Meisenheimer v. City of Springfield

The challenged decision concerns City of Springfield Ordinance 6369, which changes the Metro Plan Diagram and city zoning map designations for six lots that total 3.35 acres (subject property). The subject property is made up of six tax lots, TL 4600, TL 4601, TL 4700, TL 4900, and TL 5000. The central issue on appeal is the meaning of various aspects of the Q Street Refinement Plan (QSRP) Map Designation Criteria.

On the first assignment of error, petitioners argue that the criteria apply to each tax lot individually. Respondent believes the word “areas” refers to the six tax lots that are the subject of this application, collectively. LUBA notes the city will need to explain its understanding of the meaning of the term “area” as it is used in the criteria. Next petitioners argue that the LDR, MDR, and HDR criteria apply to each tax lot, and assigned a numerical score for each set of criteria. Petitioners take the position that the set of criteria with the highest score “clearly applies” or “predominates.” Intervenor counters that a range of possible meanings of the terms “clearly applies” or “predominates” are possible under these dictionary definitions, which are inconsistent with petitioners’ numerical score approach. LUBA notes the terms are sufficiently ambiguous and subjective and that city council should have the first opportunity to explain its understanding of the terms. Finally, respondent argues that the MDR and HDR criteria apply here without explaining why the facilities it referred to qualify as a “transit transfer station.” LUBA agrees with petitioners that this undefined term is ambiguous and the city council needs to explain its understanding of the meaning of the term. REMANDED.