rromac presentation september 8, 2016 · chapter 2: agriculture sector our farms: • roughly 1/3...
TRANSCRIPT
RROMAC Presentation September 8, 2016
Presentation Outline RURAL TOURISM STUDY BRIEFING
1
• Background
• Report Highlights
• Roads Related Content
• Potential Action Items
• Status and Next Steps
• Work authorized by the Board in 2014 • Funded in part by Washington County Visitors Association • Driven by diverse viewpoints expressed during earlier
“agri-tourism” (SB 960) outreach • About discovery – not marketing or enforcement • Starts with understanding that protection of vital farmlands is
primary
Background
2
RURAL TOURISM STUDY
Intended to: • Research existing and desired conditions for agriculture,
tourism, and their interface in the county’s rural areas
• Engage a cross-section of rural interests, diverse in practice and location
• Facilitate conversation
• Help the County understand and consider the future of rural tourism as it evolves here
• A Study, not a Plan
3
Study Intent… DISCOVERY
Rural Tourism WHAT IS IT?
4
For the purposes of this study:
• Rural Tourism was considered broadly as activities/uses above and beyond traditional farm and ranch operations that draw visitors to farmlands and other rural areas
• Examples: farm to fork dinners, corporate and celebratory gatherings, recreational events, and even farm stand visits – very broad parameters
Chapter 2: Agriculture Sector
Our Farms: • Roughly 1/3 of total County acreage
(135,733 of 464,640 acres)
• Over 170 agricultural products – Valued at about $238 million
• Mostly non-food commodities
• Largest share of land: Hay/forage/fields, grass seed, wheat (almost 60,000 acres)
• Highest income: Greenhouse/nursery stock, using land area only about 1/10th that size
• 2001-2012: Decrease in number of farms, increase in total acres
(2012 Census of Agriculture)
5
HIGHLIGHTS
Washington County Agricultural Product Sales Over Time
• Product sales rose steadily from less than $200 million to over $311 million from1997 to 2007*
• Sales declined during the recession, to about $238 million in 2012*
• Market is rebounding according to industry leaders
*NASS Census of Agriculture 1997-2012
6
Chapter 2: Agriculture Sector HIGHLIGHTS
• Research suggests a thriving and diverse rural tourism presence
• Based on 127 rural properties that publicize some form of visitor invitation:
• 91 or about 72% commonly host rural tourism activities
• A mix of properties (considering primary use) is represented
Farms & Nurseries
42%
Wine, Beer, Sake, Spirits
29%
Recreation 14%
Dining / Prepared Food
6%
Historic / Cultural
4%
CSAs 4%
Overnight Stays 1%
Sites Commonly Hosting Rural Tourism Share Organized by Primary Use of Site 7
Chapter 3: Rural Tourism HIGHLIGHTS – COUNTY PRESENCE
Of activities hosted within the sample of 127 sites:
• Mainstay: On-site farm stand or store – 91 sites
• Common: Culinary experiences, celebratory and corporate gatherings, educational opportunities – 50 or more sites each
• Least offered/least publicized: Overnight stays – 8 sites
8
Chapter 3: Rural Tourism HIGHLIGHTS – COUNTY PRESENCE
9
• Consultants interviewed residents living adjacent to rural tourism sites, rural tourism practitioners, and related organization or agency representatives
• Interviews suggested:
• Most support adoption of standards allowing rural activities/events, with restrictions
• General desire for expansion of rural tourism amenities including motorist and bicycle routes, water access, and lodging
• A perception that lodging options play a role in overall rural tourism viability
10
Chapter 3: Rural Tourism HIGHLIGHTS – INTERVIEWS
• Based on interviews, potential restrictions that appear most important to residential neighbors would be those to regulate:
• Noise, especially sound amplification
• Traffic and parking
• Event frequency and hours of operation
• Notice to neighbors
• Currently unregulated whole-house rental by owner/ AirBnB/VRBO and associated events
11
Chapter 3: Rural Tourism HIGHLIGHTS – INTERVIEWS
• Discusses state and County regulatory parameters that relate to rural tourism
• State statutes are prescriptive on types of land uses that may be allowed outside the UGB, especially within farm/forest resource lands (EFU, AF-20 and EFC)
• Long-term viability of farmland is key. Oregon’s right-to-farm law prioritizes agricultural practices above non-farm uses
• The most stringent farmland protections apply in our EFU and AF-20 districts
• Washington County implements these protections through our Community Development Code (CDC), prescribing differing use types and intensities for each of 9 rural districts
12
Chapter 4: Regulatory Framework HIGHLIGHTS
Rural Tourism related uses currently allowed by the CDC in various rural land use districts: • Wineries and Tasting Rooms
• B&Bs (for up to 5 guests)
• Campgrounds
• Recreation Facilities/Special Recreation Uses
• Outdoor Performing Arts Centers
• Farm Stands
• Eating and Drinking Establishments
• Open-Air Businesses
13
Chapter 4: Regulatory Framework HIGHLIGHTS
The Regulatory Framework chapter also summarizes: • Current permit requirements/exemptions
• Potential considerations involving:
• County SB 960 implementation for EFU/AF-20 lands using parameters that minimize impacts and undue restrictions
• Possible amendments at state/county levels to allow more rural tourism uses in other rural districts -- including small scale lodging -- especially to reduce pressure for long-term farmland displacement
14
Chapter 4: Regulatory Framework HIGHLIGHTS
• Drawing, in part, from 4 local case studies, the Impact Assessment chapter considers a range of rural tourism activities (e.g. weddings, concerts, etc.) under a variety of conditions
15
• These inform the development of best practices to manage potential offsite impacts of rural tourism
Tree to Tree Aerial Adventure Park
Horning’s Hideout Baggenstos Farm Oak Knoll Winery
Chapter 5: Impact Assessment HIGHLIGHTS
• Potential impacts from rural tourism appear less related to purpose of activity (e.g. celebratory gathering, barn dance, or farm-to-fork dinner) than to specific attributes of an activity and its location, such as: • Proximity to neighboring homes/agricultural uses • Parking and access road capacity • Attendance levels • Intermittent vs. en masse arrivals • Sound amplification • Frequency and hours of event/activity, etc.
• The report concludes with some generalized best management suggestions to mitigate for impacts through regulations, guidelines, and education
16
Chapter 5: Impact Assessment HIGHLIGHTS
Roads Related Content
The report recognizes the role of rural roads in support of rural tourism as follows:
• Roads are needed for transport of goods from farm to market and for movement of farm equipment
• Roads are also used by commuters, tourists, and bikes and sometimes used for events (bike races, runs, parades, etc.)
• There are sometimes conflicts between these uses, and these conflicts are likely to increase over time
• Complaints related to rural tourism sometimes relate to traffic impacts and parking in roadways
• Rural road enhancement study corridors are a recognition of these various factors
• Policy discussions around rural tourism will need to consider these impacts and potential issues
17
Potential Action Items
18
• Citizen/consultant viewpoints in the report suggest potential actions, but are not formal recommendations
• Potential actions fall into several categories:
• Policy/Regulation/Legislation
• Education/Support
• Transportation Planning/Public Improvements
• Marketing/Economics
• Some call for County leadership. Others – leadership by the state or partner agencies with County support
• Some mesh with existing County programs/policies. Others might hinge on consideration of policy/funding shifts as part of “next steps” (not within the scope of this research)
• Proceeding with any actions will depend on Board direction
BASED ON CITIZEN/CONSULTANT INPUT
Status & Next Steps
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMENT PERIOD • Public Report Distribution/Electronic Posting/Library Copies/Press Release • Presentations to: Planning Commission, Citizen Work Group, Planning Directors,
WCVA Board, CPO 8, CPO 12C , RROMAC • Board of Commissioners Briefing in Work Session • Rural Tourism Website Update (Includes Comment Box)
April through
September 2016
RETURN TO WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Report on public comment, request policy direction on potential actions
Fall, 2016
POTENTIAL RELATED ORDINANCE WORK IN 2017 For example clarification/expansion of currently allowed uses in CDC and/or SB-960 adoption
As directed by the Board
19
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Staff Contacts
Anne Kelly, Associate Planner [email protected] 503-846-3583
FOR MORE INFORMATION...
Theresa Cherniak, Principal Planner [email protected] 503-846-3961
20