NINIIO — i I i I 11 I I I I I I _ I � I IM xei 1 I I I i L_J I L 1 1 1 1 1 1 I r 2 v v I \. 1 wruu M 4 Ph el Twin Creeks* Park ( *Moniese Nomp) Revised Original 12 0103 d�,1��nG1 (�h�s•;��� ply„ A-hl-achrnen -� �-8 I�I evop�Cammcax<�soROW \ \ 111 ) 10- I. 4.�co.dl I 3 IJL JL Ji�J d I \ I � I vm, w.+a ry I 0111NINIIO — i I i I 11 I I I I I I _ I � I IM xei 1 I I I i L_J I L 1 1 1 1 1 1 I r 2 v v I \. 1 wruu M 4 Ph el Twin Creeks* Park ( *Moniese Nomp) Revised Original 12 0103 d�,1��nG1 (�h�s•;��� ply„ A-hl-achrnen -� �-8 I�I evop�Cammcax<�soROW \ \ I 1 0 ROW Omngc Ccunty Environment and Resource Conservation Department M+ czchmie#i+ a - C 1 Twin Creeks* Park (* Monie se Nome) Phasing Plan 10.404 Madwen 1- 2 I3 Iq YJ� �f�Ji I—Ctr I.". Y^s ➢mbbL{sa yl�fikbWY Orange County Emimrtmrnt and Raomc ConswaGon DepmUn=t LLt _ a \ ® © -\ Twin Creeks* Park (* Monie se Nome) Phasing Plan 10.404 Madwen 1- 2 I3 Iq YJ� �f�Ji I—Ctr I.". Y^s ➢mbbL{sa yl�fikbWY Orange County Emimrtmrnt and Raomc ConswaGon DepmUn=t (Moinese No Open no October 4, 2004 6:00 -8:00 p.m. (15- minute presentations at 6:00 and 7:00) Homestead Community Center, 600 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill NC Come and join us on Monday, October 4th for an open house to review draft plans for Orange County's Twin Creeks ( Moniese Nomp *) site near Old 86 and Eubanks Road. Aftacvimen+ 3 For your convenience, two 60- minute sessions will be held at 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. at the Homestead Community Center. You may drop -in and leave as time permits. A brief presentation of two possible draft plans and a question and answer session, will be followed by an informal opportunity to peruse maps and ask individual questions. Written feedback on the plans can also be submitted at the meeting. F -- " Tutelo- Saponi for Twin Creeks. Pronounced Mo- nee -ay -say nom -p Twin Creeks Moniese Nomp For more information contact: Orange County Envixoxuncat @ Rneovrca W naorwtlon Dav dShod]. Dimctor 0I9- 2452580 1_;�'l 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 by 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 01 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 a_; 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: W 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 Im Work Group when this concept came up. Based on GI5 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 i/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. 8. 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. ED Chapel Hill Township District Park and /V Existing Farm Road (unimproved) Educational Campus Structure Educational Campus ��� ; Proposed Camboro Greenway School Site 58.3 acres School Recreation Area 14 5 acres • Utility Poles ® Potential School Site 19.3 acres, Streams Streams Pending Further Study Pond Low - Impact Recreation Parcel Boundary `"I` 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) I AMCNAENr A r 'r z i 1 4P ♦r 11 r Chapel Hill Township Park and Educational Campus Pre - Concept Plan adopted 11/13/01 " O 0 400 800 Feet wn Citizen Plan #3 for Twin Creeks Park/School Campus A A(PAD 3 9 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 93 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.oiange.nc.us/ercd/parls/p-arlonain.htiii 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 Cormmissioners 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 '�q Map of Twin Creeks and surrounding neighborhoods HomstGG Ri 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, Wimnore Duke Forest is shown in light brown. 11/29/2004 Page 2 of 6 Citizen Plan #3 for Twin Creeks Park /School Campus 30 Analysis of Citizen Plan #3 (Feature Analysis 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 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 Famis 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 This plan puts the park playing fields farther from Lake Hogan Farm facilities 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 homes, and are open for casual use when not in use by middle school teams. The proposed corm urnity gym is also now within walking distance of homes. Young families prefer to use a playground near a neighborhood school. Utility costs The ES /MS 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 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 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 3t Feature Analysis Shared use of parking Co- location of schools and parks is intended, an-long other benefits, to allow shared use of parking lots for over -flow parking 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 of school and park usage, community gym at the ES. Historical note: the county guidance to the CHATPEC conunittee restricting the school sites to the north side of the creek appeals 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 93: Bhavna Patel (919) 967 -8167 bhavna(,Dne,iT.com - Lake Hogan Farm resident coordinator *Matthew Barton 967- 1943(h), 465- 2266x16(w) Matthew.Barton iOeee.org *Judy Margolis 968- 3423(h) imarao� lis n,bellsouth.net Pam Hemminger (919) 942 -2273 iphemminger@bellsouth.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 Lo� �--! - -J c--: =D r _ k t Doi!i Twin Creeks* Park ( *Moniese Nomp) nerisal IOJ04(101 r s�n'r Citizen Pon 03 s �g� .3A Citizen Plan #3 for Twin Creeks Park/School Campus 33 Detailed Site Plan: Citizen Plan #3 �^u.....�T � •. il�. A rte) ��!� � I� � � I ... �� }1 f Twin Creeks* Park ( *Moniese Nornp) Retied M30 2004 r -siw +r Citizen Plan 03 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 93. The compass orientation is also maintained, which is important for energy conservation planning, and to keep the sun out of players eyes.. 11/29/2004 Page 5 of 6 Citizen Plan #3 for Twin Creeks Park/School Campus -3 For Reference: County Plan #2 — Plan of summer 2004 o JAW 0 (� Twin Creeks* Park N 1 ( *Moniese Nomp) RevireU 10 d0a _ `.—.G_ r _spvl, oruiee I:m 1.11 ou mvlNmmva 11/29/2004 Page 6 of 6 ~���/^��K~��o�z�v^��^�~^��'�x��N���� UVv:,.��.~~~~p`�^�n,~x..o��n'n���� x'^ � �| Twin Creek Park & Educational Campus Orange County Landfill rM "Greene Tract" Town cf Chapel Hill Future Operations Center Chapel Hill High School Homestead Park Chapel Hill Open Space Carrboro Parks [--lFuture 0anhnnn Public Works site University of North Carolina 0NASA Orange County Duke Forest Parcel Boundary � 1000 0 1000Z000 Feet County of orange Environment & Resource m,oervatunr Department Mjones 11111W04 3(0 CHAPEL HILL- CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 Telephone: (919) 967 -8211 FAX: 919 -933 -4560 Elizabeth Carter Chair, Board of Education November 24, 2004 Barry Jacobs, Chair Board of Orange County Commissioners Jebn Link, Manager Orange County 200 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Commissioner Jacobs and Manager Link: Neil G. Pedersen Superintendent We are writing to you in regard to the master planning of the Twin Creeks site. We recognize that a committee has spent considerable time developing this master plan and appreciate the opportunity for the schools to be active participants. This is a major parcel of land and it's critical that it be planned in the best interest of all parties. We understand that Mathew Barton has shared with you an alternative plan that would keep the same facilities and fields on the parcel, but would locate the schools in the southern portion of the property. Although this would be a major change in the plans, we believe that it warrants further study. The major advantage is that it could allow hundreds of children to walk safely to their neighborhood school, thereby saving considerable transportation costs. Building accessibility is a major feature of smart growth and every opportunity to promote accessibility on this site should be explored. Therefore, we ask that the Commissioners not take any action on the master plan until this option is evaluated and reported back to the Commissioners and to the Board of Education. We would appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this process. Sincerely, Elizabeth Carter C�hair� Neil G. Pedersen Superintendent hat ifyou were posh - ing a stroller or us- ng a cane? If there's a park near your office, is it close enough for a lunchtime visit? These questions may seem ob- vious, but surprisingly few ci ties ask them. Even fewer have the kind of answers that would help to develop an excellent park system Lastspring, the Trust for Public Land surveyed the 50 larg- est U.S. cities. The results were dismaying. TPL found chat only 18 of the cities had a goal for the maximum distance any resident should live from the nearest park —and among the 18, the standard ranged from as close as one - eighth of a mile to as far as a mile Distance from a park is an important measure. It may be more significant even than counting up the absolute amount of Falkland in a city. Los Angeles is a case in point. L ranks fifth among big cities with more than 30,000 acres of parkland, but more than half of that land is located in the mountainous —and relatively in- accessible— central section of the city . Mean- while, poorer neighborhoods often lack any significant parks at all Large segments of L A.'s Is 3.7 million residents are too far from a park to use it easily, conveniently, or frequently. The fact is, it's easier to count gross acreage than to figure our how far anyone is from a pad:, so the average person can't rate his or her city against a norm. What's worse, there's no stan- dard for acceptable distance. A common maxi- mum distance selected as a goal by Cleveland, Colorado Springs, Columbus, Nashville, Phoe- nix, and Portland is half a mile. But other cities — including Austin, Fresno, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, and Charlotte —allow a full mile. Yet die argument can be made that even a half a mile is coo far. I hr IIt't of Ihv hunch The Five top cities have selected standards that relate to the needs and capabilities of their citi- zens. They are: Denver (three to six blocks, 38 Biking to pinkr is encouraged by Active Living by Design (opposite) L.ef Austin i Barton Springs Pool Below the new bicycle parkingf�cility in Chicago's Millenhon Park . Too depending upon the neighborhood); Minne- apolis (six blocks); Long Beach, California (a quarter mile in high - density neighborhoods); Seattle (an eighth of mile in dense neighbor- hoods); and Chicago (a tenth of a mile to a pocket park). The others seem to have set their standards based more on their perception of political reali- ties— mostly the lack of funding and the diffi- culty in acquiring enough land Most successful of all is Minneapolis. Accord- ing to Rachel Ramadhyani, a landscape archi- tectwich the Minneapolis Park Board, idly 99.4 percent of city residents live within six blocks of a park (although Minneapolis's blocks are so long that six of them can add up to more than halfamile) The city's six -block standard, which dates back more than 50 years, can be found in the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board policies document. Susan Baird, the director of community out- reach and partnership for Denver's parks and recreation department, says of her city's parldand goal: "We just thought about being able to walls for 10 or 15 minutes." To reach that goal, Denverset its maximum distance in most neigh- borhoods at six walkable blocks, meaning that parks cannot be counted if they are on the other side of such barriers as interstate highways, rail- road tracks, or unbridged stream valleys. City parks officials solicited resident input on parka during public meetings leading up to the adoption of Denver's most recent parks master plan in 2003. In focus groups, many parents, particularly those who spoke little English, indi- cated that they were uncomfortable when chil- dren had to walk more than six blocks to a park. Thus, Denver has set an even more ambitious 10 Planning December 2003 15'hcrr til :uufard� I ul1 short In doing Ieseaa'II lorAPA s( in ParkePOruns, I taciewed coundess p:v-Is and open space plans. According to meshy- of cur phuu, she pall: standards set be the Niuional Reciundon and Park Association ranged from as low as four acres for ctery 1.000 people ro 17 acres par L,000people Wlq>suchaspiead?Apparcudy - rheodeinal 1919 stnd:uds calling for a Ccihalll 11 nunubra Of acres liar certain types of parks had been misintetpictect miscalculated, or horh. Some plans rooks different approach, based on the 1996 e,dicion of NRP,` a Park, Rei;t- atiou, Open SPtcr end G,reua'a3 Guiddurd This edition (the latest) calls for local pink standards to be based on it keel -of- service analysis, an improvement over she 000kiC- cu¢ermeahod. but still not a IM IM solution The problem %\rich both approaches is char they considet parks only as recreational facili- ties. E en the more up-to -data, I.OS version is based upon resident demand gar tiered from use and survet data fed into a formula char dcteunines the amount of space needed for ballficlds. sports courts, and other lacilicics . r hedemand for unstructured pm k space such as open lawns or woodcd mess is not ad- dressed How milmsurveysincludequcstions about those kinds Ofspaces? I he lacy is char parks play muhiplc roles in r ou communities Parks ale inmgral pasts of Oil] physical, social. emotional, and in surnc catis, spiritual landscapes. They puwick pub- licgadbcringplaces Paiksanclopanspacesare it critical cool for prutcccingnarural resources. F:xposr.uc to green spaces helps )educe ()inr Suess levels Parks as open space have a key urban design role in develuplIrCM paler [IS None of those functions is agxured by the recreational facility standards we use corLo Standards chat Wilke into account prnximitp, service atcas, and percentage of land cover -. are :m irnprovomcnr but dhcvsdll Gill short. What we need is it set of indicators that relates ro par k function in a more huliscic w :n 'That might mean luo6;ing ac the amount of previous land cover - pert :enrage of n-cecanof,N or public triangulation points phis kind of nwltivariahle analysis, uahilc made easier by geo�r phic information systerns. is still sure to be unannfmtalsk nest But es the great landscape pl :uincr Jens it Frisco said. ".A little iucom.-enicoce Ion clue sake of it benci envi- ronment is well worth the Cris[... MatyLP.a, bar% HS01IMch it uaiantla I Loch 1=allmv.0 the 1- Iz1:ud Scl„ol of I )cviro t goal for its newer, denser subdivisions: No house can be more than three block from a park. "These newer homes have virtually no yards, so it kind of balances-," Baird says, and closer packs help give more breathing room and play space. Today, she says, upwards of 90 percent of the city s 551,000 people live within the man - dared six blocks of the city's 6,200 acres of parldand Denver officials are also "repurposing' land for parks One approach is to convert sites for "learning landscapes," Using bond funding, more than 200 old, gravel- covered elementary and middle school grounds me being revamped with Trees, gardens, artwork, and playground equip- ment. The new landscapes remain part of the school properry but will be accessible to the public after school hours and on weekends With schoolyards located every half mile, the learning landscapes add green space to builr-our neighborhoods that previously lacked adequate parks and open areas. "They really provide a large amenity in Elie neighborhoods," says Baird. Seatde, while not quite at this point yet, is steadily approaching its rwo distinct goals: In the single - family neighborhoods (which cover about 70 percent of the city), the half -mile srandard is close to being met, says Kevin Stoops, Elie planning manager for Seattle's parks and recreation department. In the denser, multifamily and commercial neighborhoods, designated "urban villages," the city's goal is to have a park or mini -park no more than an eighth of a mile from every resident Stoops escimaces that close to 60 percent of those areas will meet that goal within the next few years 11 ulkin., ss. drihing Numerous recent studies show that Ameri- cans today are rarely willing to walk more than a block or two Some are physically incapable of going farrher; others may be afraid to cross neighborhood boundaries; many more simply do not have the time Forseniors and young children, time and capability fac- tors become even more of an issue. "Most people perceive parks as strong amenities, and more people will use them if they're within walking distance," says Rich- ard IGllingsworch, director of the Active Liv- ing by Design program at the University of North Carolina Officials in cities with walkable park dis- tance standards say chat pedestrian accessibil- ity increases physical fitness and general good health. Moreover, accessible city parks allow neighbors to connect during morning play- ground sessions, lunchrime picnics, afternoon pick -up games, after- dinner strolls, or week- 39 Denver is conuo tingtcboolrodr into peuklik, 'leaning lard caper, "open to the public aJir; end festivals It is relationships with people that make parks more than just fields. trees, and playground equipment. On the otter hand, a distance of over halCa mile to a park almost guarantees char most people will either skip the nip or they will drive. Once a standard is downgraded so iliac it is based on driving, it loses the `commu- nity" portion of the benefit. Ar iliac ioinr, it no longer matters how far away the park. is The part: has become a formal destination, not a place to drop in Other issues also enter the equation Those who must travel a greater distance ro get to the park ire less likely to know other par visitors Younger children and teens will no longer be able to get ro the park on their own More drivers may make it necessary to devote parr of the pack irself to a parking lot IlarII is, Ina r t The health value also goes down. According to a stadyon obesity, community design, and physical activity soon to be published by LawrenceD FranlcofClheSahoolofComnhtl- niry and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia, every additional hour Spent in a car is associated with a six percent increase in the likelihood of obesity But even it city that recognizes the connec- tion between fitness and walking cm have trouble meeting the standard In its 1933 parks master plan, officials in Austin set it goal of placing every resident within one mile of it park But even iliac rather low goal has been �\ �;. Mlle d/v I�a school Above left Crofton Eletnentaq School playground. Above: GIS mapping by the Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department chows neighborhoods thatarea nine or lets fi-orrr city parks hard to meet, says Stuart Strong, planning, design, and construction manager for the De- partment of Parks and Recreation, "We just couldn't keep up with a one -mile standard " Austin has, in fact, acquired large tracts of open space in recent decades. But money has nor always been available to buy smaller par- cels for neighborhood parks, Strong says As an alternative, the city has provided greenways to link existing parks. It also encourages resi- dents to bike instead of drive to park facilities like the famous Barton Springs Pool. Oilier places have similar problems. "Were not even close to meeting the one -mile goal," says Phil Bruce, the planning director of Jack- sonville. A planner in Indianapolis estimates that, even with the city's one -mile standard, Resources TPL. I flie Trust for Public Land is based in San' Francisco and has offices in 40 cities Since 1972, TPL has completed more than 2,500 land-conservation projects on some 1 5 million acres. Its urban program has acquired parldand in park -poor communities in more than 400 cities. TPL's most recent report, No Place to Play, compares park access in almost two dozen cities is scheduled for release early next year. For more information, go to www tp) org. A chart indicating standards for maximum allowable distance from a park in 17 U.S. cities is included in the websire ver- sion of dais article, at www.planning org. 30 percent of its residents do not have the mandated access to a park. Geographic information systems have made calculating distance from parks far easier than in the past. In North Carolina, officials of the merged Charlotte - Mecklenburg County park and recreation department use GIS to plot a one -mile service radius on maps marked with population figures and existing parks. The computer can then determine how many people live inside each service circle; the maps make it obvious where new parldand should be acquired. Currently, only 49 percent of Mecklenburg County's residents live within a mile of the closest park, according to park planner John DeKemper. Keephil- tqr But even with GIS and other tools, park planners often face an uphill battle when it comes to acquiring land, That's especially true in inner -city areas, according to DeKemper. "We're competing with developers who want to build housing, and we have a very limited budget," lie says. "A quarter mile or a half mile would be a nice goal, but I don't think it's something we would be able to achieve here " Michael Krosschell, principal planner for Indianapolis's Department of Parks and Rec- reation, faces the same problem "We're run- ning to try to keep up, but subdivisions are going up," he says, explaining the city's mod- est one -mile goal. David Fisher has another view, based on I� his long experience as the superintendent of Elie Minneapolis park system (He left in 1999 to become executive director of the newly created Great Rivers Greenway in Sr Louis.) Fisher thinks city part officials are too timid in their outreach "We tell people,'You need a park in your neighborhood just like everyone else."' He adds, "Park systems suffer too quietly Fite departments don't do chat. You lose out when the money gets low be- cause people don't think parks are a priority." In Fisher's view, park officials must take a marketing- oriented approach if they are to overcome the resistance of mayors and city councils to buying land and developing parks in needy areas. That approach worked in greater St. Louis, where residents of six juris- dictions in two states voted to tax themselves to pay for parldand to create interconnecting greenways in the Mississippi River corridor, Kathy Dicklim, assistant commissioner of Chicago's Department of Planning and De- velopment, agrees that planners must tape aggressive steps to add parkland In rapidly developing areas, Dickhut recommends charg- ing developers an open space impact fee, "based on clear open space goals and objectives." (Chicago's impact fee ranges from $313 to $1,253 per unit, depending on location, and the money goes toward buying parkland ) With more than 500 parks occupying 7,000 acres, the Chicago Park District esti- mates that more than 90 percent of the city's 2,9 million residents have a park or play lot within a half mile of their home. Nineteen different park districts operated separately be- fore being consolidated in 1934. "1 think that helped get this distribution across the whole city," says Dickhut. "You had separate focuses on different parts of the town and everyone wanted to make sure they had their own parks." Still, there were charges of discrimination in predominantlyAfrican American neighborhoods In the 1990s, the city undertook the highly detailed study that led to its "City Space" plan, which identified gaps in parldand. Based on those findings, the planning department and the park district now earmark impact fees paid by developers of new housing units. Since 1998, says Dickhut, over $23 million in im- pact fees has been collected— enough to buy land for 21 parks, totaling 17 acres Peter Harnik is the author of Inside City Parks (Urban Land Institute, 2000) and the director of the Center for City Park Excellence, a division of the Trust for Public Land, located in Washington, D . Jeff Simms is an intern at the center