Exhibit A <br />provisions of the Metro Plan." The dispute in this case is whether the applicant's proposed zone <br />change is consistent with the boundary between LDR and POS plan designations on the Metro <br />Plan diagram. There is no dispute regarding whether the remaining zone change approval criteria <br />in EC 9.8865 are satisfied. I have reviewed the staff report and it thoroughly analyzes the <br />remaining zone change approval criteria and explains why they are satisfied. I therefore adopt <br />and incorporate those findings in this decision. <br />A preliminary issue is whether I must only determine whether the applicant's proposed <br />boundary is correct or whether I must determine where the boundary is if different from the <br />applicant's proposal. Opponents argue that if the applicant's proposed boundary is inaccurate <br />(which they argue it is) that the application should be denied. The applicant argues that even if it <br />is wrong about the boundary of the location, the City must determine where the boundary is and <br />rezone the property accordingly. <br />I agree with the applicant that the location of the boundary is a matter of law and that the <br />applicant is entitled to a zone change to R-1 up to the boundary, wherever the boundary is. In <br />2012, the applicant submitted a development plan along with the zone change request. Because <br />the zone change request was denied, the development plans also had to be denied. In the present <br />case, the applicant is only seeking a zone change and is waiting on the final location of the <br />zoning boundary to submit development plans. It is not the applicant's fault that the Metro Plan <br />is not parcel specific and it is difficult to determine exactly where the boundary is. The applicant <br />should not be required to submit multiple applications trying to determine where the boundary is <br />located. The applicant has submitted a reasonable proposal for where the boundary should be <br />located. The applicant has demonstrated that it is entitled to a zone change to R-1 north of the <br />boundary and PRO south of the boundary. <br />While it might seem that determining the specific boundary between plan designations <br />would be relatively straightforward, it has turned out to be anything but. The location of the <br />boundary is depicted on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. The Metro Plan diagram was originally <br />"(4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for <br />the specific zone * * <br />11(5) In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the property owner shall <br />enter into a contractual arrangement with the city to ensure the area is maintained as a <br />natural resource area for a minimum of 50 years." <br />Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5) Page 4 <br />