Mr. Erik Berg-Johansen <br />August 14, 2015 <br />Page 5 <br />The Laurel Ridge PUD property extends 4,491.6 feet east to west. Over that distance, a 2-degree <br />rotation results in a horizontal deflection of 156.85 feet. However, this becomes an issue only if <br />the Metro Plan Diagram is rotated to be aligned with Grid North of the State Plane Coordinate <br />System while the tax lot map is aligned with True North. This is indeed the case: <br />According to the notations on the tax lot map (and the applicant's maps), the almost 3,900-foot <br />long western segment of the north property line of the Laurel Ridge property runs N 88°24'56" E. <br />If the tax lot on the Zone Change application maps were rotated 2 degrees to match the Metro <br />Plan Diagram, the orientation of this line should be the equivalent of 90°24'56" clockwise from a <br />straight-up position, or just past the 3-o'clock mark on a watch. However, the north property <br />boundary of the Laurel Ridge property is shown on Schirmer-Satre maps in a direction which <br />implies that True North is straight up - it is shown significantly shy of the 3-o'clock position on a <br />watch. Similarly, along with the tax lots, the City Limits and UGB layers of the applicant's maps are <br />oriented to True North, and, it is assumed that the 30th Avenue R-o-W centerline is oriented to the <br />same datum (see also applicant's Sheet ZC-2, next page). <br />However, the applicant did not rotate the Layers of the Metro Plan Diagram shown on their Sheet <br />ZC-3 to coincide with True North. The applicant retains the 2-degree rotation imparted by the <br />State Plane Coordinate System projection on their site maps only for selected layers of the Metro <br />Plan, including the crucial Zoning Designations. <br />As a result, given that the applicant "pins" the Laurel Ridge property at the western end of the map <br />by registration with 30th Avenue, the eastern portion of the site rotates a significant distance <br />northward relative to the zoning map, thereby reducing the width and area of the POS zoning <br />designation. The total reduction in POS achieved by the applicant versus the previously presented <br />LCOG map is right around 8 acres <br />On the other hand, although the rotation issue is responsible for a significant portion of the 20-acre <br />discrepancy in mapping, other registration issues have to account for the rest of the difference. <br />Other Shenanigans <br />As is clear from the applicant's maps, the registration of the centerline as obtained by the surveyor <br />from Lane County is less than perfect. Whereas the overlay of the centerline (shown in light blue- <br />green on the applicant's maps) onto the black line of the Metro Plan Diagram appears to fit <br />relatively well in the section of the road running NW-SE, the applicant's registration falls apart at <br />the western edge of their map. In the westernmost portion of the map, west of the Spring <br />Boulevard interchange, the applicant's 30th-Avenue R-o-W centerline is located 124 feet north of <br />the center of the black line denoting the location of the road on the Metro Plan Diagram (see <br />enlargement on next page). <br />