refinement plan policies.' Under the earlier described analysis, as the site review overlay was not <br />placed on the property to comply with any Metro Plan or refinement plan policies the site review <br />overlay may be removed. <br />In case 1 am incorrect and I must consider the underlying purpose for the site review overlay <br />and ensure that that purpose would still be satisfied without the site review overlay, the applicant's <br />narrative explains why the concerns that led to the site review subdistrict in 1992 are presently <br />addressed by the current zoning requirements.' At page 10 of its narrative, the applicant provides <br />a graph that shows the requirements of site review in 1992 along with current development <br />standards that would apply to the subject property without site review overlay. The applicant <br />explains that all of the 1992 site review criteria are addressed by current general development <br />standards, without the necessity for the current, more onerous site review criteria. Opponents do <br />not acknowledge let alone refute the applicant's narrative. I agree with the applicant's analysis. As <br />the Hearings Official in W.C. Hines found, to the extent the purposes for applying the site review <br />overlay remain, other City development standards will assure that they are satisfied. <br />DECISION <br />Based upon the available evidence and preceding findings, the Hearings Official APPROVES <br />the applicant's request for a zone change from Public Lands (PL) with a Site Review (SR) overlay to <br />Public Lands (PL) - including removal of the Site Review (SR) overlay. <br />Dated this 201h day of April, 2020. Mailed this _g~_ day of tQ f l 1 2020. <br />9Tv:.L <br />Fred Wilson <br />Hearings Official <br />5 The decision does not reference any Metro Plan or refinement plan policies or goals in regards to the site review <br />subdistrict. <br />6 There is some precedent for reaching the issue. W.C. Hines (Z 06-18), involved a similar situation in which the <br />applicant sought to have a site review overlay removed that had been placed on the property when it was annexed into <br />the City in 1985. The Hearings Official appears to have determined that as long as no Metro Plan provisions required <br />the site review overlay (there was no applicable refinement plan) then removal of the site review overlay was <br />appropriate. The Hearings Official, however, went on to state "[t]o the extent the purpose for applying the /SR <br />designation remains, other city development standards will assure that development on Airport Road is appropriately <br />designed and sited." <br />7 Even if I concluded that the site review overlay should be retained to assure the original purposes of the site review <br />imposition, the site review would only apply to Swede Johnson Stadium - not other development of the property. <br />Hearings Official Decision (Z 20-2) Page 9166