PDF Page 4 <br />App-4 <br />noted that the existence of reference points differentiated this case from the Knutson case. The <br />Planning Commission finds that while the rules for the Knutson case directs that ambiguities be <br />resolved by referencing the refinement plan, in this case there is no ambiguity. There is a <br />conflict or inconsistency between the two in which case the Metro Plan prevails, Relevant to <br />this case and material to this site are reference points including a road and the UGB which were <br />not available in the Knutson case. These reference points help clearly identify the POS <br />designation on the subject property. <br />The HO also addressed the 2007 Boundary Commission decision which annexed the subject <br />property and, established the UGB along the southern property line. HO decision pages 12-13. <br />The Boundary Commission noted the site as being designated LDR. The HO found that this <br />statement did not add much relevant information as the Boundary Commission did not purport <br />to, or have the authority to affect the land use designation. The Hearings official also <br />responded to the applicant's assertion that based on the boundary commission setting the <br />precise location of the UGB, the depiction of the UGB as it relates to the property on the Metro <br />Plan diagram was inherently unclear. The HO noted that-all three Metro Plan diagrams in the <br />record show POS designation north of the UGB and the boundary of the subject property was <br />not significantly altered as part of the UGB boundary decision. The Planning Commission <br />confirms that the Boundary Commission's action has no effect on their determination that the <br />POS designation clearly falls on the applicant's property. The actions of the Boundary <br />Commission to set the precise alignment of the UGB had minimal impact. on the UGB as <br />depicted in the current Metro Plan diagram. Therefore, the setting of the UGB in 2007 did not <br />alter the depiction of the POS designation north of the UGB. <br />Based on the findings above the Planning Commission denies Appeal Issue 1 and upholds.the <br />decision of the HO denying the proposed zone change. <br />Appeal Issue 2: Because the HO got the plan designation wrong, he erroneously failed to <br />evaluate the tentative PUD application and related Standards Review and TIA applications. <br />Those applications should have been approved, either outright or with conditions. <br />The Planning Commission finds that because the HO correctly identified the plan designation on <br />the property as being partially Parks and Open Space, he was correct in denying the tentative <br />PUD applications and related Standards 'Review and TIA applications without review. The <br />Planning Commission therefore denies Appeal Issue 2. <br />IV.. CONCLUSION <br />After consideration of the applicable law and all argument and evidence in the record, the <br />Eugene Planning Commission affirms the Hearing Official's decision in its entirety to deny the <br />subject zone change and associated applications for LaurelRidge PUD (PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6, SDR <br />12-5 and Z 12-2). The HO's decision is adopted by reference and attached here as Attachment <br />A. <br />Final Order-LaurelRidge PUD <br />(Z 12-2, PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6, SDR 12-5) October 14, 2013 Page 4 <br />7 <br />