property is plan designated something else, then the zone change application <br />must be denied, and the applications for development approval, which are <br />premised on R-1 zoning, must also be denied. <br />The Hearings Official agrees with this conclusion. For that reason, the decision on the zone <br />change request represents the beginning and the end of consideration of all four applications. <br />For the reasons set forth more fully below, the Hearings Official concludes that the zone change <br />request is inconsistent with the Metro Plan and the Metro Plan Diagram. <br />It is the Hearings Officials practice to avoid issuing advisory decisions opining on all the criteria <br />that might be applicable to a given application where denial of the application is required based <br />on a threshold criteria such as EC 9.8865(1). In this case, the Hearings Official concludes that to <br />obtain approval for the zone change and PUD requires an accommodation of the Parks and <br />Open Space Metro Plan designation and the applicable Park, Recreation and Open Space zone <br />requirements set forth in EC 9.2600-2650. Acknowledging the Parks and Open Space <br />designation could require the applicant to reconfigure the PUD design and provide additional <br />demonstration of compliance with the applicable PUD criteria. Reviewing and determining <br />compliance with the PUD, TIA and Standards Review criteria based on the current record has <br />the potential to prejudice the rights of both the applicant and opponents of the application in <br />any future consideration of this application or another application that acknowledges the Parks <br />and Open Space designation. Therefore, the findings and conclusions set forth below are <br />limited to determining compliance with EC 9.8865(1) for the zone change, and EC 9.8320(1) for <br />the PUD application. <br />Evaluation of Zone Change Request <br />The Eugene Code, EC 9.7330 and 9.8865, require the Hearings Official to review an application <br />for a zone change and consider pertinent evidence and testimony as to whether the proposed <br />change is consistent with the criteria required for approval. <br />EC 9.8865(1): The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable provisions of the <br />Metro Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro <br />Plan Diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. <br />Determining consistency with EC 9.8865(1) depends primarily on whether the proposed zone <br />change is consistent with the text of the Metro Plan and the Metro Plan Diagram. <br />Applicant's Position <br />The applicant argues that the Metro Plan designation for the entire property is LDR. The <br />applicant's argument is set forth in consistent detail in at least three locations in the record: an <br />August 28, 2013 letter from Richard Satre, an August 28, 2013 letter from attorney Bill Kloos, and <br />the applicant's September 4, 2013 final comment. The Hearings Official understands the <br />applicant's argument to be as follows: <br />Hearings Official Decision Z 12-2, PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6, SDR 12-5 5 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1025 <br />