Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
5 <br /> 23-member citizen task force appointed) <br />October 2002 CHATPEC Master Plan Work Group begins work (9-30) <br />May 2003 CHATPEC Master Plan Work Group final meeting and review of final <br />report (Design #I) <br />December 2003 Status report on project <br />Early 2004 Information gathering and discussions with Carrboro about CUP process <br />June 2004 Board review and discussion of project, with requests for additional <br />information <br />Summer/Fall 2004 Staff works on Alternative Scenario design (Design #2) as instructed, <br />along with other information <br />October 2004 Public Input Session / Open House held to review plans and solicit <br />comment <br />November 23 Citizen Plan #3 information conveyed via email <br />December 6 Board review of new information, including preliminary staff assessment <br />of Citizen Plan #3 <br />Staff's preliminary pros and cons from December 6th raised questions as to whether the <br />facilities planned for the park could in fact be located on the northern portion of the site. <br />It was also noted that, since Citizen Plan #3 (henceforth referred to as Plan #3) has not <br />gone through the detailed site analysis review that was performed for the original work <br />group product of May 2003 (Design #1) or the staff-created Alternative Scenario (Design <br />#2), the degree to winch Plan #3 is a viable alternative is not known. <br />Plan #3 calls for a very substantive redesign of the site, with dramatic changes to the <br />2002 Preliminary Concept Plan as well as longstanding expectations of the site design. <br />The pros and cons identified in December included: <br />Pros <br />Schools would be closer and thus more <br />walkable? <br />Potential short-term cost savings for <br />water/sewer? (note - County Engineer has <br />since determined little savings) <br />Potential for more comprehensive look at <br />co-location of like facilities (full seamless <br />site design)? <br />Cons <br />Unknown whether park facilities in Plan <br />#3 could be designed in this way? The 4- <br />field configuration may not be practical on <br />the northern part due to slope <br />if this redesign is possible (see above), it <br />could take 6-12 months to produce a new <br />Master Plan <br />Plan #3 is no consistent with the <br />Preliminary Concept Plan (2002) <br />Schools runpus as shown in Designs #1 <br />and #2 fall within 1.5 miles walking <br />distance or much of area (note - additional <br />information about actual walkability based <br />on transportation patterns may alter this) <br />Possible loss of park facilities due to lack of <br />space? <br />Plan #3 makes the park less walkable as <br />the schools become more walkable