McDonald's wins formal city approval

A 3-to-1 decision by the Sisters City Council has opened the door for a McDonald's in Sisters -- unless a legal challenge is filed with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) within 21 days.

The decision to approve the Site Design Review and Conditional Use permit request by Cache Mountain Development for a restaurant, convenience market and gas station came after an appeal of the planning commission's approval of the plan.

City Planner Bill Adams briefly reviewed pertinent sections of the latest document in the McDonald's issue, Findings and Decision of the Sisters City Council.

Subsequent to the Council Appeal Hearing, Tia Lewis, attorney for the applicant, and Steve Bryant, Sisters City Attorney, had prepared the 63-page document, which was then reviewed by the City of Sisters planning staff.

The appeal had been based on two contentions:

1. The development violates the Sisters Development Code by allowing more than one drive-in, drive-up, or drive-through facility (McDonald's and the gas pumps) within 400 feet.

2. The development exceeds the traffic impact dictated by Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) at the intersection of Railroad and Highway 20.

According to the latest document, "Staff and the planning commission found, based on a reading of the above provisions in the context of the code as a whole, that gas stations were auto-oriented uses but were not a 'drive-in,' 'drive-through,' or 'drive-up' facility."

This negates the application of the 400-foot rule.

Regarding traffic impact, appellants had argued that the application incorrectly used traffic counts from Land Use 853 (convenience market with gas pumps) when they should have used Land Use 945 (gas station with convenience market).

The final document rejects that contention and cites the applicant's supplemental traffic study of similar uses in Central Oregon to further support the applicant.

Newly-seated Councilor Brad Boyd abstained from voting.

Lone dissenter, Sharlene Weed, was openly upset about wording in the document.

She said that she had just received the document that day -- too late to review thoroughly -- and that certain wording had not been presented at the earlier city council appeal hearing.

City Planner Bill Adams and City Attorney Steve Bryant pointed out that this document is a summary of all testimony and documentation dating back to the original planning commission presentation. Therefore, specific information may not have been included in the verbal discussion at the appeals hearing.