Ord 1312 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F. There is No Need for Another Goal 4 Exception The previous planned unit development approval is a valid conceptual approval granted by the Marion County Board of Commissioners in 1982. The previous approval was based on a specific project, which specifically contemplated an integrated golf course and residential resort development in the proposed location at Elkhorn Valley Golf Course, and also included a valid Goal 4 exception that was subsequently acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission(LCDC). The Planning Commission found that approval of this application would result in final development approval of a prior subdivision that was specifically approved in this location, for this golf course resort. The Planning Commission also found that residential and commercial components of this application merely complete the second phase of the prior county approvals. The Board agrees with the Planning Commission and finds that the current subdivision application conforms generally to the previous planned unit development proposal and, therefore, merely implements the earlier conceptual plan approval. The Board adopts the analysis of LCDC and finds that a Goal 4 exception has already been approved for this project and, therefore, another Goal 4 exception is not necessary. G. The Proposed Resort Complies with Goal 5. Opponents mistakenly assert that this application violates Goal 5. Under OAR 660-023-0250(3), a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource if it 1) creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or 2) allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list. This application does not create or amend a resource list. The proposed development was conceptually approved in 1982 and the County previously acknowledged a Goal 5 inventory, at which time this proposed use was identified and permitted. Since this application merely implements the previous conceptual approval, no new conflicting uses are allowed by this application and Goal 5 is therefore met. Moreover, the proposed development complies with the setback requirements of the Marion County Zoning Code, including the 50-foot setback from riparian corridors. In addition, as previously discussed, the requirements under ORS 197.460 relating to destination resorts are inapplicable because the proposed resort is not a destination resort, as defined by statute. Therefore, the Board can find that the application complies with Goal 5. H. Response to DLCD Letter DLCD does not oppose this application. However, in correspondence dated December 17, 2007, DLCD raised a few issues regarding updating the Goal 14 and Goal 11 exception analyses and maintaining the floor area limitation for commercial uses. The Goal 14 and Goal 11 issues have been addressed in Section IX of these findings by updating the analyses to reflect the current existing conditions and needs of the area. Additionally, the issue regarding floor area limitation for commercial uses has been addressed by adding a condition of approval requiring that all buildings and commercial uses, except the hotel and existing golf course, will not exceed the 3,500 square foot floor area limitation. Additionally, the uses approved by this decision are limited to those uses allowed by the exceptions to Goal 11 and Goal 14 and the Board has imposed a condition of approval limiting allowed uses to those uses which are requested by the applicant in this proceeding and as otherwise allowed by the ordinance adopting this decision. The Board finds that all issues raised by DLCD have been adequately addressed. -36-