Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEvent Venue Backup Docs MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners From: Nick Lelack, Planning Director Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner Date: July 13, 2011 Re: Private Park/Commercial Event Venues Text Amendment, SB 960, HB 3280 Work Session BACKGROUND / SUMMARY On June 15, the Board of Commissioners reviewed a draft private park/commercial event venue text amendment (TA) for the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone, discussed Senate Bill (SB) 960 (commercial events incidental to farm use), and directed staff to gain Planning Commission input on the draft TA. This memorandum provides updates on SB 960, recently passed House Bill (HB) 3280 (wineries), summarizes the Planning Commission’s discussion at their meeting on June 23, 2011, and provides options for moving forward. Please find attached a table summarizing the differences among the draft text amendment, recently adopted bills, and draft standards that might be applicable to all rural events under each of these measures for discussion purposes. SB 960 & HB 3280 The Legislature has just approved two bills that allow commercial events in the EFU Zone, SB 960 and HB 3280. As of the date of this memorandum, the Governor has not signed either bill, but appears to support both measures. SB 960 allows agri-tourism and other commercial activities that are incidental or subordinate to a farm use as a limited use permit (the approval is tied to a property owner rather than running with the land), and HB 3280 allows events at wineries up to 25 days per calendar year as a permitted use. Both bills will likely have limited impact in Deschutes County, but may provide opportunities for some farmers, or winery operators. PLANNING COMMISSION INPUT / COMMENTS On June 23, at the Board’s request, the Planning Commission discussed the draft private park/commercial events TA. The Commission also discussed SB 960, and the possibility of incorporating HB 3280 (if adopted) into the TA. Please find below a summary of the Commission’s discussion. It is important to note that four (4) Planning Commissioners were in attendance and three (3) were absent. Commissioners generally conducted the discussion by addressing each topic in the attached matrix (except for the HB 3280 and draft standards in the last column which have just been added). Several topics overlapped during the discussion. Please find below an overall summary of the Planning Commission’s input on the draft amendment and SB 960, followed by their comments on each topic area. Overall Summary of Planning Commission Comments  The Commissioners appeared to all support the following: o Implement SB 960 via a text amendment. o Establish a trial period or initial review period to ensure the event venue operator is complying with adopted standards and conditions of approval. All Commissioners expressed concerns over the costs of the review/approval process. o Evaluate each event venue based on the site/property/surrounding characteristics. However, Commissioners also expressed support for creating clear and objective standards/criteria. o Attempt to establish common standards in code for events among various types of events (e.g., private park, SB 960, wineries). o Consider creating a scale of the number of events proposed with different code requirements (e.g., similar to SB 960).  The Commissioners were not in agreement on the following: o Whether a private park/commercial event venue text amendment should even be proposed. Some Commissioners express support for the private park/commercial event venue TA while others oppose it. Some Commissioners support just moving forward with SB 960 at this time. o Minimum lot size. Commissioner Rainey believes that some minimum lot size should be established. o Maximum number of events per calendar year. A couple of Commissioners expressed concerns that all of the events would be concentrated into a couple of months and be conducted outdoors. Other Commissioners in support of 20 events per calendar year suggested limiting the number of events per weekend or per month.  Commissioners reviewed but did not provide any/many comments on the permanent/temporary structures (other than allowing events inside permanent structures would limit off-site impacts), setbacks, duration of events, amplification, and the time of events or setup/takedown. Type of Use  Commissioner Klyce stated that if a conditional use permit (CUP) expires after four (4) years, the process will not work because it is too much money. The review process provided in SB 960 is a better approach.  Commissioner Powell indicated he was in favor of the use being tied to the applicant (limited use permit) rather than the property (conditional use permit). He wondered if the County could consider a trial period for an initial permit to run, for example, 6-12 months to see if the applicant met all the conditions, in which case it would be extended for a certain number of years. That would provide an opportunity to get feedback about impacts, etc. Also, should someone who wants to have one event a year (such as a pumpkin patch), or an indoor event such as a birthday party, be subjected to the same rigorous requirements as someone who wants to have open air events? (Staff comment: other options are available for commercial activities in a conjunction with a farm use for the pumpkin patch).  Chair Irvine wanted to indicate to the Board that he was concerned about costs for property owners and extensive bureaucracy in the process.  Chair Irvine and Commissioner Powell expressed support for a spectrum of events from a single event to more with associated requirements based on the number of events proposed. Land Use  Commissioner Powell wondered what other things are being looked at which could occur in private parks such as soccer fields. The term “private park” could encompass many uses. What about forest lands? This could expand beyond the current vision. Commissioner Powell asked if we should shift gears and eliminate the private park definition and use something else, since it isn’t defined. Commissioner Powell expressed at the meeting as well as in the attached written comments his support for allowing events through the SB 960 process, and eliminating or delaying the private parks/commercial event venue text amendment process. As stated on the attachment, at the meeting, and subsequent emails, he believes there is a problem in allowing rural events unrelated to farm use. He asked what the County’s responsibility is to protecting rural property owners’ peace and quiet? Commissioner Powell asked about honoring adjacent land uses such as farming with events next door – increasing traffic, noise, lights, etc. Much of Oregon law has been an attempt to balance uses. What is our responsibility here?  Commissioner Klyce responded, stating that there are more protections built in to the TA than may be realized. He felt that SB 960 limits the number of events so there is a compromise with the private park/commercial event venue TA. He said, since farming is a commercial activity already permitted on EFU lands, people need to be prepared to have some of their tranquility infringed upon. Permitting events would be a way to hold acreages intact instead of breaking them up for residential use, also. Lot Size  Commissioner Rainey felt there should be a minimum lot size. He agreed with the comments below that other site-specific impacts need to be considered, but that a minimum lot size should be established.  Commissioner Klyce said that there were many other considerations as well, and he was more inclined to look at impacts and for the approval process to be site-specific. Nick suggested distance from the neighboring property was what mattered, as well as what was between the properties. Commissioner Powell and Chair Irvine agreed that the impacts were the most important. Number of Events / Duration of Events  Commissioner Rainey considered the possibility (see table in packet) of 20 events per year. That potentially could be summer months, maybe 4-5 good months, and there could be an event every week. If he was a neighbor he would feel this was too much. He would impose some sort of limit such as no more than two events in one month.  Commissioner Klyce suggested maybe two events in one weekend, having alternate weekends off, could also work. We have heard a lot of testimony over the last couple of years about how farming in this County is not viable, and we need to enable owners to keep their properties intact. One of the problems we had in dealing with this was trying to address every possible scenario which was not possible. He would prefer to keep the text general and allow a hearings officer a certain amount of latitude to determine impacts on a specific site.  Commissioner Powell suggested that events could be weighted based on impacts, rather than a specific number. If they have a larger impact, fewer events would be approved. Smaller events, events held indoors, etc., may allow an increased number of events.  The Commissioners discussed duration of events, permanent structures, whether owners should be required to live on the property if they host events and if multiple properties have to be contiguous.  Commissioner Powell spoke about tying the use to the land owner to reduce costs for both the owner and the County, unless there are code violations or other problems. Commissioner Klyce agreed with the caveat that the complaints be limited to those who actually suffer harm, not someone who just drives by and observes. Commissioner Powell said that this would involve looking at the validity of the complaints. You would have to be able to evaluate the complaints to determine whether they are from someone next door or two miles away. NEXT STEP OPTIONS Please find below three general options for moving forward with text amendment(s) to address commercial events in the EFU Zone. Option 1: Separate Text Amendments & Processes This option would consist of initiating three (3) separate text amendments related to commercial events in the EFU zone. The text amendments may be initiated simultaneously or separately based on the Board’s direction. Each text amendment would be developed independently of the others. The Board has the discretion to develop local standards to address events under SB 960 and HB 3280, but is not required to do so. The most expeditious, flexible and permissive process to allow commercial events in the EFU zone would be to adopt SB 960 and HB 3280 into County Code as adopted by the Legislature, and proceed with the draft private park/commercial event venue text amendment as previously presented/discussed with minor revisions. Specifically, this option would consist of the following general steps: 1. Proceed with developing the private parks text amendment based on Board direction and Planning Commission input. Initiate a 45-day notice for the first public hearing before the Board with Planning Commission review. 2. Determine whether to initiate a text amendment to implement SB 960; decide whether any local standards to address agri-tourism and other commercial events or activities should also be proposed; and decide when to initiate this text amendment. Public hearings on this text amendment would occur before the Planning Commission and Board. 3. Determine whether to initiate a text amendment to adopt HB 3280; decide whether to propose regulations to protect the public health and safety; and decide when to initiate this text amendment. Public hearings on this text amendment would occur before the Planning Commission and Board. Staff Comments: This approach would likely lead to a decision on the private parks/commercial event venue text amendment in the shortest time. It would likely result in different standards for different event venues. Option 2: Coordinated / Integrated Text Amendments This option would consist of initiating three (3) separate text amendments related to commercial events in the EFU zone, but the amendments would be initiated simultaneously and similar standards to address event venue impacts, as applicable and allowed by law, would be proposed. This approach may consist of one of the following approaches: 1. The Board provides direction to staff on the standards to be proposed in all three text amendments. This direction may be provided at this work session or at a future work session. The last column in the attached table provides a draft of potential standards to be considered for all 3 text amendments for discussion purposes. or 2. The Board directs staff to work with the Planning Commission to develop standards at its July 28 and August 11 meetings; conduct a Board work session in early September to review the draft text amendments; and aim for a 45-day public hearing notice in late September for fall public hearings. Staff Comments: This approach would likely lead to some consistency among the different types of commercial event standards where allowable/applicable, but take longer to develop. Option 3: Initiate SB 960 & HB 3280 Text Amendments This option would consist of initiating two (2) text amendments to implement SB 960 and HB 3280 now. The County would then initiate a private park/commercial event venue text amendment in the future as more is learned about the implementation of these new laws. Some past/potential Deschutes County event venue operators may qualify for up to 6 events under SB 960, and each event may be up to 72 hours in duration. It is not likely any or many event venue operators would be approved under SB 960’s standards for 7-18 events. Staff Comments: This approach would likely be the least contentious and fastest approach among all three options. However, it would not likely allow rural commercial events on lands zoned EFU without income producing farming operations (farm use), thereby precluding some previous/potential property owners from proposing commercial event venues. BOARD DIRECTION Staff seeks Board direction on how/when to move forward with commercial event venue text amendments.