Ord 1312 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In other words, the applicant is merely requesting final development approval of a prior subdivision that was specifically approved in this location, for this golf course resort. The residential and commercial components of this application merely complete the second phase of the prior county approvals, which specifically contemplate an integrated golf course and residential resort development in the proposed location at Elkhorn Valley Golf Course. There is no alternative site that involves an existing preliminary subdivision approval adjacent to an existing golf course. This is an undeniably unique situation that is not duplicated elsewhere in the county. The Elkhorn Estates Planned Development, approved by the county in 1982, obviously cannot be "reasonably accommodated" in the alternative locations suggested by the opponents. The Board finds that no other parcels in Marion County could reasonably accommodate the proposed resort where the residential and commercial components of the resort have already been conceptually approved and are required to be located in the immediate vicinity of the existing and fully developed golf course component of the resort, and where a Goal 4 exception has already been taken. To the extent there is any discrepancy between the above- referenced materials adopted by the Board and these findings, the express findings of the Board shall govern. (c) The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the use of the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in other areas requiring a goal exception. The exception shall describe the characteristics of each alternative area considered by the jurisdiction for which an exception might be taken, the typical advantages and disadvantages of using the area for use not allowed by the goal and the typical positive and negative consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. The analysis required by this section of the rule is provided above in Section IX.A of these findings addressing OAR 660-014-0040(3)(b), and in supplemental information submitted by the applicant. The Board notes that all this rule requires is a determination that the ESEE consequences resulting from the proposed resort "are not significantly more adverse" than would result from the resort being placed in another undeveloped rural area that would also require an exception. This rule does not create a particularly high standard. For the same reasons set forth above in Section IX.A of these findings, the Board finds that the long-term ESEE consequences resulting from developing the resort on the proposed site are not significantly more adverse than would result from the resort being placed in another undeveloped rural area that would also require a goal exception,particularly with the stated conditions of approval and other identified measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. (d) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. The exception shall describe how the proposed use will be compatible with the adjacent land uses. The exception shall demonstrate that the proposed use is situated in such a manner as to be compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource management or production practices. The analysis required by this section of the rule is provided above in Section IX.A of these findings addressing OAR 660-014-0040(3)(c). For the same reasons set forth in Section IX.A of these findings, the Board finds that the proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses,particularly with the stated conditions of approval and other identified measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. The -15-