Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

The applicant produced a metes and bounds description of the property. No one appears to take issue with that description. The applicant then superimposed the subject property, using the metes and bounds description, on to a same scale version of the 2004 Metro Plan. Because the 2004 Metro Plan is generalized, the decision of where to place the subject property when superimposing it on the 2004 Metro Plan requires the use of referents to properly line up the two maps. The applicant used Eat 30th Avenue and the north arrow to align the two maps. An enlarged version of the applicant's proposed boundary is depicted in Exhibit M. LHVC does not agree with the method the applicant used to superimpose the map of the property on to the scaled version of the 2004 Metro Plan. LHVC produced maps showing much more POS designated land by using a version of the Metro Plan diagram obtained from LCOG that are depicted in Exhibits 1-5 to their letter of September 2, 2015. LHVC also uses tax lots for other properties, city limits, and additional streets to generate what it argues are more accurate maps than the applicant. LHVC materials were prepared in part by a certified engineering geologist, and the arguments are compelling. In fact, if the question were where the boundary is most likely located using any available information, I would likely agree with LHVC. In determining the boundary, however, we are all bound by the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. As staff's September 2, 2015 memorandum explains, LHVC used maps generated by LCOG from a digital version that is different from the 2004 Metro Plan. Even though that digitized version is likely more accurate than the 2004 Metro Plan, even LCOG acknowledges that only the 2004 Metro Plan is the official version of the diagram. Furthermore, city limits and tax lots are not depicted on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. So even though LHVC's maps may be theoretically more accurate, they are not more accurate for determining the boundary by using the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. LHVC also takes issue with how the applicant aligned East 30th Avenue with the subject property. According to LHVC, aligning the location of East 30th Avenue on the map of the property with East 30th Avenue on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram results in the two depictions of East 30th Avenue diverging from each other, particularly the farther you get from the property. LHVC attempted to align East 30th Avenue differently to show more POS plan designation for the property. The 2004 Metro Plan diagram is a generalized map. When it is scaled up to match metes and bounds descriptions of individual parcels there will almost always be discrepancies. No matter where you align East 30th Avenue, the farther you get away from the alignment the Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5) Page 6