Agenda - 06-03-2014 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

11 Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan CHAPTER 1- Summary of the Plan The creation of the Lands Legacy Program in 2000 gave the County a mechanism to not only acquire land for future parks, but the ability to identify and work to acquire lands for future nature preserves (as well as protect riparian buffer lands, prime and threatened farmland and cultural resource lands — other focus areas for Lands Legacy). One component that is emergent in this master plan, but was identi- fied as a priority as far back as 1999, is the role that nature preserves can play in providing not only protection for the County's most significant natural areas but also the ability for public access in proximity and on the edges of these areas. Over the past 12 years the County has worked to secure im- portant lands within the two nature preserves, and a possible third preserve may exist (working with municipalities and UNC). With careful design and ecological sensitivity, it is possible to provide public access at these nature preserves, buffered from the most - sensitive natural segments of the site, and plans toward this end are underway. Standards In years past, community parks and recreation mas- The current best practice in using park standards to frame park needs is to rely on a community -needs based approach. This involves many of the tools used in this plan, survey and assessment of community desires and preferences, mapping of future known facilities and transportation networks. This approach is recommended and used for this master plan. However, the mathematical population -based standards are recommended to be used periodically as a valuable benchmark or "double - check," as they may show when a certain type of park need is under - represented at a macro county- wide scale. Similarly, defining park service areas in a rural jurisdiction is very different than in an urban setting. The master plan uses housing patterns, transportation networks, other geographical factors and awareness of the municipal park networks to identify service areas. As noted in the 1988 master plan, even a diligent set of calculations based on population, socioeconomic and transportation factors may not include intangibles that affect how residents view which parks serve their needs. In some cases, it is again community needs and preferences that are the true determining factors. The location of future parks in the 1988 plan looked at these population and transportation factors, but ultimately it was the existence of other public lands or natural features that was the real determinant for identifying the general location where district parks should be located, for example. These parks were proposed in 1988 (and later acquired between 2000 and 2007 through the Lands Legacy Program). ter plans would rely heavily on population -based Maps in Chapter 9 show how a service area radius standards to help identify the number of needed applied to existing and planned community parks future parks and their locations. This approach has fallen from favor in the last 20 years both nationally and district parks would look. Once again, in a and locally, as it often led to a mathematically- county system the awareness of and coordination indicated park need that may or may not fit with with planned and existing municipal parks is a factor that helps define effective park service areas. actual community needs. For example, a formulaic calculation of the number of community parks needed based on population growth might call for parks to be built without confirmation or acknowl- edgement from the community about actual needs. 1 -8