The applicant's other purpose in submitting the Boundary Commission decision appears to be to <br />show that the Metro Plan Diagram depiction of the UGB as it relates to the subject property is <br />inherently unclear. This fuzziness, the applicant argues, requires a look to the refinement plan <br />because the UGB decision sets the actual location of the UGB boundary and might impact the land <br />use designation for the subject property. The applicant also seems to argue that the 2007 UGB <br />decision may have had the effect of cleaning up the delineation between the Low Density <br />Residential and Parks and Open Space, the implication being that the Parks and Open Space <br />designation after the UGB amendment was intended to exist only outside the UGB. <br />The Hearings Official does not find these arguments persuasive. All three versions of the Metro <br />Plan Diagram included in the record, the 1980, 1987 and 2004 diagrams show Parks and Open <br />Space designation on the subject property to the north of the UGB. The maps included in the 2007 <br />Boundary commission, show that the boundary of the subject property was not significantly <br />altered as part of the UGB boundary decision. The Hearings Official can find no evidence that the <br />Parks and Open Space designation was intended to be coterminous with the UGB or the boundary <br />lines of the subject property. In fact, what both the Metro Plan text and the Metro Plan Diagram <br />show is that the Parks and Open Space designation was intended to protect the South Hills <br />ridgeline. To accomplish that objective, it is reasonable to expect that the designation would fall <br />on both sides of the ridgeline, not merely to lands south of the UGB boundary. <br />Decision <br />Based upon the available evidence and preceding findings, the Hearings Official DENIES the <br />applicant's request for a zone change from AG to R-1 low density residential zoning. For the same <br />reasons, the Hearings Official DENIES the proposed PUD for failure to comply with EC 9.8320(1), <br />and the associated TIA and Standards Review applications. <br />Dated this 17th day of September, 2013. Mailed this /7 day of September2013. <br />Kenneth D. Helm <br />Hearings Official <br />SEE NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION FOR STATEMENT OF APPEAL RIGHTS <br />Hearings Official Decision Z 12-2, PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6, SDR 12-5 <br />13 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1033 <br />