I <br />2 <br />applicable refinement plan map, on the other hand, was a large scale, parcel- <br />specific map that clearly showed that the subject property was located entirely <br />3 within the commercial plan designation. LUBA concluded under those <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />circumstances that the refinement map refined (i.e. eliminated ambiguity), but <br />did not conflict with, the 1987 Metro Plan Diagram, and therefore that the city <br />erred in finding, based on the Metro Plan Diagram, that the subject property <br />was designated residential. <br />The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court concluded that, as a <br />consequence of the small scale, non-property specific nature of the Metro Plan, <br />and the paucity of referents, <br />* * the land use designation for properties near the boundary <br />between use designations on the diagram is unclear. As indicated <br />in the Metro Plan, those ambiguities require reference to local <br />government refinement documents to conclusively determine the <br />applicable designation. Under those circumstances, there is no <br />inconsistency between the Metro Plan and a refinement plan. <br />Instead, the refinement plan serves to resolve the inherent <br />ambiguities that exist in a general diagram such as the Metro Plan <br />diagram." 200 Or App at 302 (footnote omitted). <br />In the omitted footnote, the Court commented: <br />"Under different circumstances, however, an inconsistency <br />between the Metro Plan and a refinement plan could clearly exist. <br />For example, if it were possible to locate a subject property based <br />on the minimal referents in the Metro Plan diagram and the <br />location of the property was not near the boundary between two <br />use designations, the Metro Plan diagram, as a matter of law, <br />might indicate the subject property's land use designation. In that <br />case, the designation in the Metro Plan diagram would prevail <br />over an inconsistent designation in the applicable refinement <br />plan." Id. at 302, n 6 (emphasis original). <br />Petitioners argue that the present case should be viewed as the "Son of <br />Knutson," and is squarely within the holding of that case. According to <br />Page 12 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) <br />Page 1050 <br />