Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
~ Percent for Art for Southern Community Park and Homestead Aquatics Center <br />The Board considered confirming Orange County's plans to designate 1 °~ of funds allocated <br />far Southern Community Park and the Homestead Aquatics Center far public art and also authorizing the <br />Orange County Arts Commission to work collaboratively with the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commissions on <br />the public art aspects of these two projects funded jointly by Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said that they are getting ready to embark on the aquatic center in <br />Chapel Hill and that the Town of Chapel Hill has an ordinance requirement that 1 °k of the monies <br />designated for capital projects be used for public art. The Board was approached to embrace this standard. <br />He understands that the two arts commissions from the Town and the County have met and are going to be <br />working together. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to confirm <br />Orange County's plans to designate 1 °~ of the funds allocated far Southern Community Park and the <br />Homestead Aquatics Center for public art and also authorize the Orange County Arts Commission to work <br />collaboratively with the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission on the public art aspects of these two projects <br />funded jointly by Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />9. ITEMS FOR DECISION -REGULAR AGENDA <br />a. Amendment to the Subdivision Regulations Regarding Street Access for Maior <br />Subdivisions <br />The Board considered a proposed amendment to the Orange County Subdivision <br />Regulations, Section IU-B-3-b. <br />Craig Benedict said that this involves an amendment to open space standards for flexible <br />development subdivisions, that subdivisions should have access to paved, public, state-maintained streets. <br />The amendments were approved by the Planning Board unanimously. He made reference to the <br />administration recommendation, page two, and added, "unpaved, state maintained road". <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to <br />approve the proposed amendment with the change. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />b. Amendments to Open Space Standards for Flexible Development Subdivisions <br />The Board closed the public hearing and considered proposed amendments to the Open <br />Space Standards in subdivisions fallowing the Flexible Development option. <br />Craig Benedict said that this amendment would further help in the review process to ensure <br />that open space is distributed throughout sites to the highest degree passible. He made reference to same <br />changes that were made by Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Gordon. He said that they did <br />anticipate questions about pedestrian open space areas and whether they are paved pathways or mulch. <br />These areas are not required to be paved. <br />Geof Gledhill said that the amount of the pedestrian open space areas can be greater than <br />5%, but they only count for 5°t° of the 33°I° total open space. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked if making this mare restrictive is a problem. She said that <br />when this went to public hearing, the public was not told that there would be this limitation concerning the <br />amount of pedestrian open space that could be counted as total open space. She believes that provision <br />should go back to the public hearing. <br />Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 10 and said that her point is that right now <br />we are requiring either 300 feet or 600 feet between access points to open space. This means that a lot of <br />land must be devoted to pedestrian paths which access open space. She is saying that this is too much to <br />require. She said that, in comparison, a common standard for walking to bus stops was one quarter of a <br />mile, ar approximately 1300 feet. She said that where the proposed ordinance says 300 feet between <br />access points, it should be moved up to 600 feet and where it says 600 feet, it should be moved up to 1200 <br />feet. She explained some other changes, which were outlined on her handout. She would like to make it <br />more flexible for the developer to design and not have sa many access points. <br />