I indisputably located in an area that is planned Low Density Residential (LDR) <br />2 on the city's acknowledged comprehensive plan snaps. The sole issue in this <br />3 appeal is whether a portion of the subject property is designated Parks and <br />4 Open Space (POS) on the city's acknowledged comprehensive plan snaps. <br />5 The parcel is located on the north and northwest side of a hillside sloping <br />6 down from a ridgeline that runs generally along a northeast to southwest axis. <br />7 The city's urban growth boundary (UGB) runs along and in close proximity to <br />8 the spine of that ridgeline. Prior to 2007, the exact location of the UGB in this <br />9 area had not yet been detennined. In a 2007 annexation decision by the local <br />10 boundary cominission, the precise location of the UGB was detennined by a <br />11 metes and bounds description, and that location was based in part on the <br />12 location of the ridgeline.) We understand the parties to agree that at some <br />13 point in 2007 or thereafter, the parcel's southern property boundary with the <br />14 large lot to the south was adjusted to generally correspond to the UGB line <br />15 established in the 2007 annexation decision.' As presently configured, the <br />16 southwest corner of the subject property looks like an upside down triangle, <br />17 with the apex pointing south, the southwest side of the triangle formed by the <br />18 East 30`" Avenue right-of-way, and the southeast side of the triangle coinciding <br />19 with the UGB line established in 2007. See Petition for Review App 22 (map <br />1 The parties dispute how close the UGB line established in 2007 is to the actual topographic ridgeline. The <br />location of the ridgeline is one of the factors the 2007 boundary commission considered in establishing the <br />metes and bounds location of the UGB, but not the only factor, so it is possible, even probable, that the UGB <br />line established in 2007 does not correspond exactly to the topography of the ridgeline. However, the record <br />includes a number of topographic maps, and it is beyond cavil that the UGB is located in close proximity to the <br />topographic ridgeline. See, e.g., Record 58 (site plan showing topography, the UGB line and the line of the <br />"prominent ridgeline"). <br />' The only exception appears to be the southeastern corner of the subject property, which extends beyond <br />the established UGB. Record 1636. The plan designation of the southeastern corner of the property is not at <br />issue in this appeal. <br />Page 4 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1042 <br />