more the maps will diverge. It seems reasonable to me to align East 30th Avenue along the <br />property line as the applicant did. That method seems more likely to be more accurate in the <br />vicinity of the property than aligning East 30th Avenue farther away from the property. <br />Therefore, I agree with the applicant that it properly used East 30th Avenue as a referents <br />LHVC also argues that the applicant misaligned the map of the property on the 2004 <br />Metro Plan diagram because it did not rotate the map of the property to match the rotation of the <br />2004 Metro Plan diagram. Upon close examination of the 2004 Metro Plan diagram, it is <br />apparent that the north arrow is not pointing straight up to the top of the page, but instead is <br />pointing slightly clockwise. LHVC explains that this is a two degree tilt to align with "grid <br />north" as opposed to straight up, which would be pointing to "true north." Without descending <br />into a cartographical rabbit hole, essentially grid north is designed to take into account the <br />discrepancy of creating a flat map of the spherical earth. LHVC argues that while the 2004 Metro <br />Plan is tilted two degrees to grid north, the map of the property that the applicant superimposed <br />on the 2004 Metro Plan is not tilted and is pointed to true north. The applicant laudably <br />confirmed during the open record period that in fact the map of the property was pointed to true <br />north while the Metro Plan is tilted to grid north. If LHVC is correct that the map of the property <br />was not tilted as it should have been to align with the 2004 Metro Plan then additional portions <br />of the applicant's property would be designated LDR. In its final legal argument, the applicant <br />argues that the two degree tilt to grid north on the 2004 Metro Plan is merely a scrivener's error <br />and should be disregarded. <br />The applicant argues that the 1980 and 1987 versions of the Metro Plan diagram, as well <br />as the unofficial LCOG 2010 version all have the north arrow pointing straight up to true north. <br />The applicant further argues that the findings associated with decision creating the 2004 Metro <br />Plan diagram do not mention the north arrow. According to the applicant, if the governing bodies <br />had intended to rotate the north arrow in the decision they would have mentioned it. <br />Furthermore, the applicant argues that rotating the north arrow might result in different zoning <br />designations for parcels from 1987 to 2004 in areas of the Metro Plan diagram that are not parcel <br />specific. <br />5 LHVC also argues that a map submitted by the applicant during the 2012 application demonstrates that the <br />applicant's current proposed boundary is inaccurate. Applicant's sheet SA 7.0 does show more of the property in the <br />POS designation than the current proposal. I agree with the applicant, however, that that map was only used as a <br />planning tool as was not in any way meant as a representation of the LDR/POS boundary. <br />Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5) Page 7 <br />