05 Public Record Pages 824-1020 - Laserfiche WebLink

PDF Page 45 Industrial. The City Council approved the zone change based on the refinement plan, which clearly showed the area.to be MDR_ Knutson relied on Carlson. Knutson was a zone change from Residential to Commercial. The generalized Metro Diagram was'read by the Planning Commission to designate the property as MDR, although the refinement plan clearly showed it to be Commercial. LUBA and the Court of Appeals held that the Metro Plan designation was to be found in the refinement plan, which made the Metro Plan more specific. The Staff Report makes a number of arguments as to why they believe the plan designation is split. These theories are not framed in terms of the caselaw above, even though the Applicant briefed all these cases and rules for the Staff in October 2012. It is worth discussing the staff's theories briefly. The staff begins by enlarging the Metro Diagram to the scale of the site plan, to show that the southernmost part of the site is Parks and Open Space. This approach assumes that the Metro Plan Diagram is accurate enough to support this methodology, which it is not. More simply, the Metro Plan Diagram carries a bold print caveat saying "VALID AT 11X17 SCALE ONLY." The Court of Appeals has explained that the Metro Plan Diagram is not to be blown up and used this way. Knutson, 292 Or App at 301 n S. Because the staff sees some Parks and Open Space color inside the UGB line at this location, they view the Metro Plan Diagram as conflicting with the refinement plan. There is no conflict because,'as discussed above, the Metro Plan Diagram, including the. UGB line, at this location is too generalized to create a conflict. Where the Metro Plan Diagram is generalized and the refinement plan is more specific, the latter shows a refinement of the Metro Plan, not a conflict. This rule was applied in Carlson v. Eugene, 3 Or LUBA 175 (1981)("We believe it was the intent of the Metro Plan, particularly with respect to interpreting the Metro Plan Land Use Diagram, that the refinement plan land use diagrams be used in attempting to ascertain on a site specific basis the intended use of a particular parcel of property,") and Knutson Family LLC v. City of Eugene, 48 Or LUBA 399 (2005), both as summarized in Knutson Family LLC V. City of Eugene, 200 Or App 292, 114 P3d 1150 (2005). The Staff Report also favors the Metro Plan Diagram because it is newer than the refinement plan - 2Q04 versus 1982. There is no basis for assigning a pecking order among the many elements of the comprehensive plan based on age. It is the function and role of the document that count. In addition, as the applicant explained at the hearing, each adopted version of the Metro Plan Diagram (1980, 1987, 2004) has shown essentially the same thing at this location - a generalized UGB line that moves around a bit'from one diagram to another, with a bit of Parks and Open Space color shown inside the UGB, albeit at different locations in each printing. The first printing of this generalized diagram was in 1980, two years before the refinement plan. Metro Plan text consistency. The applicant's June 24 Narrative addresses Metro Plan policies at pages 16-21. The Staff Report characterizes all the Metro Plan policies as being mostly nonmandatory approval Laurel Ridge Applicant Final Argument - Page 11 94 Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 849