Browse
Search
Agenda - 01-24-2005-9a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2005
>
Agenda - 01-24-2005
>
Agenda - 01-24-2005-9a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2008 12:03:28 AM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:00:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/24/2005
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9a
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20050124
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
a3 <br />Work Group when this concept came up. Based on GIS analysis, 906 <br />homes are currently located within 1.5 miles of the proposed schools <br />campus in the original and alternative scenario designs (please see <br />Attachment C). Additionally, concerns have been raised in the new <br />proposed plan about goals of increasing physical activity and reducing <br />childhood obesity. A longer daily walk to school of %-mile to one mile may <br />help enhance this goal. <br />4. Based on our initial assessment, staff thinks it is unlikely that the four field <br />configuration as shown in the proposed Citizen Plan #3 could be built as <br />shown, due to topography and resultant costs. There is a grade differential <br />of 45-feet in elevation within the proposed field location. Trying to locate <br />the park on the northern portion of the property may result in some <br />facilities not being sited, due to topography and stream buffers. While <br />building footprints are often larger for schools, there are many more field <br />footprints that would need to be accommodated. In general, staff feels that <br />school campuses and associated fields may more easily be <br />accommodated where topography causes multiple elevation levels to be <br />created, and efficiently designed multi-purpose sports fields may benefit <br />from a more level area where lighting can be shared and the stray balls <br />don't roll to a lower field. This scenario exists in the current plans, but may <br />not in the proposed Citizen Plan #3 <br />5. While the schools may become more walkable in the proposed new plan, <br />the redesign conversely may make the park less walkable and more <br />dependent on individual vehicles <br />6. The road access issue noted in the proposed Citizen Plan #3 would not <br />speed up the timetable for the park, in our estimation. The proposed <br />redesign would provide for one parking lot directly off of Eubanks Road, <br />but two others would be off of the connector road. In this proposed <br />redesign, the soccer fields, expected to be the first built facilities, are <br />located away from Eubanks Road and would be accessible only by <br />building part of the connector road and adjacent parking, or by walking '/2 <br />mile from the proposed Eubanks Road parking lot. In addition, this land <br />may be less conducive to easy field development, perhaps driving up the <br />cost of construction. Regardless of the park location, the time needed for <br />Town CUP approval and eventual construction would remain the same, <br />and actually increase, due to the needed comprehensive redesign that is <br />estimated to take 6-12 months <br />7. The Citizen Plan #3 Analysis Table ("Road use and construction") states <br />that the "east-west access road from Old 86 would need to be completed <br />in conjunction with the first school construction, but it is already planned <br />for the Harmony Farms development." The writer may be thinking of the <br />proposed Villages at Berkeley development due south of the Twin Creeks <br />property, for which Town staff has proposed a shared entrance road. (The <br />development proposed for Harmony Farms is located further to the south). <br />However, the status of this proposed development is still up in the air, and <br />the development has not been approved.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.