05 Public Record Pages 824-1020 - Laserfiche WebLink

PDF Page 46 criteria, but they want them addressed anyway. Staff does see the application "falling short of compliance with Metro Plan Policy C.21.," which says: When planning for and regulating development, local governments shall consider the need for protection of open spaces, including those characterized by significant vegetation and wildlife. Means of protecting open space include but are not limited to outright acquisition, conservation easements, planned unit development ordinances, streamside protection ordinances, open space tax deferrals, donations to the public, and performance zoning. This policy does not apply to review of site-specific applications. It is the kind of policy that is directive to local governments when adopting plans and regulations. To the extent that any of the Metro Plan policies discussed in the applicant's narrative may apply directly, the applicant's narrative provides adequate justification of consistency. 9.8865(2). The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. Two refinement pans are relevant-the Laurel Hill Plan (1982) and the South Hills Study (1974). Laurel Hill Plan Diagram The plan diagram shows the LDR plan designation extending south to the UGB. The R-1 zoning is consistent with this plan designation. The Staff Report concurs with this conclusion, provided it is determined that the Laurel Hill Plan refines the Metro Plan Diagram, rather than conflicts with it. Staff Report at 5-6. That is the relationship between the.plans, as discussed above.- Laurel Hill Plan Text and South Hills Study Text The applicant's narrative addresses policies in the Laurel Hill Plan at pages 22-30. The Staff Report, at page 4 para 2, correctly notes that the policies in the plans are not relevant to this zone change. To the extent the policies may be relevant, the change is consistent with those policies for the reasons explained in the applicants narrative. 9.8865(3): The uses and density that will be allowed by. the proposed zoning in the location of the proposed change can be served through the. orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. . The applicant and the Staff Report agree that the property can be served in the meaning of this standard, based on the findings and evidence associated with the 2007 annexation. See Boundary Commission Final Order, C EU 07-37 (Oct. 4, 2007) Exhibit C at Finding 17, submitted as Applicant Prehearing Exhibit 1-1.1. Laurel Ridge Applicant Final Argument- Page 12 95 Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 850