ordinances, streamside protection ordinances, open space tax deferrals, donations to the <br />public, and performance zoning. <br />The subject site contains open spaces characterized by significant vegetation and wildlife. <br />Consistent with Policy C.21, rezoning a portion of the property to Park, Recreation & Open <br />Space (PRO) would result in protection of the ridgeline and multiple acres of forested habitats. <br />As stated earlier, staff believes the applicant's representation of the Metro Plan's Parks and <br />Open Space designation is reasonable considering the limited precision that can be afforded by <br />the relatively generalized Metro Plan Diagram. That said, there is not necessarily only one right <br />answer here. There may be more than one reasonable representation of the Metro Plan <br />Diagram. That is, if the opponent's desired configuration were presented to the Hearings <br />Official, he might consider that configuration reasonable as well. Nevertheless, the Hearings <br />Official's task is to determine whether the applicant has provided reliable, credible evidence <br />that supports its assertion that its proposed zoning configuration is consistent with the Metro <br />Plan designation for the property. <br />If the Hearings Official ultimately approves this zone change, staff recommends that the <br />applicant be required to submit a legal description of the zoning boundary line (separating the <br />R-1 and PRO zoning), given that it does not follow any tax lots. This will ensure a level of <br />precision that will be necessary at the time of development. <br />Based on these findings, the proposal is consistent with EC 9.8865(1). <br />EC 9.8865(2): The proposed change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement <br />plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the <br />Metro Plan controls. <br />In the case of the subject property there is an inconsistency between the Metro Plan and the <br />Laurel Hill Plan. The Planning Commission and LUBA confirmed in past decisions that the Metro <br />Plan diagram takes precedence over the Laurel Hill Plan; the applicant has correctly based the <br />proposed zoning designation on the Metro Plan diagram. <br />EC 9.8865(3): The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the <br />location of the proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key <br />urban facilities and services. <br />Key urban facilities and services are defined in the Metro Plan as: wastewater service, <br />stormwater service, transportation, water service, fire and emergency medical services, police <br />protection, City- wide parks and recreation programs, electric service, land use controls, <br />communication facilities, and public schools on a district-wide basis (see Metro Plan page V-3). <br />An evaluation of key urban facilities was provided at the time of annexation (A 07-10). This <br />evaluation, which concludes that the subject property can be served through the orderly <br />extension of key urban facilities and services, is included for reference as Attachment B. <br />Referral comments from the Public Works Department also confirm there are no concerns <br />Laurel Ridge (Z 15-5) August 2015 HO Agenda - Page 2 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) <br />Page 766 <br />