AGENDA #2a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Parks and Recreation Master Plan
DATE: May 13, 2002
This public hearing has been called to hear public comment on whether the Council should adopt the draft 2002 Parks and Recreation Master Plan as part of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.
The Manager recommends referring the comments received to the Town Manager and schedule Council action on the issue at its May 29, 2002 or June 10, 2002 regular meeting, depending on the number and type of questions and comments received this evening. Council consideration of adoption of the plan would likely take place at the next meeting.
BACKGROUND
Section 11A-7 of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan contains an objective “To develop and implement a plan to meet future community needs for park and recreation facilities.” In 1999, the Council authorized the Manager to develop a Parks and Recreation Master Plan as a component of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and to help guide parks related decisions over a 10 year period. Major themes and goals of the Comprehensive Plan that are addressed in the proposed Parks and Recreation Master Plan include:
· Relationship of the Town to the existing Urban Service District and Rural Buffer
· Regional planning efforts
· Preservation of existing neighborhoods
· Conservation of the Town’s natural setting
· Completion of the Town’s greenway/bikeway/sidewalk system
· Development of financial strategies to achieve parks and recreation goals
In 2000, the Parks and Recreation Commission appointed Parks and Recreation Master Plan Committee representatives that included members of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Greenways Commission, Planning Board, and citizens at-large. The Committee first met in June 2000. Seven focus group meetings were held in September 2000. Public forums were held in September 2000 and January 2001. The Committee approved the draft plan on December 19, 2001.
On February 25, 2002, the Council adopted a resolution that referred the draft report to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission, Greenways Commission, Housing and Community Development Advisory Board, Library Board, Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Board, Transportation Board and the Town Manager for comments and recommendations. The resolution also called a public hearing to consider adding the master plan to the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, courtesy copies were provided to the Orange County Commissioners, Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group.
DISCUSSION
Major Recommendations found in the draft 2002 Parks and Recreation Master Plan: The Report contains a number of specific recommendations for development and maintenance of a park system in Chapel Hill. Major themes and recommendations include:
Partnerships: Further development of parks and recreation facilities and programs must increasing rely on partnerships with the schools, the County, and neighboring municipalities. Opportunities for joint use of schools and school property should be explored. The Town should work with the County to promote regional parks. Opportunities to work with adjacent jurisdictions including Carrboro should be used.
Land Acquisition: Very few land acquisition opportunities remain. Any land acquisition should be made as soon as possible before all developable land is taken for development purposes. The Town should purchase two neighborhood park sites, if possible. One of the sites should be in the northwest portion of Town and the other should be in the southeast. The Town should consider purchasing open space/park land outside of the Town limits both to the south of Town and north of I-40 to act as a buffer from surrounding development. The Town should designate a portion of the Dry Creek open space as a neighborhood park.
Renovation and Repair: A major focus of the Town in the next 10 years should be repair and renovation of its existing parks facilities.
New Construction: The Town should build a new aquatics facility, Meadowmont Park, Southern Community Park, and 6-7 miles of improved greenways by 2011.
Funding: The Town should adopt a strategy to find about $8,000,000 of new funding by 2011 to implement the majority the report’s recommendations.
Comments and Recommendations: All Town Boards and Commissions voted to recommend adoption of the concept plan. A number of additional recommendations and suggestions were made throughout the review process.
Comment: A program assessment would be a major undertaking that exceeds the scope of the original master plan project. We recommend that a program assessment be considered at some future date when funding levels would allow such a study.
Comment: The plan recommends that a portion of the Town owned Springcrest property on Dry Creek be designated a neighborhood park. We believe that the only other potential sites suitable for park development would be the open space areas of the Town’s greenways corridors and the open space areas found within Cedar Falls Park, Southern Community Park, Ephesus Park, Jones Park, and North Forest Hill Park. We do not recommend that these areas be designated for active facility development.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommended that exhibits 4-1 (Community Parks), 4-2 (Neighborhood Parks), 4-3 (Recreation Centers and Special Facilities), and 4-4 (Composite Proposals) be amended to include an overlay illustrating actual trip times to various parks and facilities, in addition to geographic proximity, for service radii.
Comment: We agree that the plan should better address bus, bicycle and pedestrian access issues. We believe that a list of recommended access improvements be inserted in Chapter 4. These recommendations should be on a park by park basis and should address parks that do not have adequate pedestrian, bicycle, or bus access.
Although we believe that the idea of preparing overlays that detail travel time to various parks would result in useful information, we also believe that it would be a significant task that is beyond the scope of the master plan project.
Comment: We agree that the report should list those facilities that are generally open and available to the public. For example the UNC Botanical Garden is an important facility that should be listed. However, most of the university’s facilities are not generally available for public use. We believe that listing these facilities might be misleading to anyone trying to assess the scope of facilities available to the general population of the Town. We are especially concerned that administrators of grant programs might perceive that the Town has more facilities available to its citizens than we do in actuality. In addition, the managers of facilities not owned by the Town may not desire the publicity for their facilities by the Town of Chapel Hill.
Comment: The report recommends that these types of partnerships be strengthened. We believe that the report’s summary should include a synopsis of the major recommendations of the report to give these points extra emphasis. One of the recommendations in the synopsis that would be highlighted would be to increase partnerships.
Comment: The locations shown on the map are conceptual in nature and are not intended to show specific sites or even specific areas. They are meant to indicate regions that should be served by neighborhood parks. We agree that the maps should be changed to clarify their intent.
Comment: We believe that all potential sites for development of facilities in the downtown area were examined. Because most of the downtown area has already been developed we could find no cost effective means of providing additional recreation facilities in this area. The plan recommends changes at the Hargraves Park site and extension of the Bolin Creek Greenway.
Comment: A major focus area of the report is repair and renovation of existing facilities. We believe that the summary chapter of the report should include a synopsis of the major recommendations of the report. One of the recommendations in the synopsis that would be highlighted would be to focus on repair and renovation of existing facilities.
Comment: We believe that the neighborhood parks proposed for the southeast, northeast and northwest areas of the Town would be of a scale that would likely attract primarily neighborhood use. We agree that community size parks located near the Town boundaries should be funded at least in part by the County. We note that the County has provided funding for both Homestead and Southern Community parks.
Comment: We believe that dog parks should be a part of our park program. Use of the existing Homestead Dog Park is high. We expect that the proposed dog park at Southern Community Park would also receive significant levels of use.
Comment: We agree that sections addressing lighting and site furnishings should be added to the plan.
Comment: We believe that the 6-7 miles of improved trail stated in the report is a reasonable goal for the next 10 years without a major increase in funding and staff levels.
We also believe that the plans are well integrated as shown. We have examined both plans and believe that every reasonable opportunity for linking parks to the greenway system has been made. Parks that are directly linked to the greenways system include: Cedar Falls, Community Center, proposed Dry Creek, Hargraves, Homestead, future Meadowmont, Southern Community, and Umstead. All other park sites are in areas that prevent greenways links because of prior development. We also believe that the exhibits currently show the access function of greenways in a clear manner.
Comment: We believe that although the bicycle standards are important the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is not an appropriate place to include the full set of standards. In addition, we would expect standards in the Design Manual to be modified from time to time. Such modifications would render out of date what could be included in the Master Plan. We recommend that a statement be included in the Policy section of Chapter 2 that would refer to the standards for the development and renovation of any park.
Comment: We believe that a statement should be added to Policy section of Chapter 2 that it would a goal of the Town to reduce or eliminate any unnecessary light pollution in and surrounding our parks.
Comment: There are no standards for greenways or open space land of which we are aware. However, we have a greenways master plan and have been actively pursuing the goals stated in that document. We agree that ideally it would be beneficial to exceed national standards for park acquisition. However, opportunities for purchase of additional park lands are very limited. We believe that additional large park land purchases and development should be undertaken by Orange County. The Town could continue to search for land suitable for open space, greenways, neighborhood parks and mini-park sites with local funds.
Comment: We believe the report already recommends a system of parks that range from mini-parks to regional parks.
17. Fee Waiver Policy: The Housing and Community Development Advisory Board and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that the Town’s fee reduction policy be referenced in the document. The Housing Board recommended that the user fee sliding scale remain in place and the fact that the user fee scale could go down to zero be advertised in the Parks and Recreation brochure.
Comment: This document is facility oriented. We believe that insertion of fee waiver information would be better placed in a document that is program oriented. However, we are currently following the recommendations of the Housing and Community Development Advisory Board and the Parks and Recreation Commission in our day to day operations. In addition, the Council addressed these policy issues on an annual basis as part of the budget approval process.
18. Meadowmont Park: The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that the plan should be updated to include what has been approved for Meadowmont Park.
Comment: We agree that Chapter 4 should be modified to include the most up to date information.
Comment: We believe that, although the Percent for Arts program is important, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is not an appropriate place to include the ordinance. In addition, we believe the ordinance might be modified from time to time. Such modifications would render out of date anything that was included in the Master Plan. We recommend that a statement be included in the Policy section of Chapter 2 that would refer to the Percent for Arts ordinance and policy resolution.
PROCESS
The following steps were followed thus far in developing this draft master plan.
· Council adopted the Town’s Comprehensive Plan in 1999.
· In 2000, the Parks and Recreation Commission appointed the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Committee.
· Seven focus group meetings in September 2000.
· Public forum in September 2000
· Public forum in January 2001.
· Committee approved the draft plan on December 19, 2001.
· In February 2002 the Council referred the draft report.
· Boards and commissions reviewed the draft document in April 2002.
Next Steps: We will continue to receive comments until the Council considers this plan again on either May 29, 2002 or June 10, 2002. At that meeting the Council could consider any changes and adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as part of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.
If the Council adopts the Parks and Recreation Master Plan we would then revise the text to address any changes authorized by the Council. Once the master plan has been modified and corrected we would then print the document and make it available to the public and the Council. It would also be posted on the Town’s website, as is the current draft.
Complete recommendations of all Boards and Commissions are attached.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: On March 26, 2002, the Board voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend that the Council adopt the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Please see the attached recommendations.
Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission: On April 17, 2002, the Commission voted unanimously (10-0) to recommend that the Council adopt the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Please see the attached recommendations.
Greenways Commission: On March 27, 2002, the Greenways Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend that the Council adopt the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Please see the attached recommendations.
Housing and Community Development Advisory Board: The Board met on March 26, 2002, and voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that the Council adopt the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Please see the attached recommendations.
Library Board: The Board met on March 18, 2002, and voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that the Council adopt the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Please see the attached recommendations.
Parks and Recreation Commission: The Commission met on March 27, 2002. The Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that the Council adopt the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Please see the attached recommendations.
Planning Board: The Planning Board met on March 5, 2002, and voted unanimously (9-0) to recommend adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Please see the attached recommendations.
Transportation Board: The Transportation Board met on March 19, 2002, and voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that the Council adopt the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Please see the attached recommendations.
Manager’s Recommendation: We recommend that the Council refer the comments received tonight to the Town Manager and consider possible modifications to the plan and adoption as part of the Comprehensive Plan at the Council’s business meeting of May 29, 2002 or June 10, 2002, depending on the level of questions and comments received this evening.
ATTACHMENTS