PDF Page 3 <br />App-3 <br />EC 9.5865(1) Provides: The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of <br />the Metro Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro <br />Pion diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. <br />Appeal Issue 1: The Hearings erred in finding that part of the site is plan designated Parks and <br />Open Space (POS•). The entire site is plan designated Low Density Residential (LDR). The HO <br />should have.zoned the entire site R-1. <br />The HO summarized the position of the applicant, staff and opponents relating to the Parks and <br />Open Space designation of a portion of the property on the Metro Plan diagram. In determining <br />that the subject site was partially designated Parks and Open Space (POS), the HO analyzed the <br />Metro Plan Diagram, Metro Plan text and the Application of the Laurel Hill Plan. HO decision, <br />pages 8-12. <br />The HO noted that in reviewing the 2004 Metro Plan diagram he had no trouble determining, <br />without magnification, that the diagram designates some portion of the property as parks and <br />Open Space, HO decision page 8. He noted that East 30th Avenue and the Urban Growth., <br />Boundary are sufficient reference points to determine, simply by looking at the map, that the <br />Parks and Open Space designation should have been applied in this area. The Planning <br />Commission finds that it is clearly evident that there is a POS designation north of the UGB <br />because the QGB and East 30t' Avenue a•re both reference points which can be used to fix• its <br />position with respect to other boundaries, These reference points also distinguish the facts of <br />this case from the Knutson case which the applicant/appellant asserts require that the <br />refinement plan designation prevail for this application. <br />The HO next reviewed Metro Plan text noting that the text could resolve questions as to <br />whether the City Council intended to impose a particular plan designation in. a particular place. <br />HO decision pages 8-9. The HO points to Metro Plan text at Section II G regarding the Parks and <br />Open Space designation to indicate intent by the City Council to impose the POS designation on <br />a portion of the property. The Planning Commission finds that while the Metro Plan text <br />"complements" the existing designation on the diagram, it does not, in itself, provide clarity on <br />the designation of the subject property. Accordingly, the Planning Commission agrees with the <br />HO that the Metro Plan Diagram is not ambiguous and that reliance on the Metro Plan text is <br />unnecessary, given the findings regarding the Metro Plan Diagram, as outlined above. <br />The HO next addressed the application of the Laurel Hill Plan with respect to this property <br />noting that it is appropriate to seek additional information in-the Laurel Hill Plan for clarification <br />or "refinement" of the proportion or delineation of the POS designation. HO decision, pages 9- <br />12. He noted that the laurel Hill Plan provides no additional refinement, as the Laurel Hill Plan <br />designates the property for low-density residential. The HO went on to note that this <br />represents a conflict with the Metro Plan because it would. completely eliminate the POS <br />designation on the property in question. In the case of a conflict the Metro Plan prevails. The <br />HO disagreed with the applicant's application of Knutson in.this case noting that the Metro Plan <br />text and diagram have changed since the case, including more accurate and improved <br />resolution iri the 2004 diagram. The HO also agreed with opponents of the application which <br />Final Order-LaurelRidge PUD <br />(Z 12-2, PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6, SDR 12-5) October 14, 2013 Page 3 <br />6 <br />