PDF Page 31 <br />App-17 <br />Commercial or Medium Density Residential.' That is not the question presented by this zone <br />change request. The question here is: "whether two land use designations apply to the subject <br />property?" Knutson does not answer that question. Here, the dispute is whether the 2004 Metro <br />Plan Diagram depicts Low Density Residential and Parks and Open Space on the subject property. <br />Based on the discussion above, the answer to the correct question is "yes." <br />The Hearings Official has not been directed to any part of the Metro Plan or the Metro Plan <br />Diagram which demands that, in all.cases, properties must fall into only one land use designation. <br />While that might make sense in fact situations like those at issue in Knutson, it does not make <br />sense in the application of the Parks and Open Space designation, because that designation can be <br />applied to protect natural features, like the South Hills ridgeline, which do not follow property line <br />boundaries. Particularly in the case of the Parks and Open Space designation, it is reasonable to <br />expect that the Metro Plan Diagram would depict both a traditional use designation such as <br />residential, commercial or industrial and the Parks and Open Space designation following'a natural <br />feature-on the same property, without regard to property boundary lines. For this reason, the <br />Hearings Official disagrees with the applicant's assertion that except for those instances where the <br />Metro Plan Diagram is parcel specific, every determination of land use designation is a zero sum <br />game exercise which requires automatic reference to the associated refinement plan. <br />2007 UGB Amendment <br />The applicant has also submitted the 2007 Boundary Commission decision which added the <br />subject property to the regional UGB. The applicant's purpose in doing so seems to.be to provide <br />extrinsic evidence that the subject property is designated only as Low Density Residential. <br />The Boundary Commission findings do identify the Metro Plan designation for the property as LDR. <br />It also appears that the subject property's boundary lines were changed slightly prior to the UGB <br />amendment, and that the amendment itself was intended to set the property line along the <br />ridgeline. The Hearings Official has reviewed the Boundary Commission decision, findings and <br />staff report submitted by the applicant. After doing so, the Hearings Official concludes that the <br />proffered information does not add much relevant information. <br />The Boundary Commission did not purport to, nor did it have authority to, affect the land use <br />designations that the Metro Plan and Metro Plan Diagram applyto the subject property.. For UGB <br />purposes it makes sense that the property is characterized as residential land, which would satisfy <br />the requirement to show.that it is needed to address housing needs inside the UGB. Without a <br />doubt, the subject property is predominantly designated Low Density Residential. However, the <br />Boundary Commission's findings are no more than an observation and cannot be considered <br />binding on any future consideration about land use designations shown on the. Metro Plan <br />Diagram. <br />3 Both the WillakenAe Land Use Diagram and the Sheldon Subarea.map showed both the Commercial and Medium <br />Density Residential land use designations adjacent to each other with respect to the Knutson Family, LLC <br />properties. <br />Hearings.Official Decision Z 1-2-2, PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6, SDR 12.5 12 <br />20 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 835 <br />