P®F Page 28 <br />App-14 <br />intent, As the Hearings Official noted in the Benson (Z 13-2) decision, the City Council's 2004 <br />amendments to the Metro Plan left unaltered the preeminence of the Metro Plan text over the <br />Metro Plan Diagram <br />"In addition, it is important to recognize that the written text of the Metro Plan <br />takes _precedence over the JWetro Plan Diagrrnn where apparent conflicts and <br />inconsistencies exist. The iWetro Plan Dia am is a generalized map which is <br />intended to graphically reflect the broad goals, objectives, and policies. As such, it <br />cannot be used independently from or take precedence over the written portion of <br />theiVetro Plan. Ordinance no, 20319 p: 1-5. <br />Even though the Metro Plan Diagram is a "generalized map" that is "drawn at a metropolitan <br />scale," if there are questions about whether the City Council intended to impose a particular plan <br />designation in a particular place reference to the Metro Plan text is required. <br />Metro Plan Section II G explains the "Land Use Designations" shown on the diagram reflect specific <br />intent as to where those designations are intended to'occur. The subsection on the Parks and <br />Open Space designation states: <br />This designation includes existing publicly owned metropolitan and regional <br />scale Parks and publicly and privately owned golf courses and cemeteries in <br />recognition of their role as visual open space. This designation also includes <br />other privately owned lands in response to Metro Plan policies, such as the <br />South Hills ridgeline, the Amazon corridor, the Q Street, ditch, and buffers <br />separating sand and gravel designations from residential lands," <br />The identification of the South Hills ridgeline as being privately owned lands that fall within the <br />POS plan designation is a significant indication that the City Council intentionally*adopted the <br />Parks and Open Space designation in that area of the city. Therefore, the Hearings Official <br />concludes that the Metro Plan text and the Metro Plan Diagram are consistent and strongly <br />indicate an intention to impose the Parks and Open Space land use designation on th*e subject <br />property. If there were any ambiguity in the Metro Plan Diagram it is resolved by reference to the <br />associated Metro Plan text. <br />Application of the Laurel Hill Plan <br />What the above analysis demonstrates is that with respect to the Parks and Open space <br />designation of some portion of the subject property, the Metro Plan Diagram is unambiguous. <br />Part of the subject property is designated Parks and Open Space, and part of the subject property <br />is designated Low Density Residential. What the Metro Plan Diagram does not show with <br />precision is the proportion of each designation and a clear delineation between the two for the <br />subject property. <br />According to both the Metro Plan and the Knutson methodology, assuming for the moment that it <br />Hearings Official Decision Z 12-2, PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6, SDR 12-5 <br />17 <br />