Attachment D <br />incorrect and it will produce results with some degree of accuracy. Staff acknowledged this early <br />on in the process, which is why approval of the zone change was recommended in the first <br />place." <br />(b) The HO did not error in failing to use Spring Blvd and Bloomberg Park as additional <br />referents for locating the property on the Diagram. Spring Blvd. is considerably more remote <br />from the subject property than 30th Ave., and, in contrast to 30th Ave., the surveyed location of <br />the Spring Blvd. right of way is not known in relation to the subject property. Bloomberg Park is <br />not labelled on the Metro Plan Diagram. LHVC is referring to a green blob on the Diagram as <br />Bloomberg Park, but the exact location of the park is not shown on the Diagram. Again, the <br />text of the Metro Plan explains that Diagram is not tax lot specific in the area of the green blob <br />that LHVC is calling Bloomberg Park because at that location there is a boundary line between <br />two plan designations. Put differently, the generalized (non-tax lot specific) location of the <br />Bloomberg Park green blob is not useful in determining the exact location of the generalized <br />boundary line between LDR and POS on the subject property. <br />LHVC Appeal Issue 3: <br />The LHVC alleges that the HO should have relied upon their Sheet 9/2/15-03 as locating the <br />plan boundary more accurately. <br />As noted by the applicant, it appears that the LHVC actually intends to reference their Sheet <br />9/2/15-04, which is a scaled up copy of the Metro Plan Diagram. However, the version of <br />scaled up copy of the Diagram has been supplemented with city limits lines. As noted above, <br />city limits lines do not appear on the Metro Plan Diagram and, therefore, may not be used as an <br />aid to locate the subject property. As the HO decision says, at page 6 paragraph 2: "City limits <br />and tax lots are not depicted on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram." Therefore, the LHVC has not <br />shown error in the decision in this respect. <br />LHVC Appeal Issue 4: <br />The LHVC alleges that the HO erred by failing to consider acreage calculations when resolving <br />the plan boundary lines. They reference estimates of acreage they say were provided by city <br />staff. They allege: "It is an error if a zone change is approved when the exact acreage subject to <br />the change is not part of the application." <br />The HO did not error in failing to require acreage calculations in connection with the application <br />or by failing to consider resulting acreage numbers when resolving the ambiguous plan diagram <br />for this site. Knowing acreages is not related to any criteria for making this zone decision. The <br />logic of the inquiry is to resolve the ambiguity in the plan, using the correct rules, thus <br />determining exactly where the LDR/POS boundary line is. Once the location of the line is <br />known, it can be reduced to a metes and bounds description. The final acreage calculations <br />result from that final delineation. <br />PC Agenda - Page 33 <br />