HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-12-2011 - 5ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WORKSESSION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 12, 2011
Action Agen~
Item No.
SUBJECT• Creation of New Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
DEPARTMENT: Environment, Agriculture,
Parks and Recreation
(DEAPR)
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1) Toward Creating a New
Comprehensive Parks & Recreation
Master Plan
2) Excerpts from Adopted 1988 Plan
3) Joint Master Recreation & Parks Plan
(1999) Excerpts
4) Composite Countywide Plan Map
(2006)
5) 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Parks and
Recreation Objectives)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Stancil, 245-2510
Lori Taft, 245-2660
Marabeth Carr, 245-2510
Rich Shaw, 245-2510
PURPOSE: To consider a process for moving forward with a new Comprehensive Parks and
Recreation Master Plan to update to the 1988 Orange County Master Recreation and Parks
Plan, and provide feedback to staff on the scope and format of the plan and a proposed
process for completion.
BACKGROUND: In July 1988, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a Master
Recreation and Parks Plan for Orange County. Over the years, many intervening supplemental
works have been created:
• Issue Papers between 1996-1998 on possible collaboration and other topics;
• The Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan (1999, adopted May 2000), which provided
an updated inventory of facilities, jurisdiction needs, discussion on linkages between the
park and trails systems, and a calculation of parkland needs based on population. This
document was a precursor to the 2001 Orange County Parks and Open Space Bond;
• A New Era for Parks report (2002), which outlined the process for beginning the
acquisition and construction of parks and open space projects;
• The Composite Countywide Plan for Parks and Trails (2006), a map of existing and
planned parks and trails from all town and County plans, created by the
Intergovernmental Parks Work Group;
• The Parks and Recreation Element of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan
adopted in 2008; and
• Other smaller reports and maps during the timeframe.
2
Excerpts of some of these historical documents and plans are provided herein, others are
available in full upon request.
While the 1988 Master Plan was expanded upon, enhanced and in some cases updated by
these efforts, the 1988 Plan remains the governing document for the County's physical plan for
parks and recreation (with the exception of new goals and objectives adopted in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan).
At the October 12, 2010 work session, the Board indicated an interest in updating or creating a
new Master Plan -noting the many changes that have occurred since 1988, the need to revisit
the operating principles of that plan in light of the passage of time, and the fact that the 1988
Plan is now considered outdated by State grant agencies for future matching purposes. It is
also noteworthy that one of the objectives in the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan is in fact
the creation of a new Master Plan.
Over the past several months, staff has worked to evaluate the 1988 Plan, look at model new
plan templates, examine parks and open space plans from other counties in North Carolina and
surrounding states, and develop an outline of an approach for creating a new Comprehensive
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and other
plans and documents, with a goal of completing the effort by June 30, 2012. A paper outlining
this approach is provided as Attachment 1, including a draft outline of the proposed Plan. Staff
will also present examples of other recent or notable county parks and open space plans and a
possible timetable of action. For consistency with the overall County Comprehensive Plan, the
proposed target year for the new master plan is also 2030. Finally, staff poses some "Key
Questions" for the Board to ponder, matters that would need to be addressed in a new Plan.
While three options for pursuing a new plan are noted, staff's recommended approach is to
pursue ahybrid/augmented staff resource method to the creation of the plan, with substantial
involvement of existing staff in DEAPR and solicited assistance from other departments in
certain areas of special expertise. Data collection, research, graphics, and initial drafting would
be conducted by a temporary staff person to be hired for the duration of the project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: If moving forward with an updated plan during FY 2011-12 is desired,
staffs preferred option (DEAPR staff coordination with temporary staff assistance) would
involve hiring a temporary employee as noted above. The cost for this person, plus other
associated public information and logistical costs, is projected at $22,000. Hiring of an outside
consultant to create the plan could cost between $90-150,000 based on recent plans completed
or underway in other jurisdictions.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board consider the proposed
format and process for a new Master Plan, and provide feedback to management and staff on
the desirability of moving forward, a timeframe and cost.
In particular, Board thoughts and feedback on the two "Key Questions" on page 5 of this
agenda abstract item would help provide framework for moving forward.
~d'm`~-1- s
.~*f ,
1~3 ...
:~gr~c~.~~uare, ~'a~~ ~~cr~a~c~a
"Toward Creating a New Comprehensive Parks & Recreation Master Plan"
April 12, 2011
At the October 12, 2010 worksession, the Board discussed the need to update
the current Master Recreation and Parks Plan (adopted July 1988). This plan
was subsequently adopted as the "Parks and Recreation Element of the Orange
County Comprehensive Plan." It has been superseded for goals and objectives
only by the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The remainder of the plan
remains the operative document for parks and recreation in Orange County.
Background
At a staff level, the need to update this plan has been recognized for several
years. In fact, portions of the plan have been updated -the adopted Joint
Master Recreation and Parks Work Group Report (2000) updated the needs
assessment and explored means of coordination with the towns; the Recreation
and Parks Strategic Operations Plan (2005); the Comprehensive Countywide
Composite Parks Plan; created by the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group and
adopted by all jurisdictions in 2006 illustrated the County's planned parks and
trails in context with those planned by the towns; and finally, the Orange County
2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted October 2008) included substantial
background, and adopted new goals and objectives. However, no other
amendments to the 1988 Plan have been adopted.
In fact, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan itself acknowledged the need to update
the 1988 document (Objective PR-3.3), especially the physical facilities and
services components not addressed by the 1999 and 2008 efforts. In late 2005, a
plan to create and adopt an interim plan was considered at staff level.
The rationale for adopting the plan is multi-faceted, but there are four primary
driving factors:
• The 1988 Plan does not reflect the many changes in facilities, acquired
sites, programs and services that have occurred, particularly in the last
decade. This applies both to parks created and opened, and changes
in needs, facilities, transportation (I-40 was not open when the 1988
Plan was written), and demographics.
4
• Because of the 22 years that have passed since its adoption, grant-
funding agencies will no longer accept the plan, substantially
harming applications for critical grant assistance from entities like the
N.C. Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF).
• Needs and/or priorities of the community may have changed
substantially in the 22 years since the plan was created. This is alluded
to in the 1999 countywide joint plan.
• The need for close and seamless coordination with the
municipalities of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, Mebane and
Durham -and with the two school systems - is much more critical as
we move further into the 21St century. Note: This topic was the subject
of parks studies completed between 1996 and 2001.
While there has been acknowledgement of the need to update the plan in the last
several years, it is also important to note the reasons why this was ultimately not
pursued:
• Creation and adoption of a new County Comprehensive Plan, which
(initially) envisioned a parallel effort for a fuller update of the 1988 Plan.
• Funding for the new plan (especially if a consultant were to be hired to
create the plan).
• The need to address the subdivision "payment-in-lieu" system in
conjunction with the plan, which was delayed to allow for a level of service
to be fully-identified and a new plan to be created.
• A desire to complete the parkland acquisition and/or construction needs
identified in the 1988 plan before embarking on a new plan.
• Ongoing and continual updates of municipal parks and recreation plans in
many of the jurisdictions.
A. Possible Outline of a New Plan
Based on existing plans, known "drivers" and issues, templates for plans from the
State, and review of other county parks plans, a possible outline of areas to be
addressed by a few plan might be as follows:
.-
1 Introduction: Background, Rationale, Vision and Mission
Statement
2 Executive Summa
3 Overview of Existing and Previous Plans and Other Reports
4 Inventory/Assessment of Current Facilities, Programs and
Services, and Previously-Identified Needs
5 Citizen Involvement: Needs Assessment /Public Outreach
Results
2
5
6 The Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan /Goals and
Obeectives (from the 2030 Plan
7 Drivin Factors: Demo raphics, Trans ortation, etc
8 Inter-Relationships: Towns, Schools, State (MST, State
Parks), Land Trusts, Private Facilities and Other Partners
9 Tourism Potential and Impact of Other Plans, Watershed
Rules, Other Factors
10 Parks, Recreation and Open Space System Analysis and
Linkages
11 Parks and Recreation Action Strate ies 2012-2030
12 Existing and Future Park Development and Map
13 Service Provision Scope and Standards/ Assessment of
Construction, Operation and Mana ement (O&M) Costs
14 Funding / Guidin Principles /Conclusion
List Of Tables, Figures, Appendices
Creating a New Plan: Opportunities Constraints and "Key Questions"
With such a long passage of time, staff feels that an attempt to update the
existing 1988 framework may be insufficient and difficult to produce. While there
are many principles and underlying values that should be retained from the 1988
Plan, the very nature of parks, open space and recreation has changed, making
a new template and plan framework prudent. It is acknowledged that a new plan
must, however, retain linkage and consistency with the 2030 Orange County
Comprehensive Plan -building from the background, goals and objectives
included in that document.
There are a number of topics not fully-addressed (or evident) in 1988 that require
a more-detailed assessment in 2012, such as interconnectivity of parks and open
space, relationships with towns and schools, and other important components.
Creating a new plan offers many exciting opportunities to recognize and codify
the many changes, parks and open spaces that have resulted; identify new
relationships and partnerships; and perhaps chart a new course on a variety of
fronts.
With that opportunity, however, come a number of challenges. Some of these
challenges are themselves opportunities, for example the potential for
coordinated efforts with the towns and schools.
As we potentially move toward a new Master Plan, there are some key questions
that reverberate throughout many of the areas to be covered, and impact many if
not all decisions and future plans. While there are likely others that exist, or may
be identified as planning moves forward, staff would like to pose two for Board
discussion at the outset...questions that will impact how a new plan would
3
6
proceed and what it would look like. Some of these questions have lingered
unanswered for many years, and resolution or direction to these questions (if
possible) would help frame the type of plan and the constraints that might be
faced in tackling a new document:
1) What is the ultimate vision for the sco a of Orange County parks and
recreation facilities?
a) A wide range of county programs exist, from extensive and
comprehensive, to limited and targeted.
b) The answer could be determined via the Plan process (public input}, or by
parameters identified by Board up front if known.
c) This matter is closely linked to the issue of how to work with towns/schools
A summary of several county parks, recreation and open space systems and
has been compiled by staff. This includes-counties inside North Carolina and
some selected counties with similar attributes in adjoining states.
Orange County's starting point for such a conversation is different from many
counties, as a relative latecomer to parks, open space and trails. In fact, prior
to the opening of Efland-Cheeks Park in 1999, Orange County did not own or
operate any parks. It did own and operate three recreation centers, numerous
recreation programs, and isolated playing fields at some locations prior to that
time. But the 1997 Parks and Open Space Bond (and its 2001 successor,
along with a series of plans and reports by the County) ushered in a new era
of commitment to parks and open space provision for County residents. The
actions to create the parks system were built around the 1988 Plan, which
used service area modules, with travel time and demographic assessment, to
identify parks and recreation facility needs. The 1988 Plan uses a system of
district and community parks areas as the basis and framework of the
planned system.
As of this writing, many of the facilities envisioned in the 1988 Plan have now
been acquired and/or constructed. Some new opportunities have been
pursued, and some of the concepts from 1988 have been superseded. With
acquisition of a park site in Bingham Township in the works, the basic
framework of the 1988 plan (in terms of district parks especially) can be
deemed completed.
2) How should the Orange County Comprehensive Master Parks and
Recreation Plan address the municipalities?
a) What population should the County (and its parks plan) strive to serve?
Should it explicitly include residents of the municipalities, or only those
areas and members of the public not served by the towns? With some
towns running out of land for new parks, is it time to consider a
coordinated parks and open space land acquisition strategy?
4
7
b) Some towns are presently updating their master plans and others have
recently adopted plans. Given this, should the County plan simply
reference and acknowledge Town parks plans, or should the plans be
more closely coordinated? Once al! plans are updated, or as part of this
plan, will it be timely to consider the creation of a true countywide plan -
that addresses and integrates both town and County facilities and needs
and builds partnership opportunities?
c) As highlighted in the Community Use of School Facilities for Recreation
issue paper from the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group, how should
the County engage the school systems in discussing the use of existing
facilities -and planning for future facilities - in a way that maximizes
community and school needs?
Options for Creating a New Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Staff has identified three options for pursuing a new master plan, if it is deemed
timely, based on the above. The projected timeframe for this project would begin
in August 2011, and conclude by June 2012 (Option 2 would take longer).
Option 1 -- Hire a Consultant
One way to create a new plan would be to hire a consulting firm to develop the
data, conduct public meetings and develop a new plan. Based on knowledge of
recent consultant-based plans and the proposed outline listed above, it is
estimated that hiring a consultant to conduct the creation of the new Master Plan
will be in the $90,000-150,000 range.
Staff would note that, in our previous experience, even with a consultant to
create the Plan, staff will be called upon to research data, provide background
and context and review the draft - requiring a significant amount of staff time
even with an outside consultant creating the plan.
Option 2 - Do Master Plan In-House
A second approach would be to ask staff resources within DEAPR, with
assistance from staff in other departments, to coordinate and develop the Plan.
While this option offers the benefit of not costing $90-150,000 for a consultant, it
would take up a substantial amount of time on the part of several staff -requiring
the setting aside of a number of projects, programs and initiatives to free up time
for staff to pursue the plan on their own. This would likely be disruptive to
departmental operations and would require a longer timeframe for completion.
5
8
Option 3 -Hybrid Approach
A third option, and the one recommended by staff, would be to pursue the new
Master Plan with a combination of existing staff and the hiring of a temporary
"research associate" to research the data, create or coordinate graphics and
maps, and do the initial drafting of the document. There are a number of persons
in the marketplace that have these skills and might be willing to take on such a
role.
Hiring a temporary staff person - perhaps a person who has worked in the parks,
recreation or open space planning field or a recent graduate in this area of
expertise - on a basis of around 20 hours per week would likely enable the most-
time-consuming parts of the plan to be created, while still involving existing staff
at all points along the way. Existing staff would monitor work, interact on work
products and provide guidance and support while still maintaining the capability
to perform most of their regular duties.
The cost of this approach is estimated at $22,000.
Conclusion
Orange County's 1988 Master Recreation and Parks Plan served the County as
a working document and future plan for 23 years, but is now in need of update.
No future State grant funds can be applied for until the plan is updated or a new
plan created.
Given the passage of time and the many changes seen since 1988 - as well as
the pressing "key questions" that need resolution in a plan, staff feels creating a
new plan is preferable to attempting to update the 1988 Plan, even though many
of the underpinnings and basic framework of that plan may still be valid.
If the Manager and Board desire, and if funding for Option 3 (Hybrid) permits,
staff be{ieves it can take on this task in FY 2011-12 and realize the goal of a new
Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan by July 2012.
6
~a
9
g~ `~~~
" .:. ~
r ~
~~r~ s~
Orange County
Recreation. and
Parks Department
~~
.~c~,~
-~- ~ .~
_= ~__ - -~ ~, ~ -l
.,j~, ~ r
,~ '" ~'J~ ~'~ / J
`1
~ ~ ~ ~
-s - -- ~--- J 1
s w.
t 'r * ~ /'
PREPARED BY:
Orange County Recreation and Parks Department
Orange County Planning Department
8731 Red Oak Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28217 704/28-6284
~«,~
~o
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Table of Contents ii
PLAN SUI~IIKARY . v
List of Exhibits/Maps iv
List of Tables iv
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF THE MASTER PLAN 1-1
Introduction
Purpose of the Master Plan
Previous Community Studies
Location
CHAPTER 2 - PLAN GOAL AND OBJECTIVES 2-1
CHAPTER 3 - CURRENT AND PROJECTED FACTORS
PERTINENT TO ORANGE COUNTY 3-1
Cultural Factors
Existing Land Use
Future Land Use
Highways and Roads
Economy
Population Trends and Projections
Demographic Characteristics
Natural Factors
Physiographic Features
Water Resources
Unique Natural Areas
CHAPTER 4 - INVENTORY OF CURRENT RECREATION
PROGRAMS AND PARR FACILITIES '. 4-1
Cedar Grove
Little River
Cheeks
Hillsborough
Eno
Bingham
Chapel Hill
CHAPTER 5 - RECREATION STANDARDS AND
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT 5-1
Introduction
Public Meetings.
ii
Park Classifications and Land Requirements
Facility Standards
Individual Evaluation of Facility Needs
APTER 6 - PLAN PROPOSALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6-1
Introduction
Responsibilities or Roles of Providers
County-Wide Proposals and Recommendations
Township Proposals and Recommendations
.Cedar Grove
Little River
Cheeks.
Hillsborough
Eno
Bingham
Chapel Hill
Alternate Site Selection
Development and Acquisition
iAPTER 7 - PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 7-1
Introduction
Capital Improvements Program
Proposed Operations Budget
Funding/Revenue Sources
Methods for Acquisition and Development
PPSNDI%
11
;;;
12
f
ORANGE COUNTY MASTER RECREATION & PARRS PLAN
Adopted July 1988
PLAN SUHII~ARY
This report summarizes the major findings and recommendations of a
nine month study of the recreation and park needs of the citizens of
Orange County. The county recognized the need to develop a comprehensive
Master Recreation and Park Plan (Master Plan) to guide community leaders
in the orderly and adequate provision of leisure opportunities. The study
was accomplished through a combination of in-house staff effort, technical
assistance from a qualified park planning/consulting firm, and guidance
from a citizen group which monitored the plan's progress throughout the
planning period. This "team" approach to planning for the needs of the
community resulted in a more thorough and comprehensive assessment, with
resulting recommendations truly responsive to citizen input.
The Plan is designed to become one element in the county's
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with other county comprehensive plans
and ordinances. The recommendations contained within this document should
be assessed and updated as necessary. The Plan was written to be
adequately flexible but responsive to the challenges of changing
government's ability to preserve and protect the recreational needs of
Orange County citizens.
Obtaining community input through a series of meetings coupled with a
review of typical recreation and park standards effectively aided in
recognizing the immediate and long-range recreational needs of the
v
~'7
13
citizens. Once these needs were put in quantitative terms, they provided
a guide in determining land requirements for various types of park and
recreation areas or facilities. These requirements, or standards, are
then used to formulate the direction of future park~and recreation
development.
Historically, the majority of recreation facilities have been provided
by the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the private or quasi-public
sectors of the county. The County Recreation and Parks Department has
concentrated on providing programs but has recently taken a more active
role in the provision of facilities.
In order to facilitate the projected land requirements of an adequate
parks system, responsibilities for providing certain types of parks should
be divided among several public (primarily municipal and county
governments), quasi-public, and private entities, with a majority of the
responsibility falling to the public entities to ensure accessibility and
availability of facilities and programs to all citizens.
It is recommended that the county concentrate efforts in the provision
of four types of recreation and park facilities/areas: (1) community
parks (serving the more densely populated unincorporated areas of the
county), (2) district parks, (3) greenways, and (4) swimming pools. Each
type is described in detail in the document text.
V;
14
A crucial element to the success of the Master Plan is the
effectiveness of cooperative efforts between the county and agencies such
as the two school systems, OWASA (reservoirs), the University of North
Carolina, Duke University (forest properties), and the municipalities.
This plan envisions providing park facilities and recreation opportunities
to all citizens of Orange County. This will require a long-term
committment and coordinated action on the part of these and other agencies
to insure our children have playgrounds, and families and groups have
places to picnic or walk a nature trail.
The 20-year plan recommends that the county provide four (4) community
parks during the planning period in addition to the two existing com*nunity
~ parks (Northern Recreation Center and Fairview Community Park). These
four are proposed to serve the more densely populated yet unincorporated
areas of
Cheeks Township's Efland Community Eno Township's University
Station Community (or other area of
significant residential development)
Bingham Township's White Cross Community Little River Township's
Caldwell Community
A community park is typically twenty-five (25) acres or more, provides
recreational opportunities for the entire family, and should contain areas
suited for intense recreational purposes such as athletic fields, tennis
courts, and paths for walking/jogging. Community parks also usually
contain areas of natural quality for outdoor recreation such as
picnicking, viewing, and sitting.
vii
15
The plan also recommends four (4) district parks to be provided in the
twenty year planning period. The proposed locations are:
Bingham Township (in association with Cane Creek Reservoir)
Cheeks/Hillsborough Townships (near Corporation Lake)
Chapel Hi11 Township (at the existing/proposed landfill sites)
Little River/Cedar Grove Townships
A district park is typically seventy-five (?5) acres or more, easily
accessible to the public and within one-half (1/2) hour driving time. A
district park typically includes activity areas found in community parks
in addition to an indoor recreation building. A water feature (pond or
lake) is typically found within this type of park.
Population projections indicate an immediate need for two (2) public
swimming pools. In order to maximize resources and avoid duplication of
service, it is recommended that these pools be located at the two county
high schools. These locations provide the best accessibility to the
greatest number of participants.
16
Many agencies and individuals contributed to the preparation of this
Plan and special acknowledgement should go to the members of the Master
Plan Advisory Group who monitored the process and provided input into the
recommendations:
Gail Condie Laura Mansberg
Patrick Davis Kirk Pelland
Richard Drake Bob Strayhorn
Judsen Eideburn Barry Torain
Ron Hyatt Ira Trollinger
Special thanks are also extended to the following:
Orange County Board of County Commissioners
Carrboro Recreation and Parks Department
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School System
Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Department
Duke University
Mebane Recreation and Parks Department
Orange County Manager's Office
Orange County Planning Department Board and Staff
Orange County Recreation and Parks Department Advisory Council
and Staff
Orange County School System
Orange Water and Sewer Authority
Recreation Division, North Carolina Natural Resources and
Community Development
Recreation Resources Service, N. C. State University
Triangle Land Conservancy
University of North Carolina
and
Q The news media for such excellent coverage.
ix
_.-__.. ~r.~ry ---•~._.r_.~.L._.~..- S.L.~.~.-_ _
PROPOSED 1MPROVEMENT$ AND
EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES
ORANGE COUNTY, N. C.
MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN
EXHIBIT 6-1
exwert a-I
.REFER TO TABLE 6-2
E%ISTING PUBLIC FACILITIE8 KEY
CEDAR GROVE TWP.
r. wr°~i w:.w~ wwmr crrr..
is rn..""'...w
LRTLE RIVER TWP.
CHEEKS rTWP.
' ~: t~i~..ei~irr r r wiw.w nw.rr
'.".~4: ir.r....l
' ' ~ HILLSBOROUGH TWP.
1. e.. n (.rr.~l
6 f
. n+rN
~~w uw~r irrr..1 x, ww HMSI
. i.4~.w i n~.w.i ~
ENO TWP.
y ... r..n leyn•1
GINGHAM TWe.
r~ errw xw. va.
CHAPEL HILL TWP.
u.'T'~ ~'
.:~:.~r~~~P~ k~r
mod- 3
REPORT OF THE
1~LASTER RECREATION AND P~1,RKS
WORK GROUP
May 26, 1999
~d~l 5-3-00
5/26/99
Tab/e of Contents
I. Background History 1
A. Rationale for Intergovernmental Plan 1
B. Joint Planning Efforts - 1996-97 1
C. Summary of Existing Plans 3
D. Background and Rationale for Updating Joint Plan 3
II. Descriptive Scenario -Where are we now? 5
A. Inventory of Parks and Recreation resources 5
B. Parks and Recreation Needs 6
C. Parks and Recreation Standards g
D. Status of Previous Bonds and Projects Constructed 8
III. Futu re Efforts and Issues -Where to go from here? 13
A. Park/Recreation Acquisition Goals, Objectives and Criteria 13
B. Joint Siting and Management of Sites 15
c. Impediments to Location of New Facilities 16
d. Mechanisms for Implementing Goals Through
CIP's and Land-Banking 17
E. Coordination Opportunities with UNC and
Implications of UNC Expansion 17
F. Coordination Opportunities with OWASA 19
G. Coordination Opportunities with Duke University 19
IV. Adequate and Timely Provision of Parklands
and Natural Use Corridors 21
A. Ensuring Recreation Needs Are Met 21
B. Greenways in Urban Areas and Wildlife Corridors in
Rural Areas 21
C. Analysis Criteria of Land for Greenways and Corridors 23
V. Acquisition of Land 26
A. Coordination with Resource Acquisition Program 25
B. Funding Sources 28
VI. - Payment-In-Lieu Programs 30
A. Development Exactions for Recreation Land in Orange County 30
B. Definition of Payment-in-Lieu and Impact Fee Programs 30
C. Current Status of Payment-in-Lieu Throughout the County 31
D. Difficulties with Payment-in-Lieu Programs 33
E. Comparison with Other Programs Regionally and Nationally 34
VII. Proposals and Recommendations 35
A. Create a Parks and Resource Lands Council 35
B. Inter-jurisdictional Efforts to Standardize Parks
and Recreation Requirements 36
C. Joint Siting, Design, and Management of School/Park
Sites Across Jurisdictions 36
D. Public/Private Partnerships 36
E. Joint Capital Facilities Ptan /Coordinated Land
Identification, Acquisition and Banking 37
F. Open Facilities Policy 38
G. Payment-in-Lieu Changes - 38
H. Address Existing Needs 39
I. Recommendations for Use of Current and Future Bond Funds 41
Appendices A-K -
18a
is
Executive Summary
Report of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks
- Work Group
June il, 1999
Introduction
On November i9, 1997, the Board of Commissioners created a Joint Master
Recreation and Parks Work Group. The Work Group was developed to follow up
on two reports: a 1996 Assembly of Governments report "Recreation and Parks
Issues in Orange County, NC", and a May 1997 report entitled-"Coordination of
Parks and Recreation Services for Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County",
developed by the area Managers.
The charge to the Work Group was to:
"update and modify the Master Recreation and Parks P/an. to be a joint /ong-
range capita! faci/ides p/an for Orange County, Carrboro and Chape/ Hi//... "
Although not listed in the charge, Town of Hillsborough and OWASA
- representatives participated in the work group effort. In accomplishing this task
the Work Group was asked to address the following topics:
- An update of recreational facilities countywide
- An update of local recreation and parks needs -
- Develop standards for park facilities and design
- Joint siting, design and management of school and park sites
- Tangible and realistic parkland acquisition goals
- Reassess payment-in-lieu of dedication programs (and service area
boundaries for programs)
- Dedication provisions for greenways in the Joint Planning Area
The Work Group began on December 17, 1997. The group met monthly over the
-next 17 months (including six months of additional subcommittee work) to
produce a report. While the Work Group reviewing a great deal of research and
discussed a wide variety of topics, a summary of the report may best be
considered in the following six topical categories:
1, Where Are We Now?
In evaluating the status of recreation and parks in the-County, the Work Group
created two committees. The Resource Inventory Committee worked during the
spring and summer of 1998 to develop a template for tracking all existing
recreational facilities, and discuss a map or brochure to convey these facilities to
1
~~q
the public.. The inventory of facilities (including quasi-public and private "fee-
based" locations) is included as Appendix C to the report. The inventory would
be maintained for future use, and contains information on the type of activities
available at each location.
The Needs Assessment Committee met during the spring and summer of 1998 to
update recreation and parks needs from each jurisdiction. These needs are found
on pages 4-7 of the report, a.nd run the gamut from active recreation facilities to
community parks, greenways and "low-impact" recreation. In summary, the
rima needs identified for each 'urisdiction were:
-.
Carrboro Acquire/develop Northern Community Park,
communi mnasium
Chapel Hill Complete Northern Community Park, Southern
Communi Park
Hillsborou h River Walk Fairview Par Ocrnneechee Park
Orange County Complete Efland-Cheeks Park, Northern Human
Services Center Park, acquire parkland in
Bin ham Little River Tw s
An evaluation of previous bonds and projects constructed with those monies is
also provided on pages 7-10 of the document. A summary of needs appears on
page 19.
The Work Group discussed the concept of a Countywide set of standards for
facilities and park design. The development of a common set of standards was
recognized as important, but because of time considerations was deferred by the
_ Work Group. Recommendation B on page 35 addresses this topic.
2. Where Do We Go From Here
With knowledge of needs and facilities, the Work Group then turned its attention
to future concerns. One such area was a set of goals and criteria for future land
acquisition and facility sitings. In general, the goals and criteria (pages 12-14)
encourage joint siting of schools and parks, preservation of resources in
conjunction with parks development, awareness of environmentally-sensitive
lands, the existence of matching funds, considering the intensity of use, and
locations for linear parks.
The work of the Schools and Land Use Councils was recognized as an important
piece of the recreation picture, and the idea of joint management of school and
park sites (as well as possible joint acquisition) is a theme throughout the report.
One topic that the report notes regards impediments to locating new active
recreation facilities. These impediments exist primarily in the context of lighting,
intensity, traffic and noise. In defining both active and low-impact recreation, it is
2
/9
important to be consistent with surrounding land uses. Ideas on ways to mitigate
the impacts of larger active facilities include co-location of schools and parks,
combining active and. low-impact recreation in larger park settings to buffer
residential areas, and the need for a proactive land acquisition program to
purchase lands for long-term use as parks (and/or schools).
The potential for coordinating parks planning exists. beyond the scope of the local
governments involved in this effort. In particular, the report notes the significant
potential for coordination with UNC, OWASA and Duke University in meeting
long-term needs of mutual interest. While UNC provides many facilities used by
students (and local residents), there is a{so an undefined. impact on local
recreation facilities from faculty and staff of the University: Programs such as the
Carolina Outdoor Recreation Center offer a means for sharing resources, and the
.potential exists. for collaboration on future recreational facilities with UNC.
Likewise, OWASA currently provides recreation facilities at both University Lake
and Cane Creek Reservoir. OWASA holds over 3,000 acres of land in the County,
some of which appears to offer the opportunity for coordinated recreational use.
A memo from, the_ OWASA Board (Appendix F) indicates a willingness to discuss
certain parcels for future public use. And finally, Duke Forest. also provides a
recreational resource to County citizens. While concerns about protecting the
integrity of the forest resources will be paramount, opportunities exist to work
with Duke in the future, particularly in terms of carefully-located trails that fit
with the University's plans. .
~. Adequate Provision of Parkland and Natural Corridors
One of the most prominent needs identified is to preserve green corridors,
whether in an urban or rural setting. This section of the report addresses the
potential for. linking some existing and proposed greenway networks in Chapel
Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough to future parks and" regional open space such as
Eno River State Park and Duke Forest.
The importance of existing and future greenways in the Towns is noted, as well
as the existence of a schematic plan for greenways extending from the Chapel
Hill/Carrboro area into the Rural Buffer, developed in 1986 as part of the Joint
Planning Area Land Use Plan. Wildlife corridors in the rural areas were introduced
into County planning efforts through the 1988 Inventory of Natural Areas and
Wildlife Habitat, and are important to the overall County and regional ecosystem
as part of the "green infrastructure." These corridors are undeveloped riparian
stream corridors or overland connectors that exist in a natural state. Any trails
would exist only as they have evolved over time by use of wildlife or humans.
However, as the County and Towns continue to grow, it will become important to
link Town parks to regional corridors such as Eno River State Park, nodes of
3
~9c
open space such as Duke Forest, and future County parks and open space.
Linking future rural parks and open space to Town parks via a few unpaved trails
could greatly expand low-impact recreational opportunities. The identification of
strategic corridors that might tie together these recreation facilities is suggested
as a practical long-term goal. Using criteria and a classification scheme, the
potential for a select few woodland trails as part of a Countywide (and
eventually) regional corridor scheme is noted. Three examples of such trail links
are offered (two within the Towns or Rural Buffer, one in the rural areas linking
Cane Creek and Eno River State Park) are offered.
4. Coordinated Land Acquisition for Parks
The 1996 and 1997 reports point to the need for coordinated capital funding,
and this is one of the goals of this project. In discussing parks needs and goals,
the Work Group placed a strong emphasis on the need to begin land acquisition
for long-term park needs now.
Orange County has taken steps in -1999 to create a mechanism that could be
used in this fashion. The new Department of Environment and Resource
Conservation began operation on January 4, with a primary focus on
acquisition/easements of critical land resources. A Land Acquisition Program for
Orange County is currently being developed for discussion in the fall of 1999.
This program will develop and/or use inventories, criteria and a management
structure for the acquisition and stewardship of land resources deemed critical to
the public interest, working with other existing land trusts and entities. The
program will involve the preservation of natural areas and wildlife habitat,
farmland, riparian buffers, and the acquisition of lands for long-term parks use.
The County is hiring a Land Resources Conservation Manager, with expertise in
site evaluation and land acquisition this summer. This position will coordinate
land acquisition efforts, and would use the criteria developed in the Master
Recreation and Parks effort to evaluate land purchases for parks (please see the
Recommendations section for additional details). The outline of the Land
Resource Acquisition Program may be found in the report on page 26.
Funding for long-term parkland acquisition would likely involve local bonds and
allocations, and grants from programs such as the state Parks and Recreation
Trust Fund. Information on this program is provided on pages 27-28.
5. Payment-in-Lieu Pro rams
All of the jurisdictions in the County have provisions in their development
ordinances addressing dedication or provision of recreation facilities. Carrboro
and Orange County also have payment-in-lieu of dedication programs, which
allows for the payment of a fee based on the number of lots in lieu of providing
recreation facilities. Orange County has special legislation that would allow for
4
qd
the use of an impact fee for public uses including recreation, but this proviso has
not been utilized to date.
As of 1999, Carrboro has collected $453,000 through its payment-in-lieu
program. Orange County currently has $488,000 available, allocated by four
districts in which the money must be spent. The County has also received land
dedications totaling 44 acres since 1986, although this land is in small pieces
exclusively in Bingham and Chapel Hill Townships.
The Work Group found that difficulties exist with the existing payment-in-lieu
programs. The funds must be geographically earmarked and spent within the
area collected. They must also be supplemented with matching funds for use.
Considerable research was performed to explore programs in other jurisdictions,
and a special meeting with Richard Ducker from the Institute of Government was
held to review payment-in-lieu possibilities.
6. Recommendations
Using the research and deliberations of 17 months, and with the charge and
goals of the project in mind, the Work Group developed nine recommendations,
summarized as follows (these recommendations also appear on pages 3440).
A. Create a Parks and Resource Lands Counci/
As we move to coordinate long-term recreation and parks planning, the need for
a permanent joint council (to -meet quarterly) was identified, building on the
useful nature of the Work Group itself. Possible duties might include:
- Develop and review standards
- Develop future parks bond proposals
- Provide a coordinating mechanism for parks plan updates
- Make- recommendations on allocations of future bond moneys
- Coordinate acquisitions though the County Land Resource Acquisition
Program
A resolution asking the local boards to create the Parks and Resource Lands
Council is attached as Appendix L.
B. Inter jurisdictiona/Standards
As previously noted, impediments exist to the creation of common standards that
could be used Countywide for recreation and parks facilities. If coordinated
funding were pursued, the need for some coordinated standard would be
important. The Parks and Resource Lands Council is recommended as a
mechanism to accomplish this goal.
5
14e
C. Joint Siting, Design and Management ofSchoo/and Park Sites
Coordinating efforts and responsibilities with the Schools and Land Use Councils
will be important, given the emphasis from both groups on the benefits of joint
school/park development. As discussed in the section on land acquisition, it is
recommended that Orange County, with dedicated staff resources, a program for
land acquisition, and a role in school siting, should take the lead role.
D. Pub/ic/Private Partnerships
One of the most exciting prospects is the potential for partnerships. Coordination
between the local governments on future parks, such as a large district -park
between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill/Carrboro, will be paramount. Opportunities
also exist with OWASA, and it is recommended that the Parks and Resource
Lands Council work to identify properties for partnership and meet to explore
these possibilities. Coordination with UNC on future parks also appears practical
and should be pursued. While Duke Forest is a different type of recreational
entity, it plays.an important role in the County's open space network and future
discussion of less-sensitive portions of the Forest as links in the open space
network should be pursued. Finally, opportunities for coordination with the state,
other land trusts and private firms offer many possibilities for future needs.
E, Joint Capita/ Facilities P/arming /Coordinated Land Acquisition
A meeting of the Managers of each jurisdiction is recommended to develop a
plan for coordinating long-term land acquisition: With land prices continuing to
escalate and little land available for parks within the Town jurisdictions, action is
needed now to identify and acquire future park sites. Use of the individual
Capital Improvement Plans could be a fundamental part of this funding
mechanism. By timing and matching fund availability, the Towns and County will
be able to work together more effectively, with the County serving in a lead role
in site identification and acquisition, working with the Parks and Resource Lands
Council and the individual elected boards.
F. Open Faci/ides Po/icy
In the spirit of inter-governmental coordination, the Work Group feels that afl
County citizens should have the opportunity to use facilities within the County,
regardless of their jurisdiction of residence. Attempts to restrict use will be
cumbersome administratively and not constructive in the collaborative future of
parks planning. A resolution to this end for consideration by the elected boards is
found as Appendix F. Pursuit of a similar policy with UNC and OWASA is
recommended, as is a review of hours of operation at Cane Creek/University
Lake.
G. Payment-in lieu Changes
After considerable discussion and review, the Work Group finds that the existing
payment-in-lieu programs are not likely to produce sufFcient funds to meet long-
6
!~~
term needs. It is recommended that Orange County and Carrboro develop plans
to match other funding with the current payment-in-lieu .funds to use these
resources. Even with its limitations, the existing payment-in-lieu. program should
be kept and modified where possible. The potential for an impact fee or impact
tax should be explored, using existing legislation.
H. Address Existing Needs
While more thorough standards are needed, apopulation-based standard from
the 1996 Assembly of Governments report was used to determine needs for
parklands. Using this standard, the County as a whole has a current deficit of
645 acres of parkland. With expected population growth, this is County and
Towns combined with have a deficit of 1,265 acres by the year 2025.
Based on average land sales (weighted for urban and rural lands) and existing
bond funds, the cost of purchasing lands to erase the long-term deficit is $10.12
million in 1999. dollars. Since this will unquestionably rise in the future, the Work
Group again recommends immediate action in terms of land acquisitions.
I. Use of Current Funds and Future Funding Needs
While it may be more practical to develop recreation facilities over time as the
population increases, amore-proactive approach to land acquisition is needed to
identify and purchase sites that offer both active and fow-impact recreation
potential. Matching funds from the different jurisdictions (coordinated through
the aforementioned joint capital funding mechanism) should be an important
component, and an acreage threshold and additional standards for joint
school/park sites are also warranted.
To address long-term needs, the Work Group recommends that the following
actions occur:
- The remaining $2.89 million for land acquisition from the County parks bond
should be used for acquisition of lands identified as sites for long-term
acquisition as soon as possible.
- The remainder of the $10 million in long-term land acquisition should be
addressed through an $S million parks bond placed before the voters in
November 2000. The Parks and Resource Lands Council should develop the
specifics of the bond proposal.
7
-_~ -~.,
l
5/26J99 ~~
Over the last decade, several recreation and parks planning efforts have
been undertaken across Orange County, with policy recommendations
covering a spectrum of related issues. Committees, citizen work groups, and
local governments have worked together in developing guidelines for the
future recreation and open space needs of our County. Through these efforts,
we can ensure the provision of a wide range of recreational opportunities and
venues for all citizens.
This section includes the overarching rationale for the creation of a
framework for joint planning of recreation and parks, as well as a listing of
the primary recommendations of these various working groups from 1988 to
the present.
A. Rationale for Intergovernmental Plan
Guiding policies for the update include:
• Explore the relationship between existing and proposed school sites and
parks
• Explore strategies for the preservation of natural and cultural resources
through acquisition and open space design, including the relationship of
these resources to active and low-impact recreational uses
• Update Master Plans of County and Municipalities (See Appendix A)
These policies provide the impetus for much of the current update effort and
are largely based upon a combination of current and past concerns and
efforts.
B. .joint Recreation Planning Efforts: 1996-97
Report of the Recreation and Parks Work Group t1996~,
The Recreation and Parks Work group developed recommendations to serve
multiple purposes. The recommendations are intended to, establish
principles for coordinated county-wide recreation and park facility planning,
foster greater cooperation in use of existing facilities, and support private
recreation providers and public/private partnerships." The work group
developed the following recommendations for Orange County and its
municipalities in its recreation planning, which were presented to the
Assembly of Governments:
• Set standards based on ranking with other Triangle Area counties.
Determine type of park and recreation facilities to be surveyed. Develop
mechanism for annual review of park and facilities standards by all
jurisdictions.
5/26/99 p2~
• Develop an interjurisdictional set of recreation requirements that Orange
County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough could include in their
respective Land Use Ordinances
• Plan the inclusion of park facilities in selecting new school sites, while
improving existing. sites with recreation and park amenities where it is
"mutually beneficial to the school system and governmental
jurisdiction(s)."
• Standardize contracting documents with private providers throughout all
jurisdictions
• Create an Orange County listing of private recreation vendors and
facilities, and update annually.
• Establish a bi-annual meeting or forum for private and public recreation
providers for information sharing and establishing new public/private
initiatives.
Report on Coordination of Recreation and Parks Services in Orange Count
1997
The purpose of this report was to describe different options for the
improvement of services to the community through intergovernmental
coordination of parks and recreation functions. The report contains several
different parts related to the investigation of adequate park and recreation
facilities. Observations of activities were made, needs were assessed,
options were developed, and recommended actions were proposed. The
recommendations were divided into four major categories, capital
development, coordination of operations, consolidation approaches, and
voluntary coordination and commitment. The recommendations follow
below:
Capital Development
• Along-range plan should be adopted as a serious commitment by all
players
• Coordinated capital programming and budgeting should be initiated in
time to produce programs for future budgets
• Acquisition and protection of good sites should be the initial priority
Orange County should playa _major role in funding, acquisition,
development, ownership, and maintenance of new facilities
• A countywide bond proposal should be presented for voter consideration if
needs are as great as expected
Coordination of operations
• Joint planning, needs assessment, and selected cooperative actions are
appropriate purposes for a staff work group
• Consideration of Orange County as the primary candidate for operating
new programs, expansions, and transfers from the towns can lead to a
growing consolidation of services under the County
2
5/26/99 p~~
Consolidation Approaches
• Begin with coordination and work toward partial consolidation of selected
functions
• Develop new facilities and programs as county functions
• Consider complete consolidation in several years after experience with
coordination and partial consolidation
Voluntary Coordination and Commitment
• Capable and adequate stafhng needed to develop materials, set agendas,
and prod participants in both capital and operating programs
• Management to assure that commitment is evident and sustained
Shaping Orange County's Future Parks and Recreation Issues (1998)
See Appendix B for excerpts from SOCF Transportation, Infrastructure, and
Services (TIS) report which includes parks and recreation issue list.
C. Summary of Existing Plans
See Appendix A for summaries of existing recreation and parks plans.
D. Background /Rationale for Updating ]oint Plan
~ Charge to Work Group: Update and modify the Master Recreation and Parks
Plan to be a joint long-range capital facilities plan for Orange County,
Carrboro, and Chapel Hill.
The most recent efforts in developing the intergovernmental master park and
recreation plan have included the formation of a work group comprised of
elected officials, citizens, staff, and interested stakeholders -including
representatives of the Town of Hillsborough. This Commissioner-appointed
work group divided into two subcommittees to address updating the
countywide needs assessment as well as an inventory of public, quasi-public,
and private recreational facilities and opportunities. These subcommittees
then re-formed into the large work group to address- issues such as the
incorporation of wildlife corridors and open space preservation into parkland
acquisition.
In addition, park and recreation department supervisors from each
jurisdiction worked together to develop facility and program standards to be
used county-wide, and County staff researched various issues regarding land
acquisition, dedication/payment-in-lieu, and school/park joint. siting. Staff
then prepared versions of the final report for work group comment and made
adjustments accordingly. The work group developed the final proposals and
recommendations for the master plan, which staff then incorporated into the
final report.
I~
3
5/26/99 ~ I
~I~~~~~~scrrio~: ~-~~~R~ ARE _Wfi14W?
Before decisions are made regarding the manner in which the park bond
funds will be disbursed, the work group had to first gain an idea of the state
of park and recreation facilities within the county and its municipalities. It
was necessary to have an accurate picture of who is providing for the
recreation needs of the citizenry, whether through public, quasi-public, or
private means. Once the needs and resources were identified, standards for
future park and recreation provisions were discussed.
A. Inventory of Resources
One subcommittee of the Work Group was formed to create an inventory of
the current recreation resources and parks within the County (see Appendix
C). The Resource Subcommittee developed categories for the inventory and
decided it was important to address resources within all sectors of our
community. Thus, the inventory was split into fists for private, public, and
quasi-public. Private consists primarily of apartment complexes, --
neighborhood clubs, and larger, specialized clubs (e.g. tennis club, country
club). However, locations such as Duke Forest are also listed as private since
they are privately owned with primary missions other than recreation. Public
resources identified were parks, trails, community centers, and other locales
open to and funded by the public. Quasi-pub/ic entities include community
centers and Ruritan clubs usually open to the public with additional contact
required, UNC facilities selectively opened to the public, and government-
owned facilities, such as Cane Creek Reservoir, which allows recreation while
maintaining the primary mission of water supply protection.
Once the list was divided, the categories were modified to more accurately
reflect specific resources in each ownership grouping. For example, the
quasi-public list may include a category inventorying whether the facilities
require additional contact before use, while this issue would infrequently
apply to public sector recreation facilities and parks.
The information for the inventory was gained through several avenues. The
Work Group and staff's personal knowledge of resources in the area,
'; inventories recently completed by participating municipalities, and _
information from area apartment associations and complexes were all used in
development of the document. The roster of apartments is that of complexes
listed in Orange County tax records. Thus, this is not a complete listing of all
complexes in the county or municipalities.
B. Needs Identified for County and Municipalities
The Needs Assessment Subcommittee was formed in order to more
accurately identify specific needs of facilities throughout each jurisdiction.
4
5/26/99
The following active recreation_needs were identified through this process:
1. Orange County
a) Develop Phase II - Efland-Cheeks School/Community Park. (In
progress)
b) Develop Courthouse/River Park (jointly with Town of
Hillsborough).
c) Develop Fairview Community Park & renovate playground.
d) Develop a Master Plan for Northern Human Services Center Park
and renovate the building.
e) Renovate the Central Recreation Center Heating and Air System
and replace windows.
f) Acquire parkland in Little River and Chapel Hill/Bingham
Township.
g) Develop a joint Park planning effort with OWASA.
h) Continue joint planning efforts with the school systems for
locating schools and park sites and to construct larger
gymnasiums at future schools to address the overcrowding of.
indoor recreation activities.
2. Town of Chapel Hill
The Town has recently begun updating its comprehensive plan.
The new plan will:
• Include a section on parks and recreation
• Call for plan to be completed in fall of 1999
The Town's comprehensive plan was last updated in 1989. The
Town Council adopted a Greenways Comprehensive Master Plan
on May 26, 1998..
Needs identified include:
a. Future Development of Northern Community Park
At its September 28, 1998 Council adopted the following
actions; 1) from FY98-99 budget appropriated for conceptual
5
'I
5/26/99 ~3
plan process of aquatic facility/community center; and 2)
$200,000 in Town park bonds allocated for development of
batting cage project. Possible development a. aquatic facility, b.
Community Center.
b. Future Development of Southern Community Park
No Council decisions made at this point, except soccer field at
school
No conceptual plan at this point
Staff and the Town Parks & Recreation Commission will soon
recommend a parks and recreation master plan process that will:
• Identify community leisure needs, values
• Clarify/revise Department mission
• .Perhaps develop community standards for park and recreation
planning/development
3. Town of Carrboro
a) Acquisition and Development of a Northern Community Park
b) Community Gymnasium
c) Provide general on-going renovations to all existing facilities at
all community, neighborhood, and mini-park sites.
d) Along with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School. System, provide
expanded recreation facilities at existing and new facilities.
e) Begin acquiring property along Morgan creek and Bolin Creek
Greenway corridors and start developing facilities where
possible. Accept all previous offers of dedication and easements
along Morgan and Boffin Creek for greenway system.
f) Fully develop the `Morgan Creek Neighborhood Park."
g) Acquire property for "Bolin Creek Neighborhood Park" and fully
develop.
h) Fully develop "Odum Mini-Park"
i) Acquire additional property for "Pathway Drive Mini-Park" and
fully develop.
4. Town of Hillsborough
The Hillsborough Parks and Recreation Master Plan was approved in
1993. Tts goals are still valid although additional needs have arisen
that indicate the Master Plan is due for an update. A recent
annexation to the Town for a new subdivision coupled with substantial
growth within Hillsborough Township increases the need for
recreational opportunities. The Town, as yet, has no public parks that
are ofl`icial{y open. to the public although several park projects are
6
C~~
5/26/99
currently in progress.
The Parks and Recreation Board was appointed in 1996. Since then
the members of the Board have assessed existing property and
facilities owned by the Town and have assigned some priorities for
implementation of the Master Plan. Several projects are ongoing.
Funding has been allocated and/or is being requested for these
projects. Some funding has been allocated for construction.
The most immediate recreation needs, based on the original survey
and subsequent requests by townspeople, include (not necessarily in
order of need):
a) Playing fields for organized sports
b) Basketball .courts
c) Safe places to walk and bicycle
d) Playgrounds within safe walking distance of residences
e) Neighborhood parks
f) Skateboard facilities
C. Standards
See Section VII for recommendations on the development of coordinated
standards. See Appendix D for existing standards.
D.. Status of Previous Bonds and Projects
Constructed
In previous years, different jurisdictions have issued bonds for recreation and
parks projects. A number of existing facilities used by County and Town
residents were funded through these bonds. The following is a listing of
bonds approved and projects constructed or other accomplishments in the
past five years.
1. Orange County
M Bond Funds
$6 million Recreation and Parks Bond. in November, 1997:
• Park Land Acquisition $3.0 Million
• Development $3.0 Million
Efland-Cheeks Community School Park $0.5 Million
Northern Chape! Hill Community Park $1.0 Million
Southern Chapel Hill Community Park $1.0 Million
Other Park Facilities $0.5 Million
_~
'~
7
i
a5
5/26/99
VII. ~~Q1~'1M~N~AT~ONS
~... ~ _ ~,_ . ~ . ~. .~_ . ._~., . _, _.. __...._. _~. w ~_ .~ _ _. _~__ .
One of the important results of this report will be the laying of groundwork
for future matching funds and grant programs -- many of which require a set
of goals, objectives and criteria. As Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and
Hillsborough develop, the nature of future park and recreation provision will
likely include cooperative ventures among the local governments and
partnerships with organizations such as the school systems, OWASA, UNC
and Duke. Planning for this eventuality should begin now, to ensure that
valuable opportunities are not lost. These concepts were in fact, the reason
for this effort, as described in the Assembly of Governments and Manager's
reports from 1996/1997.
In its deliberations, the Master Recreation and Parks Work Group has
developed recommendations in nine key areas:
A. Create a "Parks and Resource Lands Council"
In developing plans for long-term recreation and parks planning,
- the Work Group has identified a need for a permanent joint
Parks and Resource Lands Council. For example, this council
might include one elected official and one citizen. from each
jurisdiction, along with representatives from the school systems,
UNC, OWASA and Duke. The Council could meet quarterly to
address follow-up concerns in the areas discussed in this report.
- The opportunity in this Work Group to bring all of the different
local governments to the table has been useful and informative,
and the Work Group feels that this momentum could be
continued through along-term mechanism. While the actual
duties of the Council would need to be determined, some areas
of responsibility might include:
• Develop and periodically review coordinated standards;
• Develop future bond proposals for parks and recreation;
• Provide input and a coordinating mechanism for updates of
future recreation plans in the different jurisdictions;
• Make recommendations on allocation of future bond moneys
for parks and recreation;
• Develop grant applications and alternative funding sources;
• Maintain and update the Inventory of Parks and Recreation
Facilities developed as part of this effort;
• Create and maintain an inventory of properties dedicated or
accepted as part of the development process;
• Monitor success of efforts to protect significant natural areas
as identified in the Natural Areas Inventory, watershed
a~
5/26/99
studies; and plans for greenways and linear parks;
• Coordinate efforts with the Orange County Resource
Acquisition Program;
• Develop public education programs on parks and recreation
The creation of this council is a critical component of future
coordination. By its nature, the Council will need to coordinate
closely with the work of the Schools/Land Use Councils on
acquisition of lands of mutual interest for school/park co-
loration. This report contains criteria and defiails that build on
the ideas of the School/Land Use Memorandum of Agreement.
A resolution asking the local governments to create the Parks
and Resource Lands Council in time for an initial meeting in fall
of 1999 is attached as Appendix L.
B. Inter-jurisdictional Efforts To Standardize Parks
and Recreation Requirements
Currently, the towns and County have a number of different
standards that are used to determine parks and recreation
needs. While recognizing the distinctions between urban and
rural needs and facilities, it does app2ar that coordination of the
different approaches would provide a number of advantages. In
particular, if the local governments pursue joint capital funding,
land acquisition, and other combined functions, the need for a
consistent countywide set of standards will be paramount.
The Work Group recommends that the Parks and Resource
Lands Council address, among their first duties, a coordinated
set of recommended standards for parks and recreation.
C. ]oint Siting, Design, and Management of School and
Park Sites across Jurisdictions
The Schools and Land Use Councils have opened an important
door in the co-location of schools and parks. With an avenue for
input into the design and planning stages, the local
governments and schools will be able to provide for a number of
parks and recreation needs. Concerns about management of
these facilities should be resolvable, with the Schools and Land
Use Councils providing an important role in consensus-building.
As mentioned above, close coordination between the Parks and
Resource .Lands Council and the Schools/Land Use Councils will
be paramount.
i As further research is developed on the specifics of a program
for school/park acquisition, the Work Group suggests that
r
5/26/99
Orange County, with its role in school site acquisition and
program/staff resources for land acquisition may best play a
coordinating role in future land acquisitions for both purposes.
D. Public/Private Partnerships
As mentioned above, one of the most exciting prospects for the
future of recreation and parks provision in Orange County is that
of public/private partnerships. Coordination with OWASA and
UNC in locating future parks and facilities seems feasible, and
the Work Group recommends that the local governments
(perhaps through the Parks and Resource Lands Council) work
to identify properties for potential partnership and meet to
explore these possibilities. In particular, the identified need for a
large district park between Chapel Hill-Carrboro and
Hillsborough might be a venture that all parties would have a
stake in.
Additionally, partnerships with other entities may take on
different roles. Coordination with Duke University is also
recommended, although it is recognized that Duke Forest is of a
different nature. Duke Forest. plays an important role in the
open-space network of the County, and future discussion of that
role as links in a corridor or trail system will be critical.
Finally, the potential for coordination with Triangle Land
Conservancy, the State of North Carolina, the Eno River
Association and private firms appears to exist and should be
encouraged where practical.
E. Joint Capital Facilities Plan /Coordinated Land
Identification, Acquisition and Banking
If the local governments in Orange County are to be successful
in providing for the long-term needs of County/town residents,
it is clear that joint capital funding and land-banking efforts
need to be addressed, and should be addressed as quickly as
possible. A meeting of Managers, elected officials and staff
should be called to develop a plan for coordination.
i
It is clear that land prices will continue to escalate. Potential
larger park areas inside the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area are quite
limited, which will require planning for future joint district parks
in the County. This, plus the inability to accumulate sufficient
funds individually, leads to a strong recommendation that
Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough develop
a plan to coordinate funding sources in future years. It is
a~
5/26/99
recommended that the aforementioned meeting of Managers,
staffs and elected officials from the jurisdictions as soon as
possible.
Use of the different Capital Improvement Programs (CIP's) could
be a fundamental part of this mechanism. As previously-
mentioned, Orange County's Resource Acquisition Program for
land might allow the County to take a lead role in coordinating
future acquisitions, most of which will likely be located outside
of Town corporate limits.
F. Open Facilities Policy
In the spirit of'inter-governmental coordination, the Work Group
believes that citizens of the Towns and County should have the
opportunity to use facilities developed by all of the local
governments and OWASA. Attempting to limit use of facilities
solely to residents on a single jurisdiction is likely to be
cumbersome administratively and not constructive generally.
The Work Group recommends that Orange County, Chapel Hill,
Carrboro, Hillsborough and OWASA adopt the "Open Facilities
Policy" resolution found in Appendix I. This policy will provide
that all recreation facilities owned and operated by the parties
are open and accessible to all County residents. °
To a different degree, a policy regarding use of local
government facilities by UNC students and of UNC facilities by
local citizens should be investigated with the University. A
particular possibility is the UNC Outdoor Education Center, and
cooperative ventures for this facility should be pursued now..
Additionally, coordination with OWASA on recreational hours at
the lake facilities is another venue for partnership, and the Work
Group recommends that OWASA review hours of operation as
suggested by the Carrboro Board.
The local governments within which Duke Forest falls should
also cooperate with Duke in the future to develop appropriate
mutual guidelines in this area.
G. Payment-in-Lieu Changes
The payment in lieu system is used by Orange County and
Carrboro as a source of funds for recreation lands and facilities.
However, because of its limitations (both geographic and
financial), payment-in-lieu programs are unlikely to produce
5/26/99 ~`%
sufficient funds to meet long-term recreation needs. A process is
needed to use existing funds, modify the current program to
make it more practical, and develop new sources of revenue for
recreation land and facilities.
The Work Group recommends that Orange County and Carrboro
develop plans to match payment-in-lieu dollars to date with
parks bonds and other funding sources. With a method of
pooling payment-in-lieu across jurisdictions currently
unworkable, it is recommended that the current system of
payments-in-lieu be kept. In Orange County's case, the County
should explore modifications to the system to provide for a
more-appropriate calculation of payment based on the
developed property valuation.
Finally, the Parks and Resource Lands Council should explore
the establishment of a recreation impact fee or impact tax,
along the lines of existing legislation. If found prudent, a
recommended impact fee/ tax program for recreation should be
developed and forwarded to the local governments in Orange
County for action.
H. Address Existing Needs
The combined projected population for all of Orange County in
the year 2025 is 168,000. This total county population. was used
to assess the level .of adequacy for future years. Based on this,
in the year 2000, Orange County will need a total of 2030 acres
Currently, countywide parkland needs are assessed in terms of
types of parks (e.g. regional, community, neighborhood, etc).
While additional work is needed in developing standards, it is
possible to envision an overview of park needs based on
population standards.
s/26/99 aRq
of park/recreation land in order to meet national adequacy
standards. With current park facilities (including projected
acquisitions in the next year), a deficit of 645 acres will exist in
2000. In 2025, the County will need 3100 acres with a current .
projected deficit of 1265 acres. Details on how these projections
were generated may be found in Appendix J. Based on the
projected future need for 1,265 new acres of parkland, the
Work Group has determined that the current Critical need
is to begin long-term land acquisition ("land banking").
This concept is similar to any kind of bank - it essentially
establishes a "savings account" of land. Once the savings
account has been fully funded, land can be withdrawn and
developed for specific parks and recreation needs.
Based on the most commonly accepted standards, the
county/towns will need the following new parks just to
meet current deficits:
The estimated cost of purchasing this acreage countywide,
in 19.99 dollars, is $10.12 million. Over time, the cost of
purchasing land for parks will undoubtedly rise
dramatically.
I. Recommendations for Use of Current Funds and
Future Funding Needs
Simultaneous with the population increase, land in Orange
County is rapidly increasing in value. Large tracts are
being subdivided; and options for geographic locations of
parkland in every township are diminishing. A priority for
use of future funds clearly must be land acquisition for
long-term park needs, rather than simply developing
recreational facilities (which can be developed over time as
* -The total acreage in community parks currently exceeds acreage
needs, but the existing community parks (three in Chapel Hill, one in
Carrboro and one at Efland-Cheeks) may not meet the geographic
needs of the County. Community park needs appear to exist in
Hillsborough, northern Orange County and southwestern Orange.
5/26/99 ~~
the population increases).
A program for land acquisition for long-term park needs
should be developed that identifies sites that could meet
needs (including potential for siting active and low-impact
recreation), based on projected size and location of
parkland throughout the county. The availability of
matching funds from the benefiting jurisdictions should be
an important component in future- acquisition and park
development. The program should also identify an acreage
threshold for co-located school/park land acquisition and
should be developed with the Parks and Resource Lands
Council and the Schools/Land Use Council.
To address the estimated $10.12 million in future park
needs, the following actions should be taken to use
existing bond funds and address long-term needs.
1. The remaining $2.89 million in land acquisition funds
from the 1997 parks bond should be used for
acquisition of lands identified as sites for long-term
parks use as soon as possible.
2. The balance of funding should be an estimated $8
million parks bond placed before the voters in .
November 2000. As previously discussed, the specifics
of this bond should be coordinated by the Parks and
Resource Lands Council.
Developing a program for identifying and acquiring long-
term park sites at this time will greatly reduce the cost of
meeting long-term park needs.
r--
', r
,c;
t
~t
• Existing Trails
O Proposed Trails
O Proposed Parks
O Plannetl Parks
• Existing Parks
~i
~, ~ ,
l 1~
,~,,, .
~ ~ ~,
~ ,= / ~ ~ ~
`~ c ', /
r; - .. ,
T __ - ..
.~ - -
«~
v
_ ~ ~ ~ __
r- ,,
~~~. ~ ..
7 ~. ~ i
_ // ~` I
~~ ' ~g N'~- ''ki j,, ~ y - 1~ ~- r'
~ ,r' p
~, ~ _~~ ~ = ~ This ma ~ not a certified
,.'~ ~ d ~ ~ ~` . `J ~~=? x ~~io -~._ survey and Ro 1+eilattce ma
y y~i ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ '~ - x ', -~ ~~ ~, be placed In its accuracy
"`'\ Y
~~ _ ~ - - ,~
4 ~ ~ ~;
_J' `AI"~ r ~ ~ _
> . ~ ~ ^{ PacavC~af M~MQ~
1
~ / t
~` ~'. ~ ~ I ~ ~ R ~ ~ ..,Kf 96 ~ r<w ~_ rkYS.rrv~+w{m~.,ao.~•
\ ~,` / i ~ i i F' i ~ ~~N~p'4~®mNYiYl foeEO,psaav~b.'
//
1 ` t ""'* i
I ~ ~
ti ~ ..., ~ ~ i, ~. - ~®w~,.~. m....~k~ ., I
`.y:. F Ya~..~yYnw saaq be c'rsYatlW mfwveu
,the rsimea~lYe~wvh Cwwr~l{w DgrYnA.
-/ ~ ~`~ A` ~ ~ ~ - s ~, ~ i
f
~~ 1 c. n ~ x:~ .
~~ ~ ~ ,_ ," ~ _ ~~ f~ ~ ~~,;- ~ Orange County, NC\8vir
,
`(, F
-t ,-_ ~ ~ ~
v
~,~~ ~ ~ - ~;. r, ~ ~~
,-
~_.
,~~- ,~ r , - ~ ~ ,r; _~ . _~
L~ :-t~
:_ _ .
~~
-_ ,~,
` i '(~ ~ .> Adopind February 22, 2006 ~
Y T9rtch 2,2006\BYUUtg
r ~'
~~ ~ r
r; ,
,- ,.~.~.W. ~ __..._. ~._
~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~- _ end
., ~ y
~ ti.
A ~ ~, l
a ~ ~ i
I `~~
'd~. ~, ~ ~f.; l1 ~ \ \ . -~ -~, tea; ~~
5 31.
;~ Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation EIement
Chapter 7. Parks and Recreation Element
7.1. PURPOSE
The Parks and Recreation Element provides guidance and direction regarding
recreation facility and park planning efforts in Orange County. The goals and
objectives identified within this Element serve as the foundation for establishing
future parks and recreation policies and action strategies undertaken by Orange
County, its advisory boards, and staff. The specific process for developing a
recreation and park implementation strategy is outlined in Section 1.4:
Administration and Implementation Guidelines.
7.2. OVERVIEW
BACKGROUND
Orange County offers numerous natural and constructed recreational
-` opportunities throughout the County, including state parks, local parks, and trails
and greenways. The County and its towns have worked over the last several
decades to cooperate on recreational facility and park planning efforts to deliver
coordinated recreational services to the County's citizens. The County's last
comprehensive park plan was adopted in 1988. Several of the municipalities have
updated their park plans more recently. An updated, comprehensive, and
countywide parks and recreation strategy is needed.
PARK AND RECREATION PLANNING IN ORANGE COUNTY
Orange County. and the Towns of Hillsborough, Chapel Hill and Carrboro have
made parks and recreational facilities an important priority among local and
County government services. This is exhibited by the strong interest and effort to
plan for recreational amenities in the County. Table 7-1 shows the park planning
efforts that have occurred in the Orange County.
TA6LE 7-l. PARKS AND RECREATION PLANNING IN ORANGE COUNTY
Acreage of
Jurisdiction Adopted Year Current Other Related Plans
park Plan? Adopted Parks
Carrboro Yes 2006 80 acres
Chapel Hill Yes 2002 255 acres 2006 Greenways Master
Plan
Hillsborou h Yes 2007 28 acres
Master Plan for Lake
Mebane No 141 acres Michael Park
Lands Legacy Plan, Joint
Orange County Yes 1988 359 acres Master Recreation and
Parks Re ort
Each of the recreation and park master plans that has been developed in Orange
County have included an assessment of existing facilities, an identification of park
and facilities needs, and a recommended strategy for funding projects, acquiring
land, and working collaboratively with other jurisdictions, sometimes including the
school districts, to do joint planning for recreational facilities.
Ora.vt.~-erCo-uvtity Co-n~v'el~~.ev-~i~vert"'tavv Page 7-1
32
Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element
~,f..
The 1988 Orange County Recreation and Park Master Plan recommended that the
County concentrate efforts in the provision of four types of recreation and park
facilities: 1) community parks (serving the more densely populated unincorporated
areas of the County); 2) district parks; 3) greenways; and 4) swimming pools. The
plan made specific recommendations for the number and locations of parks:
^ Six Community Parks -One each in the Efland, University Station
area of Eno/Chapel Hill Townships, White Cross, and Caldwell
communities, as well as the Northern and Fairview parks;
Four District Parks - One
Cheeks/Hillsborough Township,
River/Cedar Grove Township; and
Two public swimming pools.
each in .Bingham Township,
Chapel Hill Township, and Little
Since 1988, two park land purchase and development bonds totaling $26 million
have been approved by voters. The County has assisted with funding for pools in
the Sportsplex facility as well as at Homestead Park in Chapel Hill. A community
park has been built in the Efland/Cheeks area, and plans are' progressing for
improvements at the Northern and Fairview Parks. Land has been acquired for a
new park at the Blackwood Farm, near University Station and plans for acquisition
of a park site in Eno Township (North-Central Park) are in the current Lands Legacy
Plan. The communities of Caldwell and White Cross remain without concrete plans
for community parks. However, land acquisition for the White Cross-area park is
in the current Lands Legacy Action Plan, and the new Little River Regional Park and
Natural Area is in close proximity to Caldwell.
The 391-acre Little River Regional Park and Natural Area (which is larger than a
district or community park) has been developed in Little River Township and plans
are well under way for the Chapel Hill Township District Park, now named Twin
Creeks. A district park for Bingham has not been planned to date, as land
acquisition is still underway. The proposed Cheeks/Hillsborough District Park will
be met through asplit-site approach, combining the active recreation at the West
Ten Soccer Center with future low-impact public access areas at the Seven-Mile
Creek Preserve, which is located nearby. This split-site approach was confirmed by
the Board of County Commissioners in early 2008.
INTER-JURISDICTIONAL RECREATION AND PARK PLANNING
Orange County has taken a lead role in coordinating park and recreation planning
with the municipalities and other jurisdictions, such as OWASA. The following
historical summary charts the work of these jurisdictions to coordinate and plan
for parks and recreational facilities in Orange County.
REPORT OF THE RECREATION AND PARKS WORKING GROUP
In 1996, the County initiated a process to develop a Recreation and Parks Working
Group that developed recommendations to establish principles for coordinated
countywide recreation and park facility planning, foster greater cooperation in use
of existing facilities, and support private recreation providers and public/private
partnerships. The work group developed a number of recommendations
presented to the Assembly of Governments, including setting park standards, an
inventory of park and recreational facilities, and the inclusion of park facilities in
new school sites.
Ora~iCo-uv~Ly Co-v~rel~tivPii~law Page 7-2
33
,.. ti..,
Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Erement
REPORT ON THE COORDINATION OF RECREATION AND PARKS SERVICES IN
ORANGE COUNTY 01997)
This report described different options for the improvement of services to the
community through intergovernmental coordination of parks and recreation
functions, including:
^ A countywide long range plan for parks and recreation;
^ Acquisition and protection of good park sites;
^ A lead role for Orange County in funding, acquisition, development,
ownership,. and maintenance of new facilities;
^ Coordination and work toward partial consolidation of selected
functions; and
^ A countywide bond proposal, which led to the successful 1997
countywide Parks Bond.
REPORT OF THE tOINT MASTER RECREATtON AND PARKS (tMRP) WORK GROUP
This report followed up on many of the recommendations from the 1996 and
1997 reports. As a part of this report, an inventory of facilities and community
parks needs was developed for each jurisdiction, and recommendations were
forwarded on a variety of issues, including:
^ Formation of an Intergovernmental Parks Work Group to share
information and explore collaboration opportunities;
^ Possible funding mechanisms;
^ Use of the County's Lands Legacy program as a vehicle for
coordinated parkland acquisition; and
^ The need for a bond referendum to address parkland deficits.
POTENTIAL JOINT CAPITAL FUNDING FOR PARKS
This report was presented to the Assembly of Governments in 2000. It further
explored the possibilities for joint parks, and suggested a mechanism for County
and town roles for future joint parks, including the County taking a lead on capital
funding and land acquisition and potential town roles in operation and
maintenance of joint facilities. This was a precursor to the successful 2001 Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Bond.
Key objectives of these efforts that are still critical for coordinated park planning
in Orange County today include:
^ Ongoing work of the Inter-Governmental Parks Working Group;
^ Development of Inter jurisdictional standards;
^ Joint Siting, Design and Management of School Parks and Sites;
^ Public /Private Partnerships;
^ Joint Capital Facilities Planning /Coordinated Land Acquisition;
Ora.,lc~iCo-uh~.ty Co-w~re~~.v~%ve~Pl~.w Page 7-3
34
Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element
^ Open Facilities Policy;
^ Payment in-Lieu Changes; and
^ Addressing Existing Needs.
KEY ISSUES
Park planning has evolved since the 1988 Orange County Master Recreation and
Parks Plan was adopted. Emerging issues that will need to be addressed in future
recreation and park planning initiatives include:
^ Coordinating with municipalities to arrange for appropriate cost-
sharing and use policies as new parks and recreation facilities are
developed that draw patrons from multiple jurisdictions;
^ Coordinating with the local school districts to develop joint use
recreational facilities on their campuses;
^ Linking local greenway and trail development efforts with the
Mountains to Sea Trail;
^ Planning for and developing recreational opportunities on the Haw
River Blueway (canoe trail and hiking trail);
^ Developing an inter-connected system of greenways and trails
linking town and County parks and open spaces; and
^ Determining what the new recreational demands are that are not
currently being met in Orange County.
7.3. HISTORIC DATA, CURRENT DATA, EVALUATION OF TRENDS
Orange County has been providing park and recreational facilities to the citizens
of Orange County since the 1970's. Prior to that time, the towns provided public
park and recreational opportunities, such as Umstead Park, Cedar Falls Park, and
Wilson Park. In 1988, Orange County adopted its first official Park plan and has
subsequently developed and expanded many parks and trails.
EXISTING AND PLANNED COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Today, the Orange County Parks and recreation Department manages more than
ten parks and recreational facilities, and numerous trails. Additional parks and
facilities are being developed in the future. Existing and future facilities are
described in Table 7-2.
Oravtc~~Coy Co,~v~eh.en~NPi~Zaw Page 7-4
35
- Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element
xR:,
TABLE 7-2: EXISTING AND PLANNED PARKS AND RECREATIONAL
CA!-II ITIF~
Park/Facility Location Description
Outdoor facilities include amulti-purpose
Central Queen/Tryon and field, children's playground, picnic area
Recreation Center Hassell Streets in and parking. The recreation center
and Park Hillsborough includes meeting/activity rooms and a
gymnasium.
11-acre park is co-located with Efland-
Cheeks Elementary School. It features a
Richmond Road, off lighted multi-purpose field, two small
Efland-Cheeks US-70 West in ballfields, a lighted walking track, two
Park Efland and Cheeks picnic shelters, a playground, a
Township community center, two lighted basketball
courts and trails.
Joint partnership with Hillsborough. 67-
acre park includes youth baseball field,
picnic area, a new playground with
Fairview Park Northern recommended plans for "Phase 2" facilities
(Expansion Hillsborough on to include lighted basketball courts,
lighted youth baseball/softball field, an
planned) Rainey Avenue additional new playground, picnic shelter
and restrooms, a lighted walking track,
trails, three tennis courts, and a volleyball
court.
27,000 square foot building with two
Homestead Park Eastern end of
Homestead Rd in Pools, locker rooms, lobby, classroom,
Aquatic Center Chapel Hill and offices to be located on the existing
Homestead Park site.
Created in partnership with Durham
County and non-profit groups, the 391-
. acre regional park and natural area
Along border of protects a natural heritage corridor along
Little River Orange and the Little River. More than 7-miles of
Regional Park Durham Counties hiking trails, a playground, two picnic
on Guess Rd shelters, ADA loop trail, more than 7-miles
of bike trails, refurbished farm buildings,
possible horse trails, and a group camp
site.
Millhouse Road Millhouse Road 69-acre park area adjoining Duke Forest.
Park (Planned) north of Chapel Hill Master Plan yet to be developed.
New Hope Park at New Hope Church 1 52-acre park currently in master planning
Blackwood Road and NC-86 phase.
(Planned)
OYalu~~eiCo~u.rtily Co-~v~prel~~.v~-i~ve/t~la-w Page 7-5
36
Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element
Park/Facility Location Description
Co-located on 48 acres with the Northern
Human Services Center, the park features
a lighted baseball/softball field,
gymnasium, meeting rooms, and art and
NC-86, seven miles pottery rooms in the center. Currently
Northern Park north of under construction, Phase II includes a
Hillsborough second lighted ballfield, a lighted walking
track, amulti-purpose field, a picnic
shelter with restrooms, two lighted
basketball courts, two playgrounds, trails
and parking.
Margaret Lane Six-acre open area will include trails,
,
Hillsborough benches, and picnic tables, a performance
River Park (between the stage, and a public market. It is adjacent
(Planned) Orange County to the Stillhouse Creek Ecosystem
Courthouse and the Enhancement Project, which features trail
Eno River) connections and environmental education
signage.
Skills
Development 503 West Franklin Small pocket park along Franklin Street in
Center Pocket Street Chapel Hill.
Park
1 709 High School Joint project of the Town of Carrboro,
Smith Playing Road (adjoining Orange County, and Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Fields Chapel Hill High School District. Includes two acres, with
School) two lighted soccer fields adjacent to
school.
Nature trails wind around the center and
Southern Human Homestead Road in the adjoining ridge. The new Robert and
Services Center Chapel Hill Pearl Seymour Senior Center is located on
this campus.
96-acre park will be co-located with a 97-
acre educational campus. The park will
include a picnic shelter, meadow and
nature trail, and two full-sized soccer
fields. The full park will eventually have
Twin Creeks Park the following lighted facilities: four full
and Educational Old 86 north of size soccer fields, two baseball/softball
Campus (Planned) Carrboro fields, tennis courts, basketball courts,
and a street hockey court. That park will
also include two playgrounds, a water
"Spray-park," three picnic shelters,
concession and restroom building, croquet
and senior activities area, and use of old
farmstead buildings.
Ora.vt.~eiCo~wv~.ty Covn~~e~,.ev~i~ve~~Iav~ Page 7-6
37
Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element
Park/Facility Location Description
Future nature preserve(s) encompassing
Upper Eno Nature hundreds of acres are envisioned in the
Preserves -Public West and southwest Seven-Mile Creek area and along the Eno
Access Areas of Hillsborough River. These preserves would include areas
(Planned) designated for public access, including
trails and low impact recreation facilities.
A 72-acre preserve would include future
New Hope Creek Orange-Durham public access area with trails, in
Preserve -Hollow County line, along conjunction with Durham County and
Rock Access Area Erwin Road Triangle Land Conservancy. Currently in
master planning stage.
Co-located with the middle school, the 33-
acre soccer complex features five full size
West-central lighted soccer fields, including a
West Ten Soccer Orange County, championship field, a practice field; a
Park near Gravelly Hill concession stand with restrooms and a
Middle School lighted walking track. A future phase
includes tennis courts.
Bolin Creek near
Estes Drive A 27-acre preserve in central Carrboro that
Extension, in features a forested natural area protected
Adams Preserve Carrboro (adjoining in collaboration with the Town of
Carrboro's Wilson Carrboro.
Park)
A conservation easement was granted by
Starfield New Hope Creek, the developer of a subdivision that
includes protection of a portion of the
Conservation north of New Hope Currie Hill Natural Heritage site, and a
Area Church Road future public trail segment along New
Hope Creek.
Schley and Mincey Future 142-acre park will feature active
Northeast Park Roads, six miles and low-impact recreation, may be co-
(Planned) northeast of located with other public facilities.
Hillsborough
Map 7-1 depicts the locations of existing and future Orange County parks.
OYa.vic~iCotutity Co-n~v'el~~~-vve~f ~-w Page 7-7
38
.~, ~~
r
Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element
PdC~CS
~~et~a __ .,~ r
~
~
11.
t
Hrem Paris Q F
t
k
P Again reads
2.. LAtie River Regional Pa[k u
ure
t
ai
7. Train Creeks Park Teems
8. FaFnfsew Pork
4
EtlatstFCtraeks Park 8. M~tmuse Road Pack
~ Mu[icipel ETJs
.
5. West Ten Soccer Park 8. htew #ioix Park at Blaciweod
®~ea Spa=ao Cwnty
~
& Rises Park i]eawanerR
Ca
Not®: Does not iratrdv Wwrwperatad parks {some of which are conrdy-funded}
MAP 7-l: EXISTING AND FUTURE COUNTY PARKS
oYa.v-.~ co-wt~y co-~Y~N~ ~tat~, Page 7-8
39
.. Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element
o.~°'•,
In addition to the existing and planned parklands, Orange County has
purchased additional lands through its Lands Legacy Program, or other
means, that have current or future recreational components, such as the
Adams Preserve.
The Triangle Sportsplex, owned by Orange County and operated by a
private firm, offers wellness and fitness programs as well as a pool, ice
rink and other amenities. Wellness, recreation and fitness programs
targeted to seniors are also offered at multiple sites, including the
Seymour Senior Center in Chapel Hill and Central Orange Senior Center
in Hillsborough.
Parks and Recreational Facilities of Other Jurisdictions
The Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro have independent parks and
recreation departments that plan for and provide park and recreation
services within the Towns. The Town of Hillsborough does not have
dedicated staff to manage and operate park and recreation services and
relies on the Orange County Parks and Recreation Department and the
Environment and Resource Conservation Department for acquisition,
development and management of parks.
A comprehensive list of all public parks and recreational facilities in
Orange County, including those managed by the towns, is included in a
document entitled Comprehensive Park and Recreational Facilities. The
Countywide Composite Parks Map, showing all of the jurisdiction's
planned and existing parks, is also included in Appendix M.
Other park and recreation facilities in Orange County are provided by the
following:
^ Orange Water and Sewer Authority holds more than 3,000 acres of
land in the County, and provides recreational facilities at University
Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir;
^ Duke University has several Duke Forest properties in Orange
County that are used as a private research forest and provides
natural areas and public trailways in the County;
^ The State of North Carolina manages and operates two state parks
in Orange County. The Occoneechee Mountain State Park arid the
Eno River State Park are both located in Orange County near the
Town of Hillsborough; and
^ The University of North Carolina's new Carolina North campus is
expected to include open space and recreational facilities and
fields. Planning for this large new research campus in central
Chapel Hill is currently underway.
7.4. ORANGE COUNTY PARK AND RECREATION NEEDS
Projections for Orange County's future population between now and 2030 could
mean an additional 40,000-80,000 persons that would need parks and
recreational services in the future. Approximately one-quarter of those additional
residents will likely live outside of the municipalities, which means that the County
Ora.vu~~Co-uatityCo-vn~v~e~~-vwPi~taw Page 7-9
40
- Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element
<..~..
will have .primary responsibility for providing recreation facilities, services and
opportunities to somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 new residents.
To continue providing adequate opportunities for recreation in Orange County,
new facilities and programs will need to be added. Planning and funding of these
services and facilities will require a coordinated strategy with the towns and
school districts in Orange County.
Much has changed in terms of park needs and facilities since the 1988 Master
Plan. A countywide assessment of the new demands for parks and recreation, and
a coordinated plan for providing those facilities and services is needed.
7.5. GOALS
Parks and recreation Overarching Goal: Regionally
coordinated park facilities that provide healthy opportunities for
recreation and exercise for all citizens of Orange County, and
that preserve important cultural and natural resources.
Parks and recreation Goal 1:
Adequate parks and recreational facilities for all citizens within
the County, regardless of age, gender, race or disability.
Parks and recreation Goal 2:
A partnership among regional recreational providers and facility
owners/managers, including the appropriate co-location and
sharing of school facilities, that meets the County's recreation
needs.
Parks and recreation Goal 3:
Recreational facilities available for the public use in a manner
that is multi-generational and accessible to all County citizens at
both the countywide and community level.
Parks and recreation Goal 4:
Healthy lifestyles, quality of life and community building
through the provision of a variety of affordable recreational
facilities and choice of leisure activities, while responding to the
changing needs and interests of County residents.
Parks and recreation Goal 5:
Park and recreational facilities that are environmentally-
responsible, and where cultural and natural resources and open
space within these sites are protected.
7.6. 0BIECTIVES
The intent of this Plan is that the following list of objectives will help guide regular
and ongoing decision-making by the County related to recreation and park
planning initiatives. Each objective has a recommended timeline for
Ora~~iCo~wvtity Co-n~~e]~.ev~-vve~~Law Page 7-10
41
Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element
<,~
completion.(Definitions of timelines provided in Section 1.4: Administration and
Implementation Guidelines.)
Parks and recreation Goal 1: Adequate parks. and recreational
facilities for all citizens within the County, regardless of age,
gender, race or disability.
Obiective PR-l.l:
Acquire and /or retain public ownership of parks, recreation
facilities, open space, and conservation areas that will serve Orange
County. (See also Natural Areas Objective NA-9.)
Obiective PR-1.2:
Acquire and/or retain lands suitable for siting both indoor and
outdoor active recreation facilities to serve all Orange County
residents.
Objective PR-1.3:
Develop a land use planning mechanism for securing new parks
through the development approval process. (See also Natural Areas
Objective NA-10 and Land Use Objective LU-4.3.)
Objective PR-1.4:
Consider alternative funding possibilities for future park facilities,
such as non-profit foundations.
Parks and recreation Goal 2: A partnership among regional
recreational providers and facility. owners/managers, including
the appropriate co-location and sharing of school facilities, that
meets the County's recreation needs.
Obiective PR-2.1:
The County will serve as the lead coordinator of regional open space
and recreation facility providers in the County (including OWASA,
UNC-Chapel Hill; and Duke University), and coordinate regional
efforts including future parkland and recreation facility planning,
acquisitions, and operations/maintenance of community, district,
and regional park and recreation facilities.
Objective PR-2.2:
Develop a methodology to be used by regional recreational providers
in determining the number of recreation and park facilities needed.
The agreed upon methodology should address countywide and
community-specific service areas and how needs are determined
within those service areas, such as linking facility needs to
population growth.
Obiective PR-2.3:
Develop a program for land dedication/recreation payment that is
effective and comprehensive.
Objective PR-2.4:
Establish a mechanism to promote shared use of existing public and
institutional buildings and grounds for public recreation, as well as
for their primary uses. (See also Education Objective E-2.)
OYaau~iCotcvtityCo-iv~-~e~~.v~i~ve~~ta.w Page 7-Z1
42
Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element
Objective PR-2.5:
Adopt criteria for evaluating potential land acquisitions for recreation
and park facilities in cooperation with other regional park providers.
Objective PR-2.6:
Develop a Memorandum of Agreement among the local governments
on joint capital and/or operational funding for future parks and
recreational facilities. (See also Education Objective E-2.)
Parks and recreation Goal 3: Recreational facilities available for
the. public use in a manner that is multi-generational and
accessible to all County citizens at both the countywide and
community levels.
Objective PR-3.1:
Locate parks and recreational facilities close to residential areas and
transportation nodes, to increase public knowledge and accessibility
to these facilities, including alternative transportation modes.
Objective PR-3.2:
Implement individual park master plans, such as the 2006 Fairview
Park Master Plan.
Objective PR-3.3:
Create a new Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan Map, to
guide future parks planning and help leverage outside funding.
Parks and Recreation Goal 4: Healthy lifestyles, quality of life
and community building through the provision of a variety of
affordable recreational facilities and. choice of leisure activities,
while responding to the changing needs and interests of County
residents.
Objective PR-4.1:
Developers shall provide for adequate and appropriate open space
suitable for active/low-impact recreation in residential developments.
(See also Natural Areas Objective NA-10.)
Objective PR-4.2:
Investigate the potential for public and/or private commercial
partnerships and recreational facilities needed to serve Orange
County's residents.
Objective PR-4.3:
Work to keep recreational facilities and services affordable and
sustainable to the general public.
Objective PR-4.4:
Periodically survey the public, and conduct needs assessments, on
recreation services.
Or~a.vu~~iCou.vuy Carov~rel~~~Pit la.w Page 7-ZZ
43
~~,., ...
Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element
Parks and Recreation Goal 5: Park. and recreational facilities
that are environmentally-responsible, and where cultural and
natural resources and open space. within these sites are
protected.
Objective PR-5.1:
Locate parks and recreational facilities close to residential areas to
encourage informal interaction with nature, encourage walkability,
and create areas of wildlife habitat with appropriate recreational
facilities within the more populated areas. (See also Natural Areas
Objective NA-13.)
Objective PR-5.2:
Landscape parks and recreational facilities with native vegetation and
minimize water use where practical. Prohibit use of known invasive
non-native species in County facilities, and take steps to eradicate
occurrences of same.
Objective PR-5.3:
Ensure public access to County-owned parks and nature preserves,
but direct facilities and trails away from the most ecologically
sensitive sites.
Obiective PR-5.4:
Encourage development of a system of private open space and
conservation areas, including nature preserves, parks, linear parks,
and scenic vistas compatible with the character of Orange County.
(See also Natural Areas Objectives NA-1 1, NA-12, and NA-16, and
Transportation Objective T- 1.5.)
Objective PR-5.5:
Develop linear parks and rustic trails in the Rural Buffer, and explore
opportunities for preservation and connectivity along other identified
stream corridors.
Objective PR-5.6:
Create a new Parks and Recreation Facilities Plan Map, to guide
future parks planning and help leverage outside funding.
Orc~.v~~Cou.vtity Co-rx~reh.P.v~i~v~~tac-w Page 7-13
44
..;,
Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element
TABLE 7-3: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES LINKS TO PLANNING PRINCIPLES
GOAL/ OBJECTIVE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' PLANNING PRINCIPLES
1. Efficient and Fiscally Responsible Provision of Public
Facilities and Services
2. Sustainable Growth and Development
3. A. Encouragement of Energy Efficiency, Lower
Energy Consumption, and the Use of Non-Polluting
Renewable Energy Resources
B. Promotion of Both Air Quality Protection and the
Development of an Effective Transportation System
4. Natural Area Resource Preservation
5. Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern
6. Water Resources Preservation
7. Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity
8. Preservation of Community Character
1 Z 3A 3B 4 S 6 7 8
Goal 1 and
Objectives ,f d d ,f 1
PR-l .l - PR-1.4
Goal 2 and
Objectives +f 1 ,f
PR-2.1 - PR-2.6
Goal 3 and
Objectives ,f d d ,f
PR-3.1 - PR-3.3
Goal 4 and
Objectives d J ,f
PR-4.1 - PR-4.4
Goal 5 and
Objectives ,f ,f d d d d
PR-5.1 - PR-5.6
7.7. LINKS TO OTHER ELEMENTS
Park and recreational planning is interlinked to with land use, transportation, and
natural and cultural systems planning in Orange County. Provided here is a listing
of the objectives from other Plan Elements that are linked to Parks and Recreation
objectives.
LAND USE
Objective LU-4.3:
Determine how best private developments can accommodate or
provide public and private commercial recreational facilities to serve
Orange County's residents.
Oraru~~eiCott.wty Co-EVtpYe~e~Pla,w Page 7-14
45
~,~ ,-rte
Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element
NATURAL AND CULTURAL SYSTEMS
Objective NA-10:
Require that all major subdivisions (defined as having more than 5 lots
according to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations) include
within their boundaries open space suitable for low-impact recreation
and wildlife habitat.
Objective NA-t 1:
Develop a comprehensive conservation plan for achieving a network of
protected open space throughout Orange County, which addresses 1)
threats to important natural areas; 2) connectivity between protected
areas; 3) coordination with neighboring counties; and 4) sustainable
management of critical natural resources.
Objective NA-12:
Establish a system of nature preserves that protect large areas of
undeveloped land (including significant natural areas) surrounded by
low-density development and working farms and managed forests.
Objective NA-13:
Promote clustering of residential development and dedication of large
areas of undisturbed land for low-impact recreational use by residents
and for wildlife habitat. Where feasible, these areas should be
contiguous to neighboring tracts of undisturbed land.
Objective NA-16:
Create a system of public and private open space and conservation
areas, including parks, nature preserves, and scenic vistas
representative of the Orange County landscape.
SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Objective E-2:
Continue to work with parks and recreation providers in the County to
identify opportunities for co-location and shared funding of school and
public recreational "joint use" facilities.
TRANSPORTATION
Objective T-1.5:
Identify prime viewsheds along major transportation corridors and
protect these areas for their scenic and natural resource values.
7.8. OTHER KEY DOCUMENTS
Several documents were used as resources in the development of this Element and
are listed below. (See Section 1.2.5: Where to Look for Related Information if you
would like to obtain one of these documents.)
^ Master Recreation and Parks Plan (1988)
^ Recreation Dedication/Payment-In-Lieu Report (1995)
^ Executive Summary -Report of the Joint Master Recreation and
Parks Work Group (2000)
o-- co-uvity co-~re~~~e, ~~. Page 7-1 S
46
x,.,...
Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element
^ Report to the Master Recreation and Parks Work Group (1999)
^ Report on Potential Joint Capital Funding for Parks (2000)
^ A New Era for Parks - Organizational Structures for Parks
Coordination (2001)
^ Report o f the Master Plan Work Group on the Chapel Hill Township
Park and Educational Campus (2003)
^ Concept Plan Review Committee Recommendations for the Efland-
Cheeks Park, Phase 2 (2003)
^ Composite Countywide Plan for Parks and Trails -Carrboro, Chapel
Hill, Hillsborough, Mebane, and Orange County (2006)
^ Fairview Public Campus Master Plan Committee Recommendations
(2006)
^ Final Draft of the New Hope Park at Blackwood Farm Master Plan
Committee Report
^ Town of Hillsborough Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2007)
^ Carrboro Recreation and Parks Comprehensive Master Plan (2006)
^ Chapel Hill Greenways Plan (2006)
^ Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Plan (2002)
^ Draft Orange County Recreation and Parks Strategic Plan (2005)
^ Carrboro. Greenways Plan (2007)
^ Lands Legacy Program Action Plan (2006-2008)
7.9. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
Intergovernmental collaboration for the planning, funding, and maintenance of
future parks and recreational facilities in Orange County is necessary if tax dollars
are to be used efficiently and services are to be provided equitably throughout the
County. As addressed in Goal 2, Orange County needs to continue to lead an
ongoing dialogue with the Towns of Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and
Mebane, and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Orange County School districts, as well
as other parks and recreational providers, to coordinate future park planning and
funding efforts.
Orw-u~e~Co-wvt.Ly Covv~preh~,v~-vve,t~tcc.w Page 7-16