"(4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting <br />requirements set out for the specific zone in: <br />* * * * <br />"(f) EC 9.2735 Residential Zone Siting Requirements. * * * * * <br />"(5) In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the <br />property owner shall enter into a contractual arrangement with <br />the city to ensure the area is maintained as a natural resource <br />area for a minimum of 50 years." <br />EC 9.8865(1) <br />EC 9.8865(1) requires that the proposed zone change be consistent with applicable <br />provisions of the Metro Plan. The most obviously applicable provision of the Metro Plan is the <br />plan designation for the property. The plan designation for all of the property is Low Density <br />Residential except for 15 acres in the southern portion of Tax Lot 1211 that is designated <br />Medium Density Residential. The applicant's proposed zone changes seek to bring the zoning <br />into compliance with the plan designations. R-1 Low-Density Residential zoning implements the <br />Low Density Residential plan designation, and R-2 Medium-Density Residential zoning <br />implements the Medium Density Residential plan designation. Therefore, the proposed zone <br />change is consistent with the plan designations. <br />The applicant identified several potentially applicable Metro Plan policies and explained <br />why the proposed zone change is consistent with those policies. Those policies include <br />Residential Land Use and Housing Element - Policies A.2 and A.3 and Environmental Resources <br />Element - Policy C.2. There was no contrary evidence submitted or testimony provided that <br />specifically addressed any of these policies. I agree with the staff and applicant's conclusions <br />that the proposed zone changes are consistent with these policies and adopt and incorporate <br />the applicant's findings provided in the July 26, 2013 Supplemental Narrative. Opponents <br />provided no other argument that the proposed zone change in inconsistent with the Metro <br />Plan. Therefore, I find that the proposed zone change is consistent with the provisions of the <br />Metro Plan and that EC 9.8865(1) is satisfied. <br />EC 9.8865(2) <br />EC 9.8865(2) requires that the proposed zone change be consistent with the applicable <br />adopted refinement plans. In the present case, the applicable refinement plan is the <br />Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP). The applicant identified several potentially applicable WAP <br />policies and explained why the proposed zone change is consistent with those policies. Those <br />policies include WAP General Use Policies 3, 5, 6, and 7; General Residential Policies 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, <br />and 8.1; and Unincorporated Subarea Policies 12 and 13. As the applicant explains, many of <br />those policies are development policies and are not directly applicable to the zone change <br />request, even though such concerns may be addressed by the Multi Family Design Standards of <br />EC 9.5500 that may apply to any future development proposals. The applicant also explains <br />how the proposed zone change is consistent with the other directly applicable policies. I agree <br />Hearings Official Decision (Z 13-5) Page 3 <br />