06 Public Record Pages 1021-1272

I petitioners, the proper test under Knutson is to simply ask whether, looking at 2 the Metro Plan Diagram in the vicinity of the subject property, does the map 3 show that the property is located near the boundary line between the LDR and 4 POS designations? If so, petitioners argue, then the Metro Plan Diagram is 5 indeterminate, and Knutson directs the city to detennine the plan designation of 6 the property based on the refinement plan map, assuming one is available. In 7 the present case, petitioners argue, the subject property is located near the 8 boundary between the LDR and POS designations, and therefore the applicable 9 refinement plan, the 1982 Laurel Hill Refinement Plan map, is controlling. 10 Petitioners contend that the 1982 Laurel Hill Refinement Plan snap shows that 11 the LDR designation extends south to the UGB line, with no POS designation 12 north of the UGB. 13 We disagree with petitioners' simplistic restatement of Knutson. Under 14 petitioners' test, a refinement map would control over a conflicting Metro Plan 15 Diagram even if there were sufficient referents on the Metro Plan Diagram to 16 resolve the plan/zoning question presented by the rezoning request. We do not 17 believe that the Court intended, in footnote 6 quoted above, to suggest that, in 18 all cases, mere proximity of property to the boundary between plan 19 designations is a sufficient basis to make the refinement plan map controlling 20 over the Metro Plan Diagram. Rather, in footnote 6 the Court provides a non- 21 exclusive example of a circumstance where a clear inconsistency exists 22 between the two maps, and therefore the Metro Plan Diagram controls. 23 Footnote 6 does not purport to identify all circumstances where an 24 inconsistency could exist. 25 In the present case, the plan/zoning conflict issue presented by 26 petitioners' request to rezone the entire property north of the UGB to R-1 is Page 13 Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1051