Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 02 Comprehensive Plan Map Clarification Project
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: Meeting Type: Staff Contact/Dept.: Staff Phone No: Estimated Time: 11/28/2022 Work Session Chelsea Hartman/DPW 541-726-3648 30 Minutes SPRINGFIELD Council Goals: Provide Financially CITY COUNCIL Responsible and Innovative Government Services ITEM TITLE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP CLARIFICATION PROJECT ACTION Provide guidance to staff on whether the recommendations for how to approach creating REQUESTED: the draft Comprehensive Plan map align with Council's preferences, or if Council prefers alternative approaches. ISSUE The process of creating a property -specific Comprehensive Plan Map for Springfield STATEMENT: requires several considerations about technical methodology as a basis for the map. Through discussion alongside the project's Technical Resource Group, Project Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and information learned from other jurisdictions, staff identified recommended options for map display and associated policy where needed. City Council's guidance on how to proceed with key policy -related topics will inform next steps for creating the draft map. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Briefing Memo Attachment 2: Eugene -Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Diagram a: 2004 version (officially co -adopted) b: 2010 version (reflects more recent area -specific amendments) Attachment 3: Advisory Body Membership Attachment 4: Tradeoffs of Mapping Options (table) Attachment 5: Visual Examples of Refinement Plan Display Options Attachment 6: Presentation Slides DISCUSSION/ As part of continuing to develop the Springfield Comprehensive Plan, a key step is to FINANCIAL create a map that interprets and clarifies the Metro Plan Diagram, including showing IMPLICATIONS: specific plan designations for each property in Springfield. Initiating the project was a high priority for City Council at its April 5, 2021 work session. Topics and options for helping map users better understand applicable comprehensive planning requirements for specific properties emerged during the course of the project. Staff will focus the work session on recommendations for visually representing policy - level planning information for: public rights-of-way, adopted neighborhood refinement plans, nodal development, and whether to allow flexibility in plan designation boundaries. Attachments 1 and 4 will inform the work session's discussion. The City is dedicating staff time to this project, which was awarded grant funding by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development in November 2021. Creating a property -specific map will achieve efficiencies by improving customer service with providing timely, accurate information and will also help inform other projects, such as planning for future housing needs. MEMORANDUM City of Springfield Date: 11/28/2022 To: Nancy Newton COUNCIL From: Chelsea Hartman, Senior Planner BRIEFING Jeff Paschall, Community Development Director Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Clarification Project MEMORANDUM ISSUE: The process of creating a property -specific Comprehensive Plan Map for Springfield requires several considerations about technical methodology as a basis for the map. Through discussion alongside the project's Technical Resource Group, Project Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and information learned from other jurisdictions, staff identified recommended options for map display and associated policy where needed. City Council's guidance on how to proceed with key policy -related topics will inform next steps for creating the draft map. COUNCIL GOALS/ MANDATE: Provide Financially Responsible and Innovative Government Services BACKGROUND: For decades, Eugene and Springfield shared a comprehensive plan: the Eugene -Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan ("Metro Plan"). The Metro Plan was created as the sole, long- range plan (a public policy and vision document) for metropolitan Lane County, including Springfield and Eugene. Both cities recently established separate urban growth boundaries based on a determination of land supplies needed to meet anticipated growth. As a result, comprehensive planning is evolving toward city -specific plans. Moving from one comprehensive plan structure to another is resource -intensive, so Springfield is developing the Springfield Comprehensive Plan in phases. A key step is to create a Comprehensive Plan Map that clarifies the boundaries of plan designations on the Metro Plan Diagram (adopted as an 11" x 17" paper map shown in Attachment 2a) on a property -specific basis. Questions about policy -based information affect map display. Project Initiation & Direction Initiating the Comprehensive Plan Map Clarification project was a high priority at City Council's April 5, 2021 work session, particularly with the project's purpose and goals in mind. In November 2021, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development awarded funding for the project. Project Purpose & Goals The Comprehensive Plan Map Clarification Project will create a property -specific Comprehensive Plan Map for Springfield. This map will add greater certainty for Springfield's plan designations as compared to the Metro Plan Diagram which currently guides decisions about how to use land within the region. The Metro Plan Diagram does not meet today's needs for showing which plan designations, general land use types, apply to each property within the region. The Metro Plan Diagram is a Attachment 1 Page 1 of 8 MEMORANDUM Page 2 "broad brush," graphic depiction of projected land uses and major transportation corridors but is largely not property -specific. Clarifying the location of the plan designations by interpreting the Metro Plan Diagram for each property within Springfield's urban growth boundary will provide a solid understanding of existing policies and plan documents in a visual way and will streamline the land use research process with better property lookup tools. Why this Work Matters • Local Ownership & Decision -Making: This map, which will show plan designations for each property within Springfield's land use jurisdiction, will become one part of the Land Use Element (a chapter) of the Springfield Comprehensive Plan. • Better Service: The property -specific Comprehensive Plan map will provide timely, accurate information. It will provide property research tools to the public that are convenient, quick to access, and easy to use—ultimately providing confidence in decisions. In addition to a PDF map, it will become part of Springfield's existing property research tool (MapSpring), which is an online interactive map that is free to access. Users will be able to identify a plan designation for specific properties throughout Springfield with this tool without immediate reliance on staff for basic answers. • Large Projects on the Horizon & Requirements: Springfield must adopt its Housing Capacity Analysis by December 2025. Having an accurate Comprehensive Plan map on which to base the inventory of buildable residential lands to inform the Housing Capacity Analysis is a desirable first step that this project will address. • Barriers Identified: Research during this project will identify conflicts between a property's zoning and its plan designation. Understanding the magnitude of this barrier to development can help the City determine the priority of addressing that issue. Process to Inform the Draft Map Staff have approached this project with a mix of technical, document -focused mapping research and through informed conversations to seek input on mapping approaches. • A Technical Resource Group (TRG) and Project Advisory Committee (PAC) have provided insight on desired outcomes for the map through a series of three meetings each. Their roles are to provide suggestions to staff, but they do not vote on a recommendation to Planning Commission or Council. The TRG represents a variety of agencies who work with Springfield. The PAC, appointed by the Springfield Committee for Citizen Involvement, is comprised of people with experiences and perspectives that range from Springfield's residents at -large who are committed to serving the community to professionals in land use planning (some of whom also live in Springfield). A list of TRG and PAC membership is in Attachment 3. • Staff interviewed seven cities across Oregon about their mapping decisions. • Research by staff was simultaneously underway to research properties that required interpretation of the Metro Plan's designation boundaries. Additional community engagement per the project's Community Engagement Plan will begin once a draft map is ready. DISCUSSION: The following are a subset of the full set topics discussed with the TRG and PAC. These topics will inform key policy direction needed to proceed with creating a draft map. On November 1, 2022, Planning Commission discussed the following topics and provided general feedback in support of staffs' recommendations. As staff continue property research, input on whether staffs' Attachment 1 Page 2 of 8 MEMORANDUM Page 3 recommended approach to these topics aligns with City Council's preferences will inform how to proceed. The adoption package for this project will include amendments to the Springfield Development Code as needed to address these topics and to recognize that the Springfield Comprehensive Plan Map applies instead of the Metro Plan Diagram. I. Should the Comprehensive Plan Map Designate Public Rights -of -Way? Topic Context: The scale of the Metro Plan Diagram (Attachment 2) only allows labelling of major streets with black lines and does not show public rights-of-way. When the City converted hand -drawn, paper neighborhood refinement plan maps to an electronic database and digital map using our Geographic Information System, the City did not designate rights-of-way. For the most part, the City "zones" rights-of-way as shown on the Zoning Map. Options: • Option 1: Designate public rights-of-way (and show them as such on the map) • Option 2: Do not designate public rights-of-way Recommended Map Approach— Option 2: Do not designate public rights-of-way Rationale: Not designating rights-of-way avoids further complicating the land use application process. From a map user perspective, not designating public rights-of-way will better -orient map readers to locations of interest (for example, streets will be left uncolored, which allows room for contrast and labels and provides readers a quick visual reference of street layout without covering important information with colored lines). Attachment 4 provides a list of tradeoffs for all options considered. Implications: The City's approach to zoning of public rights-of-way has been inconsistent. As such, staff further recommend treating rights-of-way the same in the Zoning Map as the Comprehensive Plan Map. Applications to vacate public rights-of-way would start with the subject right-of-way as a "blank slate" when pursuing development projects since the right-of-way would be undesignated and not zoned until the time of vacation. New written policy corresponding to the Map will specify how to determine the appropriate plan designation and land use district (zone) to assign to the right-of-way based on the designation and zoning of the property attached to it (the adjacent "parent" property)1. For example, procedures could specify that the vacated right-of-way would take on the plan designation of the adjacent property. The vacated right-of-way would continue to take on the adjacent property's land use district without the need to formally amend the Zoning Map as currently allowed by Code (SDC 5.20.140). Eliminating the need for a Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment is also possible because right-of-way vacations follow a Type 4 application review process that meets public input requirements for decisions to determine a property's proper plan designation and land use district. 1 If the application is submitted concurrently with a Plan Amendment or Zone Change application, the application could propose that the right-of-way take on the requested plan designation and/or zone. Attachment 1 Page 3 of 8 MEMORANDUM Page 4 II. Should the Comprehensive Plan Map display information about adopted neighborhood refinement plans? If so, how? Topic Context: The property -specific Comprehensive Plan Map creates a visual opportunity to direct map users to applicable plan designations and documents for their properties. Currently, certain applications for land use approval (e.g., Discretionary Uses, Zoning Map Amendments) must determine whether the request to allow a particular use is consistent with the Metro Plan and (if applicable) an adopted neighborhood refinement plan. For properties within the boundary of a refinement plan, the refinement plan's designation takes precedence. The role of a refinement plan designation has not been the same over time. In some refinement plans, the refinement plan designation is the same as the Metro Plan designation. In other refinement plans, the refinement plan designation is a more specific and separate designation than the more general Metro Plan designation. This policy structure affects how staff and the public access information they need. With this in mind, four mapping options were considered (with a fifth hybrid option added by staff following input from the project's advisory bodies): • Option 1: Show the Metro Plan Diagram designations as currently named with property lines, but leave a "white space" (or "hole") where an adopted refinement plan applies. Map users would look at the refinement plan maps to learn the designation of a property. • Option 2: Show the Metro Plan Diagram designations as currently named with property lines for all properties throughout Springfield without showing any information about refinement plans. This option would mean no boundary lines or "holes" for the refinement plans. In this case, properties within refinement plan areas may have two plan designations— one as per the Comprehensive Plan Map and a more specific one in refinement plan maps. • Option 3: Show all the various refinement plan designations on the Comprehensive Plan Map without changing any names of the refinement plan designations. Metro Plan Diagram designations, where different or less specific than refinement plan designations, would be discarded. • Option 4: Show the refinement plan designations on the map where applicable but consolidate similar designations to streamline and minimize the legend. Metro Plan designations, where different than refinement plan designations, would be discarded. Amend refinement plan text as needed to match the new Comprehensive Plan designations. • Hybrid Option 3/4: For refinement plan areas, show most of the refinement plan designations (as in Option 3) but consolidate all Mixed Use designations into one and consolidate designations similar to Parks and Open Space, Public Land, etc. Individual refinement plan maps retain existing, detailed designations. Do not amend refinement plan text. Attachment 5 provides visual examples of the four options originally presented to the project's advisory bodies. These examples are early concepts intended to guide discussion. There will be time to improve the map that reflects the preferred approach. Recommended Map Approach— Hybrid Option 3/4: For refinement plan areas, show most of the refinement plan designations (as in Option 3) but consolidate all Mixed Use designations into one and consolidate designations similar to Parks and Open Space, Public Land, etc. Do not amend refinement plan text. Attachment 1 Page 4 of 8 MEMORANDUM Page 5 Rationale: Showing information about where refinement plans apply on the Comprehensive Plan Map can make property research more efficient and helps ensure that the due diligence process does not miss an important piece of information. Consolidating the names of some plan designations in the spirit of Option 4 eliminates clutter and makes the map more readable. Staff recommend not fully going with Option 4 for various reasons. Several refinement plans have detailed text descriptions of certain designations that serve special purposes. It would be difficult to capture the nuanced or specific refinement plan requirements if the refinement plans' written content required amendments to adopt generalized plan designations. Leaving the refinement plan text as presently in place honors specific locations as currently described, which also reduces the need for staff resources. This project can take advantage of existing technology with Springfield's online interactive map (MapSpring) to show the specific refinement plan designations in the spirit of Option 3. With this tool, users have the option to turn certain information on or off of the map screen and can view as much or as little of the detailed refinement plan as desired. Attachment 4 provides a list of tradeoffs for the four basic options originally considered and discussed with the advisory bodies. Implications: Boundaries of each adopted refinement plan will appear on the printed (PDF) map and on MapSpring. Comprehensive Plan designations will apply outside refinement plan areas. Within the refinement plan areas, the plan designation will be at a property -specific level but in a simplified way for some properties (Mixed Use and designations such as Parks and Open Space, Public Land, etc.) while retaining existing detailed, refinement plan designations for other properties where possible. Refinement plan maps and text regarding the purpose and nuance of specific designations will not change. Generalized/simplified names for some refinement plan designations will appear in the printed map, while MapSpring has potential for providing more specific information. The printed version would be similar to Option 4; only the generalized plan designations would appear within the boundaries of refinement plan areas. MapSpring could produce Option 3 because more information about refinement plan designations could be easily displayed. Examples of designations to be simplified are as follows: The designations of Mixed Use 2, 2a, 2b, and 3 from the East Main Refinement Plan are examples of how detailed refinement plan designations can consolidate into one Mixed Use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The East Main Refinement Plan boundary would be shown on the printed map with a note to alert map users to go to the applicable refinement plan or online interactive map for more specificity. There are other ways to streamline the map by consolidating other legend items similar to the Government, Government and Education, Parks and Open Space, Public Land and Open Space, and Public/Semi-Public designations. III. Should the Comprehensive Plan Map show Nodal Development Areas? If so, how? Topic Context: The representation of Nodal Development Areas throughout Springfield is inconsistent. In some instances, Nodal Development designations are treated as an "overlay" (i.e., an additional plan designation that applies over the top of the "base" plan designation). Nodal Development acts as a base plan designation in other locations. The interest in whether to Attachment 1 Page 5 of 8 MEMORANDUM Page 6 show Nodal Development Areas on Springfield's Comprehensive Plan Map and how to show them comes from the origins and current applicability of Nodal Development. Nodal Development Areas came from the Eugene -Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan), originally adopted in 2002 as one of the metro region's documents guiding decisions about how to meet the area's transportation needs over a 20 -year period. TransPlan is a functional plan of the Metro Plan. The Metro Plan incorporates portions of TransPlan's information for Plan consistency and for compliance with Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 12. The Metro Plan recognizes Nodal Development Areas by carrying them forward onto the Metro Plan Diagram 2 (Attachment 2b) and explaining them in its text. TransPlan's Nodal Development strategy came from the requirement to respond to the State's Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), intended to provide mixed use areas served by multi -modal transportation facilities that reduce reliance on single -occupant vehicles. While Nodal Development Areas are no longer a required component of the current TPR, many of the locations adopted as Nodal Development Areas continue to serve a purpose of meeting the City's goals for mixed use development served by multi -modal transportation networks. Options: • Option 1: Represent as previously adopted (some overlays, some base designations) • Option 2: Represent all as base designations • Option 3: Represent all as "overlays" Recommended Map Approach— Option 3: Show Nodal Development Areas on the Comprehensive Plan Map as "overlays" and treat Nodal Development Areas the same way across Springfield for consistency Rationale: Showing Nodal Development Areas on the Comprehensive Plan Map will provide an accessible information resource desired by those who work with the City. Doing so will allow users of the map, including those who work with land use applications, to minimize the number of places they need to remember to look to determine applicable land use requirements for a property. As compared to representing Nodal Development Areas as -adopted (where some Nodal Development Areas are overlays only or base plan designations only), the consistency and predictability of Springfield's treatment of nodal development areas will eliminate potentially confusing inconsistencies and allow for a clean map. Showing the Nodal Development Areas as an overlay designation, as opposed to a base plan designation, may also simplify future comprehensive planning work to replace the "nodal development" concept from TransPlan to a more modern approach to mixed use and multi -modal development, such as "Climate -Friendly Areas3". Attachment 4 provides a list of tradeoffs for all options considered. 2 The 2004 version is official. While a number of Diagram amendments have been approved and acknowledged since 2004, Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County have not yet undertaken a joint action to adopt a new, replacement diagram. The 2004 version does not show Nodal Development Areas in Springfield. The 2010 and later versions of the Diagram show these areas. 3 The Climate -Friendly and Equitable Communities rules amend the Transportation Planning Rule and require that Springfield adopt one or more "Climate Friendly Areas". Attachment 1 Page 6 of 8 MEMORANDUM Implications: Page 7 Showing Nodal Development Areas on the Comprehensive Plan Map will make users aware that policies containing language about Nodal Development will continue to apply. Nodal Development will no longer be shown as both an overlay and base designation. Instead, outlines will surround these locations and be labelled as Nodal Development Areas. Base designations will appear inside the line. Where Nodal Development base designations will no longer apply as a result, there will be new base designations for each property within these areas. The result is no change in policy intent but a change in how Nodal Development Areas appear. Properties with only a Nodal Development base designation will change to a Mixed -Use designation, as Mixed -Use is consistent with the original intent of designating properties as Nodal Development. IV. Should some areas on the Comprehensive Plan Map have flexible designation boundaries? If so, in what cases? Topic Context: The primary focus of this project is to interpret the Metro Plan Diagram's designation boundaries where there is a lack of property -specific clarity. The boundary between the Diagram's designation boundaries is open to interpretation based on the scale of the original map; it is an approximately 300 -foot wide line. Through the research to define where a line between designations falls, staff determined that some properties have more than one plan designation (i.e., a "split designation"). There is an opportunity to consider the effects split designations for specific situations as outlined below. Options: • Option 1: Set the boundaries (lines) between plan designations so they are fixed • Option 2: Allow for some flexibility in the boundaries with clear parameters • Option 3: Keep the boundaries entirely flexible Recommended Map Approach— Option 2: Allow for some flexibility in the boundaries with clear parameters Rationale: This approach balances interests of providing some level of certainty for development sites (which an entirely "set in stone" map would provide) while accommodating for unknown or changing circumstances of the development process by allowing a defined level of flexibility. The Metro Plan currently allows room for interpretation of boundaries, though it has been criticized for its ambiguity creating the need for lengthy and costly land use application processes along with potentially contentious outcomes. Specifying how flexible and where the plan designation boundaries can shift addresses the issues presented by the Metro Plan and allows the findings of Springfield's Buildable Land Inventories to remain valid. Attachment 4 provides a list of tradeoffs for all options considered. Implications: The tax lot boundaries of each property will be clear along with what appears to be specific boundaries for each plan designation. The map will not show areas where there is flexibility to interpret and possibly move the boundary applies; accompanying text can describe this option for flexibility. This approach will result in clarifying policy language in the Springfield Comprehensive Plan text and in the Development Code. However, a general note on the map may be provided. Staff will need to define appropriate parameters and thresholds for when the option to shift a plan designation boundary would be allowed without necessitating a Comprehensive Plan Attachment 1 Page 7 of 8 MEMORANDUM Page 8 Amendment. For example, whether a minimum property size is needed and the maximum amount of "shift" that would be allowed. To determine the maximum amount a plan designation can shift, percentage or numeric standards would apply. Locations and situations where this flexibility could apply would be for: • Large sites with split (multiple) plan designations (e.g., sites similar to Marcola Meadows), where specific plan designations can be assigned at later steps of the project (e.g., master plans) when development teams determine siting of infrastructure and buildings based on topography and drainage • Areas where the Public Land, Government & Education and Parks & Open Space (or similar situation) designations touch • Property Line Adjustments, Land Divisions, and Replats, if applied for under a Type 2 procedure RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide guidance to staff on whether the recommendations for how to approach creating the draft Comprehensive Plan map align with Council's preferences, or if Council prefers alternative approaches. Attachment 1 Page 8 of 8 1 , r i ' u r z BEACON DR W w ij BEACON OPE ---- REY �Om 0 Su ' � o ' ■ AIRPORT RDIRVINGTON DR ,■ �C , , r "CLEAR LAKE RD � v IflVING RD ■—J 1 ( 90 �, ) �,. QO ■ N� BELTLINE RD - g �JQO 7 � ' ■ V ■ 1■O� GO H _ - '■ _• ■ ' , -GREEN ACRES CRESCENTD - N MAXWELL D w • 0 _ BELTLINE RD - BARGER AVE ¢ - ` ¢ Q,."�tL) Z o ¢ O4 - — RD a _ _ a HORN O o 4= Q> m CAL1 UNGR .0 PARK ROYAL qVE ND r ¢ F o m ROYALAVE 9�FS O — o 1 TFC. HARLOW R a i �• 9FS,S 3 o w � . ¢ OOSE LT ¢ o JJ e ❑ -- -�,�_. I -toy. Co —_-- r _Z wIST gv j m vc_JC W 5TH A ` - ND IPL BLVD CENTENN � W 7T AVE o ¢ W 11TH AV w ' ST a_ AVE E 181H AVE w ❑ > a LL ¢ a 1 � �•{ O E24TH AVE z �♦ ■ a W 28T q E W,28 7 , E30TH • ---�� ■+ REST DR E 33RD ¢ ~ s s SRO , a ■ ,�'Y' o < Q�2 ■ ¢ a CRE ¢ m 5 a E30TH AVF E40 H = 3yo z Z 9 O O T■ a !�1 o = o? Pia ---- -------- ,i SPENCER CREE F r f4 r =mf Eugene -Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Plan Diagram O- t w ,■�■"fir � EST IS�% � C9 ■ J SPER R • Attachment 2A, Page 1 of 1 1 ■ KE�1 IWY 12� r 1 � M� ■------------------ W ----------------1W H E 4 s 0 7000 ft The information on this map was derived from digital databases on Lane Council of Governments' regional geographic information system. Care was taken in the creation of this map, but it is provided "as is". LCOG cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital data or the underlying records. Current plan designation, zoning, etc., for specific parcels should be confirmed with the appropriate governmental entity - Eugene, Springfield, or Lane County - with responsibility for planning and development of the parcel. There are no warranties, express or implied, accompanying this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. (The interpretation and purpose of the Plan Diagram, and descriptions of the land uses and symbols shown, are contained in Chapter II -G.) ,14"" Urban Growth Boundary ❑ Low Density Residential ❑ Light Medium Industrial ❑ Agriculture Metro Plan Boundary ❑ Medium Density Residential ® Campus Industrial ❑ Forest Land Railroads 1:1High Density Residential University Research Rural Residential � V Rivers and Ponds 1:1Commercial ❑ Government and Education Rural Commercial Overlays: Mixed Use Areas 2 Major Retail Centers ® Parks and Open Space Rural Industrial ND Nodal Development Area ❑ Heavy Industrial ❑ Natural Resource Airport Reserve ❑ Willamette Greenway ® Special Heavy Industrial ❑ Sand and Gravel � MCK�lrel 4/08/04 Eugene Ordinance No. 20319 Springfield Ordinance No. 6087 �,.•j'"""*`��o'��+ Lane County Ordinance No. PA 1197 O- t w ,■�■"fir � EST IS�% � C9 ■ J SPER R • Attachment 2A, Page 1 of 1 1 ■ KE�1 IWY 12� r 1 � M� ■------------------ W ----------------1W H E 4 s 0 7000 ft The information on this map was derived from digital databases on Lane Council of Governments' regional geographic information system. Care was taken in the creation of this map, but it is provided "as is". LCOG cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital data or the underlying records. Current plan designation, zoning, etc., for specific parcels should be confirmed with the appropriate governmental entity - Eugene, Springfield, or Lane County - with responsibility for planning and development of the parcel. There are no warranties, express or implied, accompanying this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. SPENCER Jr Eugene -Springfield �. Metropolitan Area General Plan Plan Diagram CO (The interpretation and purpose of the Plan Diagram, and descriptions of the land uses and symbols shown, are contained in Chapter II -G.) c �.� Urban Growth Boundary ❑ Low Density Residential In Special Heavy Industrial ❑ Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Boundary ❑ Medium Density Residential Light Medium Industrial ❑ Agriculture Railroads ❑ High Density Residential ® Campus Industrial ❑ Forest Land ` W. +••�• ■ Nodal Development � University Research 1:1 Rural Residential Rivers and Ponds •— `• . �.+ 1 �• Commercial Government &Education © Rural Commercial {.—. Overlays: i Po J�� � • ®Mixed Use Areas ®Major Retail Center � Parks and Open Space � Rural Industrial • VOe y . ND Nodal Development Area Heavy Industrial Natural Resource Airport Reserve GREEN gCRES NDir � •, CRESCENT DR -p° .• Z. Willamette Greenway 12/31/2010 OQPS z ` BELTOINERD MCKENZ,e�/� 'V VALID AT 11x17 SCALE ONLY RD Y wOR/ F O Q° N •. rD CALY UNG RD Q7 w ..••• a — J aZZ • O HAYDEN RIDGE RD CAMP CRE g o HARLOW Ra' HAYDEN y EK RD BR DGE RD s I 1-105. �— m m ., 1 •• P -SPR HWY .� •. � CENTENNI VD � i - •'.■ 1 "~ EST � � TkIURSTON R� •, W 11TH V _ D T W 13TH V 9CS MAIN ST JY r w N T McKENZIE ■ 18 AVE 1 ... ............. ° O ❑ Z ti D N E 24TH AVE JASPER RD • t W 28T AVE A `•��• `•� W VE � ♦ � * - fes. �. �.� E 30TH 1 • .� ST DR E 33RD Q L •40 G ,\ m a yQP� , � � P1rri■ N DR (n E30TH AVE 0 7,000 1 E 40 Z • 1 •� F`0, • 1 �� �` i Feet oo,<< The information on this map was derived from digital r ❑ Fok databases on Lane Council of Governments' regional �• •• • ° "" geographic information system. Care was taken in the creation of this map, but it is provided "as is". LCOG cannot accept any responsibility for errors, 1 omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital data or the underlying records. Current plan designation, • _ ss zoning, etc., for specific parcels should be confirmed with the appropriate governmental entity - Eugene, Springfield, or Lane County - with responsibility for / planning and development of the parcel. There are no warranties, express or implied, accompanying this product. Attachment 2B, Page 1 of 1 However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. Comprehensive Plan Map Clarification Project Advisory Body Membership Project Advisory Committee • Alexis Biddle, 1000 Friends of Oregon • Carrie (Morgan) Driggs, University of Oregon • Earl McElhany, At -Large • Katie Keidel, Metro Planning • Phil Farrington, CDC Management Corp. • Rick Satre, The Satre Group • Sean Maxwell, At -Large • Zach Galloway, TBG Architects + Planners Technical Resource Group • City of Eugene • Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development • Lane Council of Governments • Lane County • Springfield Public Schools • Springfield Utility Board • Willamalane Park and Recreation District Attachment 3, Page 1 of 1 Considerations for Springfield's Tax Lot -Specific Comprehensive Plan Map Options Advantages Disadvantages Other Notes & Considerations Designating - . Option1: Designate Rights -of -Way Potentially less ongoing work to maintain the map so it is up-to-date. Changing the designation of a public right-of-way would require a Plan Amendment process. Need to establish written policy for how plan designations would or would not be affected If public rights-of-way are both zoned and designated, there is potential for plan/zone conflicts that cannot be addressed through vacating the public -right-of- by right-of-way dedications and vacations. way. Possible need to create a policy in the Comprehensive Plan and have a corresponding Creates additional, ongoing map maintenance work for staff and creates issues of Development Code provision similar to SDC 5.20.140 (Zoning of Vacated Right -of -Way) how to interpret where lines should go. The plan designation may be set by a legal to address plan designations. description or may otherwise be static, but this would not be "rectified" by routine housekeeping updates to the tax lot layer in the map, where minor shifts in all of Could explore a policy to provide authority to the mapping staff team to shift designation Springfield's tax lot boundaries occur. boundaries along with the automatic updates to the tax lot layer that comes from outside sources. Makes the PDF version of the Comprehensive Plan Map less legible due to greater difficulty in locating a property. Option 2: Do Not Designate Rights -of -Way Regional consistency: Eugene Code 9.1070 is a model for the policy Possibility of the issue to require additional focused work. See notes column. Eugene will develop (not designating rights-of-way). Need to identify situations where tax -lotted areas (e.g., property acquired for roadways Avoids plan/zone conflicts. Provides applicants requesting to vacate the public right-of-way a clearer path and result: No need to change an already -determined plan through purchase rather than dedication) should be treated as rights-of-way and not given designation through a Plan Amendment process, and the plan designation a plan designation. and zoning that will apply will be that of the abutting subject property. The PDF version of the Comprehensive Plan Map would have greater legibility. "Finding your way" around Springfield would be easier. Displaying Neighborhood Refinement Plan Information with property lines, but leave a "white space" (or "hole") where an adopted Option 1: Show the Metro Plan Diagram designations as currently named refinement plan applies. Map users would look at the refinement plan maps to learn the designation of a property. Not a one-stop reference: additional searching for the separate refinement plan Helps simplify the map legend with fewer layers of compliance shown. diagram required. This research would be required for all properties within Would need a note on the map or other text to make clear that the areas in the refinement refinement plan boundaries. plan boundaries have designations though not shown on the map. Consider labeling these areas with the applicable refinement plan title and hyperlinking for people viewing the PDF version of the map posted online. Fastest option for completing the map and preparing for adoption. Helps the mapping staff team to minimize need for coordination to update Would need to resolve how to address any properties within a refinement plan area the map for Refinement Plan Amendments. where the associated refinement plan text specifies that these properties presently include Metro Plan designations as separate from the refinement plan designation. Attachment 4, Page 1 of 4 Options Advantages Disadvantages Other Notes & Considerations Option 2: Show the Metro Plan Diagram designations as currently named with property lines for all properties throughout Springfield without showing any information about refinement plans. This option would mean no boundary lines or "holes" for the refinement plans. In this case, properties within refinement plan areas may have two plan designations— one as per the Comprehensive Plan Map and a more specific one in refinement plan maps. Helps simplify the Comprehensive Plan map with fewer graphic elements This would result in two plan designations for all properties within refinement plan and layers of compliance shown. boundaries: The Comprehensive Plan designation and the Refinement Plan designation, which creates redundancy in some cases. Not a one-stop reference: additional searching for the separate refinement plan Faster to create as compared to Options 3 and 4. diagram required. This research would be required for all properties within refinement plan boundaries. Potential to miss important information at time of property research due to the above referencing issue: Without notes on the map that may or may not be read, does not immediately make clear that refinement plan designations also apply (and supercede the designations on Comprehensive Plan Map). Not as simple for most people to understand, and would require awareness of need to read the Comprehensive Plan text and/or Development Code that another plan designation applies. Option 3: Show all the various refinement plan designations on the Comprehensive Plan Map without changing any names of the refinement plan designations. Metro Plan Diagram designations, where different or less specific than refinement plan designations, would be discarded. Creates a hard to read printed version of the map with very long legend with many Would keep each refinement plan in-tact and on the same "level' as the designation names-- some of which are very nuanced and some of which might rest of the city. cause confusion in their similarities. However, not a concern for MapSpring (the online, interactive version of the map). Could create subheadings in the map legend or other mini legend boxes to make clear which designations apply to each refinement plan. Users of the map become immediately aware of the applicable plan Takes longer to create as compared to Options 1 and 2. designation for a property (no need to search other places). Helps map maintenance: staff would need to update only one map when a Plan Amendment occurs. Option 4: Show the refinement plan designations on the map where applicable but consolidate similar designations to streamline and minimize the legend. Metro Plan designations, where different than refinement plan designations, would be discarded. Amend refinement plan text as needed to match the new Comprehensive Plan designations. Requires text amendments to refinement plans. Takes additional time to research Addresses concern with the long Iengend created by Option 3 by and decide which amendments to propose. Outcome not guaranteed, as these streamlining a bit. amendments would also be part of public hearing and decision making process to adopt the Comprehensive Plan Map. Intended for the printable PDF version of the map. Potentially not needed for the online interactive map, which could more easily incorporate Option 3. Presents an opportunity Could lose nuance of the different variations of specific designations with this option. Risk of overlooking the different reasons for such specificity. For example, for a hybrid of Options 3 and 4. the planning intent for Parks & Open Space, Public Land, Government & Shows more specificity about refinement plan designations as compared to Education, and similar variations as described in the text might not allow for Could consider an approach that achieves the intent of Option 4 without amending the Options 1 and 2 and would mean a more streamlined research process as aggregations, especially if the implementing zones have different lists of allowable Refinement Plan text (if so, map users will still need to know to go elsewhere for compared to Options 1 and 2. uses. Potentially time intensive to determine why/why not to consolidate names by information about specific plan designations). reading refinement plan text and by reviewing code language to determine which differences in designation labels are semantics or punctuation (a "clean up" Could consider possibilities of an interim step of this version. For example, could opportunity) vs. which ones represent substantive/intentional differences in consolidate the Mixed Use variations of Mixed Use 2, 2a, 2b, and 3 on the map but retain development intent. the Parks & Open Space, Public Land, Government & Education, and similar variations, or vice versa. Not a one-stop reference: Additional searching for the separate refinement plan diagram required but for potentially fewer properties (e.g., for Mixed Use properties) as compared to Options 1 and 2. Takes longer to create as compared to Options 1 and 2. Attachment 4, Page 2 of 4 Options Advantages Disadvantages Other Notes & Considerations Displaying Nodal Development Areas Option 1: Represent as previously adopted (some overlays, some base designations) Aligns most directly with the scope of work to represent what was adopted. Inconsistency remains and creates potential confusion about why some are overlays and others are base designations. Creates additional complexity for staff involved with map maintenance. Option 2: Represent all as base designations Shows a consistent approach throughout Springfield. Would change the text and diagrams of some of the more actively used refinement Make sure policy intent of the Nodal Development designation remains the same. plans (for example, Glenwood). Takes more time to map this change as compared to Option 3. Option3: Represent all as 'overlays" Aligns with zoning terms and practice (Nodal Development is treated as an For the online interactive map (not applicable to a PDF, printable map): Someone Overlay District in the Springfield Development Code). may forget to "click"/turn on this layer of information. Would need to assign a base designation for the properties that currently only have Retains familiar terms in base designations (e.g., residential, commercial, Nodal Development as a base designation (Mohawk and portions of Downtown) -- industrial categories). likely the Mixed Use designation, as its intent for providing a variety of uses in a concentrated space that supports multimodal transportation and minimizes automobile trips is consistent with Nodal Development. Make sure policy intent of the Nodal Development designation remians the same. Shows a consistent approach throughout Springfield. The quickest way to get a visual overview of where Nodal Development Areas are located throughout Springfield. Easiest approach for map creation and for ongoing map maintenance (one layer to maintain and can be easily removed if Nodal Development Areas are renamed or otherwise removed in the future). Providing Flexibility for Some Designation Boundaries (Large Split -Designated Development Areas & For Other Specific Circumstances*) Option 1: Set the boundaries (lines) between plan designations so they are fixed Leaves no question of what the plan designations are. May not respond to on -the -ground reality at the time development is contemplated. Would require the property owner to submit a Type 4 Plan Amendment application No additional work needed to create new rules and procedures. (costly, potentially lengthy application process) for small amounts of wiggle room (e.g., 10 feet). Maintains validity of Buildable Lands Inventory findings. Option 2: Allow for some flexibility in the lines with clear parameters Provides some ability to respond to on -the -ground reality at the time May create plan/zone conflicts unless policy is clear that the choice of plan development is contemplated. designation must not create such conflicts. Requirements can be written in a clear, objective way to offer Will require text to address this approach in the Springfield Comprehensive Plan predictability/certainty while still allowing for wiggle room in plan and in the Development Code. designation boundaries. Requirements can be written to not require property owners to submit a Type 4 Plan Amendment. Requirements can be written to maintain validity of Buildable Lands Inventory findings. Attachment 4, Page 3 of 4 Options Advantages Disadvantages Other Notes & Considerations Option 3: Keep the boundaries entirely flexible Greatest ability to respond to on -the -ground reality at the time development May create plan/zone conflicts unless policy is clear that the choice of plan is contemplated. designation must not create such conflicts. Potential to affect Buildable Lands Inventory. Lack of certainty may be perceived as too ambiguous and too similar to the issues presented by the Metro Plan Diagram: Could inhibit development (e.g., assessments, may complicate decision-making processes by requiring interpretation and findings related to the plan diagram designation), and create unintended consequences in map maintenance/updates. Will require text to address this approach in the Springfield Comprehensive Plan and in the Development Code. Boundaries where one of the abutting plan designation lines falls into the categories of Public Land, Public Land & Open Space, Parks & Open Space, and similar designations; Property Line Adjustments; Land Divisions Attachment 4, Page 4 of 4 v 1 YYRIHC�P� 4 7+-0. ..18 1 Na. G�3.GOH Fy.�a.nw�c�.aw��w��irpM.a 5 i DRAFT Springfield Comp Plan Diagram - Option 1 T : Urban Growth �Ounda ryr 141i5(Bd Use OveHays & CGtyt.i +cs Plan�r`a� Nadal Development TBD Comp Plan Designations La* C" -,e raddke&W Mwx HAM Carta � Cwws WwAml Partes W d apan spbm a ku.*r. fW wy A*5wk.x RO cnmwfflvew HMO usv uw Maud usf FM' Dr--) kwd.M,*..44M" � hwo 0,.k.—M Surd a!� rule "wd lko M" www L.n.rr ffKw a Cdwabm rb urim w -um h" Attachment 5, Page 1 of 4 r r� fJ 4 4 k F { t .rt " . h 400V W r h". ----------------- -0 L - W., - -- --- z t @�K .... L � MF kwo SPIIINGFIEL= a V4 1.�2 1 ka nnc — AM-0-vp w NPI. --v ow DRAFT Springfield Comp Plan Diagram - Option 2 Urban Growth Boi inri af-f Cfty Lin*3 CGmp Plan Designations M spufT"M�Di� INN Owwto Aft -A-0 R,40 Lw M cA-Vv5v-Prj#40 M %0-9� Mo&LLNYA3e Rvwwahml o. — � U, W tLN M..d "y- M M K0 ---y Lpot Wa*= wwusm M Num Dmmbwmd NhtUFN FMSaffM W MDR M." Lr" M Haw, hkrLrw WIDDE! Me Ecklid a fwuwoi M U-6 = N "mm &-xrww Smfflffqw4 a kofflmrEp ft-UMN dvhdw P 400V W r h". ----------------- -0 L - W., - -- --- z t @�K .... L � MF kwo SPIIINGFIEL= a V4 1.�2 1 ka nnc — AM-0-vp w NPI. --v ow DRAFT Springfield Comp Plan Diagram - Option 2 Urban Growth Boi inri af-f Cfty Lin*3 WNW- ff 4 L.4 4, 4 1 J I 0, -S eptrt 202.2 J Attachment 5, Page 2 of 4 CGmp Plan Designations M spufT"M�Di� INN Owwto Aft -A-0 R,40 Lw M cA-Vv5v-Prj#40 M %0-9� Mo&LLNYA3e Rvwwahml o. — � U, W tLN M..d "y- M M K0 ---y Lpot Wa*= wwusm M Num Dmmbwmd NhtUFN FMSaffM W MDR M." Lr" M Haw, hkrLrw WIDDE! Me Ecklid a fwuwoi M U-6 = N "mm &-xrww Smfflffqw4 a kofflmrEp ft-UMN dvhdw WNW- ff 4 L.4 4, 4 1 J I 0, -S eptrt 202.2 J Attachment 5, Page 2 of 4 3 _ Fdrc Lard 5 OPn Spm Attachment 5, Page 3 of 4 DRAFT Springfield Comp Plan Diagram - Option Urban Gro+nlh�3oundary 3 MixedUSeOve4-iays& EL L G i�l Il2 fw. PIarYAre�Is Mocha D('valopmer1# TBD :: t we w feRawa+M o MIF" rwwMw rrer Comp Plan Designations M BVLrfa;Y� CxFri4r' M Oertrw6M MU40 L15& M Dom Kuh' now um GormmwM MNMa Lir HVMCWL to _ Fdrc Lard 5 OPn Spm Attachment 5, Page 3 of 4 DRAFT Springfield Comp Plan Diagram - Option Urban Gro+nlh�3oundary MixedUSeOve4-iays& i CG LirvkiM PIarYAre�Is Mocha D('valopmer1# TBD Comp Plan Designations M BVLrfa;Y� Law, Pwawe farms dW M Oertrw6M MU40 L15& M Dom Kuh' now um GormmwM MNMa Lir HVMCWL to C+wm.a*w4Lr W +4M ti. Dwm m Tk "Md Usa FAY[ Ltr.} ! max+ DF" paste p�� L OA -M M—a Ux - <.*" Od[.. - Naw4-.%— w Rmkwrw Mped Lksir � ='- LV* w5odom I rdakW M Q" Mbs.1 LI* - W Lfk L a d 6 Ct M SPom M Dwrmw�-' M a-Iry.•r k &w w kt d Lhe 635529 - ftis end Upspa NMwzd MMM Camnr7oe" MsM1 -4 — Mad (J%k2.L3 NostL"^--_.___ M L, ---mi — M CA*ft. k"a hw ALnd Lk-.a;plan} R-6 h r A,.w = usp H M UNUM = L•a44fmart Rwwd Ufa 41kmmimmii # FL7r dpi _ 04 MW IUCHV NDa EAST M Lar Cwertp RF.4wm UNWM awrMN RV,.W" CurmW'We, CWr rcm L#4MMrww&-,mw M3W LksD Zk& M MIGALJnt283 _ RMW Latin d OPM Specs MO iptr nement Plan 13 in W2 ka Attachment 5, Page 4 of 4 try DRAFT Springfield Comp Plan Diagram - Option 4 Urban Growth Goundn ry Mixed Use Overlays & i . ....... I City UmU Nodal Developmetnt TBD Comp Plan Designations LCw Dwrwo r=WMW i CwwwHtY CwffMu6j 4�� 6,6rjWUd 43uuaFr*rKtk*k 6 Mmhu- LW-!Av PM%*wrtEJ c W"Dd U%4 LMVM*WwrItMMM* Uric FWK-, a" Opun *pow M Fwp Nr. &. kL*r i CffwwCA&VWuFWW 6LM L429 Uouri KW MWM Uric Sw Vj 6 CA" mroffladwe-I USA LK0 Mmkim WWLMM mcwMaiOnEo ft Urbw HOMM Ad w awffm�w Fi4*, kNmrww M. -I -- "—I.—.,a— i SPLIrTAkkba—d t 41 L n I linsi CompreM(--- n Clarification ro City Council Work Session Attachment 6 Page 1 of 15 November 28, 2022 SPRINGFIELD �� LcoG OREGON LANE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Project Purpose Create aproperty-specific Comprehensive Plan Map for Springfield that... •Replaces the "broad brush" graphics of the Metro Plan Diagram 4 S ®Feet a _ a..:n:�o� mzm. cuu�iloFco• mumaa �q�.t a.aipw ent 6 Pa e 2 of 1��w°�£ Eugene -Springfield 1 l Metropolitan Area General Plan n`�}7yryhJ`�' '��M� .. Plan Diagram d (Pbe iot,�pnuasjM V+�M:e Mdn PLs➢egam mddnoiP�m and naWle+atler�cnv>`mdi7CLa1� ij' m.oa.t,ea..eY'helwes rnmuma-r � mm.ymu ®'9°° L] am nra�i ❑.eui..om.Mxmmm. ::1 umu«-e , �.muulm r_ t ��✓ y� ❑ NTomutr.aamlu 11 •maunm El rmn�am '" k N w...mewa. ewao«w,m.m E u.n...nm...Rn El w.ixmimmd L Vj���bumW L]«..w.au.—., ❑®.w..am,,.. .. i.a ._�:•� �m ��°�""'.,., P VALID AT 11x175CALE ONLY / 4 S ®Feet a _ a..:n:�o� mzm. cuu�iloFco• mumaa �q�.t a.aipw ent 6 Pa e 2 of 1��w°�£ Project Purpose Create aproperty-specific Comprehensive Plan Map for Springfield that... Replaces the "broad brush" graphics of the Metro Plan Diagram Snapshot of Metro plan Diagram rCOALE AYf ED IE kil (Example for w i1lustrarive purposes) E1NDALE 041t� To Something Property Specific Adds greater certainty to Plan designations for properties in nt 6 Page Sof 15 Springfields land use jurisdaidon Project Purpose Interprets existing information Clarifies Is factual Attachment 6 Page 4 of 15 Erj VALID AT IIx17 SCALE ONLY Develops better research tools Why it Matters Why Now Local Ownership & Decision -Making Better Service Large Projects on the Horizon & Requirements Barriers Identified Attachment 6 Page 5 of 15 • r�mldinrM % I A :.— - �,.S�.F - - - T l r4lr ti - y �-m. w6_Wr� e3 IL a6LY. - r 4h vq Im 1 � f Attachment 6 Page 6 of 15 lb �r �'Ci PL -00 Ullervalls &; imallil • r�mldinrM % I A :.— - �,.S�.F - - - T l r4lr ti - y �-m. w6_Wr� e3 IL a6LY. - r 4h vq Im 1 � f Attachment 6 Page 6 of 15 lb �r �'Ci PL -00 Ullervalls &; Mapping Questions & Recommendations Should the Comprehensive Plan Map designate public rights-of-way? • Some major streets shown on the Metro Plan Diagram • Public rights-of-way are given a land use designation • No Metro Plan text that speaks to this topic Attachment 6 Page 7 of 15 0 Mapping Questions Recommendations Should the Comprehensive Plan Map designate public rights-of-way? Attachment 6 Page 8 of 15 Do not designate 0 0 Mapping Questions 8 Recommendations Should the Comprehensive Plan Map display information about neighborhood refinement plans? If so, how? • Need to know the refinement plan designation for certain land use approvals • Refinement plan designation takes precedence over Metro Plan designation • Implications for property research and finding maps Attachment 6 Page 9 of 15 Mapping Questions Re Q Should the Comprehensive Plan Map display information about neighborhood refinement plans? If so, how? r d �!ii . . ndations • For interactive map, show refinement plan designations with detail • For PDF map, show refinement plan designations but simplify designation names in legend & amend text (Mixed Use, Open Space); do not amend refinement plans Attachment 6 Page 10 of 15 O Mapping Questions & Recommendations should the Comprehensive Plan Map show Nodal Development? If so, how? • Represented inconsistently throughout Springfield • No longer a required component of the State's Transportation Planning Rule • Continue to serve a local purpose of identifying and achieving multimodal transportation options Attachment 6 Page 11 of 15 0 Mapp i commendations M =I NDM Should the Comprehensive Plan Map show Nodal Development? If so, how? Attachment 6 Page 12 of 15 Represent all as overlays Mapping Questions & Recommendations Should some areas on the Comprehensive Plan Map have flexible designation boundaries? If so, in what cases? • Current boundary between two designations (colors) is 300 -ft. wide • Consider implications for properties with more than one plan designation Attachment 6 Page 13 of 15 Mapping Questions Should some areas on the Comprehensive Plan Map have flexible designation boundaries? If so, in what cases? commendations Attachment 6 Page 14 of 15 Allow some flexibility with clear parameters e3 A r�mMdinrM� t � ti +� 16.4 4ir 1 mpp.ppr--- dw r - 1' �r �'Ci PL -00 1 _ •� i .IdlEp i f Attachment 6 Page 15 of 15 4MM SDG