Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIPWG agenda 041304 " 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date : April 13 , 2004 Action Agenda Item No . SUBJECT : Re - Establishment of the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group DEPARTMENT : ERCD , R & P PUBLIC HEARING : (Y/ N ) No ATTACHMENT INFORMATION CONTACT . 1 ) Resolution David Stancil , 245-2590 2 ) Draft IPWG Report Lori Taft , 245 -26.60 TELEPHONE NUMBERS . Hillsborough 732 =8181 Chapel Hill 9684501 Durham 688 =7331 Mebane 336 -227 -2031 PURPOSE : To receive a report on the three years of activity by the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group ( IPWG ) , and consider a resolution proposing to re- establish the Work Group . BACKGROUND : The Intergovernmental Parks Work Group was created in the spring of 2000 by the elected boards of Orange County , Chapel Hill and Carrboro . The concept of an inter jurisdictional committee bringing together representatives of elected boards , advisory boards and other conservation and parks groups sprang from the May 1999 Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group , which included formation of this group as one of its recommendations . The concept of the IPWG was to bring together elected officials , advisory board members and staffs from County jurisdictions , as well as representative from the schools , OWASA and other parties with an interest in parks . The purpose of the IPWG , as outlined in the charge to the group , was : 1 . To gather , exchange and share information on parks planning and development in the municipalities and County 2 . To maintain and update the Inventory of Parks and Recreation Facilities developed as part of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks report , including new properties acquired or dedicated 3 . To foster communication between the municipalities and County on future opportunities and collaborative ventures 4 . To provide a coordinating mechanism for updates to parks and recreation plans in each jurisdiction 2 5 . To review and inform the municipalities and County concerning parks needs and potential opportunities 6 . To develop parameters for parks standards ( leaving flexibility for the actual standards to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within these parameters ) 7 . To develop and coordinate public education and public outreach on parks issues ( coordinated brochures , etc . ) The initial meeting of the IPWG was held on December 7 , 2000 , following appointments by all Town and County elected boards and both school boards . During 2001 , 2002 and 2003 , the IPWG met three and usually four times per year . A wide variety of topic discussion and information - sharing took place during this timeframe , including : 1 . Planning for the November 2001 County Parks and Open Space Bond 2 . Creation of a brochure about all parks and recreation opportunities in the County ( currently being completed ) 3 . Review of Parkland Acquisitions and Opportunities ( such as the County' s Lands Legacy Program acquisitions ) 4 . Review and Comment on New Projects Underway ( such as Southern Park , CHATPEC , Little River Park and the Homestead Aquatic Center) 5 . Study of New Opportunities ( including greenways opportunities and basic operating principles for parks , among others ) , and 6 . Items Referred to the IPWG by Elected Boards ( including the review of OWASA- owned land for park purposes and the draft Joint Parks Planning Process and Policy ) On June 30 , 2003 , the three-year initial term of the IPWG expired . The resolution adopted by all elected boards in 2000 called for an evaluation of the project after three years . The attached report provides this analysis , as well as thoughts by IPWG members on the successes and challenges of the initiative , and ideas on re- establishing the Work Group . The only substantive change proposed is to add a fourth meeting each year ( up from three ) to put the group on a quarterly schedule . A resolution is attached that would re - establish the Work Group . If the Board wishes to propose renewal of the IPWG , with changes as deemed necessary , staff would forward this report and resolution to the other elected boards and ask them to also re- establish the work group . FINANCIAL IMPACT : None . RECOMMENDATION ( S ) : The Manager recommends that the Board review and adopt the report and resolution , with changes as needed , to re - establish the IP Work Group . Staff would then convey the resolution and report to the Towns for authorization from the elected boards of Hillsborough , Chapel Hill and Carrboro . 3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A Resolution To Re-Establish the Intergovernmental Parks (IP) Work Group WHEREAS , the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group report of 1999 , adopted by the elected boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill , Hillsborough and Carrboro , called for the creation of an inter jurisdictional parks committee, and WHEREAS , the elected boards duly created the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group (IPWG) in 2000 for a three year initial duration, to promote communication between jurisdictions and allow for the sharing of ideas and opportunities for joint projects and initiatives , and WHEREAS , during the three years of the Work Group (which included representatives from a broad cross - section of elected and advisory boards , school boards , and other interested parties) , a number of successes were achieved by the communication and collaborations fostered through this mechanism, as outlined in the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group report of April 2004 ; and WHEREAS , Work Group members surveyed in the report noted the importance of the IPWG forum for communicating on parks projects , development of brochures and others needs , and WHEREAS , re- establishment of the Work Group is expected to continue to promote opportunities for coordination between all stakeholders and interested parties within the County; NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners proposes that the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group be re- established to continue to foster communication and collaboration in parks efforts , with the same charge and membership as in the resolution of establishment adopted May 3 , 2000 , with one addition to allow for a fourth quarterly meeting each year . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board commends this resolution to the elected boards of Carrboro , Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, and asks that they adopt like resolutions to re- establish the Work Group in time for a meeting in fall 2004 . This the 13th day of April , 2004 Barry Jacobs , Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST . Donna M . Baker, Clerk to the Board VI It ` ri i ," > I �, �1. I me TIF ,� t'j a .x' III INx. le eT' ':� s + ° E ' ' X s <i cry f IV 4 ,.4 " 1 i f 1 "�NIN IN � y rz' � Owl ° 3t . y a c } Y It If N I IV IN bV If, IN a1VNIA IF ` i ...c`Tt hYIV III } mem r y I INN. % X S ( 3Net 11 ry mememememe me me IN IN I IN IV me it IV r I WIN I View 11 Net, I me �,timIleL item % w M N mer- Its > Net LA64! r . If le, Am s � . q t ' ,f Introduction and Background The Intergovernmental Parks Work Group was created in the spring of 2000 . The concept of an inter jurisdictional committee bringing together representatives of elected boards , advisory boards and other conservation and parks groups sprang from the May 1999 Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group , which included as one of its recommendations the following : A. Create an Intergovernmental Parks Work Group (IP Work Group) In developing plans for long- term recreation and parks planning, there will be a need for a permanent joint Intergovernmental Parks Work Group (IP Work Group) . For example, this IP Work Group might include one elected official and one citizen from each jurisdiction - sparks advisory board, along with representatives from the school systems, UNC, OWASA, Duke and others. The IP Work Group could meet three times per year over the next three years, to address follow-up concerns in the areas discussed in this report. The opportunity in the MRP Work Group to bring all of the different local governments to the table has been useful and informative, and the MRP Work Group feels that this momentum could be continued through a long- term mechanism . While the actual duties of the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group would need to be determined, some areas of responsibility might include: 1 . To gather, exchange and share information on parks planning and development in the municipalities and County. . 2 . To maintain and update the Inventory of Parks and Recreation Facilities developed as part of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks report, including new properties acquired or dedicated 3. To foster communication between the municipalities and County on future opportunities and collaborative ventures 4. To provide a coordinating mechanism for updates to parks and recreation plans in each jurisdiction S. To review and inform the municipalities and County concerning parks needs and potential opportunities 6. To develop parameters for parks standards (leaving flexibility for the actual standards to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within these parameters) 7. To develop and coordinate public education and public outreach on parks issues (coordinated brochures, etc) I The creation of this IP Work Group is a critical component of future coordination . By its nature, the IP Work Group should share information with the Schools/Land Use Councils on the potential for school/park co -location. This report p t contains criteria and details that build on the Ideas of the School/Land Use Memorandum of Agreement. A resolution asking the local governments to create the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group in time for an initial meeting in fall of 2000 is attached as Appendix L. As a result of this recommendation, the elected1boards of the County agreed to create the work group and a resolution creating the IP Work Group (IPWG) was approved . The resolution may be found as Attachment 1 . The initial meeting of the IPWG was held on December 7 , 2000 , following appointments by all Town and County elected boards and both school boards . Membership and Charge The IPWG ' s charge is almost identical to that proposed in the JMRP report recommendations listed above : Charge To build on the momentum of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group process by accomplishing the following: 1 . To gather, exchange and share information on parks planning and development in the municipalities and County. 2 . To maintain and update the Inventory of Parks and Recreation Facilities developed as part of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks report, including new properties acquired or dedicated 3 . To foster communication between the municipalities and County on future opportunities and collaborative ventures 4. To provide a coordinating mechanism for updates to parks and recreation plans in each jurisdiction S . To review and inform the municipalities and County concerning parks needs and potential opportunities 6. To develop parameters for parks standards (leaving flexibility for the actual standards to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within these parameters) 7. To develop and coordinate public education and public outreach on parks issues (coordinated brochures, etc) The Work Group included 17 members , appointed as follows . • Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council • Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission or Greenways Commission • Carrboro Parks and Recreation Board • Hillsborough Parks and Recreation Board • OWASA Board of Directors • University of North Carolina • Duke Forest Resource Manager • Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools Board of Education (or designee of Board) • Orange County Schools Board of Education (or designee of Board) • Orange County Board of Commissioners (or designee of Board) • Carrboro Board of Aldermen (or designee of Board) • Chapel Hill Town Council (or designee of Board) • Hillsborough Board of Commissioners (or designee of Board) • Mebane City Council (or designee of Board) • Orange County Commission for the Environment • Triangle Land Conservancy • Eno River Association Staff for the Work Group included representatives from all jurisdictions . Orange County assumed the coordinating role for agendas and administrative support . When the IPWG was appointed, the group was created with a term of three years , ending June 30 , 2003 . Throughout its existence, members appointed from the above organizations have attended three Work Group meetings per year (February, May and October) . In each year, continuation of a meeting led to a fourth meeting being held . Activities and Accomplishments of the IPWG During its three - year tenure , the IPWG has been involved in a number of issues , ranging from reporting to elected boards about collaborative park opportunities , preparing studies of parks and recreation issues , and responding to matters referred to the Work Group by the elected boards . The listing that follows is a brief overview of some — but not all — of these subjects . Planning for the November 2001 County Parks and Open Space Bond • Identifying Projects for the Capital Needs Advisory Task Force • Updating Inventory of Park Facilities for Bond Consideration Review of Parkland Acquisitions and Opportunities Receiving reports on new lands acquired by the County ' s Lands Leagcy Program, and providing ideas for new acquisitions Review and Comment on New Projects Underway • Little River Regional Park and Natural Area — Concept Plan • Southern Park Conceptual Plan • Homestead Park Aquatics Center • Chapel Hill Township Park and Educational Campus (CHATPEC) • Historic Occoneechee Speedway (Ayr Mount) Trail Study of New Opportunities • Alternative Funding Mechanisms for Parks • Guiding Principles for Coordinated Parks Standards • Greenways Coordination • Basic Operating Principles for Parks Items Referred to the IPWG by Elected Boards • Potential Use of OWASA Lands for Park Purposes (report 2002) • Joint Parks Planning Process and Policy (this was the subject of much deliberation and resulted in a draft policy sent to the elected boards in early 2002) • Southern Park Conceptual Plan • Friends of Bolin Creek • Morgan Creek Valley Alliance • Creation of a Countywide Parks Brochure/Map (currently underway) In addition , at each meeting a roundtable discussion was held to solicit new information and opportunities , as well as receive reports from each of the Recreation and Parks Directors on new programs and facility upgrades . Future of the IP Work Group As of June 30 , the three-year timeframe set out for the Work Group expired . As the Work Group was created by the elected boards in 1999 - 2000 , an interest was expressed in re- evaluating the Work Group after the three- year period concluded . To evaluate the three-year activities and process , a poll of active Work Group members was solicited - asking members what they perceived as successes and challenges of the Work Group setup and meeting format . Successes that were mentioned included : • The opportunity for sharing information about new projects and possible joint ventures (two members noted that, in their opinion, this function was in itself sufficient to justify existence of the Work Group) • Furthering the dialogue between schools , OWASA and local governments about mutual needs and interests • Keeping an up -to - date inventory of all parks and recreation facilities • Helping communicate and provide feedback on Town and County bonds for parks and open space • Simple networking among persons with similar interests • Regular updates from the Parks Directors found very useful Challenges that were noted by Work Group members included : • Three meetings a year (February, May and October) sometimes made continuity and consistency difficult • Meeting start time (5 : 15 ) made it difficult for those with 7030 meetings • Large group (23 members) and limited timeframe (5 : 30 -7 : 15 ) made it difficult to get all members present at same time • Need for more concrete , meaningful duties in the group ' s charge In general, Work Group members who responded were positive about the three-year effort of the Work Group , and pointed to efforts like the study of OWASA lands and the work toward a joint County/Town park planning process as successes . No member indicated interest in dissolving the group permanently. Conclusion The Intergovernmental Parks Work Group , in its first three years of existence, participated in a number of projects and offered advice and input on topics of significance , including the details on how the Towns and County might work together on joint projects . While the scope of activity of the Work Group did not include advocating for certain projects or taking a lead role in proposing capital funding, the IPWG ' s most valuable role may have been the most basic of all — the ability for all involved parties to come together on a regular basis to share information and discuss opportunities . As noted by some of the Work Group members, this function in itself is very important and cannot be overstated . In addition, the feedback on parks and greenways processes and the creation of a brochure and updated inventories are accomplishments the Work Group can point to . One possible change that might enhance the Work Group ' s effectiveness is the addition of a fourth meeting per year (to make it a quarterly body) . In some cases , work required a fourth special meeting to be called, and when there was a long gap between meetings some members expressed concern that momentum and shared understanding were lost . Memorandum To : Intergovernmental Parks ( IP ) Work Group From : David Stancil , County Environment and Resource Conservation Director Date : March 20 , 2003 Re : IP Work Group meeting — March 26th ( 5 : 30 ) Please find attached the agenda and materials for the March 26t" meeting of the Work Group. The meeting will start at 5 : 30 p . m . at the Southern Human Services Center meeting room ( if possible , please come a few minutes early for food so that we can start at 5 : 30 ) . Please contact me by Tuesday the ' 25th if you cannot attend ( 245 - 2590 ) . It it II IntergovernmenW Parks Work Group Agenda March 26 , 2003 59. 30 p . m. Southern Human Services Center 2505 Homestead Road Chapel Hill , NC 5 : 30 1 . CALL TO ORDER 5 : 30 2 . PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR REPORTS • Anita Jones -McNair (Carrboro) • Kathryn Spatz (Chapel Hill) • Lori Taft (Orange County) 50945 3 . BOL.IN CREEK CORRIDOR A number of activities are underway or proposed for the Bolin Creek Corridor, which stretches from north of Carrboro to the Durham County line . Staff will provide contextual remarks on public landholdings and activity along the corridor, followed by a presentation from the Friends of Bolin Creek, a community organization interested m preserving the creek corridor. This presentation has been made to the County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro elected boards, and was referred to the IP Work Group . Please see additional information at Attachment l . i 6 : 05 3 . COUNTYWIDE PARKS BROCHURE AND MAP A countywide parks and trails brochure is being prepared jointly by the County and the Healthy Carolinians Project. A draft of the brochure will be handed out at the meeting . j I 6 : 20 4 . UPDATES Southern Community Park (Attachment 2) ■ Adams Tract ■ Greenways Subcommittee ■ CHATPEC Master Plan Work Group ■ Little River Regional Park and Natural Area ■ Efland-Cheeks Park, Phase II (Attachment 3 ) ■ County Park Facilities Planning (PFP) Process (including Fairview Park, Cedar Grove Park, others) 6 : 30 S . ROUNDTABLE UPDATES 6 : 45 6 . NEXT MEETING MAY 28 , 2003 6 : 45 7 . ADJOURNMENT ATTACHMENT # 1 CREATING AN OPEN SPACE TNIASTER PLAN FOR THE BC? i... iN CREED. CORRIDOR IF Presentation to the Orange County Board of Commissioners (February 17, 2003 ) SLunmary of presentation to be made by Dave Otto , Chahmia-n of the Friends of Bolin Creek ; Doug Nicholas , Liaison from Triangle Land. Conservancy * ellld Julie McClintock , Public � Relations Chairman for FoBC . We want to make you aware that the Friends of Bolin. Creek have initiated a campaign to preserve this special corridor which nuxs front the northern transition area of Carrboro through the Horace Williams Tract and then eastward through Carrboro and Chapel Hill to merge with Booker Creek east of the 15 - 501 bypass . Ilse Bolin Creek Corridor includes one of the last stretches of significant native forest Habitat left. in southern Grange County . At several public meetings last year, we were encouraged by the enthusiasm of many citizens wlao" also desire to help us save this creek and the lands around it . We believe that creating a Bolin Creek Corridor Open Space Master Plan is the nett appropriate step in our community' s effort to save and presenre Bolin Creek . We envision a process similar to that, used in developing the New Hope Creek Corridor Master Plan more than ten years ago ,. In that case, the governing boards of Chapel full, Orange County, Durham and itj f Durham County passed a common resolution recognizing the value of the New Hope Creek Corridor . The governing boards appointed an Advisory Committee representinto each of the Jurisdictions that worked with plaimi:ng staffs and a consultant to prepare an Open. Space Master Plan, On Febmary 17 we will be presenting an overview of our concept and asking. Grange County to join with Chapel Hill and Carrboro to begin a similar process for the study of the i Bolin. Creek Corridor. We propose that the three governing bodies appoint an Advisory Committee representing each of the Jurisdictions and other key stakeholders along the following lines . We reconmiend that the Advisory Committee be composed of 15 members , four each appointed by Chapel Hill , Carrboro and Orange County, and one each appointed by key stakeholders including L NC-Cho el Hill Horace Williams Committee Duke l,..lniversit Duke b P ( � ' y Forest interest in the northern reaches of the corridor) and OWAS .A... We suggest that the governing bodies appoint representatives as follows : an elected member of the board or : designated representative •, a member of a governmental environmental advisory committee; a member of the Friends of Bolin Creek Steering Committee residing in that jurisdiction ; and a landowner in proximity to Bolin Creak residing in, that Juri-sdic•tion , is The Advisory Committee will be charged with hiring a. consultant and working with that consultant and planTung staffs to conduct a thorough biological examination of this valuable regional resource, leading to recommendations to gTaide its protection . A significant aspect of this study will be to integrate current planning processes initiated by the three jurisdictions and other key stakeholders . ; Additionally, we ask the County to assist in funding or in identifying Funding sources to hire a consultant to develop the Open Space Corridor Master Flan: described above, (Possible funding sources outside operating budgets include Orange County Open Space .band funds, the It . ... , j t • , t .'. . ,, v..l...t# . s.+ . . t .. ..... .. . r ... . . : .. . .. .. . . .r t.a ;, '.i. f... .. . ......1... , l . . t• :. ' i I S 1 t... .:. . it . it .: _ _ :`:...i' ,, •:.ti . , . . . t. : , : : „ . .. .;.,,A ,: : .. : . - ; , . f.,,. .. '• I NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the US Land & +Water Conservation Fund ) We have obtained rough consulting estimates ranging from. $ 30 , 0004 50 , 000 . We made a similar request to the Chapel Hill Towle Coun.ci. l last 'November and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen in January. Both towns responded enthusiastically to our proposal . We are, keenly a«tare of the success of the New Hope Master plan which has served, as a blueprint in identifying critical Is parcels for acquisition and protection over the past decade and believe that this approach will be similarly useful in guiding the acquisition and preservation of the Bolin Cjrccl; Corridor . Why should we preserve the Bolin Creek Corridor 1 WVe believe the following four reasons are very important: ( 1 ) WIth burgeoning growth In southern Orange County, this is a critical period where it is essential to carefully manage urban growth in the Bolin Creep Watershed , If the watershed is not preserved over the next fern years , the opportunity will be lost forever. ill sections of the watershed are largely built out, construction Although the Chapel H upstreami in Carrboro and the Northern Transition. Zone could have enormous impact an. It the entire watershed, exacerbating the chronic flood problems in. the University Mall/Camelot Apartments area. (2) There is an, important need to establish connectivity of natural areas, existing and planned parrs and. greenways . Chapel Hill has built a very popular, extensively used As greenway/bikeway stretching along Bolin Cree.k ..from the. Community iity Center on Estes Drive to Airport Road, but it is a long way from there to the headwaters ) It is our dream to continue the Chapel Hill Greenway from Airport Road to Umstead Park and Estes Drive, to have the state DOT restore the streambed under Estes Drive Extension and build a bridge over the creek wide enough. to allow wildlife acid green�vay corridors { as part of the improvements that will be made to Estes Drive to accommIodate traffic to the new Horace Williams Campus ), connect to Wilson Park and the planned Carrboro Creenway, run connectors to Seawell ,Elementary, Smith Middle and Chapel hill T•iigh Schools , a possible connector along the tributary which arises on the Oreen.e Tract, and. I another segment continuing through Wininore tip Jones Creek to the planned County Parr.. ( 3 ) We want to preserve the last intact stretches of native forest habitat remaining in southern Orah. ge County . Two studies by Triangle Land Conservancy within the last five years identified itnuch of the forest areas in the Florace Williams Tract and the { Northern Transition Zone as botanically sensitive and ecologically valuable (.l .Landscal.)e lVith 1�ildlife,for Orange Couvtj) and A Landscape 07th l ildlife fog- Orange Cotsrrt , .PGn-t ll by Haven ViJiley, Steve Hall and Livy Ludington ) , Another natural Y treasure is the Adams Tract, about 30 acres between Estes Drive and Nutters Road in Carrboro . This jei .Nrel is an important gateway and access to the park and preserve that f we want to establish . Carrboro has already obtained about 200K from the NC Clean ; Water )Management "Trust Fund , has requested 750K bond funds from grange County , and is exploring a. variety cif other funding sources to purchase this tract. We view {'± ; acquisition of the Adams Tract as the first critical step in realizing the proposed master s [ . plant 3; 'f t t. '.. � : i ' ' e - - .. , � ,. .. .. . . .. . . , .., ., .., > 4i� iz`' " x;l�'a:: . .{ ,. ,.- . , '^ t '• ihf .e, { •a ; ;'rife . ? : . .. t. , It . .. .. r . .[ F .. .. . : . . , , -.. . ^... .. . �:..•' ..: • - ''t:+ .-C Er.t{n ii:i;=F'?;:" : i . { . I 4. If F .i• . Its , .. t , .. .. _. . . . .. . . , a ' ::; .. - :+ . •? :.T.0 ilk i . riff 3 :.'t::tS . •.i. ' �f? . . . 1. : t : .T . .lt.. .rt i , .. .. .. , ., . :j ; :;{ • , '[SE .: t• . . .. . !! ; -1 i , Ii:Y:.Y;i 3 xb .• �? 1 I `Cf t :3 ... .. . if I Is ttit Is . ., .. :�.t . tt: : :� : :• tt , :..,•:.: ' . !-:: _ j . :i. { , { x ,. v [ } i 11 , . . . f, : i [ , . . . [ . ., - sy . , , . . .,. .z t .. r .� �. t : .:{: ! 'FI tt :'E , .ti:, ti' � t 44 -[ . . .. .. . . ,, .. . 1 . F t , , E - . . ,. . S .. [ . . [ : . .. v : .. C, . ... . L. :. i . ,•.3'�i�•F':i t . t::. it �. t���f: ,:.,, �:l .f ^ ;r:l:.: , i.: �.. , ... "?i. : , .r . . �,. a.?:•}i-�{,,,n�'[,._. , ., t : . . . .. .:' • . � . ' •i :.,. :,, •t :- t-: , ,, . , ' . , . . ,:, . : ., t., -• t::.. � ,.. . . ;, • • ,.,t. :'. . , , :•I ': r '+ _ ,. ri-.. , ,.4. . . . : s '. . . , . , , : `;•t..:, f . .,u., ,<drt- ' : Pl . ; i- :ri=.::a:: i' 4., , . , . 3.f 1 � ,- •, ' .i . .- , . . .,, . _ r - , ,. .. I .: _ i.i . . fr•r. v .f[ H .rr -. t : f . . , . � rv . . } . . . }r v . .v ... _ i _ . - . .._ � tee = :.1 r . 1 ( 4 ) We w it to leave a natural legacy that our children, our grandchildren and. future generations can enjoy. Christopher Alexander and leis colleagues lave expressed -it well in A Prxtt t rr Lcr » quage : Towns, I3tiilclings, Cton.stru(ytmv " When the countryside is far aNvay, the city becomes a prison �u1d " Every city inhabitazit should be within a 1. 0 minute walk of a natural area ." We have a critical opportunity to preserve the natural corridor al.ai� Bo in Creep before it is engulfed by th.e rising tide of development in this - Corridor area. It is essential- to act. now while considerable open space still existsl We will be Coming to you on Monday , pehnza.ry 17 , to request your support— Political , physical , monetary and spiritual. Realization of this d.rearn. will require the joint efforts and support of many people and many jurisdictions Chapel Hill , Caxrhoro , Orange County, the State of North Carolina, and perhaps the federal government . It is a dream that has the enthusiastic support of a large cross -section of the local population-- hikers , joggers , dog-walkers , bikers and nature lovers . We respectfully invite you to join and support us in our efforts to create a Bolin Creek Corridor Open Space ]Master Plant - I i I i 3- fi. I' - r._...Too _.._.____.___' ATTACHMENT #2 i . ` A TV off a.y , , I fit 41 I A"I t :i {1�7.1'31'`"a' 3 I` : ' ' „ If- I ita .�_if '7.' US3, .#.7"- 1. f }r �J ,I'p�' t33 7 Basketball Courts _, �' z '' T. ��. 'f, fit I I .ttly(a . iF�l' ',M, yin' • rd'R 7 `�'.�a. :IT `IL -Ssf '1t;tZi3 �•HAi?+IY_'.. ! r'JAIV} t f I _h � ,. Its Existing Soccer Fief U " ''' .3 1�, "- a- Roller Hockey Court } - ` ; ., :tomljr,ll 't ., . Cr air ' Bocci ball Court v ,1 :<: i ;T?M},;d,At w�. :k {i. " _ {• it D. r .t i:: ' fit +, ?; .l +. .: , a� =.Y : fit rl tr :r ' 73',fl�.� ,Iod } 'N r f . Greenway Trail ' r t II , t „ I r . II'L.tolli 'I }? Of i 1 VON A., �. : ',i = r . _ . ;i r.. _,. . Recycling Center r - i 4 to :! : : t a�`` 44 '3' ;',.•.i+" .1.t� aid„" : t `lY � :� �1 y , ' ' Is ^. 1 , v �. ..' , J( ,'' „ E {•7 .,. .'q`,L I za w)i✓,` : i , _ _ I _ �_ ;fit . - _ .{ P"�" '' t rht a } i3 ' 4 .'S` ot7:ai:; ^ !!l ft Al, ) . Performancet t ' '= ` ` '' ,....... t t IF s . . _ r, .: : �: :. ; .� } .. 4 Outdoor Stage n. y { ' , ... t ,zb Illyr'.itvit3 iri' ` `,i, i Y' S i1•"•'FC'+ tN j, ' �_''? ''♦ to TT 4U • ttitt pets On capacity t f I :. y 'h r r' Fir u, u i Parking �1r$3 t ,.'a u t jF'NVIJ; spac�z 'f err xv, lIt 'I No �;_ tiµ4 As t:* .-fkW.!F.+ 4 of �'" 1 - ` ` { -.,. vd .r <i,x* vyF'.13To ~ 7 ..' 1 ( i for @Yj32C1fYa.JTf OF I it :I;. 1 + Pa?,Ft, " ! Not ..+ 'w . '•;{"- .Fl T"� r' •' ' '.,�"'' Nr�: ✓"ti• 'a"•sa �' y't _ its fi . r.. p. I ;; fj � . . Future Community ' i ' . , z..1 .... , f. 4 :t } '.'{ . Biorefenfi an Ponds r; z f rYto ;;,, ;5 Y y e r.+ ' :: fa `t C #nter t r Pool IF ITT14 .;3IN i . Its4 - ' _ ' Cf7lldren' s Water Play r r tr ;t+L`. 'I If ;71- f h� Y , I ify� ,t 1I Fit { .. rt '< - a�' :",^"O,-`- ram= .: ,+,-, "!:,.r = -�''' i` 7'/ _ � 'No T,;; �.k �: ' : a ham , . :.. �-� ' - -.. f I Playground NITII 1 '• a" atu.ral Trails t`` �, ' t � s . �; . - NOVI :' j3J 4 3 M1 4 + _ { F t F i. y�ttf{G� ;" ^ }v''�'i � '+: J� -F _ IOt( 1 so y . . .Cyy Y is , �_ `Y. µ ['� (F y , . '.=�tjj,is :i`y;'.'?;r ' ire .I�VIil. vim ' .YITT A !! tt•itt ®�.rJCi l2Q'1L Fit-IF, "a':ilt. 'f, �t :?k. 'r,5j., �it9i, _ '�Y;�'r3 'I . �;�Yr ,+: j :^ : J . r . { ,y tt'p7 :+ �,'9';::,,I I f-�,:' . €� 5 V,;; tiff r I re v . .._. w� /"'lltr .ti �i Fields is It Ptetlic 1QCE9c ! `. ':' ftI or it r s . ,. 4'lpx ;lii&ff ,o . ;. ., . . : �M� ; .,., Picnic Area t F L1 .Is * : F`: .-. t t {it{tit .?:d�,'7�.1. =y.;,,.. -: ��t J� It oll is t •3 _ .� 3 ' / _ - t c eara,+ l ;f ri sit'' fj,s]',"s ;0;;: -.,: t tn' S teKtrOct7i t $ha{ieIN �s yyt,,' -'' 7 «i.-g: ,r K.r 10)( fSYh jet I ti. 'J 'ir r,[7 Y.t*tit ' , .. ., � ` �,.' LJ.StAk[)r'9' - t'Iv « :fTlii.G� Sf:'t1flQ7E sol tom ,+ 11 s li;:' } < I+ ' gL IF N Fit IF 14 Fit i ,'j, J ♦ S' E'er. _ y', '�: T�i .1�-; ' 1 ,. yi 0 +Y. Pedestrian Crossing ) ' t ; To IV. VO, .rII tit _ IN IF �� t.} ?:3 I T',rrt r.» � : .='�i} l„ ' t• ::,.•y:i/= ye .. t1 l i't 1 r j r: 1 % l"- - ', ' TiT YC,'1 ,. ,c... ^ • r ' ,^w: . f _ t` 1°yt 'Si. .. , C :df' II :• • .s1'411 F':_'�r F TacKr:.ft Jo I ';,1 If 4; ttttadQ'w I Grove _ IT 4 : '` ' ' ' ' 44 III It € WI IFFIFINOT AN Is fort 'Notts Iff ` q _ : .I Parking Areas 15 .is�rw ei, Y. ,*ia „ • . _ 1u' `�} . . . t5J � Y`rriE'S sps �ty7 ;h� V;;t;IFF{;!• '.^r:�ti •.vr Y ' i . 1.�. :'t - ; r.:)°.oi :tV 1 FIT VVI ,. ;. II -lo �INII& :,,;,. 1y ; nt,, � ' ais. JOIN III Vs� 1 il i= ; Youth Baseball Field ,' 3 .." + Not All list fls,-eglz `� 't+ �_;'dr' a}r +� Y.L r' • \ '�rr.1� !y ,I •7f . ltlX ' T . ta, i. : , tl ' - tNs iot It VI NO No I"< if III ^a f' '_t "- u '1} _`I I ;'� ' ,f�.: s' "iL1.;as 'rf Y•1�� 'ii'rX.-_w , it It FIT Natural Hi €� lrt Tinsfolp , II I of '" v'?� -3 , t $r, :t`',r.",'c� ; x: 7 .. 3�;3 -F;: rJ If' t to -sit Ri Vw ' y {� Kj1't .uR T4Fit � 4 6i j is &I INit I �1 i Its, U. S481ta,tr.; t"'�. r�ti'_d.. .e' , i ,',,,.-�. +`z„ �ltte IT, fltot: loot tIf It Is I— NO til ,t .t,, PI 4_� O If _ 4` ?:� L""���'T°=-.t•.:i . .re .Y::'t='N • aty . a�« £ # w � i 4i J y XAMOT III I silit TV IF nossI do"I V Southern Com 5 ,..: . . /,~fit y^'rso `r- ,,- ::, It tlKll f 1:s'w �,tiF <:,' tn t : ' : ', , IPark `own of Chapet HillON t ' - I aeeembtr 10 2002 S r; . . Dog Park p�trlf�c r � � �o��.� „- '. :n Scale : 1 "- 100' It tioff TOO NO Ift .NT IN I. III So+ IN it I IN I . •fl: , . , . . . . . . MEMORANDUM To : Chapel Hill Town Council Orange County Board of Commissioners From : County Commissioners Chair Margaret Brown Mayor Kevin Foy, Town of Chapel. Hill Town Council Member Flicka Batenian. County Commissioner Barry Jacobs Town Council Member Bill Strom Date , February 17 , 2003 Re : Process for Southern. Park Please find attached a proposed Approval and Construction Process for Southern Park . This docuni.e:nt has been approved by our committee after several months spent reviewing ideas and thoughts on the most efficient and cost- drafts and meeting to exchange effective method of seeing this park to its completion . It is our hope that the attached process adequately represents and provides for the important roles of both the Torun and County In this project . As the first joint project of this It ape , the process has been crafted with the . understanding that the Project Planning Committee and the two parties will strive for expeditious action. toward the parr construction . Our supposition is that the Project Planning Committee outlined in the process will allow us to meet necessary timetables for the project. In order to trove the project forward, in keeping with the proposed process, �� e would request that the Town Council and/or Board of Commissioners ( as specified) take the t fallowing actions , preferably in March of this year . f 1 . County Commissioners approve the Southern Park Conceptual Plan 2 . Board of Cori missioners and Town Council agree to the proposed .Approval and Construction Process . . Board of Conaimissioners and Town Council appoint a Project Planning Committee to oversee the project (as addressed in the. proposed process) } e t j{ a;. . ' ,3 ,. , � . , dot , . .: ,. . . . , . . . : . It I . . .E , -t:L:v ','. . ,.,. . , ., .. .,, : :., . . .:. . . . . . , . .. . . 07 4 . To 'VVn Council requests additional planing and design funds for the Special Use Permit phase of the park (Less than $ 100 , 000 , from existing 1997 County parr bonds ) 5 , County Commissioners approve funding request for additional planning and design fluids for Special Use Permit phase o.fthe park , Staffs estimated timetable for the park process is as followsI Wig Special Use Permit approval April 2003 - Larch 2004 Development of Construction Drawingst April - September, 2004 Development of bid documents 1 bid award September- October, 2004 Pa.a-k construction October 2004 -Novejnber 2005 residents not only Southern; Parke , once opened , will be a tremendous amenity forr � d nt f Chapel Hill but all of southeni Orange County . We all look fon-vard to the day whea.1 this wonderful facility is open for the enjoyment of our citizens , and trust that the process outlined herein will Delp us achieve this goal in a thoughtful }yet ex , edit1 u fashion . 4. 2111 /03 PROPOSED APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS SOUTHERN COMMUNITY PARK 1 . Approval of Conceptual Plan The Report of the Southern Community Park. Conceptual Plan will be reviewed and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and the Town Council , as a guide. to the expectations of the governing bodies and the community, 2 . Pro' ect Planning Commlttee Upon adoption of the Conceptual Plan by both entities, a Project Pl.aTming Committee shall be appointed by the respective governing bodies , with. an equal number of representatives from the .Board of County Commissioners and Town Council , arid. each Manager or his d €;s ) gnee( s) . a. Charge is to keep informed about the progress of the project and to offer input in a timely fashion b . Objective is to discuss and reach consensus can all issues before it in a timely manner c , if consensus is not readily available , the Town of Chapel Hill may make the decision to avoid delay in project, but not before notifying the Board of Comil,11issioners at least 30 days prior to such acti.oir d , The Chapel Ifil-1 Town Council is the goverinng body in whose Jansd.rction the facility lies and which. will be responsible for operations and. maintenance for the life of the project . The Orange County Commissioners are the governing body responsible for the approval of capital funds for park construction , as the project IS currently defined . 3 . Construction Desl.gn Proaect Planning C�finIllttee decides whether to continue with designer of Conceptual Plan or to select. a new designer. If a new des.ilnier is desired, a. Town Staff advertises for proposals and reviews all submittals b . Project Planning Committee and Town staff revie7 v som.e or all submittals and ,recommend sina11 number to intervio7v c . Staff and Project Planning Committee inteiv ctv de:simier candidates and make recom.niendation to Town Manager d . Town Mmiager negotiates a contract with architect as recommended by the Project Plarming Committee e. If Town Manager caimot negotiate an acceptable contract with the first choice, he goes on to the second choice . If the second choice is not available or cannot be contracted with, the proposal is re-advertised as in subsection "Y' above . f. Town requests the County Connm-issioners ' approval of updated Southern Park capital project ordnance for the Plan nXn.g/Final. Design Phase as quickly as possible I ' . .{ . . : . ' .., . .S l.,ti.'ix•:?P•:9t ..;i-,:�].: ..a�.jl' : : ,:;JS { I •I% ' t ,. ' + . t ' : z ,ts ;.e" "t � • n: 'i : . . ..., ,. . t : ,T . . :• : ,: . : , . t1 . I . .. i . , ..T _ 11 41 NOM As the County has done for a number of years for school and County capital pro jcctsY the board of Com.naissioners would approve an updated Southern. Park. capital project ordinance at the appropriate point for each of the four project phases ( Concept./Pre-Planning , Planningiljinal Design , Construction Approval , final ,accounting) . Funding associated with each phase is appropxi. ated upon the adoption of the updated ordinance and is made available itnniediately thereafter to Town staff to "pay the hills" associated with each project phase . 4 , 'value Engineering The Project Planning Committee decides whether to accept the value engineering services of the firm under contract with the Town . The Town agrees to consider a recoinmendation from the County for such services , if the contracted firm is not used. if no Project Planning Committee selects anotl�ier firm , following the type of process outlined above for designer 5 , Special Use Permit a.. Designer works with P 'T R staff and value engineer to complete Special Use Pernliit (SUP ) application, including design drawings. b . Pro ject P'lanni.ng Committee reviews drawings during process and approves drawings that are part of the SUP application c . Application undergoes regular SUP review process by advisory boards and Town Council , as well as by Board of Orange County Commissioners «� At least 60 days notice is given to Board. of. County Commissioners before review period for application d . At Public Hearing Council receives staff recommendation in its role as owner and in its role as Regulator, and recommendations from Board of County Commissioners and all adv1sory boards and commissions e . Board of County Commissioners meets at its next meeting after the SUP Public iTearing date to prepare its final recommendations to Town Council. before Council ' s final decisi. oll f. ` Fown Counoi. l., in its role as Regulator, issues SUP 6 . Bidding a. Designer completes working drawings and bid documents b . Town staff and. contract engineer review drawings and specs before finalized for bidding, including coda revi. ews by Inspections and Fire Departments c St.aff advertises for bids , holds pre-bi.d conference, opens bids d , Staff, with assistance of designer and value engineer, .analyzes bids , checks references and makes recommendation to Project Planning Commi-ttee on bids and project budget e. Project Planning Committee, makes its recommendation to Town Manager, Board of Commissioners and Town Council on bid and project budget. Recommendations aught include ; - which of several alternates to accept Wwhich part( s ) of the base project to delete to come within budget -how to phase the project to accommodate budget and other constraints : :. . : : .: All 7 . Budget, and Bid Award a. Once the construction drawings have been. prepared and the final project budget completed , the Town Council considers recommendations of. Project Planning Committee and Torn Manager, makes its decisions and requests the County Commissioners ' approval of updated Southern Park capital project ordinance for the Construction Approval Phase as quickly as possible, so that the bids cart be awarded within 60 days of the bid opening. b . Town Council ' s budget may include funding for public art, whose expenditures would be overseen by the Public Arts Coin-mission according to the Percent for Art Program c The Board of County Commissioners considers recommendations of the Project At Planning Committee and Town Council in approving the capital project ordinance IF,for Construction Approval phase . e . After County Commissioners agree: upon budget, Town Council adopts capital project budget ordinance mid awards contract S . Construction a. Parks and Recreation. staff, designer, value engineer and contractors proceed with construction bTalue engineer joins staff, designer and contractor's for appropriate project meetings and. may be involved between those meetings c . 1' criodic reports made to Project Planning Committee, at least quarterly, but more often if circumstances dictate d . if cumulative change orders come close to the Town Council ' s limit , proposed change orders would be reviewed by Project Planning Committee and the Town. Manager, both of whom would make recommendations to Town Council , 9 . Completion After completion and final close-out of the project, a report would be prepared for both. III the Town Council and the Board of Cotmty Commissioners that details final. costs , constituting the Final Accounting Phase . ii OBE :t ; .; ' . .. : Southern Park Potential Project Schedule' Project Cost FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 County$ Project Component Jul-Aug Sept-Oct Nov-Dec Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sept-Oct Nov-Dec Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sept-Oct Nov-Dec Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sept-Oct Nov-Dec Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Completed 1 1 Pre-Concept Site Evaluation Completed 2 3 4 BOCC Review $ 40.000 Concept Plan Desi n"" BOCC Approval $ - 5 Town Approval Process. $ 100,000 6 Construction Drawin s ._. $ - 7 BOCC Review $ 20,000 B Construction Bids $ - 9 Bid Analysis - $ - 10 Bid Approval $ 2,410,000 11 Construction "i»:• $ 225,000 12 Equipment Delivery 13 Park Opens ' Lam' �,,��a "•,Y $ - 14 Future Site Development $ 2,795,000 Summer=July,August,September(1st Qtr); Fall=October, November,December(2nd qtr);Winter=January,February, March(3rd);Spring=April,May,June (4th) NOTE: Cost estimates are preliminary,based on existing plans and current pricing Equipment delivery includes lights for playing fields, park furnishings ATTACHMENT # 3 Proposed .v- -. - . ._._.rr-•-,..-,r . «,....;.m,..,,a._. . .,; i'::r..,1J,. Nd .:_i',(f:{::: . ., .,.., , _ . �j`> ,1 fl.FAA a ;S1es ,a r f::. Ad . .r ,.^ . , . , _ t _ . s .'N . FAAa' : , 'f , f r .r -A IN it f i r - ._( . :I 5 : , -. - 1.: : AIIAA t N�! r. . , .. _ _ .. , a .. _•,n ,, , s , . .. .. 1 r ., ,.. Y, .. .t . . 1 i? AIA •1' .i. . f . k.. � .IFS' iO W ., _ ..,x . .;.tar. ,.: }, s -., . ,. 3r . , _ r.. 1 ... : .. - , .,. . i . ,-, i ,. ., . ,. , - ... . . .. ... .:. . .� , . .. r.,,, 1 ri, t,:��.{.:e .•'il '. �:(. :':` . . t., '. �•' f - -_ ,• . . J , r , ..t ... : . .. , . ...:... ., . - . 1. , .. . ,. : '. .ei:, � • ' ii.S:.--'. :.'i - ,. 1i,, _ _ .. _: � ,.,dl„ . , - u :-sr. ;.1; . , i .- t . ..- . ... .. , {,. . . r,;_ :... . , .. :{1 '. . . . .,r .,, .. t 1. ,: , .v.. :. ti '. :1:" : :1,.. .i �'i'. Y�•`:J ' 2 ,i. 3 .. n" i t< +1.,ha 1.f, ••,+:»..h,. .s: , .: F,^ - !• �1 f r •s:: !.,', : E-j'3i-'+: i' :' = 'f: '^ -vim( ' te: 1 41a, , i�k. �i p. i5x V { ,t k1 l r .Eta t:� •.�'. ,ti�, �` ��• �, � "§�{7.+. - ji: ;;��:" :i;ii;.iw�`, �'r:, t=1i�r a i . :1 4 IF ! •• y4 ' Ad ' ANINNF.>y ": _'-alp j .11 :'u. NI- IF FA"E1A FTF .t.. ya'� rya:,:,,. l 7 - ' ' , .raz!2'" :. IA IF i' ;i ,s';'sT;" ,-,• 3 ,• -IT I VAsdA As Li AFR AA w'�"�'�.�-.pAAt L: ..'w!:r?:?�'„ �<n`^*.+dr: F $ ,....� r _ _' ': d,5`A .,1hx .l,r1._,,..:11' IP{;umwwi - , sIV Zz F% TII TAI dd itAv IA I AN a s "` ` x 1� ,ter t t*`- _ _ `"••«�..s='ra .>..:+c-a• „�+>ain w t ,.-.?. �. ,�a ^a• :'ssyt"k...,:,i�..,iistxu,n�!r'p?-`?*+,, L„+"' ^'i 'a :.� ,. 1 t s, [r 1, L ! •i L f,.c.,..�+t Y -- r'3a`c�C1 'z x lal� i g +-cttr~'r 'rr�a - ik 1 J ,t' • .. ., . t s� , xrm, >,t i�,.. i " , ft«.c-,.Ad ITS 9 a+ x n z . 0 .:.sa'� .>r.•^r >r - ' s t'- -'��6.,.�... 7,."� -- 'L#• "^ ,a,,,, �t'a=.,... � ,-�„ �+' 1 .`„J:a?{ :' AI At ..'• J 4 "- - F °' ' �R .Fk,- �. 4ro 'X 'xt.w^ 'C 4``" i�� 1. k "' + •�'P"�-" �A -4w. 4iK` s . .J+I: ' ° , �s.e ,� � , -er.�. ts` air -iu •1, '-^},-?l +'' FIT :,•_;.av, .; •:�,.: t _•,`� . _ - - _ = = �h�^"'' ?r'j,. ISt41 '.rt. .. :s'!" ._iL y.,�.;, -t•: _ 'it ..,N.z. 5.,=*,t •>x'i ",::: sj�'.,.'.,.m:.y i`~a, ,i..= .i •-.,•,z�,••, :,y + •9ifr-;i,3i1.-g - e ,:n •- ,ylr_ "F?E. ? , '+ .: t; '" " :s,. i. ^x tit! r ' r A -' 'af ,L 1 X ' '•s-'°-� - " r "n°,yi,•�2 .' `- �'�?' l!',e't • `i"}rt':,:i:.: y�tt' eu`.'t.9fi 'd - :, `s,s.'• ";?, : i wQt !' 1 _ T , • •�G.�} h_ � ,.,may a�s ,;Ji�- `' ' , i ' --�+� - d- . _',?• ;4 ., • Yt'r:s: 3;- i* ,L K"t .• -, 7'AT ,r ! t ,s e,J'e" 'P,-"`a9i 1 ,Fy-E^ •t ' =d'_'.'• -•,`tw = ,�:^=fir . _ a :x','•,.:r, -°�l!y;. yl'+,' • ,ua •J+N,!. ,�.`s''-"..i,,. r-3.' ; tea.-`3»'°=�, ' ` '• 3 t < ': q'.,t'urrz 9+= ate. L a_" "� :•' a>:-,"�a4i,at '.*=,�" `'+ %"""°' ' k.: `.i`{ {• 1,1 R;• ;'--s!**k,': ,-hi1;2�G»a'r.: r" 1L,s.,`'"�'isltI - a; -, t" : -wuV4,=, e '�=i- ' . .- :ti'fs•L' i .. Y-a• i r :> Af,I , A_ 1,-' 2- _ Y, A*1 �'' '- Y OFF TI* } a E:?+yam"-s-'s ' i"' r fl(-w 2=x .-a5..;-•j''„'t_. '' ,t,t, }•' ', r� a„ 1-�,,yt•- ' .t 't,.m+l. '' _ r - ' ` , •F.! �� -t{� i } tip s f ,:�ix„t •�,,, x se FIF Ai Ad II T,U FA wMMty FAAIFsNTd ls lr mka $ '•s �� � � ♦ 1 Su'' :J := • 1 ' ^":.t5'��' =:�1 P"r:•-,fi Ad w-• '.i 'Y,'+f>:^'� ,INN TAATIriINi �3i'A�-i.�-:-,z t tTy M.,: #:-: '=r��a'-FC".: _ r> -m k'-- •v�" • • AA AI `•t•:d ,a..s,.�.r" ;s, +� r '1A ter' 4 ....,1 2 f •t;Ur' s�£ • a. 'r.:-1i,rem' at i •s .': ,. ^ J_p • sdddT1 c-S erg, '^ ':e"" acu' A.. ry ~ice.. .` .:. a • ';i.- a; ,.^a_ . a�4 ' :.r -�s�.-?. ?'! iY r+_ k; • , w. t iF" wry'1� I ? 'S j,. .''' 3^ !3 sY�'..' ?jf -•rp,?i„Aw:3,»A AN _,.�•,*. ,d ; �` `( ii , S" _ ;;[h: - r' J _+5' - -2^-.E'Y�'"u� '"r.;i','3+^, "'fl „��'+ �";iIV J x art -;s;. } +•i:.f = '=. i Y1 '�'�'•`1'=z<: 'i >= �^; '"�. , w�`�m''w d,- iu! �• --4 � _ �" _ ' •{+ Et' i `' � 4 °-`'S..�•' v'r" "ry ' =. 'i= t ; .t-.?• it , `t�s • ..r-. .;,.. `s +' :. f_ vl u... ., . , • '.„,. ' is •Nr 1 ' ` .f� I f{ i r _ • .' "1 f'S, ;.. ' .` s Y X > '?:' ' rx= I � , t r fi r . %. ., -s: ''s"" .,,}' ',r% x'r .'" t- �>F. , , . .: . sq. -Tom,--- - - : :i-^ �;j r - " ,�, aa•' •""• a57Fr4� t ita `, "s' yd.: r..'""'..F. `4 , �;; ',.< .�"',5..; `�s' s ='_.,-sff_. .r ., ;,cr1 ," s3aaQn rara?* +:'..n .' Kw ,r•±"te; y' .:t,.. •{ " ' r t J'I; �rz*" .N � .' - S ,-�i •h li,��. .F ` :x,Kam , _ = . ,-k ,t1A r' '. t f' _ ,��:t, ,'& T = _ cE» _ ,r ^a : ' 9 I ' yfl'." 4�••`i ti`. �s*Y_ _ -3 a_KW Y . 1 h sir f't- I A : t ;4 e r,',n1 1 :ate .ram t" 3 • . - m , a` ' = _ AFF IF sSR: " f•• - , w, :a •,r..,:,� '- ': :::'s.'. a '`3' A'A;,._ '-a" �.:' .< : 0 t' ... ' w - ::3+; y� ;,; ?i ',';? ::awn. �. a r. i+J, , �, t'z 1 x:a.4a_fee -v5.` ,.s ' r;, • " '�� -, ,,...'•t'it"d?'' � .;„ .,�«?, ,sir, :.`t :;i': ^. "R--' - _ I i EflandmCheeks Park Phase 11 I I �I ADOPTED February 24 , 2003 EFLAND - CHEEKS PARK , PHASE II Adopted 2124103 A . Site Information - Efland - Cheeks Park Size : 11 acres Location : Co - located with Ef land - Cheeks Elementary School, off f US 70 in western Orange County Status : Phase I of park was constructed using funds authorized by County voters in the 1996 Parks Bond . Phase I includes a multi purpose field, walking track, basketball courts, and a picnic shelter Funding : $250, 000 for Phase II (Phase I was $ 861 , 000) Source : 2001 Parks Bond (appropriated in FY 02= 03) B . Proposed Timetable of Actions Action Date Board approves charge and mission of Concept February, 2003 Plan Review Committee Concept Plan Review Committee appointed March, 2003 ( Commissioner representatives : Commissioners Carey and Halkiotis) Concept Plan Review Committee reviews April- June , 2003 existing plan and determines whether to use or modify plan, makes recommendations Concept Plan Review Committee August , 2003 recommendations to Board of Commissioners Board of Commissioners reviews and approves August - September , 2003 Phase II recommendations Site plan submitted for approval, construction September - November , 2003 drawings prepared ids December , 2003 - February, 2004 Develop bid documents , solicit b BOCC approved contract for Phase II May, 2004 construction Construction of Phase II A) April- July 2004 ; or B) April- October , 2004 . Timetable varies depending on type of facilities constructed . C . Rationale for Process Phase II of this park project would involve selecting from several potential facilities , including nature trails/boardwalk , a nature teaching platform , lighting of the playing field , parking areas , or other park amenities . i This park process is somewhat unique , in that there is an existing Concept Plan from 1996 . However , there are two factors warranting a review of the Park Concept Plan : 1 ) community residents have expressed interest in a second picnic shelter , which j is not part of the Concept Plan , and 2) Phase I of the park as built does not conform exactly to the Concept Plan . For this reason , it is proposed that the Concept Plan Committee begin its work by reviewing the 1996 Concept Plan and determining its validity and whether facility plans can be feasibly added or deleted . Upon that review , the Committee would then recommend facilities to be constructed with the Phase II funding . D . Proposed Charge to Concept Plan Review Committee I . REVIEW THE EXISTING CONCEPT PLAN FOR EFLANDwCHEEKS PARK AND DETERMINE WHETHER MODIFICATIONS ARE NEEDED TO THE PLAN 2 . USING THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ' GUIDING PRINCIPLES HEREIN , AND OTHER GUIDELINES AS MAY BE SUBSEQUENTLY 1 ADDED , DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS ON FACILITIES TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN PHASE II OF THE PARK (INCLUDING A MODIFIED CONCEPT PLAN , IF NEEDED) 3 . COMPLETE THE COMMITTEE ' S REPORTIRECOMMENDATIONS BY JUNE 30 , 2003 . Product : A report with recommendations ( including a modified j Concept Plan , if needed ) , by June 30 , 2003 E . Proposed Concept Plan Review Committee 2 County Commissioners (Commissioners Halkiotis and Carey appointed) 1 member , Orange County School Board 1 member , Efland - Cheeks Elementary School PTA 1 member , County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council 1 member , Habitat for Humanity (Richmond Hills resident) 4 area citizens Others as deemed appropriate by the Board Staff ➢ County Manager (or designee) ➢ Environment and Resource Conservation Director ➢ Recreation and Parks Management Director ➢ Open Space Design Specialist Also invited to participate as needed /available : Land Conservation Manager , Planning Director , County Engineer , Purchasing Director F . Guiding Principles In addition to the charge, the Work Group shall use the following Guiding Principles in developing recommendations for Phase 11: • Any proposed substantive modifications to the existing Concept Plan should be conveyed to the Board of Commissioners as soon a practical • The facilities to be designed and built should continue to recognize and promote the co- location opportunities with the elementary school , and provide for a "seamless transition " where possible between park and school areas • The park should promote a pedestrian -friendly environment and discourage unnecessary automobile traffic/parking • The protection of important stream corridors and natural areas should be a foremost consideration , and facilities should be designed in concert with the natural surroundings wherever possible . Grading and alteration of the natural landscape should be minimized • Generally , all portions of the site not identified for playing fields or other active recreation facilities should adhere to " Olmsteadian " park and open space design principles , promoting open spaces , meadows , and fields that may flexibly be used for a variety of public leisure purposes • Open spaces , including trails , should be developed as both an internal and external network , with leisure and pedestrian movement between school facilities and the park addressed internally , and linkage to nearby residential areas addressed externally • The plan should promote xeriscaping ( native vegetation and minimal water use ) within the entire site • The Work Group should hold at least one community forum or open house to present draft recommendations , prior to submittal of the Committee report • Additional basic operating principles may be developed by the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group and approved by the Board of Commissioners