1 P0S.5 To the extent the refinement plan map supports that claim, the hearings <br />2 officer concluded, the refinement map would conflict with the Metro Plan <br />3 Diagram, in which case Metro Plan I-5 expressly provides that the Metro Plan <br />4 Diagram prevail S.6 Accordingly, the hearings officer denied the application to <br />5 rezone the entire property R- 1. <br />6 On petitioners' appeal, the planning commission affirmed the hearings <br />7 officer's decision, and adopted findings and the hearings officer's decision by <br />8 reference. This appeal followed. <br />5 The hearings official's decision states, as relevant: <br />* * [T]he Metro Plan Diagram shows that a portion of the subject property along its <br />southern boundary adjacent to the UGB is designated Parks and Open Space. I have reviewed <br />the 2004 diagram at the `11 x 17' scale and have no trouble determining, without <br />magnification, that the diagram designates some portion of the subject property north of the <br />UGB and to the east of E 301h Avenue as Parks and Open Space. I agree with both staff and <br />[opponents] that the UGB and 30`'' Avenue are sufficient reference points upon which to locate <br />the subject property and determine, simply by looking at the map, that the Parks and Open <br />Space designation has been applied to this area." Record 16. <br />6 The hearings official's decision states, in relevant part: <br />"As all parties note, the Laurel Hill Plan contains a land use diagram. The diagram shows <br />three land use designations: low density residential, medium density residential, and <br />commercial. There is no Parks and Open Space designation on the Laurel Hill land use <br />diagram. As such, the Laurel Hill Plan is uninformative, and there is no additional <br />information by which the Metro Plan Diagram can be refined. <br />* * [I]f the applicant's position were accepted, the fact that the Laurel Hill land use diagram <br />shows the subject property to be low density residential represents a contradiction of, or <br />conflicts with, the Aletro Plan text and Metro Plan Diagram. It represents a conflict because <br />the refinement coming from the Laurel Hill plan would completely eliminate the Parks and <br />Open Space designation for part of the subject property that the text and mapping of the Metro <br />Plan strongly suggest that the City Council intended to implement. Staff and the opponents <br />are correct that in cases of a conflict between a refinement plan and the Metro Plan, the Metro <br />Plan prevails. * * Record 18. <br />7 The planning commission's findings state: <br />* * The Planning Commission finds that it is clearly evident that there is a POS designation <br />north of the UGB because the UGB and East 30th Avenue are both reference points which can <br />be used to fix its position with respect to other boundaries. These reference points also <br />distinguish the facts of this case from the Knutson case which the applicant/appellant asserts <br />require that the refinement plan designation prevail for this application. <br />Page 10 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1048 <br />