HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-21-1997 - 9k r
t
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 21, 1997
Action Agenda
Item
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Teat Amendments-Golf Course Standards
Article 8.8.7 Golf Courses
Article 8.8.7.1 Intent
DEPARTMENT: Planning& Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes_X—No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron
Extension 2580
Proposed Amendments
8/25/97 Public Hearing Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
10/1/97 Draft Planning Board Minutes Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane -227-2031
Chapel Hill -967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to 1) provide
consistency in the ordinance regarding expansion and modification of
existing golf courses and 2) to establish appropriate criteria for evaluating
changes to Special Use Permits issued for new golf courses.
BACKGROUND: On May 21, 1997, the Board of Commissioners added standards and
approval procedures for golf courses to the Zoning Ordinance. During
preparation and review of the new regulations,the Golf Course Amendment
Review Task Force (GolfCART) and the County Attorney recommended
two revisions to provide consistency with the new golf course standards.
1.Existing Golf Courses
The first revision pertains to changes to existing golf courses and will
eliminate conflicting ordinance provisions. Existing golf courses are those
which were in operation prior to May 21, 1997, when golf courses were
permitted uses in most zoning districts.
• Article 11.6, Non-Conformities, requires approval of a Special Use
Permit if a pre-existing special use is enlarged, replaced, or modified. A
r
2
pre-existing special use is one that existed legally prior to regulations
making it a special use.
• Article 8.8.7.1, the "Applicability" section of the golf course regulations
adopted in May, allows existing courses to continue to operate and make
changes without a Special Use Permit, and allows Staff to approve
modifications and additions of up to ten percent of the existing playable
acreage.
The proposed amendment will specify that Article 8.8.7.1 takes precedence
over Article 11.6 for existing golf courses.
2. New Golf Courses
A second proposed change pertains to new golf courses, those approved
with a Special Use Permit under the new regulations. There are no new golf
courses at this time.
Article 8.7.1 contains standards for revisions to all types of Special Use
Permits. This section is used to identify which revisions require a public
hearing and which may be approved by the Planning Department. The
proposed amendment adds a similar set of standards to the golf course
regulations in Article 8.8.7.1 to specify which changes to a golf course
Special Use Permit require a public hearing and review by the Board of
Commissioners. Once an applicant obtains a Special Use Permit for a golf
course and wants to make changes after the permit is recorded, then the
provisions of 8.8.7.1 will apply.
The proposed amendments were presented at the public hearing on August
25.No citizen or Board comments were received at that time. The Board of
Commissioners referred the proposal to the Planning Board for a
recommendation.
On October 1,the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the proposed amendments.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed text
amendments.
r
3
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance
REFERENCE: Article 8.8.7 Golf Courses
8.8.7.1 Intent
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
-X Golf CART,County Attorney
Expected Public Hearing Date: August 25, 1997
Purpose of Amendment: To a) provide consistency in the ordinance regarding expansion and
modification of existing golf courses and b)to establish appropriate criteria for evaluating changes
to Special Use Permits issued for golf courses.
Background: During preparation and review of the recently adopted standards and approval
procedures for golf courses,the Golf Course Amendment Review Task Force(Golf CART)and the
County Attorney recommended review of other sections of the Zoning Ordinance.The two sections
noted are 1)Article 8.7.1 which affects changes to a golf course approved with a special use permit
under the new regulations in Article 8.8.7 and 2) Article 11, Non-conformities, as it applies to
existing golf courses.
Article 8.7 of the Zoning Ordinance contains provisions for changing a Special Use Permit after the
original approval. Minor changes may be approved by the Zoning Officer, while modifications
defined by the ten criteria in Section 8.7.1 are subject to review at a public hearing before the Board
which approved the original application. The Golf CART was concerned that some of the criteria
used to distinguish a Special Use Permit modification requiring Board approval from a minor
change would not be appropriate when applied to a project with the size and complexity of a golf
course.
For example,an increase in usable floor area or an increase in the size or number of approved signs
constitutes a modification requiring a public hearing. Given that 1) floor area is not an appropriate
measure of the intensity of a golf course as a land use, and 2) a golf course typically includes
numerous signs that are not visible from a public road, it is reasonable.to re-evaluate the current
criteria listed in Article 8.7.1 in the context of a golf course so that changes which are small in
proportion to the use are considered minor and eligible for administrative review. The proposed
amendment is incorporated in the"Applicability"section of the new golf course regulations,rather
than include provisions for changes to a specific type of Class A Special Use Permit in Article 8.7,
which applies to all special use permits.
4
The second part of the amendment affects existing golf courses. There are two existing golf
courses in Orange County's planning jurisdiction. The Golf CART was very careful in crafting
the new regulations to insure that existing golf course owners could make some changes or
improvements to their facilities without meeting all of the special use permit requirements
applied to new courses. Article 11.6 in the "Non-conformities" section of the Zoning Ordinance
makes an existing use that would require a special use permit conforming at the time new
regulations are adopted with the condition that any enlargement, replacement or modification of
the use requires a special use permit.
The"Applicability"section of the recently adopted Article 8.8.7 Golf Courses states that the new
standards shall be applied to existing courses only "when fifty percent or more of the total
playable acreage of golf holes is concurrently reconstructed or altered, or if an equivalent amount
of playable acreage is added to an existing course." Playable acreage is defined as tees, greens,
fairways, and roughs.
The proposed amendment to Article 8.8.7.1 will a) establish the effective date of the ordinance,
5/21/97, as the point at which existing playable acreage is measured and b) make the intent clear
that the threshold established by Article 8.8.7.1 takes precedence over the provisions of Article
11.6 when applying zoning regulations to an existing golf course.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE TEXT: (Underlined text is proposed.)
Article 8 Special Uses
8.8 Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses
8.8.7 Golf Courses
8.8.7.1 Intent
aw,ded
5/21/97 The purpose of this article is to protect natural, visual, and cultural resources by
regulating the location, planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance
of golf courses and associated uses.
Applicability
The standards contained herein shall apply to all new golf courses, whether
proposed as a principal use or as an accessory use which is part of a residential
subdivision,or included in a Planned Development District.
a. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 11 6 Fkis#iag golf courses which
existed prior to May 21. 1997, shall comply with the requirements of this article
when fifty percent or more of the total playable acreage of golf holes is
5
I concurrently reconstructed or altered,or if fifty percent of
playable acreage is added to an existing course. Playable acreage includes all
tees,greens,fairways,and roughs measured as of Ma 21, 1997.
b. Changes to Approved Special Use Permits
In accordance with Article 8.7, the Zoning, Officer is authorized to approve
minor changes in the approved plans of Special Uses, provided the changes are
in harmony with the original approval. Before changes to an approved Special
Use Permit may be considered, updates of submittal materials such as the
environmental assessment, biological inventory, or resources management plan
Ma
y be required. In lieu of the criteria established in Article 8.7.1,the following
criteria shall be used to determine when proposed changes to a Special Use
Permit for a golf course shall require approval of the Board of County
Commissioners:
1)A y change in a condition of approval, including any reduction in a setback;
2)An increase in playable acreage of golf holes by more than ten(10)percent.
Playable acreage shall include all tees, greens, fairways, and roughs as
shown on the on the first site plan approved;
3) AU new use not included in the approved Special Use Permit or substantial
expansion of an approved use that does not involve floor area:
4) An increase by 25 percent or more in total floor area of all structures shown
on the first site plan approved,either in a new structure or as an addition(s)to
an approved structure(s);
5)An increase in parking by ten(10)Mrcent or more of the parking shown on
the first site plan approved;
6)Substantial changes in pedestrian and/or vehicular access or circulation; and
7)A change in the location or extent of street and utility improvements or
rights-of-way,including water,sewer and storm drainage facilities,which
would provide a different level of service and that is not associated with a
less than ten percent increase in playable acreage.
Ordinance Review Committee: 7/8/97
Golf CART: 6/16/97
Planning Board: 10/1/97
BOCC:
P.01/03
8/25/97 PUe5LA C R EAeAjq H wUM5 .
,
Commission Brown asked for clarification regarding the citizens who are opposed to this 6
designation. Mr. Belk mentioned that the T.L. Oliver heirs, property owners in the Cedar Grove
district, have expressed opposition to being listed on the National Registry. They did not give a
specific reason for this opposition other than a desire to have things remain as they are. The State
would take this into consideration when the National Registry Advisory Committee meets. if a
majority of property owners were in opposition the property would not be listed on the National
Register. However, the National Registry Advisory Committee will issue a determination of
eligibility. in that case, the property would be eligible to be listed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer
the Cedar Grove Rural Crossroads Historic District National Register nomination to the Historic
Preservation Commission for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County
Commissioners no sooner than September 16, 1997.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Karen Barrows convened this portion of the Public Hearing and asked Emily Cameron
to present 6terns#3 a)1 and 3 b)2&3.
3. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
(a) Golf Courses
1) Article 8.8.7 Special Uses (Goff Courses)
Planner Emily Cameron presented this item to receive citizen
comment on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to 1) provide consistency in the
ordinance regarding expansion and modification of existing golf courses and 2)to establish
appropriate criteria for evaluating changes to Special Use Permits issued for new golf courses. On
May 21. 1997, the Board of Commissioners added standards and approval procedures for golf
courses to the Zoning Ordinance. During preparation and review of the new regulations, the Golf
Course Amendment Review Task Force(GoWART) and the Count Attorney recommended two
revisions to provide consistency with the new golf course standards. The first revision pertains to
changes to existing golf courses and will eliminate conflicting ordinance provisions. Existing golf
courses are those which were in operation prior to May 21, 1997,when golf courses were
permitted uses in most zoning districts. A second proposed change pertains to new golf courses,
those approved with a Special Use Permit under the new regulations. There are no new golf
courses at this time. Article 8.7.1 contains standards for revisions to all types of Special Use
Permits. This section is used to identify which revisions require a public hearing and which may be
approved by the Planning Department. The proposed amendment adds a similar set of standards
to the golf course regulations in Article 8.8.7.1 to specify which changes to a golf course Special
Use Permit require a public hearing and review by the Board of Commissioners.
QOMIi1ENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Crowther asked if the GolfCART was recommending these changes? Ms.
Cameron Indicated that both the GoWART and the County Attorney were recommending these
changes:
MMMENTS ANOMB QUESTIONS FROM THE PUNIIINGBOARM None
_ .��: .0• .7 cu� �i K 9196443004 P.02/03
9/25/97 Pue tl (C f =4e,l,i H wu-mS
COMMENTS ANDIOR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS: None
7
A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to
refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be retumed to the
Board of Commissioners no sooner than November 3, 1997.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
(b) Agricultural Services
1) Article 4.3 Permitted Uses
2) Article 22 Definitions
This item was presented by Planner Emily Cameron in order to
receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to uses
allowed in the Agricultural Service zoning district. During the last public hearing cycle, two
requests were submitted for rezoning to the Agricultural Service Zoning district. One of the
applicants intended to build a mini-warehouse storage facility,a use which is inconsistent with the
intent of the AS district but is included in the list of permitted uses. Several years ago a similar
rezoning request in the White Cross area was denied. The Planning Staff initiated an ordinance
amendment to refine the scope of the Agricultural Service district before more requests for
rezoning are submitted. Staff examined the intent of the district and the list of land uses permitted
within it. The recommended changes to the ordinance are summarized as follows:
Revisions to DefinttooM
*The proposed revision to the definition of agricultural services will describe that type of land use in
general and provide addfional examples of uses such as a welding service and retail sales of farm
and garden products, supplies, and equipment.
*A definition of riding stable is also proposed to clarify that the category in the Permitted Use Table
refers to a commercial use, not a private facility.
Revisions to the Permitted Use Table
*To allow Agricultural Service uses in the General Commercial zoning district.
*To Delete the following uses that are not consistent with the intent of the AS district:
**S50 Storage of Goods, Outdoor
**S51 Storage and Warehousing: Inside Building
**S51a Studio(Art)
COMMENTS AND10 R QUESTIONS FROM TMF BOARD OF CO UISSIONERS:
Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification of the item P9 Extraction of Earth Products.
Ms. Cameron indicated that this extraction of earth products is a land based use and is currently
allowed as a Special Use in the Agricultural Residential Zoning District. Planning staff felt that it
was consistent to allow it in the AS district because it is land based and is allowed in the same
land use plan category with a Special Use Permit
• None
COO EIM ANDAOR aUi9XMHS FROM CITIZEN Norm
10/1/9-7 VeAF r FLAK 14; Sod-V H(AIL)r-5 ,
8
(1) Golf Courses
Presentation by Emily Cameron.
This item is to consider proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to
1)provide consistency in the ordinance regarding expansion and
modification of existing golf courses and 2)to establish appropriate criteria
for evaluating changes to Special Use Permits issued for new golf courses.
On May 21, 1997,the Board of Commissioners added standards and
approval procedures for golf courses to the Zoning Ordinance. During
preparation and review of the new regulations,the Golf Course Amendment
Amendment Review Task Force(GolfCART)and the County Attorney
recommended two revisions to provide consistency with the new golf
course standards.
1. Existing Golf Courses
The first revision pertains to changes to existing golf courses and will
eliminate conflicting ordinance provisions. Existing golf courses are those
which were in operation prior to May 21, 1997,w hen golf courses were
permitted uses in most zoning districts.
Article 11.6,Non-Conformities,requires approval of a Special Use
Permit if a pre-existing special use is enlarged,replaced,or modified.
A pre-existing special use is one that existed legally prior to regulations
making it a special use.
Article 8.8.7.1,the"Applicability"section of the golf course
regulations adopted in May,allows existing courses to continue to
operate and make changes without a Special Use Permit,and allows
Staff to approve modifications and additions of up to ten percent of the
existing playable acreage.
The proposed amendment will specify that Article 8.8.7.1 takes precedence
over Article 11.6 for existing golf courses.
2. New Golf Courses
A second proposed change pertains to new golf courses,those approved
with a Special Use Permit under the new regulations. There are no new
golf courses at this time.
Article 8.7.1 contains standards for revisions to all types of Special
Use Permits. This section is used to identify which revisions require
a public hearing and which may be approved by the Planning
Department. The proposed amendment adds a similar set of standards
to the golf course regulations in Article 8.8.7.1 to specify which
changes to a golf course Special Use Permit require a public hearing
and review by the Board of Commissioners. Once an applicant
obtains a Special Use Permit for a golf course and wants to make
changes after the permit is recorded,the provisions of 8.8.7.1 will
apply.
9
The proposed amendments were presented at the public hearing on August
25. No citizen or Board comments were received at that time. The Board
of Commissioners referred the proposal to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to be returned no sooner than November 3, 1997. (A copy
of the proposed amendments attached to these minutes on pages )
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments.
MOTION: Brooks moved approval. Seconded by McAdams.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(2) Agricultural Services
Presentation by Emily Cameron.
This item is to consider proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to uses allowed in the Agricultural Services zoning district.
During the last public hearing cycle,two requests were submitted for
rezoning to the Agricultural Service zoning district. One of the applicants
intended to build a mini-warehouse storage facility,a use which is
inconsistent with the intent of the AS district but is included in the list of
permitted uses. Several years ago a similar rezoning request in the White
Cross area was denied. The Planning Staff initiated an ordinance
amendment to refine the scope of the Agricultural Service district before
more requests for rezoning are submitted.
When the Zoning Ordinance was first adopted in 1981,the Agricultural
Service(AS)District was included in Article 4 with language that remains
unchanged. For example,indoor storage and warehousing now includes
mini-warehouses and other storage uses that may not be related to
agricultural production or processing.
Agricultural Service is the only non-residential zoning district allowed in
the Agricultural-Residential Land Use Plan category outside of activity
nodes. In much of the County's jurisdiction(at least 63%),land may be
rezoned to AS without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Consequently,it
is important to adhere to the intent of the district when reviewing permitted
uses,so that inappropriate,non-rural uses generating negative impacts to
farming operations are not located throughout the county.
Agricultural service uses are also known as"agribusiness,"uses generally
considered commercial,not agricultural. Their function can be summarized
as supportive in the production of agricultural products or in the processing
of those products to make them marketable. Agricultural Service Uses is
included as a listing in the Permitted Use Table of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff examined the intent of the district and the list of land uses permitted
within it. When preparing the proposed amendments,the Planning Staff
consulted with the American Planning Association,the Orange County
Economic Development Commission,and the Agricultural Districts