Agenda - 11-11-2002-3b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

z received via a IeHer from Mayor Kevin Fay, provided as Attachment 1. In summary, this IeHer: i Provides a map showing the circulation (pedestrian antl vehicular access)to the park (Attachmen[2) > Indicates the Town Councils rationale for atltling the lhirtl soccerfeltl (citing lack of available fieltls antl expected overuse of existlng fields) Provides information about previous discussions on a proposed recyGing site (included in the Conceptual Plan) L Notesawillingness to consitler potential re-location of [he dog park, if desiretl r References that a copy cf the Plan has been IransmiHetl to the County Department on Aging for review antl comment for opportunities for senior activities L Provltlea en analysis of the Impacts of the park on Dogwootl Acres Drive-which wculd bisect the park (please see attached IeHer for details) r Regarding a petition Baking for canaitleretion of the site as a high school site, the letter indicates that the Town Council wishes to proceed with constmction of the plannetl park The Town has asked that the BcaN of Commissioners complete review and approval of the Conceptual Plan by the holiday break. B. Soulhem Park Process-Approval, Construction antl Financial Issues In Febmary pf 2002, as the Inlergovemmental Parks Work Group was developing recommendations on a proposed wmprehansive joint parka process, a committee was formed with representatives fmm the Chapel Hill Town Council (Mayor Foy, Council members Bill Strom and Flicks Bateman) antl the BoaN of Commissioners (Commissioners Barry Jaoabs and Margaret Brown) to tliscuss process issues. The group agreed to focus in on developing a process specific to Southern PaB (leaving the comprehensive process issues to the lP Work Group). Asa result cf the group's tliscusaions, on July 24'"aproposetl Sou[hem Park Process was transmitted from the Town's representatives. This tlraft was reviewed briefly at the Beaftl's September 91° woB session, and is provided as Attachment 3. At the September 9°' meeting, stall was asketl to tlevelop a tlreH response atltlressing several issues [hat were raisetl. Staffs tlraff of a prepcsetl response (which, once tlevelopetl, woultl be fmm the County committee representatives to the Town representatives) is provitletl as Attachment 4. Southern Park represents the first substantive joint GoaalylTOWo parks venture, with several unique characteristics. The projeG is a Town park, locatetl insitle cf the Town's planning juristlidion -but funtletl entirely with County bontl funds (S]95,OOO from the 199] Parka Bond, $2.0 million fmm the 2001 PaBS antl Open Spsce Bontl). As a unique venture-but one that may have "pilot protect' aspects (making these proceee issues useful In future joint project discussions) -staff agrees that a special process is warranted to adtlreas park construction antl approval methods. In general, the stag drak response would agree to much of the Town representaMes' proposal (which is itself fairly consistent with the IP Work Group s comprehensive Joint projects processJ. The tlraH would suggest changes to the fnanciel provisions section regaming the timing and methotl of footling. In this light, staff proposes to use the BOGG's November 2000 "Policy on