Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
34}. Citizen Plan #3 was discussed by a group of citizens and addressed at the December 6t" <br />meeting (page 35}. At the December 6t" meeting, staff was asked to report back on four items: <br />1. An assessment of the feasibility of a redesign process for the site based on <br />principles introduced in Citizen Plan #3. <br />2. Projections for potential users of park facilities at the site, including traffic <br />estimates. <br />3. Further research into the costs of extending water and sewer to the site (and <br />evaluation of potential cost savings with a redesigned layout}. <br />4. Additional information on the "action sports" concepts mentioned at the <br />December meeting by citizen speakers. <br />Regarding the last item, the staff site visit to a facility in Greenville was cancelled earlier <br />last week because of the weather. There were three citizens that provided some information <br />about these activities. This is on the pink sheet. <br />On December 6t", the staff presented some preliminary pros and cons of citizen plan #3, <br />which are listed on page five. Generally, citizen plan #3 proposes a scheme that would result in <br />a fairly radical redesign of the site. He summarized the pros and cons as listed in the abstract. <br />There are still a number of unanswered questions with regard to citizen plan #3. Two steps <br />would be needed to address citizen plan #3, and bath would require going back to the site <br />analysis maps. The steps would be first to evaluate the implications of a proposed shift in uses <br />and see if it is actually feasible, and secondly to proceed with a full redesign along those lines. <br />He said that a redesign would take resources away from some other projects. <br />On pages 7-9, there are four process options for the Board's consideration for <br />proceeding with Twin Creeks. <br />Option A -Proceed with one of the existing designs (#1 or #2} with a potential for minor <br />modifications to the plan. Adoption of this master plan could take from a few weeks to two <br />months. <br />Option B -Incorporate moderate scope redesign work, generally compatible with the <br />overall master plan. This could allow same components of citizen plan #3 to be incorporated <br />into the design without requiring a full redesign effort. An ad hoc work group could work over a <br />period of three to four months to discuss the possible redesign. <br />Option C1 -Full redesign option that would take between six to twelve months to <br />complete. This option would take a fresh look at the site without boundaries, allowing for a <br />seamless redesign that might find school and park uses. <br />Option C2 -Full redesign option that would take between six to twelve months to <br />complete. Include an evaluation of the practicality of using citizen plan #3, followed by a full <br />redesign. <br />He pointed out page 10, which includes projections of park usage developed by the <br />Recreation and Parks Department. The projection is a maximum of 4,372 daily visitors, with an <br />in-season weekly visitor rate of around 11,000. This is for the entirety of the park, and not just <br />phase I. Page 13 is a memo from the Planning Department projecting vehicle trip generation for <br />the entirety of the site. <br />The County Engineer has explored the potential cast implications of a redesign, based <br />on citizen plan #3. The report is on attachment 3 on pages 15-18. In summary, the findings <br />indicate that a redesign would not ultimately result in any substantive cost reductions in the <br />water and sewer extension. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked far clarification in how the redesign process would delay <br />other park projects. Dave Stancil said that if they were to undertake the redesign, and to truly to <br />da it right, it would be necessary to go back to site analysis maps and this could take months. <br />PUBLIC COMMENT: <br />