Ord 1312 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Elkhorn Valley golf course, it is not possible to site the development where a system already exists. The proposal provides the county with significant and timely opportunities for economic development and satisfaction of a long-existing need for additional residential and recreational development on land that is already designated for this particular non-resource use as a golf resort. The Board finds that the policies embedded in Goal 11 regarding provision of urban services should not apply to this proposed development,which has already been reviewed and approved by the county and acknowledged by LCDC. The proposed resort is inherently dependent on the existing golf course and therefore can only be developed in the proposed location with a new sewer system. The Board finds that this application provides Marion County with a significant and timely opportunity for economic development and a major boost to the county's tourism industry in general. The Board finds that the policies embedded in Goal 11 and Goal 14 regarding urban levels of development and services remaining within an urban growth boundary should not apply to this proposed development, because it is a locationally dependent use that can only be sited in the proposed location adjacent to the existing golf course. (b) Areas which do not require an exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use. This portion of the rule requires consideration of possible alternative locations for the use that would not require a new exception; in other words, existing exception areas or other locations inside an existing UGB. The rule provides that "economic factors can be considered along with other relevant factors in determining that the use cannot reasonably be accommodated in other areas." Regarding the required scope of the alternatives analysis, OAR 660-004-0020(2)(b)(C)provides as follows: "Initially, a local government adopting an exception need assess only whether those similar types of areas in the vicinity could not reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Site specific comparisons are not required of a local government taking an exception, unless another party to the local proceeding can describe why there are specific sites that can more reasonably accommodate the proposed use. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is thus not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites are more reasonable by another party during the local exceptions proceeding." First, it is important to note that the subject site is an appropriate location for a project that requires Goal 11 and Goal 14 exceptions because the corresponding Goal 4 exception, which would be required in other rural areas, has already been approved and acknowledged at this location. The consideration of alternative sites is not necessary in this instance because the property has already been granted a Goal 4 exception. There is no reason to consider other sites not requiring an exception when one has already been granted for this location. Secondly, regarding Goal 11 and Goal 14, it is important to note the specific purpose of this decision, which is to implement the initial conceptual plan approval for an integrated golf course and residential development. To this end, the subject application proposes and has demonstrated consistency with all aspects of the conceptual approval for the site, although only the golf course portion of the project has been developed to date. The objective of this decision cannot reasonably be accommodated anywhere else because the project, as initially envisioned and approved, requires the residential portion of the project to be in the immediate vicinity of the golf course. -14-