CAF Partners Properties, LLC, v. City of Jacksonville

Incorporating historic standards is inconsistent with the text and purpose of of JUDC 16.32.20(2), and therefore implausible.

The subject property is a 1.38-acre parcel located at 455 North Oregon Street in Jacksonville, within the city’s Historical Core District. It contains the historic Tou Velle House, originally built in 1866 and significantly expanded in 1916. The property is recognized in the State of Oregon Inventory of Historic Properties as a well-maintained Craftsman-style home situated on a large, sloping site with additional historic features such as stone pillars, landscaping, a smaller rear house, and a barn. The site’s historical significance is tied to the house, its association with prominent local figures, and the integrity of the surrounding land.

The petitioner applied to partition the property into three parcels: two small residential lots and one large lot containing the Tou Velle House. Although the zoning code does not impose minimum lot sizes in this district, the city’s planning commission denied the application, finding it did not meet land partition and historic preservation standards.

On appeal, the city council upheld the denial with modified findings. The council determined that the applicable code provisions allowed consideration of broader historic preservation standards, not just technical partition criteria. It concluded that the historic residential standards apply to the entire site, not just the house, and that dividing the property would fragment the historic setting, undermine its integrity, and conflict with preservation principles. The council also found that partitioning the site would interfere with protecting important historic features identified in the city’s historical survey, thereby adversely affecting the property’s overall historical significance. This appeal followed.

Motion to Take Official Notice:

The city requested that LUBA take official notice of the 1980 Historical Survey Map, arguing that it qualifies as a local enactment or related document under ORS 40.090(7). The city explained that the survey is incorporated into its development code and is relevant to show that the subject property’s size has remained unchanged since 1980, countering the petitioner’s argument. Here, LUBA granted the motion and took official notice of the Historical Survey Map because the motion met the procedural requirements, relied on an appropriate legal basis, and was not opposed by the petitioner.

Assignment of Error:

Petitioner argued that the city council misconstrued the applicable partition criteria by improperly relying on historic preservation and landmark protection standards to deny the land partition application, and LUBA agrees. Although LUBA generally defers to a local government’s interpretation of its own code if that interpretation is plausible, it must reject interpretations that are inconsistent with the text, purpose, or policy of the ordinance.

The partition criteria in JUDC 16.32.20 are expressly described as objective and require that an application comply with applicable city or state regulations. In denying the application, the city relied solely on criterion (2) and interpreted the phrase “including but not limited to” as allowing it to apply the historic preservation provisions in JUDC Chapter 18.10. Based on that interpretation, the city concluded that the proposed partition would harm the historic character of the site and denied the application.

LUBA concluded that this interpretation was impermissible. JUDC 18.10.010 applies in the context of design review and contains general policy statements about preserving historic resources, rather than enforceable approval criteria governing land divisions. Because it does not regulate the use of property or establish zoning requirements, it cannot be treated as a controlling regulation under the partition criteria. Similarly, JUDC 18.10.020 applies to maintenance, remodeling, and construction of historic dwellings and governs structural development rather than land partitions. Its text does not support extending its application to a partition request. Accordingly, LUBA determined that the city’s interpretation of JUDC 16.32.20(2) to incorporate these historic standards is inconsistent with the code’s text and purpose and therefore implausible. The assignment of error is sustained.

Disposition:

Petitioner initially requested that LUBA reverse the city council’s decision and order approval of the partition under ORS 197.835(10)(a)(A), arguing that the denial fell outside the city’s allowable discretion. However, because the city based its denial solely on one criterion in JUDC 16.32.20(2) and failed to address the remaining nine applicable criteria, the city argued that remand was the proper remedy. At oral argument, petitioner agreed and withdrew the request for reversal, instead asking for remand so the city could properly evaluate all applicable criteria. LUBA therefore remands the decision, directing the city to reconsider the application under JUDC 16.32.20 in a manner consistent with its opinion.