See Environ Metal Properties, LLC v. City of Eugene, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2013-098, <br />Jan. 29 2014) (providing a more detailed explanation of the property). The court of appeals <br />affirmed LUBA's decision without an opinion. 263 Or App 714 (2014). Although LUBA agreed <br />with the previous Hearings Official that part of the applicant's property was planned POS, <br />LUBA did not determine where the boundary was but did provide some guidance on how to <br />determine a more precise location of the boundary. <br />In the present case, the applicant has attempted to ascertain the boundary between the <br />LDR and POS plan designations. The applicant has provided its position on where the boundary <br />is and has requested R-1 zoning to the north of the boundary and PRO zoning to the south of the <br />boundary. Opponents, including the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens (LHVC), dispute the applicant's <br />location of the boundary and provided evidence of where they believe the boundary should be <br />located. Unsurprisingly, the applicant's boundary would allow for more R-1 zoning while the <br />opponents' boundary would require more PRO zoning. The dispute in this case is the location of <br />that boundary. <br />DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL <br />I have considered all of the documents in the planning file for the proposed zone change, (Z <br />15-5) as well as the testimony and documents provided at the public hearing and the evidence <br />submitted during the open record period. <br />ANALYSIS <br />Eugene Code (EC) 9.8865 provides the criteria for approval of a zone change.' EC <br />9.8865(1) provides in pertinent part that the "proposed change is consistent with the applicable <br />3 EC 9.8865 provides: <br />"Zone Change Approval Criteria. Approval of a zone change application, including the designation of an <br />overlay zone, shall not be approved unless it meets all of the following criteria: <br />"(1) The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The <br />written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where <br />apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. <br />"(2) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. In the <br />event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls. <br />"(3) The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the location of the <br />proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and <br />services. <br />Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5) Page 3 <br />