1 whether any part of the area proposed for R-1 zoning is designated POS. In <br />2 <br />this respect, as in <br />others, the present case differs <br />from the circumstances at <br />3 <br />issue in Knutson, <br />as the hearings officer observed. <br />8 In the present case, we <br />4 believe, the critical question is whether the 2004 Metro Plan Diagram includes <br />5 sufficient referents to determine whether any part of the subject property that is <br />6 proposed for rezoning is designated POS. If the answer to that question is yes, <br />7 and using those referents it is clear that some part of the property is designated <br />8 POS, then the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan map conflicts with the Metro Plan <br />9 Diagram to the extent it suggests otherwise.9 <br />10 As noted, the hearings official and planning commission concluded that <br />11 East 30th Avenue and the UGB line depicted on the 2004 Metro Plan Diagram <br />12 provide sufficient referents to conclude that at least the southwest corner of the <br />S The hearings official's findings state, in relevant part: <br />* * [The question presented in Knutson] was whether the diagram showed the subject <br />property as Commercial or Medium Density Residential. That is not the question presented by <br />this zone change request. The question here is: `whether two land use designations apply to <br />the subject property?' Knutson does not answer that question. Here, the dispute is whether <br />the 2004 Metro Plan Diagram depicts [LDR] and [POS] on the subject property. Based on the <br />discussion above, the answer to the correct question is `yes.' <br />"The Hearings Official has not been directed to any part of the Metro Plan or the Metro Plan <br />Diagram which demands that, in all cases, properties must fall into only one land use <br />designation. While that might make sense in fact situations like those at issue in Knutson, it <br />does not make sense in the application of the [POS] designation, because that designation can <br />be applied to protect natural features, like the South Hills ridgeline, which do not follow <br />property line boundaries. Particularly in the case of the [POS] designation, it is reasonable to <br />expect that the Metro Plan Diagram would depict both a traditional use designation such as <br />residential, commercial or industrial and the [POS] designation following a natural feature- <br />on the same property, without regard to property boundary lines. * * Record 19-20 <br />(emphases in original). <br />9 As explained below, a more accurate understanding of the 1982 Laurel Hill Refinement Plan map is that it <br />says nothing at all about the plan designation of the endi-ety of the subject property, as presently configured, and <br />nothing at all about whether or not some portion of the subject property, or any property, is designated POS. If <br />there is a conflict, it is created by petitioners' proposed interpretation of the refinement plan map, to the effect <br />that the city intended the LDR designation to extend south to the UGB line, wherever the UGB line is ultimately <br />located in the future. <br />Page 14 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1052 <br />