Decision of Hearings Official - Laserfiche WebLink

one week for the submission of new evidence, one additional week for responses to the new evidence, and one more week for the applicant's final legal argument. FACTS The subject property is comprised of two tax lots totaling 121.68 acres located in the Laurel Hill valley area. Tax lot 701 is the northern parcel and is located just south of the terminus of Riverview Street and Hendricks Hill Drive. Tax lot 703 to the south is located just northeast of 30th Avenue. Although the property has been annexed into the City, it still retains an Agricultural (AG) zoning designation with a Water Resource (WR) overlay. Adjacent parcels to the east are also zoned AG and parcels to the north are zoned Low-Density Residential (R-1). Large parcels to the south are located outside of the City's urban growth boundary (UGB) and designated forest land. Most of the southern boundary of tax lot 703 is also the southern edge of the UGB which runs near a ridgeline. The applicant seeks to rezone some of the property Low- Density Residential with Planned Development and Water Resource overlays (R-1/PD/WR) and part of the property Parks, Recreation & Open Space with Planned Development and Water Resource overlays - (PRO/PD/WR).' In 2012, the applicant sought to rezone the entire property R-l.` The applicant also submitted concurrent applications for a planned unit development, standards review, and a traffic impact analysis. An approval criterion for zone changes is that the proposed zone change be consistent with the Metro Plan. As discussed in more detail later, the Metro Plan is a general map that does not show specific parcels in the area of the applicant's property. On the Metro Plan the boundary between a Low Density Residential (LDR) plan designation (which R-1 zoning enacts) and a Parks and Open Space (POS) plan designation (which PRO zoning enacts) is close to the UGB that is the southern boundary of tax lot 703. In the 2012 applications, the applicant argued that all of the property inside the UGB was planned LDR. Another hearings official denied the applications for not being consistent with the Metro Plan because he found that the boundary between the LDR and POS plan designation was north of the UGB and ran through the applicant's property. The Planning Commission and the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) affirmed the Hearings Officer's conclusion that part of the applicant's property is planned POS. 1 Because there is no dispute regarding the planned development and water resource overlays, for ease of reference I will just refer to the two proposed zoning designations as R-1 and PRO. 2 There is a small portion of tax lot 703 in the southeast corner that is outside the UGB that was not included in the 2012 zone change request or the present request and is not at issue. Page 2 Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5)