AGENDA #6a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Meadowmont Park and School SUP Modification
DATE: May 7, 2001
This memorandum discusses the proposed modification of the Special Use Permit for the Meadowmont Park and School site that would have the effect of creating two separate permits for two separate owners, the Town and the Board of Education.
The attached resolution would authorize the Town Manager to sign an application for a modification to the Special Use Permit for the Meadowmont Park and School site, specifying which general site plan is to be included. The Manager recommends Alternative #5.
On July 3, 1997, the Town issued a Special Use Permit covering 92 acres in the Meadowmont development. This area included a 70-acre park and a 22-acre school site. (The Special Use Permit is Attachment #1.) The approved site plan included fields and other park amenities and an open space on the park site space in which a school building and school field could be placed.
In February 2000, East West Partners deeded the 92 acres to the Town.
On January 22, 2001, the Schools requested expedited review of an application to modify this Special Use Permit.
On February 12, 2001, the Council authorized the Town Manager to sign a deed on behalf of the Town to transfer the 22-acre site to the Schools, and to participate in the application for a modification of the Special Use Permit to allow the permit to be divided into separate permits for the school and the park.
On February 26, the Town Council approved the request for expedited review.
Tonight’s agenda includes an item on a proposed Joint Use Agreement between the Board of Education and the Town concerning use and maintenance of the fields on the Meadowmont school site and the interior facilities of the school, as well as a request to transfer 55,986 square feet of permitted floor area from the park site to the school site.
Action tonight would provide the Council’s guidance on which alternative site plan it prefers be included in the application for a modification of the Special Use Permit, and would authorize the Town Manager to take steps to apply for the modification.
Existing Situation
The 92 acres in question is generally bounded by Meadowmont Lane on the south, by developed portions of the Oaks subdivision on the north and east, and by the Chapel Hill Country Club and a 5.1-acre parcel with a single house on the west, and by residential lots under development on the southwest. The Durham County Line bisects the school site. (Attachment #2 is the location map.)
The land slopes down from Meadowmont Lane toward Little Creek to the north, with the majority of the land in the Resource Conservation District (elev. 254’), the 100-year floodplain (elev. 252’) and the Army Corps of Engineers’ flowage easement for Jordan Lake (elev. 245’). This easement is reserved for possible flooding purposes as backwater to the lake. A creek runs almost due south-north across the parcel on the western part of the school site. To the east of the school site is an existing pond and log cabin on the park site.
With the exception of a small area adjacent to the existing pond, the 92 acres is currently wooded. Most of the school site is a mix of medium-sized pines and hardwoods with a few larger specimens adjacent to the south-north creek and along several abandoned fencerows that traverse the site. At the higher elevations on the park site there is a similar mix of medium sized trees and a notable bluff of larger oaks with an understory of rhododendrons above the pond. At the lower elevations, generally within the flowage easement, there is a large area of mature bottomland forest dominated by well-spaced large hardwood trees.
The original Special Use Permit shows space for the school building, parking and most of the fields and park amenities closer to Meadowmont Lane, and little development in most of the park. However, the approved site plan does include a full-size football/soccer field, a softball field and a basketball court in the 100-year floodplain and the flowage easement.
The SUP specifies that the developer of Meadowmont, East West Partners, will build three of the four fields, the basketball court, parking, restrooms, greenway and bike paths, three pedestrian bridges, a picnic shelter and a compost/yardwaste site. The SUP also requires that all 92 acres be deeded to the Town and that the Town “coordinate deeding of land for the school site to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools.” The Board of Education would construct the school and a school playing field.
The Council resolved on February 12 that the Special Use Permit should be divided so that the boundaries of the SUP would follow the property boundaries. In addition, the approved site plan needs to be revised to include a footprint for the school building and to accommodate the school and park amenities that are now being designed in more detail than had been done in 1997.
We are discussing general site plans tonight which are not as detailed as those presented as part of an application for an SUP or modification. We are asking for the Council’s guidance on which site plan to include in the application for a modification. We describe below the basic plan and then distinguish among the five alternatives developed with the Board of Education.
The basic plan was developed by the Board of Education’s architect, Corley Redfoot Zack, and we have worked with them and Board of Education staff in developing the five alternatives. The attached letter from Assistant Superintendent Steve Scroggs includes his comments, and notes that the School Board will be reviewing the site plan alternatives on May 3 and forwarding its comments.
In all alternatives the Board of Education proposes to place a single story elementary school close to Meadowmont Lane, outside of the RCD and on the west side of the Durham/Orange County line. The building is single story, has several wings, and is situated in order to maximize the use of daylighting. A 15’-wide emergency access path provides access from Meadowmont Lane around the west and north sides of the school building.
The parking is arranged to the east of the school with two one-way drop-off circles to accommodate buses and cars separately. Circulation patterns have been developed to avoid children having to cross the paths of buses or cars. An unrestricted vehicular entrance from Meadowmont Lane serves both of these circles as well as the compost area and the 26 parking spaces, basketball court and athletic field on the park land. Pedestrian access from the parking to the western field(s) is by the emergency access and a path with a pedestrian bridge. All proposed school and park development avoids the rhododendron bluffs.
In all alternatives the school playfield is located directly behind the building, partially in the RCD and close to the playground area. In Alternatives 1 – 4, a rectangular field is located on the park site, in the Army Corps of Engineers’ flowage easement, as was approved in the Special Use Permit. It would most likely be graded so that it would flood occasionally and drain off. Because of its location, there could be little or no fencing.
To the west of the school building is a small creek which runs almost due south-north. The creek separates the school and parking from approximately 4- 5 acres of additional land that includes a softball field in the present SUP. East West Partners has agreed to dedicate an access easement from the residential street through their proposed open space to the school site, so that maintenance vehicles could reach any fields developed there.
This alternate is distinguished by two rectangular fields located west of the school and creek. (This site plan is Attachment #3.)
Both fields are proposed to lie partly in the RCD and the 100-year floodplain , so fencing could not be extensive. East West Partners has indicated that they would dedicate an access easement from the neighborhood street through the open space to the fields, so that maintenance vehicles could reach the fields.
Advantages
There are three rectangular athletic fields.
The Board of Education prefers the fields to be placed to the west of the creek and/or in the flowage easement, away from the school building, for reasons of school safety.
The location of the school entrance drive allows a good buffer between school traffic and the pond.
The large rectangular field is in the Army Corps of Engineers flowage easement, would require fairly extensive grading.
The northeast corner of the larger field comes to within about 40’ of the creek.
The large field in the flowage easement would flood more often and be unplayable for more days during the year than the other fields built at higher elevations.
This alternate is distinguished by having one rectangular field west of the creek and a dog park in lieu of the second field. (This site plan is Attachment #4.)
The larger field is located west of the creek the same as it is in Alternative #1. The buffer between the field and the creek varies from 40’ to 150’. The southern end of the field is about 40’ from the school property line. The land to the south of the property line is slated to be open space. The field would lie partly in the RCD and the 100-year floodplain, so fencing could not be extensive.
This configuration would allow about half an acre outside the RCD for a dog park. Because a dog park would need to be completely fenced, it would need to remain outside the RCD. In order to be able to fence about one-half acre, the buffer between the fencing and the property line would be the minimum requirement of 15’.
A dog park is provided.
The Board of Education prefers the fields to be placed to the west of the creek and/or in the flowage easement, away from the school building, for reasons of school safety.
The location of the school entrance drive allows a good buffer between school traffic and the pond.
The School Board strongly discourages the use of this option, because a dog park is in direct conflict with the school policy that forbids dogs at all school sites due to safety and health concerns.
In order to develop a half-acre for the dog park, the fence would need to be 15’ from the property line on the west and south.
Only two Town athletic fields would be available, instead of three.
The northeast corner of the larger field comes to within about 40’ of the creek.
The large rectangular field is in the Army Corps of Engineers flowage easement, and would require fairly extensive grading.
The large field in the flowage easement would flood more often and be unplayable for more days during the year than the other fields at higher elevations.
This alternative is distinguished by a single rectangular field west of the creek and a softball field in the park, behind the school and the greenway. We asked the designers to include one alternative with a softball field, because that was specifically included in the original SUP. (This site plan is Attachment #5.)
The rectangular field to the west of the creek is turned so that the minimum distance from the creek is increased to more than 100’, but one corner is moved closer to the southern property line of the site. The land to the south of the property line is slated to be open space. The field would lie partly in the RCD and the 100-year floodplain, so fencing could not be extensive.
The softball field north of the school is in the 100-year flood plain and the Army Corps’ flowage easement. The softball field, like the northern rectangular field in the flowage easement, would most likely be graded so that it would flood occasionally and drain off. Because of its location, there could be little or no fencing.
A softball field would be available for additional softball programming.
The single field to the west of the creek would allow wider buffers between it and the creek, the western property line and the southern property line.
The Board of Education prefers the fields to be placed to the west of the creek and/or in the flowage easement, away from the school building, for reasons of school safety.
The location of the school entrance drive allows a good buffer between school traffic and the pond.
The softball field as well as the large rectangular field are in the Army Corps of Engineers flowage easement, would require extensive grading.
The softball field as well as the large field in the flowage easement would flood more often and be unplayable for more days during the year than the other fields at higher elevations.
This alternative is distinguished by a single rectangular field west of the creek and another field between the side of the school building and the compost area and the pond. (This site plan is Attachment #6.)
The western field would be the same as in Alternatives #3.
The eastern field would be surrounded by the bus circulation area and would have only one small corner is in the RCD. Because of the proximity to the school building, the Board of Education would want to limit programmed, leased and rented use to time outside of school hours.
This alternative also has the entrance driveway moved about 70’ to the east, closer to the pond. The northern portion of the drive would lie on the park site instead of being completely within the school site. This location of the drive would reduce the amount of buffer between the pond and the driveway.
There would be one field virtually completely outside the RCD. (A small corner of the field located between the school building and the pond would still lie within the RCD.) This would maximize the number of playable days.
The Board of Education prefers the fields to be placed to the west of the creek and/or in the flowage easement, away from the school building, for reasons of school safety.
The single field to the west of the creek would allow wider buffers between it and the creek, the western property line and the southern property line.
The School Board find this alternative less desirable due to safety concerns: moving the access drive about 70’ to the east would require more clearing of the site, making the existing pond more accessible to the school site.
The School Board also points out that, even though the practice field would not be used by school students during school hours, unsafe crossings may occur across the bus circle.
Alternative# 5
This alternative is distinguished by having two rectangular fields on the west of the school as in Alternative #1, and another field between the school and the pond as in Alternative #4, with no fields on the park site. We do not have a drawing of this alternative.
The eastern field would be surrounded by the bus pick-up area. Because of the proximity to the school building, the Board of Education would want to limit programmed, leased and rented use to time outside of school hours.
As in Alternative #4, this alternative has the entrance driveway moved about 70’ to the east, closer to the pond. The northern portion of the drive would lie on the park site instead of being completely within the school site. This location of the drive would reduce the amount of buffer between the pond and the driveway.
There would be no fields in the Army Corps’ flowage easement, thus eliminating the grading and disturbance of vegetation there and decreasing the number of days that the fields would be unplayable due to flooding or wet soil.
There would be one field virtually completely outside the RCD, surrounded by the bus circle. (A small corner of the field located between the school building and the pond would still lie within the RCD.) This would maximize the number of playable days.
The School Board find this alternative less desirable due to safety concerns: moving the access drive about 70’ to the east would require more clearing of the site, making the existing pond more accessible to the school site.
The School Board also points out that, even though the practice field would not be used by school students during school hours, unsafe crossings may occur across the bus circle.
Almost the entire 70-acre park site is within the RCD, the 100-year floodplain and the Army Corps of Engineers flowage easement for Jordan Lake. We believe that we should minimize disturbance within the flowage easement of Jordan Lake as well as within the 100-year floodplain and the Resource Conservation District. A field in the flowage easement would require the addition of fill so that the field could be raised and shaped for surface waters to drain relatively quickly. However, any fill placed within the flowage easement in the 100-year floodplain requires that an equal amount of volume be excavated elsewhere so as not to reduce the flood carrying capacity. Such excavation could not be in the form of a pond; it would need to be a gradual fine grading so as not to have standing water fill the area that needs to be available for flood waters. Therefore, the area of disturbance would be considerably more extensive than the dimensions of a field itself.
Therefore, we believe that most of the park site is unsuitable for development of recreation facilities other than trails. We believe that most of the developed amenities should be located on or near the school site, which lies outside of the flowage easement.
We believe that the community needs more athletic fields of all sorts, and that soccer-type fields are needed now more than softball fields. There are many soccer leagues that are looking for fields to rent for their programs. The Parks and Recreation Commission and staff believe that our current need for rectangular athletic fields suitable for soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, and football is greater than our need for additional softball fields.
The Town owns no athletic fields on the eastern part of Town, and we have a clear need for space for more athletic programming and for rental to both youth and adult soccer programs.
Concerns of Board of Education
We also want to consider as much as possible the concerns of the Board of Education. We are pleased that all site plan alternatives include the school building in the same relatively flat spot outside the RCD. The Board’s architect advises that this size and shape of a building and this location are necessary for the Board to meet the objectives of its educational program and of daylighting the building. We are also pleased that all alternatives locate the school play field and playground close to the building as drawn by the Board’s architect, and that separate one-way circulation for school buses and for cars is maintained.
Alternative# 5
None of the alternative site plans meets every one of these concerns. However, on balance, we believe that Alternate #5 as the site plan to include in an application for a modification to the Special Use Permit. This alternative both minimizes disturbance in the RCD, 100-year floodplain and flowage easement, and maximizes the number of playing fields to be added to the community’s inventory.
The removal of the large rectangular field from the park site eliminates the most problematic field site. Avoiding a site in 100-year floodplain would reduce grading, land disturbance and loss of vegetation there. It would also avoid the need to extend a maintenance access road from the lower parking lot to the field.
We understand the concerns of the Board of Education regarding the location of a practice field between the school and the pond. We believe that there would be no need for children to cross the bus circle to reach the field, because it would not be programmed or leased during school hours. Because the field would be located almost completely outside the RCD, the field could be fenced, further discouraging informal use by children while school buses are there. The Town currently uses no fields during school hours, nor are we aware of any informal use of fields during those hours. We believe that if any adults were to want a field during school hours, they would use the larger one west of the creek.
We agree with the Board of Education that moving the school entrance drive 70’ to the east would cut the buffer of the pond, thus making it more visible from and closer to the driveway. However, we believe that once the drive is completed, we could consider additional plantings, including dense and thorny bushes, to maintain the separation of the school site from the pond.
Alternative #5 includes all three fields that East West Partners has been stipulated to build, rather than substituting a half-acre dog park. We note the attached letter from the Assistant Superintendent stating the Schools’ policy which forbids dogs on school property due to health and safety concerns. With the construction of a half-acre dog park now at Homestead Park and the possibility of building a larger dog park in the Southern Community Park, it does not appear to be a good trade-off to substitute a half-acre dog park 15’ from residential land and adjacent to flood-prone lowlands for one athletic field.
We note that building two fields west of the creek reduces the buffer available between the fields and the creek and between the fields and the adjoining residential land. There is a single house on a 5.1acre parcel to the west. The lots to the south have not yet been developed. However, we point out that buyers of lots to the south have seen or will see the Meadowmont Master Plan which indicates the land as a school site. We believe that a field, even a lighted field, is to be expected on a school site.
That the Town Council adopt the following resolution which would authorize the Town Manager to work with the Board of Education and East West Partners on the application for a modification of the Special Use Permit for the Meadowmont Park and School, following the general site plan described as Alternative #5.
If the Council wishes to maximize the buffer between the western fields and the western property line, then Alternative #4 would do that and still minimize disturbance in the flowage easement.
If the Council wishes to include a dog park, the Alternative #2 would do that.
The Council may amend this resolution by simply changing the number of the preferred alternative or adding other conditions.
1. 1997 Special Use Permit for Meadowmont Park and School Site (p. 12).
2. Location Map (p. 18).
3. Site Plan Alternative #1 (p. 19).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO PARTICIPATE WITH THE CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE DEVELOPER OF MEADOWMONT IN THE APPLICATION FOR A MODIFICATION TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE MEADOWMONT PARK AND SCHOOL (2001-05-07/R-10)
WHEREAS, the Town Council approved a Special Use Permit for the Meadowmont Park and School in 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Special Use Permit contemplated the construction of a school and a field by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education and the construction of three fields, basketball court, parking, greenway and bike paths, three pedestrian bridges, a picnic shelter and a compost/yardwaste site by the developer of Meadowmont; and
WHEREAS, the Special Use Permit stipulated that the developer of Meadowmont would deed the 92-acre site to the Town of Chapel Hill and the Town would deed the 22-acre school site to the Board of Education; and
WHEREAS, the developer has deeded the 92-acre site to the Town of Chapel Hill;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to participate with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Board of Education and the developer of Meadowmont in the application for a modification to the 1997 Special Use Permit, pursuant to the general site plan called Alternative #5, as presented to the Town Council on May 7, 2001.
This the 7th day of May, 2001.