HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-01-1996 - IX-C e
1
i
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 1. 1996
Action Agenda
Item#
SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS -
RECREATION SITES (DEDICATION/PAYMENT-IN-LIEU PROVISIONS)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft 2/26/96 Public Hearing Minutes Planning Director X2592
Draft 3/18/96 Planning Board Minutes
March 5, 1996 RPAC Chair Memorandum TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Draft Recreation& Parks Goal Hillsborough 732-8181
NOTE: Please bring the "Recreation Dedication/ Chapel Hill 967-9251
Payment-In-Lieu Report" or the 2/26/96 Public Durham 688-7331
Hearing agenda packet to the meeting. Mebane 227-2031
PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to the dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions
of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
BACKGROUND: At the Board of Commissioners June 26, 1995 meeting, a status report was
presented concerning Concept Plans approved in the Stoney Creek basin area.
The Board directed staff to study the dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions of
the Subdivision Regulations and prepare amendments, if needed, for public
hearing. At its December 9, 1995 goal-setting retreat, the Board of
Commissioners reiterated its desire to have the provisions addressed as soon as
possible. Staff prepared a report which was presented at the public hearing
which identified:
• the statutory basis for enacting such provisions;
• the origins of the current standards;
• concerns about the application of the standards; and
• changes through which to address those concerns.
Proposed Ordinance Changes
The specific proposal is to amend Section IV-B-7-b, Recreation Sites, of the
Subdivision Regulations to substitute a payment-in-lieu based on the cost of
land md facilities associated with implementing a system of community and
district parks. Currently,the payment-in-lieu includes only the value of land, and
2
is based on the assessed value listed in the Orange County Tax Office. The
average payment-in-lieu per household is presently $76. Under the proposed
system, the payment-in-lieu would not exceed $455 per household.
In addition to the proposed payment-in-lieu, a change in the amount of land
which must be dedicated for recreation sites is also proposed. Currently, 1135th
of an acre (1,244 sq.ft.) must be dedicated for each lot in a new subdivision
unless the Board of Commissioners approves a payment-in-lieu. This standard is
equivalent to 10.50 acres of land per 1,000 population. Under the proposed
change, 1157th of an acre (764 sq.ft.) must be provided for each lot. The new
standard is equivalent to 7.5 acres per 1,000 population and is based on the
amount of land needed to provide a system of community and district parks in
the county.
Listed below are applicable sections of the Subdivision Regulations, including the
proposed changes described above.
IV-B-7. SITES FOR PUBLIC USE
IV-B-7-b. Recreation Sites
IV-B-7-b-1. Applicability
Every person, firm or corporation who subdivides land for residential and/or
non-residential purposes shall be required to dedicate a portion of such land for
the purpose of public recreationlopen space, including the preservation of natural
and cultural resources, to serve the leisure needs of the residents of the
subdivision and the residents of the immediate neighborhood within which the
subdivision is located. In all cases, the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council
shall review and make recommendations to the Planning Board and Board of
Commissioners on the provision or dedication of recreation and/or open space
areas.
IV-B-74-2. Dimensional Requirements
At least ene h --i• foh (44 S) one fifty-seventh of an acre (1157) shall be
dedicated for each dwelling unit planned or provided for in the subdivision plan,
except where land is located in the flood plain of a stream or river as indicated by
the floodplain maps of the Federal Insurance Administration and/or is
characterized by steep slopes (15% or greater), then at least one twentieth (1120)
of an acre of such land shall be dedicated for each dwelling unit.
If the application of the provisions of Article 5.1.1 (Required Minimum Recreation
Space Ratio) and Article 6.12 (Land Use Intensity System) of the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance results in a greater amount of land, then the difference between
the application of the standards above and those of Article 5.1.1 and Article 6 12
3
r
shall be established as private recreation for the use of the residents of the
development.
The total land area dedicated as part of a non-residential subdivision shall be
determined by an analysis of the site, the use(s) to be located thereon and the
designation of recreation and/or open space sites as shown on the adopted
Comprehensive Plan. The site analysis shall be prepared by the applicant and
shall identify in written and graphic form those areas characterized by steep
slopes (15% or greater), floodplains and wetlands, rock outcroppings, mature
woodlands (trees of 18 inches or greater in diameter), existing structures and
cemeteries, and lakes, ponds, rivers and other water resources. A written and
graphic description shall also be submitted by the applicant which identifies the
proposed use of each lot in the subdivision, the approximate amount of building
and parking coverage for each lot, and the approximate number of employees
associated with each use. In no case, however, shall the total land area be less
than that required by application of the provisions of Article 5.1.2 (Required
Minimum Pedestrian/Landscape Ratio) and Article 612 (Land Use Intensity
System) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
IV-B-7-b-6. _ Payments in Lieu of Dedication
Any subdivider required to dedicate recreation area pursuant to this Ordinance
may, with the approval of the Board of Commissioners, make a payment in lieu of
dedication or make a combination of land dedicated and payment. Before
approving a payment in lieu of dedication, the Board of Commissioners shall find
that no recreation and/or open space sites have been designated on the adopted
Comprehensive Plan for the property in question.
The payment in lieu of dedication shall be equal to$422 per lot for a subdivision
to be located in the service area of a community park as shown on the map in
Appendix E. The payment in lieu of dedication shall be equal to $455 per lot for
a subdivision to be located in the service area of a district park as shown on the
map in Appendix E.
OR
The payment in lieu of dedication shall be equal to$271 for each lot.
Where a combination of land dedication and payments in lieu are approved, the
subdivider shall be given a credit equivalent to $10,000 per acre of land
dedicated for recreation purposes. The credit amount shall be determined by
multiplying the number of acres to be dedicated by $10,000 per acre. If the total
4
f
payment in lieu as determined above is larger than the credit amount, the
subdivider shall pay the difference between the two amounts. If the credit
amount is larger than the total payment in lieu as determined above, no
additional payment in lieu is required. However, the subdivider may not transfer
the excess credit from one subdivision to another.
Upon approval by the Board of Commissioners, payment in lieu of dedication
shall be made at the time of final subdivision plan approval or within one (1)year
of approval of the preliminary subdivision plan, whichever occurs first. All
moneys received by Orange County pursuant to these requirements shall be used
only for the acquisition and development of recreation, parr and open space sites
to serve the residents of the development and the residents of the immediate
neighborhood within which the development is located. The Board of
Commissioners shall also have the authority to sell land dedicated pursuant to
these provisions with the proceeds of any such sale used solely for the acquisition
of other recreation, park or open space sites within the immediate neighborhood
within which the development is located.
Public Hearing Comments
Commissioner Crowther requested that the Master Recreation & Parks Plan be
updated and that a goal statement to that effect be included for consideration as
part of the Commissioners' Goals and Objectives for FY 1996-97. A draft goal
statement has been prepared and submitted to the County Manager's office for
distribution to the Board of Commissioners with other goal statements. A copy
of the draft goal statement is provided as an attachment.
Patrick Mulkey, a member of the Recreation & Parks Advisory Council,
requested that the Master Recreation & Parks Plan be updated before any action
is taken on the proposed amendments. He also requested that the update be
prepared in-house as opposed to employing an outside consultant.
Recreation & Parks Advisory Council Recommendation
At its March 5, 1996 meeting, the Recreation & Parks Advisory Council voted
to recommend that the service area approach for payment-n-lieu be adopted;
e.g., $422 per lot for subdivisions within a community park service area and
$455 per lot for subdivisions located within a district park service area. The
Advisory Council also voted to recommend that the land dedication requirement
be set no lower than 1/57th of an acre per lot. The vote was 6-1 (see attached
3/18/96 memorandum from Lorraine Parker, Chair of the Recreation & Parks
Advisory Council).
Planning Board Recommendation
At its March 18, 1996 meeting, the Planning Board voted 8-2 to table this item.
The Planning Board generally felt that if the payment-in-lieu proposal was to be
5
Z an "interim" payment until the Master Recreation Plan was updated, it would be
better to wait until the update was accomplished (see attached 3/18/96 Planning
Board minutes for discussion).
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the payment-in-lieu be set no higher
than$455 per dwelling lot and that the land dedication required be set no
lower than 1/57th of an acre.
a
March 18, 1996 Planning Board Minutes 6
(3) Article 23 Violations,Penalties,&Remedies
Presentation by Jim Hinkley.
The Orange County Zoning Ordinance provides for action which may be taken by
the County to abate zoning violations or non-compliance with zoning
requirements. Taking criminal action in the courts is not often used,but when it
is,it is important that this remedy be effective. Although not specifically stated in
Section 23.2,the maximum fine is fifty dollar($50.00). The maximum$50-fine
upon conviction limits the effectiveness of the criminal action remedy.
The proposed amendment would enable Orange County to increase the maximum
fine to$500.00,as authorized by NC General Statute 14-4.
The proposed amendment was presented at public hearing on February 26, 1996.
No citizen comments were received.The proposed amendment was referred to the
Planning Board for recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners
no sooner than April 1, 1996.
The Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to
Article 23. Violations,Penalties,and Remedies, Section 23.2 Penalties,
a)Criminal Action.
In response to a question about an example of a court case, Hinkley referred to a
case from January, 1996. The County won the case;however,the fine was$50.00
and the court costs were$62.00. The following month,the citizen was again in
violation. Discussion indicated that the fine was so minimal that it apparently did
not really concern the violator. Hinkley continued that the Judge had suggested to
him that it be recommended to the County Commissioners to raise the penalty to
$500.00 as allowed by the General Statutes.
Katz asked how often the County has been involved in criminal action such as
this. Hinkley responded that there have been three or four criminal cases in the
last six years.
MOTION: Waddell moved approval as recommended by the Zoning Officer. Seconded by
Allison.
VOTE: Unanimous.
d. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments
(1) Recreation/Dedication Payment-In-Lieu Provisions
Presentation by Marvin Collins.
(A copy of the agenda abstract information is an attachment to these minutes on
pages )
Collins stated that,based on the findings in the paryment-in-lieu report, there
were several options available to the Planning Board and the Board of
Commissioners at the February public hearing.
O p n One option was to recommend a payment-in-lieu based on the service area
approach. The payment-in-lieu would be$422 per lot for a subdivision located in
the service area of a community park and$455 per lot for a subdivision located in
the service area of a district park. Another option was the county-wide approach
which would be$271 per lot for each subdivision. Another option would be to
leave the payment-in-lieu as it is and update the Master Parks and Recreation Plan.
Following the update,a payment-in-lieu could be calculated based on the new
plan. There is also a recommendation that the dedication provision be reduced
from 1/35th of an acre to 1/57th of an acre for each lot in a subdivision.
Collins referred to a memorandum from the Recreation&Parks Advisory Council
which indicates that a majority of the Council supports a service area approach (a
copy an attachment to these minutes on page ). One member opposed the
proposal because he felt the Master Parks and Recreation Plan should be updated
before any action is taken on the proposed amendments. However,the members
did agree that the Plan should be revisited and priorities set on future plans.
Collins continued that Commissioner Crowther requested,(at the public hearing,)
that updating the Master Parks&Recreation Plan be considered as a part of the
Commissioners'goals and objectives for fiscal year 96-97. Collins noted that a
draft goal and plan of action has been prepared for presentation to the Board of
Commissioners at its meeting on March 26. The plan of action indicates the
update should begin January, 1997 with a Board of Commissioners' decision in
April, 1998. (A copy of the draft goal and plan of action an attachment to these
minutes on pages )
Reid asked for clarification that this would be a one-time fee such as the School
Impact Fee. Collins responded that replacement of a dwelling,whether because of
fire,replacement of a mobile home with a house,or replacement of a mobile home
with another mobile home would not require that the payment-in-lieu be paid
again. The fee would be paid by the developer during the subdivision process
before the building process begins. The School Impact Fee is paid before a
Certificate of Occupancy(CO)is issued.
Barrows asked how the dedication of land for recreation would interface with
open space development. Collins responded that,assuming that flexible
development is approved,if someone wants to dedicate land for a public park site
that only 50%of that land can count towards the 33%open space requirement.
Brown asked if land value was based on before or after development cost.
Collins responded that the recommendation is based on the cost of developing a
park rather than the value of the property before development. It not only
addresses the value of land but also the value of the improvements that go on the
park site. Collins indicated this was a much different approach. Brown
responded that she did not see the difference.
Brown asked if there is any way to make a distinction between a development and
someone who wants to create one or two lots for relatives. The response was no.
Brown continued that this seems to be of the same regressive nature as the school
impact fees. Collins agreed it was the same problem. Brown asked if there was
E3 �
a way to remedy this problem. Collins responded that there is a way to remedy it,
but it would require more data. The data for school impact fees included
information regarding the number of students per household. Data for payment-
in-lieu would need to include the number of people per household. All members
!!!(sssUUUU1 of the household should be included rather than just school age children. It would
be tied to population rather than one specific segment.
Brown continued asking about the relationship between the Master Recreation
Plan and payment-in-lieu proposal. Collins responded that the payment-in-lieu
proposal presented at public hearing is based on the current adopted Master
Recreation and Parks Plan. If that plan is updated,then recalculation of the
payment-in-lie would have to be done. Another alternative would be to look at a
recreation impact fee. It is the same with the school impact fees. If the technical
report is updated based on additional information,then there must be a
recalculation of impact fees.
Katz asked if there is any way to make adjustments in regard to low income
housing. Collins responded yes,but, it would go back to the process of data
collection such as the relationship of the cost of the house to the family income.
Allison asked if these would be interim figures if the Master Plan is to be updated.
Collins responded that if the Board did ask for the update of the Plan,these would
be interim figures. Allison continued asking why the service area approach was
recommended over the county-wide approach. Collins responded that looking at
the system of parks as proposed in the Master Plan,it is basically a system that is
to serve the rural residents of the county. Chapel Hill and Carrboro basically meet
their own requirements. If a county-wide approach is applied,it would require
enabling legislation to collect from those two jurisdictions. The service area
approach looks at the number of people being served by the park which will
usually be the people living in the specific service area.
Katz asked,in regard to affordable housing,if there is any reason the County
could not give grants to people building housing or people who meet certain
income requirements. Since it is County policy to encourage housing for low and
moderate income residents, could the County charge the fee to everyone and give
grants in equal amounts to developers who are providing this service to the
County. Collins responded that currently,under the school impact fee,the County
allows agencies and organizations that are providing affordable housing to apply
for reimbursements. They can qualify for reimbursement if they meet the
affordable housing thresholds. Something similar could be set up for payments-
in-lieu. Katz asked if that could be included in this proposal. Collins responded
that it could certainly be a part of the Planning Board's recommendation.
Jobsis asked if there is information available regarding what other areas of the
state charge for recreation. Collins responded that he was unsure what other
counties do but Orange County was the first county to adopt payment-in-lieu
provisions. Payments-in-lieu and dedications have historically been municipal
standards or requirements. He continued that the Town of Carrboro's
requirements would calculate to be approximately$1400 per lot. Prior to adoption
of a recreation plan,Carrboro allowed the developers to provide recreation for
residents of the development. Jobsis asked if developers in the County's
jurisdiction still have the option of providing recreation for small developments.
Collins responded that if it is a typical rural subdivision,they could develop
recreational areas that met the needs of their residents but they would still have to
9
nu dedicate land for a park site or make a payment-in-lieu. They do not get credit for
U private recreation. The oly exception would be in transition areas where densities
are higher.
Jobsis asked if the fees would stop at the$422 and$455 or if there would be
increases when the Master Plan is updated. Collins responded that if it is
determined during the update that a greater number of park sites is needed,the
payment-in-lieu could increase. However, if the philosophy that is adopted is to
rely more on the developer to provide for the recreational needs of the residents,
there may be less requirement for public parks,and the cost could go down.
Jobsis expressed concern that she felt this was a major shift in policy and she did
not feel that the County has really heard about this even though it was presented at
the February 26 public hearing. She continued that she had difficulty
understanding everything about this issue at the public hearing and was concerned
that the residents of Orange County did not really understand or would have
voiced an opinion about what they are being asked to pay for in regard to a park
system. Collins responded that he had the same concern. However,there were
four citizens who called him to ask how it would affect specific situations and he
felt that they would be in attendance at the public hearing. However,none of the
citizens who called came to the public hearing and voiced any opposition to it.
Collins continued that Patrick Mulkey who is a member of the Recreation and
Parks Advisory Council and is also on the Bingham TAC might have a better feel
for the citizens lack of response. Mr.Mulkey stated that the Bingham TAC has
not discussed this issue but it was mentioned at the TAC meeting in February but
sufficient information was not available for discussion. Mr.Mulkey continued
expressing sympathy with the Chair that the citizenry are not well aware of the
plan and the cost. Collins responded that a copy of the proposal was sent to Nick
Tennyson who is the Executive Director of the Homebuilders' Association and
neither he nor any members of the Homebuilders' Association attended the public
hearing or contacted Staff after the public hearing. Jobsis expressed concern that
maybe it was not understood,noting again that it was a very significant move.
Collins agreed that it is a major move or change.
Waddell noted that there is a reduction in the requirement for the amount of land
from 1/35th of an acre to 1/57th and suggested that this was seen as a reduction.
Collins responded that it was only a reduction in the amount of land,the increase
is in the cost of developing a park.
Rosemond asked Mr.Mulkey if he felt there were specific areas of the Master
Recreation and Parks Plan that would require updating. Mr.Mulkey stated that he
had a degree in Parks and Recreation Administration,and he felt that a substantial
reconfiguring of locations should be done. Two of the four districts parks are
located in watersheds. The County does not have an agreement with local
authorities to locate parks in the watersheds nor to build the facilities designated..
He continued that there would be substantial reconfiguring of the entire plan.
He also indicated he felt there would be an increase in the costs of maintaining
playground equipment.
Katz asked what kind of process Mr.Mulkey would recommend for revising the
Plan. Mr.Mulkey responded that comments from some of the RPAC members
indicated the need to visit the plan to see if the County could begin to achieve
some of the goals. He noted that there are State resources that are available at
• 1l1 1
little or no cost that would provide information that would assist in the updating of
the Plan. He felt that the present Plan did not need to be rewritten,just reworked
and funding sources are available for assistance in such an endeavor.
Allison asked what the urgency is of establishing an interim fee. Why not update
V (� the Plan and then determine fees. Collins responded that the sense of urgency
occurred when the Planning Staff went to the Board of Commissioners with a
report on five concept plans that had been submitted on the former University
Station Site. These plans may preclude getting parkland dedication. The amount
of fees collected thus far are very few compared to the cost of acquiring land.
It was at that point that the Commissioners asked for a review of payment-in-lieu.
Waddell expressed concern that this seemed to be an attempt to pull in new money
and it seemed that current residents should also help to pay for the parks. He
asked if there is a hesitancy to have a tax increase. Collins responded that this is
one of a number of needs and the greatest need at this time is schools. A lot of the
funds available have been funneled to new schools,and recreation and parks may
have suffered due to the greater need for the new schools. Waddell indicated
concern that monies would not be raised this way and felt an overall tax increase
would be the way to raise money needed for parks. He also expressed concern
that payment-in-lieu is a regressive fee.
Adjournment time was reached.
MOTION: Waddell moved to continue the meeting until 10:45 in hopes of completing the
agenda. Seconded by Allison.
VOTE: 7 in favor.
3 opposed.
Mr.Mulkey referred to Table 11 in the proposal which indicated the costs and the
amount of money that would be raised in a twenty year period.
MOTION: Waddell moved to table this issue. Seconded by Allison.
VOTE: 8 in favor.
2 opposed.(Katz-expressed appreciation with Waddell's concern that this will
not solve the situation, it will leave the primary burden shared by everyone.
He noted again the concern for something to address affordable housing. Brown-
stated that she was not in favor of tabling anything.It is the obligation of the
Planning Board to send information on to the Commissioners. She felt the
opinions expressed should be passed on to the Commissioners. She continued that
she would probably not voted in favor of the proposal since it is obvious that it has
not worked and accumulated enough money to achieve its objectives. It is
regressive and the Commissioners need to know that so that they can come up
with a more creative way to fund parks which are desperately needed.)
Rosemond expressed concern that the issue was tabled without arrangements for
further discussion and the type of information needed. Waddell stated that he
moved to table the issue because he felt no recommendation could be made
tonight and felt it was understood that more information and discussion would
follow at a later date. He noted he was willing to leave it in the hands of the
Chair to determine when to bring it back to the Planning Board. Jobsis agreed.
� 11
She noted also that the minutes of the discussion would be forwarded to the Board
of Commissioners and they would be aware of concerns expressed by all
(� d Planning Board members.
AGENDA ITEM#10: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS
a. Planning Board By-Laws
(1) Meeting Schedule
Presentation by Marvin Collins.
This item is to consider a proposed amendment to the Planning Board's Rules of
Procedure to change the regularly monthly meeting date.
Article VII,Meetings,of the Planning Board's Rules of Procedure state that
"Regular meetings of the Planning Board shall be held the third Monday of each
month at 7:30 p.m.at the Courthouse in Hillsborough or other place within Orange
County designated by the Chair."
In recent years,two advisory boards have been added,and the Board of
Commissioners have begun conducting bi-monthly work sessions. The net result
has been to crowd the third week of the month with consecutive meetings.
• Planning Board Third Monday of each month
Board of Commissioners Third Tuesday of each month
Agricultural Districts Advisory Board Third Wednesday of each month
Commissioners Work Session Third Wednesday of each month
(bi-monthly)
In an effort to try to space out the meetings,staff is suggesting that the Planning
Board's regular meeting date be moved to another week. One possibility is
simply to switch meeting dates with the Board of Adjustment which meets on the
second Monday of each month. While this may not seem like much of a change,
the board of Adjustment is staffed by two people,a Planner II and an
Administrative Assistant I.The Planner II usually attends both Planning Board and
Board of Adjustment meetings,so the change would have no real impact on his
schedule.,It would reduce the number of meetings in the third week where at least
three staff members are generally required to attend.
Another advantage of shifting the meeting date to the second Monday is that it
would enable items from the Planning Board to be placed on the commissioners'
agenda for the following week(e.g.,the third Tuesday).This change would also
benefit citizens whose requests could be considered for approval in a shorter time
frame.
If the Planning Board feels that such a change is possible,an amendment to the
Rules of Procedure must be approved. Such approval may not be given at this
meeting,but the next regular meeting.If the Planning Board approves the change,
it must still be approved by the Board of Commissioners.The same procedure
February 26, 1996 Public Hearing Minutes U U 12
1 � �
2 5. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments
3 (a) Section IV-8-7-b Recreation Sites (dedication/payment-in-lieu
4 provisions).
5 This item was presented by Planning Director Manfin Collins for the purpose of
6 receiving citizen comment on proposed amendments to the dedication/payment-in-lieu
7 provisions of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. On June 26, 1995 the Board of
8 Commissioners directed staff to study the dedication/payment-in-lieu provision of the
9 Subdivision Regulations and prepare amendments, if needed, for public hearing. This report
10 identifies the statutory basis for enacting such provisions, the origins of the current standards,
11 concerns about the application of the standards, and changes through which to address those
12 concerns. The specific proposal is to amend Section IV-8-7-b, Recreation Sites, of the
13 Subdivision Regulations to substitute a payment-in-lieu based on the cost of land and facilities
14 associated with implementing a system of community and district parks. Currently, the
15 payment-in4ieu includes only the value of land, and is based on the assessed value listed in the
16 Orange County Tax Office. The average payment-in-lieu per household is presently$76.00.
17 Under the proposed system, the payment-in-lieu would not exceed $455 per household. in
18 addition to the proposed payment-in-lieu, a change in the amount of land which must be
19 dedicated for recreation sites is also proposed. Currently, 1 135th of an acre (1,244 sq. Ft.) must
20 be dedicated for each lot in a new subdivision unless the Board of Commissioners approves a
21 payment in lieu. This standard is equivalent to 10.50 acres of land per 1,000 population. Under
22 the proposed change, 1 157th of an acre (764 sq. Ft) must be provided for each lot. The new
23 standard is equivalent to 7.5 acres per 1,000 population and is based on the amount of land
24 needed to provide a system of community and district parks in the county.
25
26 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
27
28 Commissioner Gordon asked if this proposal would allow a developer to dedicate 1157 of
29 an acne per lot in a 100 unit development. Marvin Collins indicated that would not be the
30 recommendation of the Planning Department staff. He indicated that there is a higher standard
31 in the Zoning Ordinance which results in the developer dedicating the land for the public park or
32 making a payment4n4ieu. There is also a higher standard in order to require the creation of a
33 park or recreation area to serve the residents of the community. This only applies to the high
34 density developments.
35
36 Geoff Gledhill stated that the County has accepted small tracts of land in recreation
37 dedication in the Joint Planning Area where the Recreation/Open Space Plan approved a
38 . linear park system. The linear park system makes it practical to allow dedications of small
39 parcels of land in the Joint Planning Area.
40
41 Commissioner Crowther requested that the Parks and Recreation Plan be updated and
42 included in the adoption process for the Board of Commissioners Goats and Objectives. He
43 asked wiry the Recreation and Parks boundaries did not hollow township lines.
44
scc:%��_ 91:6�4.�83 P.
13
1 Marvin Collins indicated that community parks have a specific radius which allows an arc
2 to be drawn around the nucleus. A District Park is larger and is identified by driving time. To
3 define the boundaries of a district park service area involves drawing a much larger arc and
4 identifying where that arc crosses the arc of another district park.
5
6 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD
7
8 None. .
9
10 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS
11
12 Patrick Mulkey, a member of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council, mentioned that
13 the Recreation and Parks Master Plan was approved in 1988. He felt that little has been
14 accomplished in actually creating parks in this County since that time. He questioned the
15 County's commitment to meeting the long-term needs of the community for recreation and park
16 lands. He asked that the Recreation and Parks Master Plan be updated before any action is
17 taken. He also requested that the County not pay a consultant to handle the update.
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to
20 refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board and Recreation and Parks Advisory
21 Council for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than
22 April 1, 1996.
23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
24
25 D. ADJOURNMENT
26 There were no further items for the Boards to consider. Vice-Chair Halkiobs adjourned
27 the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of County commissioners will be held on
28 March 6, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. at the Eflaand Cheeks Community Center, Efland, North Carolina.
29
30 Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
31
32 Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk
TOTAL P.Oe
E Cp, 1
N C Orange Clou><uty Recreation and Parks Department "v ' u F
g 11.0. Box 8181 • 300 W 'l iycn Street• HWsbomugh,NC:27'278
14
TX PHONES
AREA CODE 919
7328181
967-9751
688-7331
(910)217.2031
NIGHT:644-3010
TO: Orange County Board of Commiss i.oners FAX 644-3042
FROM: Lorraine Parker, Chair jt'r
Recreation & Parks Advisory Council
DATE: March 18 , 1996
RE: Proposal for Recreation Dedication/Payment-in-Lieu
Revision
At the March 5 meeting of the Orange County Recreation and
Parks Advisory Council the Recreation Dedication/Payment-in-
Lieu Report was reviewed .
The Council voted to recommend that the service area approach
for payment-in- lieu of land dedication be adopted. That the
payment-in-lieu be set no higher than $455 per dwelling lot
and that the land dedication required be set no lower than
1 /57th of an afire.
Members voting to adopt this proposal were Lorraine Parker,
James Dingfelder, Keith Cook, Stella Maunsell , .and Hattie
Vanhook.
Member Patrick Mulkey opposed this proposal stating that the
Master Recreation and Parks Plan should be updated before any
action is taken on the proposed amendments .
Following the vote, the members did agree that the Recreation
and Parks Master Plan should be revisited and priorities set
on future plans .
Please contact me if you have questions .
LP/pbl
xc : Orange County Planning Board
Marvin Collins , Planning Director
J
15
Draft 2/29/96
RECREATION& PARKS
GOAL: UPDATE THE MASTER RECREATION& PARKS FOR ORANGE COUNTY
S'i ITT REPORT..
This goal involves updating the Master Recreation&Parks Plan adopted in 1988. Issues have arisen which
suggest an update is needed, and a recent report to the Assembly of Governments cited the need for
standardization of recreation and park standards, and the siting, design, and management of school and park
sites across jurisdictional lines.
BACKGROUND& OBJECTIVES
At the February, 1996 public hearing, proposed amendments to the recreation dedication/payment-in-lieu
provisions were presented. Among the recommendations contained in the report was the suggestion that
consideration be given to updating the Master Recreation & Parks Plan. The rationale for this
recommendation was that the Plan was eight years old, and issues had arisen which suggested an update
was warranted, including the following:
• The relationship between existing and proposed school sites,and proposed parks;
x
• The development of"small area plans" in the northern portions of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the
impact, if any,that proposed park sites in those areas would have on the need for"County"facilities;
• The utilization of landfill and reservoir sites,both existing and proposed,as possible recreation sites;
• The discussion of strategies for preserving natural and cultural resources through open space design,
including the relationship of these resources to active and passive recreational pursuits;and
• The evolution of a Recreation & Parks Advisory Board for the Town of Hillsborough and the role the
Town would play in the provision of recreational facilities.
At about the same time,a report was presented to the Assembly of Governments by the Recreation& Parks
Work Group, a group comprised of elected officials and Recreation & Parks staff from the municipalities
and County. The report focused on "Recreation & Park Issues in Orange County" and recommended three
specific actions, including:
• Standardization of recreation sections of land use ordinances across jurisdictions, particularly with
respect to the standards used to define recreation and parks requirements;
• Employment of joint siting, designing, and management of school and park sites across jurisdictions,
particularly with respect to planning all new school sites to include park facilities and existing schools
improved with such amenities where mutually beneficial;and
• Using public/private partnerships across jurisdictions.
16
Given the above events and associated recommendations, a Plan of Action has been prepared through which
to implement the goal of updating the Master Recreation & Parks Plan. Overall responsibility for
implementation would be the responsibility of the Recreation & Parks Advisory Council with staff
assistance provided by the Recreation& Parks and Planning Departments.
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
Completion of this goal would involve the following commitment of existing staff resources:
Planning Director Recreation&Parks Director
Planner II/Landscape Architect Planner II/Special Projects
GIS Project Coordinator
Staff will compile data from time sheets concerning staff hours expended and costs associated with
completion of this goal. Monthly reports will be distributed to County Manager, Advisory Boards, and
Board of Commissioners outlining monthly/cumulative staff hours and costs assigned to this project.
1
17
GIN
r
°— c CS C co
CS
CN G _ Gsni
es C.
cn O O z A c: ¢
to y
U =
72 >6.
fi O to 3 R y - ^ •• y r O
z y ca "y ca
to
cc
CA
' ?? c •U "C vs p •ci C O a� GG a Ce y ca O CL U
c
Z C! o O ^
C2 y A ti A caa � Cn�
GLI C:, O y O O - y � CA N cn(a -0 c w w O '-
Q y U ¢
W ai �" Ofl U & U y ' C ° U 0. C
G . O 4 IV
cC 73'
O
C z �`Cc c^ yC L0 a U Y y " = e►r
" U
y
to Q .U 0 y _ U
> U o a. U ¢ s U O b p N of .O•• O U a.•C
�.
a)
w �¢ Ua o � e: u; a, 3 � �� eUa � � �ec:r .� a.� aU a.Uaa Laa
E■ a�
L
-
.:.F;?::�:y nKf�ie�`iii�:`• iii3:Yiii:?`:5::>:%:
::..;:::.�:}}>:•::..:::..o.:::::•:....................:..:.::...::.....:.a:a•..... 'r--. .M1:t¢.v.::::::::.::::::�-.:s}i:'.:F}:.}:�i:;b:-:i':}:'-:tt riz-:::i^a:-.::-...
:-h
F
tv
r.+
:...::.....:.:: ... .....::.......::::.�:•:::::a}::•}:?a:;;;•.;•::•:::•:::.i•.i•.i;•.a:•}:-:-:;;•}}:....r....:. ..........:.;:•:?�:}}:iii{..:�::..;yr;:.,....,..
d 'di�iii::.'::>i:::::;}....v{w::f.•::::::::•::.v::v!;{:::{•}:?r-};}:;;.;4:;?.is::::Y'::::::::';3:%: %;%:i>:% �::;: �:
V
c
E
A
Ey
o -
QCIO
U
A
:j:\:•.'?:?:•:Sii':•::is•F::::; ::i:?tiv�'i:+::•:•:•:•`i:ilii:'iiiii:<:ii iiii:•}iii:'v::ii:':'i�L:::::•i:•:iFi:::•,::�::is?!:ii:::i:Ji:!�iii'i:;"ti;i:;:;!
:?'�T�•i%�F:+}}'n'}+;}}}}}:'•}::;.i:.i}:-}:.};Ji:4}:{Oh iiii}}}i}iii:i'::v}:iii::i":iF:i:::Ci}iii.:is.:ii:;6ii::•i};i.:;�!v;:i''::;:::
.:..:...::.::.:::'-::.:.::::::i}i;}}}:i:?:?::vf}•::hti•}}:%:i i}�iF:}i}i}+}}i:4}}iiii}}:}}
........�:?{vt;:::•:::tti?'tit:??:LL{<y}:?}{:t::n......... .. .v.... r..,........................v::....:.::.....x...............................:....:.:::.::::.:::
:::.............:................:......:..:......
4i:':;}:!.ii}}i:}nv:.::::4':}}}:..{.......r.r.. }..:..nv...«.............:...........4+.....a}........ r.f-:?t?4i:.}:v::.{tom}.v::.;•2::i::::av::;::v::::::::::::::.:::::.:....:::::'::.:ii:i.:
Y:L:i: �::•F:
z
O
•:i�F M1v
we ;}y
ii.4..
?F`v'+''viiivi
F
U
O
:..:is ...............:::::.::.:.�.n,a.::.:.}:.
iJ+x�•:i:
`�'.R3?;•`ii'^:y?;:F~4+�}?{(YTii i'i:%•%?:`'�':v>is�?�F�:$}:.4iisi?::%'iii:t{%::�$�:F{�;jii%!:::i:4%�%?::r:'::%::;ii::1,>.;i:;i{:�5:?;:;:<::: :::
w Fit-`
..rM.
..h
F`iT•FFir�%ii::iii"
Vl is•h'••
6'!FFti'}i;:;ti"'<iti:ii::'',?:Sr.r}i}iY'i'iv::.:{':4'?{•i}::nY;>f�:%:::tiiii'i:::;tFi:4iii:ty::}:::::'i i}ii:{ii::i:;:%:i'::iii'i::ii 5:;:}�i'ii iL%i t�:i�:�iii}ii:{ii4:vvii:i�iiii:
:.::..:..:......au................
rrrr ......................n::•vx:•:':?%::}:ii::••
}',rn,:: ,))::Y;. ..ut4...{+.t................r.r...... ar.r:....x::..::::::re.::::::::::?r:::n•,::::::n:?::t.:::..::., ..............................
F� m•?r :•} .,:}.:a..rv,.;....,...r:•,La:.vv..ti:.Sv:::{}:vr.:
W
v
.....................a •;:.}:;.::•FFi?::iiii iF?i:}:i:i::ii:Li:?!.i i;.;?.
..f..a
O
z ........ . .
..;.:::::.}:.:?wt +!•:n, .•.. ...................................:.i;}:.;•.:4:ii::.i;:•i}}+:::::::::.,.:::.;:i.:::.:;:::.�.:i';:.�;;•i:.i:::•:.�:::.�._:::;::::•:.:i:-:.iii+i:;.i:•i::;:;:.i:.i:{•;::
a A
?:rMn•:
••F.
+:tt.}}}}',+'!•a'vi%:;;'i r:,• ::O:C+:?:tir�.+:i::v iiii:viii}:?�i:!:}',Lyfii}:L:j::}'�:4i::iiii>�<L{j�:::Sin::'%::::::?:!Fii;":�ii:4:j!!^:-J:J Jiii:;'i4:t>:::::?i:
L''•tit<:r
:::.:..... ,:r.;: :. ........... ,.::;:.::::::•::::::::.v::::•:::::.:.;;::::%::.i:;:.:.};..::::.::ia•:;:•::::'-i-:ii:.ii:.:.i:-:i:.ii;-i:::::::.:
a .::::::.....:............. .
?
F
:Nr
�F
vt•
•Nv
G, �' A. ..'.C...r.?i{:::5;•:' :..}.:.4�:iiiii:•:•:iih•'.-i•:hr .
:}}r. 'ter;}•
p3� .t4iy}2•},:;:Lii t;:}}}i:�:ivii F:•:itiii......h••.x:�::....,a :is v i::+ay...n i::i:::iii:v.-r....Ehtw:.;;.}va.}}%S:i:::::i`i}i i:`�}:�iiiiiv::i?:viii:::
W / is..:•.:.., ..h.......:......
:.:J.uiiiiv:}in??i':::.}}:?•}}}:i?^:?�ii:;.i Vii:::}};..4::::::.
{F.v
....a,.....-::.vw.v•:•wn:.. .r{::vi.}..:.:isv:•.:}n..va.:::{:.y}:':•i}:t•+.}i�'i:F,+:;.v
•.v:::t•�:•}iw:.: ,•:Y.{;n:::.TV}n\v{.�}• :::}:%}:FtiiX:
::::::::::::::...v:v, n....••w.-.r+�v wt.+w•.vv:.v:.v...vrh.... ",n::: .. .:.. ............ ....
..............n..u..ih xx� t. ............a.....};^:.}}:4:i?a:vn:•......t n..-:..)S:}:}. v...4.....:?v..::;:::+:::::}}iii}}i•}}:;•}:i{•}i•}}:!;4'.}}}i}:::}:i:i ii}}}h•}}}}}:
-ii-•:
n;(y.
::::�:::.ii+is.}:.::::.i:•::.:n:•:::•_•::::::..:.... .a:w::.;v.}•v}>:v{nv.:::..... ..a.:?t4:v::} ....
::::.v:...:...::::::.......vn;v-,......-:n:v: ...:•. ..... ........ xvvi•• ..:. +?;:.vr:...i."�:::•}}+}i}}:?{:ri•}}:-}}v:'?:v::%}}}:::av::n.}}'.:is
........... .... .:.....................v....f......:......... ..t..,.v............. .;.::.:.....}}:;.:�i:•.i':.i::;i:?i?;;ii:4:.i:?.;:•is�ii<is;i::;.::}}:.::.i:�':i.iiii}:;.:�:i iii:�i
4«:}::.}»::•.�:a:•;:•:is�ii:}:•:}:a::•::::::::::::.::::::.:::•:::.+-::.:::•:::.;::.:::-..
::::::::::::::::r::....... .v.....v.....•. ........::•......:::::4.i: ...ix ..... .....................v•:,..•:::•i^iii;::}'.;:i
...........................n............... :::::v.•: :•:n... .. i4}:�!S•:;S•i:Y::{'i'1.9:ivi^:?•r:}
i}:•i:v'•.v:.`::{FY•iF%i:;{•::'f,.:{;.,.:tv,•