AGENDA #9c
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Southern Community Park Special Use Permit Application - Consideration of Issues from the Owner's Perspective
DATE: May 9, 2005
This memorandum responds to various issues raised by the Council and the Board of Orange County Commissioners from the perspective of the Town as owner of the project.
If the Council, in its role as regulator, approves a Special Use Permit for this project, the attached resolution would authorize the Manager to proceed with development of detailed construction drawings and seek construction bids for the project.
BACKGROUND
In 1986, and 1989, Chapel Hill voters approved Parks bonds, portions of which were used to purchase the Southern Community Park property. In 1997, and 2001, Orange County voters approved Parks bonds that included funds designated for the Southern Community Park.
In July 2000, the Council appointed the Southern Community Park Conceptual Plan Committee. On March 25, 2002, the Town Council adopted the Report of the Southern Community Park Conceptual Plan Committee and directed the Town Manager to prepare an implementation plan. The Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted the park Concept Plan on March 5, 2003.
Concept Plan reviews of this application were conducted by the Community Design Commission on June 16, 2004, and by the Town Council on June 21, 2004.
A Public Hearing was opened on February 21, 2005, and comments were received at that time. The Board of Orange County Commissioners reviewed the plans on March 15, 2005 and provided comments and questions.
On March 24, 2005, the Town Council/County Commission Project Planning Committee (PPC) met and recommended a phasing plan for the project. The PPC also recommended that the Special Use Permit application be amended to show 60 additional parking spaces along Dogwood Acres Drive. On April 11, 2005, the Council approved the phasing plan and authorized the Manager to amend the Special Use Permit application.
DISCUSSION
A. BUDGET
We have spent or committed $332,000 for design and other pre-and post-construction expenses. This leaves a budget of $2,510,000 for construction of the first phase of the project. This is at least $900,000 less than required if the entire program were to be built in the first phase.
SOURCES OF REVENUE
1997 Orange County Parks Bond $842,000
2002 Orange County Parks Bond 2,000,000
TOTAL REVENUE $2,842,000
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
Pre- and Post-Construction Costs 1 $332,000
Construction 2,168,000
Contingency 2 342,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,842,441
1 This amount includes design, permitting costs, surveying, public art, OWASA tap fees, required studies, and soils exploration.
2 15% of construction budget.
B. PHASING
Because of budget limitations this project is likely to be completed in two or more phases. On April 11, 2005, the Council adopted a phasing plan that identified the park elements that could be constructed in the first phase within the existing construction budget of $2,168,000. The Council approved a first phase of construction that would include:
· Parking lot (south) with 125 spaces
· All sewer and water extensions, restrooms, and sidewalks
· The portion of traffic calming, dry detention basins, constructed wetland basins, and landscape buffers required to support the first phase of construction
· Public art
· Extension of Fan Branch Greenway Trail to the dog park
· Athletic/soccer fields (3) (This option would not include athletic lights. Lights would be added in a future phase although we would provide all conduits in this phase to make future installation easier)
· Children’s play area (1)
· Picnic Shelters (1 large, 1 small)
· Dog park
· Meadow/grass play area
· Disk golf course
C. ISSUES FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING
The information below responds from the Town's perspective as applicant/owner, to issues raised during the February 21, 2005 public hearing for this project.
1. Parking Issues: The Council questioned whether or not the park would have adequate parking.
Comment: At the time of the Public Hearing we proposed 217 parking spaces in two locations. A lot in the northwest portion of the site was proposed to have 152 spaces and a smaller lot along Dogwood Acres Drive would have 65 spaces.
On April 11, the Council authorized the Manager to amend the Special Use Permit application to expand the southern parking lot along Dogwood Acres Drive by 60 spaces. If approved, this would raise the ultimate number of parking spaces to 277. The Dogwood Acres Drive parking lot would be expanded toward the western property line. The open play field/meadow has been reconfigured to accommodate the expanded parking lot.
We believe that the 125 parking spaces proposed for Dogwood Acres Drive combined with the spaces available in the Southern Park and Ride Lot should accommodate all park users in the near term. The second phase of development would likely include construction of the additional 152 spaces in the northern parking lot.
2. Consideration of Parking Groves: The Council asked us to investigate the inclusion of parking groves in place of parking lots.
Comment: Parking groves are parking lots with trees planted in the parking aisles, about every 20 feet apart, to provide additional shading and provide a more aesthetic appearance. Typically the lot is designed so that two cars can park between each set of trees.
Each tree would be protected by a bollard. Parking spaces are typically designed to be pervious if at all possible, while drive aisles are usually hardened with asphalt or concrete. To prevent collisions with trees and bollards the spaces should be oversized (9.5 feet wide is recommended). Parking groves are recommended for situations where people park for long periods of time, such as office buildings, hotels, and car storage areas. According to the information we have, parking groves do not perform as well in situations where there is frequent turnover of users.
We believe that the Southern Community Park would not be a good candidate for use of parking groves because the design effectively reduces the number of cars that can be parked in the same area by about 30%. In addition, public parks tend to have numerous short-term visits by many people versus the long-term parking use pattern recommended for parking groves. If a parking grove were built at the Southern Community Park, we would have to either reduce the number of parking spaces or extend the parking lot into areas reserved for park amenities or open space.
However, we agree that additional shading should be provided at the Dogwood Acres Drive parking lot. The revised Special Use Permit application includes additional trees along the perimeter of the area, a large center median for tree plantings and the preservation of more trees between the parking area and Dogwood Acres Drive that would allow for shading that exceeds Town requirements by a minimum of 25%.
3. Expand the Southern Park and Ride Lot: A Council member asked if the existing park and ride lot could be expanded.
Comment: It may be possible to expand the park and ride lot. However, that would require a modification of the park and ride Special Use Permit and a redesign of the Southern Community Park. Both the redesign and the expenses related to the Special Use Permit modification would have to come from the park budget unless additional funding could be secured from another source. We believe that pursuing such a redesign of the park would delay the project at least two years.
4. Size and Location of the Recycling Center: Council members asked questions about the size and location of the recycling center.
Staff Comment: We have had past experiences hosting recycling centers at Umstead Park and Community Center Park and currently host a site at Cedar Falls Park. Based on these experiences we established a primary design goal to separate the operations of the recycling center from other park uses. We believe that the noise, traffic, and litter generated at recycling centers are essentially incompatible with park settings.
Location - We believe that the current location is the best site to accomplish the goal of separating park and recycling operations. However, if the Council desires to move the site it could be located elsewhere, including:
Any other location would likely require a new driveway cut off of Highway 15-501 or would require the construction of a new access road within the park.
Size – Several Council members were concerned about the size of the area reserved for the recycling center. The recycling center is proposed to take about .89 acres of land. The center would be located in a parcel that is bounded by the edge of the right of way of the new entrance road, the right of way of Highway 15-501, and the property line of the park and ride lot. This 2.535 acre parcel would also contain:
We believe that the size of the space indicated is necessary to achieve several goals, including:
5. Location of the Basketball Court: A Council member stated that the basketball courts may be too close to Scroggs School and suggested that the court be moved closer to the play area.
Staff Comment: The distance from the basketball courts to the closest corner of the Scroggs school building is 450 feet. This includes about 75 feet of wooded buffer and 375 feet of the school parking lot. We believe that this is an adequate separation and that users of the basketball court would not affect the operations of the school.
We had previously investigated the location suggested for the basketball court, but had concluded that the suggested site has several drawbacks. We believe that most users of the basketball courts would be teens and adults. We normally try to have a greater degree of separation between facilities designed for young children and teens. In addition, locating the facility near the play area would probably require us to further reduce the buffer along Highway 15-501.
6. Height of Fences: A Council member asked if the fences were too high and asked that the staff investigate the height of fences used in other jurisdictions.
Staff Comment: We contacted a number of public recreation agencies including those in Durham, Cary, Greensboro, Raleigh, and Charlotte-Mecklenburg. In addition, we contacted three different private companies who specialize in fencing. All of these entities recommended fencing around ten feet for athletic/soccer fields. Several supported the idea of providing eight feet on three sides and 10 to 12 feet on the side with a busy road. The consensus among those questioned was that fencing in the 8 to 12 foot range would be appropriate for a basketball court adjacent to a public road.
Our own experience with athletic fields is that it is essential to restrict access to fields during times when turf repair is ongoing. We have found that signage and low fences are not enough to deter use during these critical periods. Our experiences are shared by every agency that we have contacted. For example, the Homestead Park athletic fields originally had four foot fences and signs telling people not to play during renovation periods. Those steps were insufficient and resulted in over $30,000 in damage to the fields in the first two years of operation by persons who played during times when the fields were supposed to be closed for turf rest and repair.
7. Potential Use of Artificial Turf: A question was raised concerning the use of artificial turf.
Staff Comment: The latest prices we have received indicate that artificial turf would cost about $500,000 per field or $1,500,000 for all three fields. This is about 40 to 50% more than providing sprigged and seeded turf fields. We believe that the current budget would not support the use of artificial turf.
8. Location of Trail Crossings on Dogwood Acres Drive: A Council member questioned the location and number of pedestrian and bicycle crossings of Dogwood Acres Drive.
Comment: We have changed the plans to show landscape barriers between the parking lot and Dogwood Acres Drive. These barriers could be made from a combination of plant material, rocks unearthed during construction, and fencing. The purpose of the barriers would be to force pedestrians to use the designated crossing points.
However, we believe that the two crossings shown should not be reduced to a single crossing point. The western crossing serves the natural surface trail while the eastern crossing serves the paved trail and most of the improved facilities. Reducing the number of official crossing points would likely increase pressure to cross at uncontrolled locations.
9. Use of Pedestrian Activated Signal: A Council member suggested that a pedestrian activated signal similar to the one at Umstead Park be installed at the pedestrian crossing proposed on Dogwood Acres Drive.
Comment: We agree that such a signal could be effective in controlling traffic. However, such a signal would cost approximately $45,000. We believe that we can develop safe crossings with less expense by providing raised crosswalks, speed tables or other appropriate traffic calming devices and a lowered speed limit. The project’s traffic consultant did not recommend a pedestrian activated signal.
If the Council desires we could add a pedestrian controlled traffic light to the project. We recommend that if this approach is taken that we place $45,000 in a restricted account for possible future installation. With this approach we would allow the parking lot to operate for a period of one year and evaluate pedestrian patterns, traffic speeds, and complaints. If after one year the light seems warranted we could then install the signal. If traffic calming methods function well without the light we could then use the funds for other aspects of the park. We would need to reduce the rest of the park program by $45,000 to stay within budget.
10. Use of Signage on Park Roads: A Council member suggested that signs stating that vehicles must stop for pedestrians in accordance with State law be installed. Such signs are used in Carrboro on public roads.
Comment: We will provide signs with appropriate language allowed by State law to state the rights of pedestrians at pedestrian crossings.
11. Plant Rescue: A Council member suggested that a plant rescue be held prior to construction.
Comment: We will sponsor a plant rescue.
12. Performance Area: A Council member asked why the performance area identified by the Southern Park Committee was not shown.
Comment: As plans matured a suitable space in the northern part of the site became difficult to find because of the need to preserve the western portion of the site, noise from Highway 15-501 and the need to have adequate room for other recreation elements.
We believe the best possible site for a performance area would be in the meadow/grass play area. It is our intent to use waste soil and rock to sculpt small hills and features in this area for both active play and an area for quiet reflection. If suitable amounts of material are available we will sculpt features into the landscape to serve as a dais and natural seating. Park plans do not include power for amplified sound or lights at this location.
13. Location and Number of Athletic Fields: A citizen suggested that the athletic field program be reduced from three adult fields to two adult fields and one youth field. He also suggested that the fields are too far from the northern parking lot.
Staff Comment: We believe that the needs of the community are better served with three larger fields. The number of athletic fields available to citizens of Orange County are far below national standards and the Town’s own standards as set in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. In addition, it is easier to maintain larger fields because the area of play can be shifted to prevent overuse of particular portions of the field.
The northern-most field is about 325 feet from the northern parking lot and 750 feet from the southern-most parking lot. We believe that these distances are not excessive, especially since access would be on an improved greenway trail.
RECOMMENDATION
Manager's Recommendation: If the Council approves the Special Use Permit, we also recommend that the Council adopt the attached Resolution A, which would authorize the Manager to begin work on construction drawings and submit the project to the bidding process.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO PROCEED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND A BIDDING PROCESS FOR THE SOUTHERN COMMUNITY PARK (2005-05-09/R-14)
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2005 the Council approved a phasing plan for the Southern Community Park; and
WHEREAS, the Council has approved a Special Use Permit for the park;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to proceed with development of construction documents, to apply for all needed permits, and to seek bids for construction of the Southern Community Park.
This the 9th day of May, 2005.