The determination of a Metro Plan designation is a matter of law, governed by the <br />methodology set forth in Knutson Family LLC v. City of Eugene, 200 Or App 292 (2005). The <br />heart of that methodology is set forth in the Court of Appeals holding which in pertinent <br />part states: <br />"The Metro Plan diagram provides few clear boundaries between land <br />use designations. * * * As a consequence, the land use designation for <br />properties near the boundary between use designations on the diagram <br />is unclear. As indicated by the Metro Plan, those ambiguities require <br />reference to local government refinement documents to conclusively <br />determine the applicable designation. Under those circumstances, there <br />is no inconsistency between the Metro plan and a refinement plan. <br />Instead the refinement plan serves to resolve the inherent ambiguities <br />that exist in a general diagram such as the Metro Plan diagram." <br />In 2004, the Metro Plan was amended, and the Metro Plan Diagram was made <br />parcel specific for certain categories of lands inside the Metro Plan boundary. <br />Where the Metro Plan Diagram is not parcel specific it is, by implication, <br />generalized. In those non-parcel specific areas the applicable refinement plan <br />must be consulted to determine the correct zoning designation. <br />• The subject property borders two different plan designations on the Metro Plan <br />Diagram. The subject property and immediately surrounding properties do not <br />fall into one of the "parcel-specific" categories, and therefore, the plan <br />designations are inherently ambiguous requiring reference to the Laurel Hill <br />refinement plan to determine the correct designation for the entire subject <br />property. The Laurel Hill refinement Plan designates the entire subject property <br />Low Density Residential. As additional support, the 2007 annexation decision <br />identifies the subject property as Low Density Residential. <br />• There is no conflict between the Metro Plan, Metro Plan Diagram and the Laurel <br />Hill Plan because the analysis conforms to the Knutson methodology. Absent <br />such a conflict, the refinement plan designation prevails, regardless of whether <br />the Metro Plan Diagram appears to show at least part of the subject property to <br />be designated Parks and Open Space. <br />Staffs Position <br />Staff specifically disagrees with the applicant's position. While staff agrees that the Metro Plan <br />Diagram is not parcel specific with respect to the subject property, they conclude that the diagram <br />shows the Parks and Open Space designation straddling the UGB which the subject property abuts. <br />Staff found two "physical referents" which, in their opinion, resolves any ambiguity about the <br />location of the Parks and Open Space designation on the subject property. One is the UGB and the <br />Hearings Official Decision Z 12-2, PDT 12-2, TIA.12-6, SDR 12-5 6 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1026 <br />