Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-17-2003-9bORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 17, 2003 Action Agen a Item No. SUBJECT: Process for Efland-Cheeks Park Phase II DEPARTMENT: Environment and Resource Conservation ATTACHMENT 1) Staff .Report 2) Existing Concept Plan Map 3) 1-22-03 Staff Proposed Strategies Memo PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No INFORMATION CONTACT: David Stancil, 245-2590 Lori Taft, 245-2660 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To consider approval of a process to begin the planning and design for Efland - Cheeks Park Phase II, and appointment of an Efland-Cheeks Park Conceptual Plan Review Committee, as outlined in the Park Facility Process (PFP) report of January 27, 2003. BACKGROUND: On January 27`h, staff presented the most recent proposal for Park Facility Planning (PFP) for County parks. As proposed in the report, staff recommends that Efland- Cheeks Phase II be the first park design process to be pursued (a report on Interim Facilities is also being prepared). As noted in the January 27 report memorandum, staff suggests starting with Efland-Cheeks Park for the following reasons: 1. Phase I of this park is already open to the public, so some level of parking and other infrastructure is in place 2. There is an existing adopted concept plan from 1996 3. The community group which helped plan Phase I is still meeting on a regular basis and is interested in participating in Phase II 4. The scope of the project ($250,000) is small, and funds exist in the current year budget For these reasons, staff suggested that the Efland Cheeks Phase I I process could be initiated in March. This project is a bit different from other projects, as there is an existing concept plan prepared by a consultant in 1996. However, Phase I of the park does not conform exactly to that plan. 2 Give~t fact, rather than creating a group to develop a new concept plan, staff suggested that citizen committee (including the Board's representatives, Commissioners Halkiotis and Carey) might be asked to review the existing concept plan, determine its validity, and then recommend which facilities should be pursued with the available $250,000 in funding. This process could be considerably shorter than a full concept plan process, and staff projects that -even with other ongoing resource needs for projects underway -the committee's report could be completed by June (with presentation to the Board in AugustJSeptember). The attached process includes a proposed timetable of actions, a proposed charge and operating principles, and suggested appointments to the Concept Plan Review Committee. If the Board finds this process acceptable, staff would propose to begin recruitment for any citizen positions on February 18`h, and return to the Board with possible appointments on March 5. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Phase II of the project is funded at $250,000 via the 2001 Parks and Open Space bond. The total amount has been appropriated in FY 2002-03. The costs of this portion of the project (design and concept plan review committee) are expected to be less than $1,000 and would be handled by existing staff. Any needed modifications to the concept plan design would be accomplished by the Open Space Design Specialist. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board: 1. Approve the proposed mission and process for Efland-Cheeks Park, Phase II, 2. Fix the membership of the Concept Plan Review Committee, as desired, and 3. Authorize staff to begin recruitment for the Concept Plan Review Committee, to be appointed in March. Proposed Process Efland-Cheeks Park Phase II February 17, 2003 4 EFLAND-CHEEKS PARK, PHASE II Proposed Process -Draft 2/3/03 A. Site Information -Efland-Cheeks Park Size: 11 acres Location: Co-located with Efland-Cheehs Elementary School, off 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 Board approves charge and mission of Concept February, 2003 Plan Review Committee Concept Plan Review Committee appointed March, 2003 (Commissioner representatives: Commissioners Care and Halkiotis Concept Plan Review Committee reviews April-June, 2003 existing plan and determines whether to use or modif lan, 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 drawin s re ared Develo bid documents, solicit bids December, 2003-February, 2004 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. 5 C. Rationale for Process Phase II of this park project would involve selecting from several potential facilities, including nature trails/boardwalk, anature teaching platform, lighting of the playing field, parking areas, or other park amenities. 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 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 EFLAND-CHEEKS 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 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 REPORT/RECOMMENDATIONS BY JUNE 30, 2003. Product: A report with recommendations (including a modified 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, County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council 1 member, Habitat for Humanity 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 ll: • 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 fora "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 ~+ -~+-r z 0 o o F a m u = ~, a = O O 2 a N ~ ~ i w O v ~. 2 w ~ ^~ s s ~ ,©l ~ Y~_ J ~ I +' ~~i 21 , ~) a 3 a a z U 7 Z a a 6 O w © _ ry N W i O O H 1 1 i.; ~, p. ~ N 7 S ICJ i ) 'i ~~ -{%# v ~ m ~ f a ~~ ~ ~ . ~ `-~' I ~') ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ' ~ V 1 1 Z W J O I W N m N H m N O O ~ o. N ¢ U W f' ~ ~ O v Y ¢ ¢ J ~ 2 uYi ~ UC5 U ~ N a ~ Op G Qp Z~~ ~ J , I ¢ ~ ""'~ 7 a ^W/~ w .---~ aW~ o W '~ O U ~1 t--1 Q "z z~ ~ .~ .~ .,._, ~..~ t, ~ v ~~,, W ~ f~~~n ~./ O f 1 O l ~J' ~~ avpy yaiin~ ~~ \ 1 ~~ a - ~ N w a m ?~\~ ~ a \~.\ , O H ~ ~ o . f - 8~ S 9 N g I'i 0 w ¢ w W U U w O h J O N w a a J m a° f N 0 • • • t~ F~ .. . '~ ~~ `5 !!!//VVVVV//// ~~ ~5 Memorandum To: Board of Commissioners John Link, County Manager From: David Stancil, ERC Director Lori Taft, Recreation and Parks Director Date: January 22, 2003 Re: Proposed Parks Action Plan /Sequence of Activities Over the past few months, as the Board has discussed the Park Facilities Planning (PFP) report and timetables, staff has reviewed the potential sequence of events to begin the parks projects that are ready for action. Using the Board's discussion, and our assessment of available human and financial resources, we would offer the following action plan and sequence of activities for the Board's consideration. Step 1. Prepare Interim Facility and Access Plan The process of planning, designing and constructing a park is one that requires careful attention to detail. As such, the creation of a master plan or concept plan for each facility is a necessary part of the process to ensure that facilities are designed in accord with the site's natural "lay of the land," and consistent with the County's and community's needs and interests. However, it is also recognized that a thorough process for designing a park facility can be time-consuming, with months needed for completion of the plan and months or even years for the actual park construction. With some of the County's existing sites, there may be opportunities to construct and open (on a limited basis) some facilities in the interim, while the design for the park is underway. For example, Cedar Grove Park, with its existing parking area and a "trail" corridor already in existence, might offer opportunities for completion of the trail, with picnic and other low-impact recreation areas. However, at some sites, the lack of infrastructure or other access or public safety issues may make interim access less practical 8 We would propose to create an Interim Facility and Access Plan for the Board's review in March, evaluating the potential for interim amenities or facilities at each of the existing sites. 9 Step 2. Begin Efland-Cheeks Park Phase II Process This park facility plan might be easily accomplished, because of the following factors: 1. Phase I of this park is already open to the public, so some level of parking and other infrastructure is in place 2. An existing concept plan exists from 1996 3. The community group which helped plan Phase I is still meeting on a regular basis and is interested in participating in Phase II 4. The scope of the project ($250,000) is small For these reasons, we suggest that the Efland Cheeks Phase I I process could be initiated in March. This project is a bit different from other projects, as there is an existing concept plan prepared by a consultant in 1996 -but Phase I of the park does not conform exactly to that plan. Rather than creating a group to develop a concept plan, we suggest that the citizen group (including the Board's representatives, Commissioners Halkiotis and Carey) might be asked to review the existing concept plan, determine its validity, and then recommend which facilities should be pursued with the available $250,000 in funding. This process could be considerably shorter than the full concept plan process (as shown in the timetable for this project). If the Board agrees with this approach, acharge/mission with operating principles could be developed, and a Concept Plan Review Work Group (as shown in the PFP report) could be appointed in February and begin work in March. Based on the workload both underway and as outlined in this memorandum, we project the Efland Cheeks Concept Plan Review could be completed by June 30, with a recommendation to the Board by August. Step 3. Begin Cedar Grove Park Process As soon as final land details are resolved, this project is also one that could be initiated with the current CIP and staff resources. APre-concept Plan exists for this site (which has been reviewed by the Board but not adopted), and area citizens have expressed interest in helping design the park. Commissioners Brown and Halkiotis have been appointed to serve as the Board's representatives on this project. There may be some value in briefly revisiting the draft pre-concept plan before moving forward. Bearing this in mind, and the fact that some existing infrastructure exists (one playing field, playground), we would suggest that once the final arrangements related to the site are addressed (potentially by February 28?), that the Board consider and adopt amission/charge and operating principles for the park concept plan, and appoint a Cedar Grove Park Concept Plan Work Group in April, with work beginning on the project in May and concept plan recommendations completed by November. We believe that this timetable will allow staff to complete other ongoing activities and have the necessary resources to begin and complete this project. Special attention will need to be given to the ongoing discussion for activities and renovations inside the Northern Human Services Center. This timetable is consistent with that proposed in the PFP report. Step 4. Begin Joint County/Hillsborouuh Fairview Master Plan As discussed in November 2002, the Town and County may be interested in pursuing a joint Master Plan for the Fairview Park and adjoining Town/County lands (totaling 92 acres, including the County's Public Works site). While there is an existing playing field and playground on the County's 41-acre parkland, there are two important steps that are needed before this project could get underway: 1. Review and discussion of the Fairview Park Vicinity Site Evaluation, as requested in November. This site evaluation of the properties will be completed in February and could be presented to both Boards in March/April, or at the May 5 joint County/Town BOCC meeting. 2. A Memorandum of Agreement between the County and Town would be needed to ensure general agreement of expectations of the joint Master Plan and facility construction, as well as outlining responsibilities and roles of activity for both local governments. Given these outstanding actions, and the other projects recommended for resource allocation above, we would propose that a Fairview Master Plan Committee be charged and appointed (with operating principles and guidelines) in September of this year, with the project kicking off in October. The Board's appointed representatives for this project are Commissioners Jacobs and Carey. Since the Fairview project will be more complicated due to its joint nature, and the potential for inclusion of more than just park facilities, this project is projected to take approximately 10-12 months to complete. An October 2003 start date might equate to completion of the Master Plan in September 2004. This is consistent with the timetables in the PFP report. Other Activities "In the Meantime" - Creation of Soccer Superfund Guidelines (March) - Creation of Prototype Playing Field Designs (April) - Development of "Joint Parks and Open Space Projects Memorandum of Understanding" for future joint County/Town projects - Discussions with Mebane Regarding Proposed Improvements to Lake Michael Park - Completion of Existing Site Plans/Master Plans (Maple View, McGowan Creek Preserve, CHATPEC, Little River Park) 10