HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022 11 01 AIS Comp Map Clarification Project CompleteAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 11/1/2022
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Monica Sather/DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-736-1038
Estimated Time: 50 Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) Council Goals: Provide Financially
Responsible and
Innovative Government
Services
ITEM TITLE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP CLARIFICATION PROJECT
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Provide guidance to staff on whether the recommended options for how to approach
creating the draft Comprehensive Plan map align with the Commission’s preferences, or if
the Commission prefers alternative approaches.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
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, and information learned from other jurisdictions, staff have identified
recommended options for map display and associated policy where needed. Planning
Commission’s guidance on how to proceed with key policy-related topics for the map
will inform a subsequent meeting with City Council.
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: Summary of Interviews with Oregon Cities
Attachment 5: Questions for Meetings with Advisory Bodies
Attachment 6: Tradeoffs of Mapping Options (table)
Attachment 7: Visual Examples of Refinement Plan Display Options
DISCUSSION: Background: In response to Springfield establishing an urban growth boundary separate
from Eugene, Springfield continues to develop its own Comprehensive Plan. A key step is
to create a map for the Plan that interprets and clarifies the Metro Plan Diagram, including
showing 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. In November 2021,
the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development awarded grant funding for
the project. Staff provided a project overview to Planning Commission in its role as the
Committee for Citizen Involvement on March 1, 2022.
Discussion: 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 options for visually representing policy-
level planning information for: public rights-of-way, adopted neighborhood refinement
plans, and nodal development. Whether to allow flexibility in plan designation boundaries
is another topic. Attachments 1 and 6 will inform the work session’s discussion.
Next Steps: Council will hold a work session to provide direction to staff based on these
materials on November 28, 2022. Staff will address Council’s direction to create the draft
map and will then share the draft map with various audiences according to the Community
Engagement Plan.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 10/24/2022
To: Springfield Planning Commission
From: Monica Sather, Senior Planner BRIEFING
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, and
information learned from other jurisdictions, staff have identified recommended options for map
display and associated policy where needed. Planning Commission’s guidance on how to
proceed with key policy-related topics for the map will inform the meeting with City Council on
November 28, 2022, where staff will seek direction for the first draft of the 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 (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
“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
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 7
MEMORANDUM Page 2
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 (Attachment 4).
• 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. The full set of
questions asked to these advisory bodies is in Attachment 5. As staff continue property research,
input on whether staffs’ recommended approach to these topics aligns with Planning
Commission’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
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 7
MEMORANDUM Page 3
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. This
approach also streamlines the process of ongoing map maintenance. 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 6 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.
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
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 7
MEMORANDUM Page 4
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 7 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.
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 6 provides a list of tradeoffs for the four basic options originally considered and
discussed with the advisory bodies.
Implications:
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 7
MEMORANDUM Page 5
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
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”
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. Attachment 1, Page 5 of 7
MEMORANDUM Page 6
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 6 provides a list of tradeoffs for all options considered.
Implications:
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:
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 7
MEMORANDUM Page 7
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 6 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
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 recommended options for how to approach creating the
draft Comprehensive Plan map align with the Commission’s preferences, or if the Commission
prefers alternative approaches.
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 7
Attachment 2A, Page 1 of 1
E ST
58TH ST48TH STCROW RD42ND STOAKWAY RDRI
VER RDH
W
Y
99
N
SENECA RDRI
VER RDJASPER RDGATEWAY STCHAMBERS STI-5I-5BERTELSEN RDI-5PARK AVE NI-5TERRYGA
ME
F
A
R
M
R
D
N
ECHO HOLLOW RDDANEBO35TH STW 11TH AVE
RD
AGATEW 5TH AVE
BELTLINE RD
CHAD
W 1ST AVE
W 7TH AVE
W 11TH AVE THURSTON RD
E AMAZON DRHENDERSONWILLAMETTE STMAXWELL RD
ROYAL AVE
SPRING5TH STDELTA HWYGONYEACREST DR
ISLAND
PARK
31ST ST19TH STW D ST
E 40TH GARDEN WAYBELTLINE RD
32ND STDONALD ST28TH STE 30TH AVE
E 33RD AVEJEFFERSON STHARLOW RD
W 28TH AVE 31 S T ST
E 18TH AVE
E 4 3R D A V E
E 24TH AVE COBURG RDW 18TH AVE
AIRPORT RD
CITY VIEW STHILYARD STW 6TH AVEGREEN HILL RDGREEN ACRES
MAIN ST MAIN ST
IRVINGTON DR
DILLARD RD
W 7TH AVE
BAILEY HILL RDGOODPAST U REGREEN HILL RDMARCOLA RDGAME FARM RDCOMMERCIAL
ST
AGATE STNORKENZIE RDMOHAWK BLVDGARFIELD STAMAZ
ON PKWY
H
WY
99
N
SPENCER CREEK RD PRAI
RI
E RDPATTERSON STFRANKLIN BLVDBARGER AVE
McK ENZ IE HWY
CAMP CREEK RD
WILLAGILLESPIEW
A
MAZON DRCAL YOUNG RD
HAYDEN BRIDGE RD
PI
ONEER PKWYEUG-SPR HWY
AWBREY LN
FRANKLIN BLVDN. DELTA HWYFOX HOLLOW RDL O R A NE HWYC
O
B
U
R
G RDHAYDEN BRIDGE RD
BEACON DR E
BELTLINE RDCLEAR LAKE RD NORTHWEST EXPRESSWA
YWILLAMETTE STE 30TH AVE
ROOSEVELT BLVD
W ILL OW CREEK RD
BAILEY HILL RDCENTENN IA L BLVD
NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY COBURG RDHWY 58
S
P
RIN
G
FIEL
D
-
C
R
E
S
WELL
H
W
YGIMPL HILL R D
MCKENZIE VIEW DRIVE
IRVING RD
ROYAL AVE
CREST DR
CRESCENT DR
I-105
HORN
BEACON DR W
W 13TH AVEW 11TH AVE
W 29TH AVE
ND
ND
NDND ND ND
ND
NDND
ND NDNDND
0 7,000Feet
±
The information on this map was derived from digitaldatabases on Lane Council of Governments' regionalgeographic information system. Care was taken inthe creation of this map, but it is provided "as is".LCOG cannot accept any responsibility for errors,omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital dataor the underlying records. Current plan designation,zoning, etc., for specific parcels should be confirmedwith the appropriate governmental entity - Eugene,Springfield, or Lane County - with responsibility forplanning and development of the parcel. There are nowarranties, express or implied, accompanying this product.However, notification of any errors will be appreciated.
Eugene-SpringfieldMetropolitan AreaGeneral PlanPlan Diagram
(The interpretation and purpose of the Plan Diagram, and descriptions of the land uses and symbols shown, are contained in Chapter II-G.)
Urban Growth Boundary
Metro Plan Boundary
Railroads
Rivers and Ponds
Overlays:
Mixed Use Areas
Nodal Development Area
Willamette Greenway
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Nodal Development
Commercial
Major Retail Center
Heavy Industrial
Special Heavy Industrial
Light Medium Industrial
Campus Industrial
University Research
Government & Education
Parks and Open Space
Natural Resource
Sand and Gravel
Agriculture
Forest Land
Rural Residential
Rural Commercial
Rural Industrial
Airport Reserve
12/31/2010
ND
VALID AT 11x17 SCALE ONLY
Attachment 2B, Page 1 of 1
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
M E M O R A N D U M
City of Springfield
Date: August 12, 2022
From: Katie Carroll, Community Development
Monica Sather, Community Development
Subject: Summary of Interviews with Oregon Cities
Note: This document is an abbreviated version of a longer document. It does not contain the
appendices referenced throughout (list of original interview questions, interview transcripts,
and contact information for staff from other jurisdictions). A copy of the full version of this
document is available upon request.
INTRODUCTION
As part of the City of Springfield’s Comprehensive Plan Map Clarification Project, the project
team conducted informational interviews with seven City governments in Oregon to better
understand the information displayed on their comprehensive plan maps. These interviews
can help to inform the project team’s and advisory bodies’ efforts to work together to
determine what information Springfield’s draft comprehensive plan map will show.
This research builds on previous work by the City of Eugene beginning in 2012, and most
recently in 2018, as it began to undertake a similar comprehensive plan mapping project.
Springfield’s project team spoke to staff from the following cities that Eugene once
contacted: Beaverton, Bend, Corvallis, Hillsboro, Medford, Portland, Salem. This memo
updates the brief notes from Eugene’s initial contacts, which indicate the status of each
jurisdiction’s map. Page 6 provides links to the comprehensive plan map for each city and a
summarized version of this memo in table form. The full interview notes are in Appendix B.
Appendix C provides contact information for staff interviewed.
INTERVIEW FINDINGS
Similar Project Work
Of the seven cities contacted, none recently undertook a project similar to Springfield’s
mapping project. Three (Beaverton, Portland, Salem) undertook policy-driven map
amendments in recent years to update designations based on changes to comprehensive
plan text. The City of Bend undertook a project in 2018 to resolve conflicts between its
comprehensive and zoning maps. Other cities did not report making significant changes to
their comprehensive plan maps in recent years.
Despite this, several cities’ maps have information that aligns with Springfield’s project.
Four of the seven cities already have property-specific comprehensive plan maps
(Beaverton, Bend, Corvallis, Portland, Salem). Bend’s comprehensive plan map follows
platted lots. No cities reported having gone from a generalized to a property-specific map in
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 7
2
recent history. Hillsboro shows tax lot lines on its printed map1; designations generally
follow these but are not based precisely on lot lines. Portland does not show tax lot lines on
its printed map though its map is tax lot-specific.
Considerations for Placement of Designation Boundaries
Flexible Boundaries
Two cities with largely property-specific maps (Bend, Corvallis), have areas where
designation boundaries are not-property specific. There are some large tax lots (100+
acres) within Bend’s urban fringe (outermost areas) that are more conceptual and have
multiple designations. Corvallis also has a map that is more conceptual in urban fringe
areas. There are some areas in Corvallis closer to the city center where some ambiguity
unintentionally appears. One example is an area near a highway where designations were
set based on a buffered distance from a highway. The intent was to ensure these adjacent
areas would follow designation boundaries when developed, but this did not occur (for other
Corvallis examples, see Appendix B: Interview Notes).
Splits
Five cities reported having split-designated properties, including those with maps that
generally follow lot lines. Of the cities with property-specific maps, three have split-
designated properties on their maps (Bend, Corvallis, Portland). Corvallis and Portland staff
both brought up that having split designations created challenges for property owners
wishing to develop. Portland tried to clean up as many splits as possible during a project to
re-designate properties on its map. Staff from Portland recommended cleaning splits up
while focused on map analysis because it can be more difficult during a full comprehensive
planning process, and because you may not revisit areas of the map for many years.
Beaverton, which has a property-specific map, cleaned up all its split designations in a prior
project. However, it had some splits occur more recently on properties in “edge area”
subdivisions, which it resolved during the development approval process.
Public Rights-of-Way
Cities’ answers varied as to whether their comprehensive plan maps designate public rights-
of-way (ROW). Five cities designate ROW (Beaverton, Hillsboro, Medford, Portland, Salem).
However, Hillsboro and Salem’s maps do not show ROW as designated- Salem explained
this was done for ease of use when orienting to locations on its map. Cities that designate
ROW generally designate to the street centerline. Two cities do not designate ROW:
Corvallis and Bend. Bend’s map shows ROW as designated, but it is not designated in
practice. All cities reported that their decisions to designate ROW or to not was consistent
between their comprehensive plan map and zoning map (i.e., both maps show colors in
ROW or do not).
Corvallis’s development code specifically says zoning will not apply to ROW, however staff
was not aware of similar language that corresponds to this practice for its comprehensive
plan map. Corvallis staff was not exactly sure why ROW was not designated but thought it
1 Most cities also have interactive web-based versions of the comprehensive plan map and other
maps, which allow the user to select information they want to see and hide information they do not
want to see.
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 7
3
may be based on their buildable lands inventory in order to plan for gross densities that
exclude ROW. Bend does not designate ROW because it is not private property.
Portland designates ROW because ROW locations can change over time (such as with
vacations). Portland’s procedures require a plan amendment to the map every time this
happens. Beaverton staff believed the rationale behind its approach to designating ROW is
that it has design requirements for bike and pedestrian facilities that are tied to zoning. As
such, designating ROW on its comprehensive plan map allows for consistency with its zoning
map. Hillsboro designates ROW because streets change over time, and the City wants to
keep the designations in place where they were when the map was adopted.
Plan/Zone Conflicts
Four cities (Beaverton, Corvallis, Portland, Salem) resolved conflicts between the map’s plan
designation and zoning as part of a larger policy-driven project, usually related to a
comprehensive plan update. Bend undertook a smaller-scale, administrative project in 2018
that focused on resolving conflicts. Medford has an ongoing program to resolve conflicts on
a case-by-case basis to fulfill housing density goals. Medford pays for the rezoning in these
cases. Hillsboro has conflicts it would like to resolve but has no timeline.
When resolving conflicts, Bend provided property owners an option to “opt out” of a
designation change or rezoning by providing a form for the property owner to sign agreeing
that they understood they would be responsible for the cost of making these changes in the
future. Portland staff reported doing a lot of outreach and messaging to educate the public
on why they were making changes, which generally consisted of up-zoning residential areas
to match plan designations. Corvallis addressed conflicts through a prior project but has
additional conflicts it hopes to gradually resolve as staff work on neighborhood/specific area
plans over the next seven to eight years.
Display of Specific Area Plans
Only two cities show outlines of specific area plans (similar to neighborhood refinement
plans) on their maps (Hillsboro, Medford). Hillsboro shows the boundaries of all its
“community plans” on its comprehensive plan map. These community plans are also
attached to the comprehensive plan’s text, and the map legend references the section of the
comprehensive plan that each community plan is contained in. Medford shows the
boundaries of one area plan on its map because there are more specific development
requirements tied to that plan. Medford has one other area plan that is not on the map due
to the lack of development regulations being in place for this area.
Staff from Hillsboro thought its map may have some discrepancies between its community
plan maps and its comprehensive plan map. Staff suggested making sure a uniform
procedure is in place for updating community plans and the comprehensive plan to avoid
misalignment and confusion. Hillsboro is currently working on amending a community plan
with potential alignment issues in mind, but this has not always happened in the past.
Corvallis shows neighborhood centers (as a circular buffer) on its map. These centers do not
have a direct regulatory purpose but play an indirect policy role. Some of these centers are
tied to neighborhood plans, but others are tied to the comprehensive plan. Corvallis does
Attachment 4, Page 3 of 7
4
not show any other information about neighborhood plans on its map. Bend and Portland
both implement area plans through zoning, which is why they do not appear on their
comprehensive plan maps.
Display & Plan Designation of Water Bodies
Four of the seven cities (Bend, Corvallis, Portland, Salem) show some water bodies on their
maps. Staff in multiple cities speculated the decision was related to ease of use. Ease of use
was given as a reason both for showing and not showing water bodies. Multiple cities show
water-based information on their natural resource maps; staff at these cities thought this
was a reason for not showing water on their comprehensive plan maps. Hillsboro does not
show water bodies on its map because these areas are all contained within floodplain or
open space designations, which are represented on the map. Portland shows water bodies
on its map and designates its water bodies (for example the Willamette River is designated
to the centerline). The rationale for this is to have the designation in place per the chance
water levels change.
Display of Willamette River Greenway
Of the three cities interviewed where the Willamette River Greenway (WRG) applies, none
show the WRG on their comprehensive plan maps. Both Corvallis and Portland regulate the
WRG through zoning as an overlay, so it is shown on their zoning map rather than their
comprehensive plan maps. Salem does not show it on its comprehensive plan map for ease
of use.
Use of the Same Designation as a Base & an Overlay
None of the cities interviewed have a designation similar to Springfield’s nodal development
designation, which the 2010 version of the Metro Plan Diagram shows as both a base and
“overlay” designation.
Use of Aerial Photos
Four cities (Beaverton, Bend, Hillsboro, Portland) used aerial photos to support research and
decisions about which designation to use. For example, cities used aerial photos to better
understand on-the-ground conditions and existing uses in areas. Beaverton used aerial
photos to determine the appropriate commercial designation for sites, looking at site layout
and whether existing uses were auto-oriented. Hillsboro used aerial photos when
determining designations for urban expansion areas, looking for natural resources and to
better understand existing development patterns.
Map Maintenance Procedures
Administrative Procedures for Map Adjustments
Four cities reported having adopted code language to allow for the administrative (staff
level) adjustments to map features without necessitating a plan amendment process. Code
references for Bend, Corvallis, Portland, and Salem are in Appendix B: Interview Notes.
Bend and Salem both have adopted language that covers interpretation of boundaries for
features, including natural features such as water bodies. However, this language only
applies to zoning. Portland has adopted language giving the Planning Director authority to
Attachment 4, Page 4 of 7
5
make certain corrections to the comprehensive plan and zoning maps beyond the very
minor adjustments GIS can do. Portland also has a standard operating procedure for staff to
request these changes by submitting a memo with findings. Corvallis has adopted language
allowing adjustment of natural features administratively with a site study.
Outside of officially adopted language, a few cities reported that GIS can make changes that
are clearly linked to previous errors made when reflecting an approved land use decision on
the map.
Map Adjustments Based on Outside Information & Changing Natural Features
For map updates reliant on information from outside data sources, two cities reported
having adopted code language allowing changes to be made based on that data, both
related to natural resources. Beaverton has code language allowing it to update its wetland
inventory map based on outside data, though these features are not on its comprehensive
plan map. Corvallis allows natural resource features to be updated based on outside
information, some of which comes from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and
the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.
Portland does not have a process in place for updating maps based on data from an outside
data source that changes. Portland staff advised that it is helpful to clean up as much data
as possible during a project, and to write a clause that allows for flexibility to realign
designations to follow natural features. Hillsboro also does not have a process in place to
allow this but has some outdate floodplain information on its comprehensive plan map,
further highlighting the importance of having procedures for administrative updates.
Attachment 4, Page 5 of 7
6
Snapshot of Approaches to Comprehensive Plan Maps in Cities Across Oregon
City Print
Map
Web
Map
Property Specific
Map
Designation Boundary
Considerations
Plan/Zone Conflicts
Resolved
Specific Area
Plans
Shown
Water Bodies
Shown
WRG
Shown
Use of
Same Designation
for Base &
Overlay
Use of
Aerial Photo
for
Research
Language in
Place to
Allow Ongoing
Map
Maintenance at Staff
Level Flexible
Boundaries Splits ROW
Designated
Beaverton Link Link Y N N Y Y- Project
component N N N/A N Y N
Bend Link Link
Y-
Platted Y Y N Y- Project
purpose N Y N/A N Y Y
Corvallis Link Link Y Y Y N Y- Project
component N Y N N N/A Y
Hillsboro Link Link N N/A Y Y N Y N N/A N Y N
Medford Link Link N N/A Y Y Y- Ongoing Y N N/A N - N
Portland Link Link Y N Y Y Y- Project
component N Y N N Y Y
Salem Link Link Y - - Y Y- Project
component N Y N N - Y
Total Yes 5 2 5 5 6 2 4 0 0 4 4
Key
Y = Yes - = Question not asked or not answered
N = No N/A = Question not applicable
WRG = Willamette River Greenway
Attachment 4, Page 6 of 7
7
Key Takeaways
There was no consistent approach to map display across all seven cities interviewed. A
summary of select topics is below for reference regarding decisions about map display, user
experience working with the map, and for maintaining accurate information post-adoption.
• Similar project work: No city recently undertook a project similar to Springfield’s
mapping project, and none reported having gone from a generalized property-specific
map in recent history. Despite this, several cities’ maps have information that aligns
with Springfield’s project interests. Five of the seven cities already have property-
specific comprehensive plan maps (Beaverton, Bend, Corvallis, Portland, Salem).
• Leaving plan boundaries flexible: Two of the five cities with largely property-specific
maps (Bend, Corvallis), have some areas where designation boundaries are intentionally
not-property specific. These areas are largely in the cities’ outlying (“urban fringe”)
areas outside city limits, but some exceptions apply within Corvallis city limits.
• Split plan designations: Of the five cities with property-specific maps, three have
split-designated properties (Bend, Corvallis, Portland). Portland recommended cleaning
up as many as possible before adoption, which follows Beaverton’s approach.
• Designating public rights-of-way (ROW): Five cities designate ROW, but two of
these do not these designations on their comprehensive plan maps to allow for ease of
visual orientation. Two cities do not designate ROW. Some cities emphasized that a
consistent policy approach between assigning zoning to ROW and designating ROW on
the comprehensive plan map is important.
• Plan/zone conflicts: Four cities (Beaverton, Corvallis, Portland, Salem) resolved
plan/zone conflicts as part of a separate, larger project. These are the same cities that
display tax lot-specific information on their comprehensive plan maps. Two cities
resolve(d) conflicts through other means.
• Display of other adopted plans on the map: Two cities (Hillsboro, Medford) show
outlines of plans for specific neighborhood areas that are regulatory in nature. Because
Hillsboro’s approach applies a general comprehensive plan designation and a community
area plan designation, Hillsboro recognizes a procedure should be in place to update its
community area plans and its comprehensive plan to avoid misalignment and confusion.
• Depicting the Willamette River Greenway (WRG) on the map: The WRG does not
appear on any of the cities’ maps though three cities are adjacent to the WRG.
• Administrative procedures for map adjustments: Four cities have official
procedures in place for interpreting and adjusting boundaries of map features (Bend,
Corvallis, Portland, Salem), but only two have these in place for the comprehensive plan
map as opposed to zoning maps. Portland’s process is worth reading further for an
example of adjustments to a comprehensive plan map. In some cities that do not have
adopted code language, GIS staff can correct errors on maps only when the correction
relates to an approved land use decision.
• Map adjustments based on outside information and on shifting natural
features: Two cities (Beaverton, Corvallis) have official code language allowing changes
to be made based on that data—both related to natural resources, but this information
does not affect the information shown on their comprehensive plan maps. Portland does
not adjust its map but advised the team to consider adopting a provision that allows for
flexibility to realign any designations affected by the location of a natural feature.
• Additional advice: All but Medford offered advice for the project beyond the questions
asked. This advice is in Appendix B as the last part of each interview.
Attachment 4, Page 7 of 7
Page 1 of 4
Questions for the Project Advisory Committee &
Technical Resource Group
Neighborhood Refinement Plans
1. Should the Springfield Comprehensive Plan map show information about the adopted
refinement plans? Is there potential to make things easier and clearer by incorporating that
information onto the map, or would it be best to leave things separate? Options (and
tradeoffs) to consider for these questions are:
o Option 1: Apply the Metro Plan Diagram designations as currently named with property
lines, but not for the properties where an adopted refinement plan applies. The map
would show outlines where the refinement plan boundaries are around white space
(basically “holes”).
o Option 2: Apply 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 where the
refinement plan boundaries are to clue people into a need to look elsewhere for more
information.
o Option 3: Bring all various refinement plan designations into the map where applicable
without changing any names of the refinement plan designations. All variations of
designations (e.g., Mixed Use 2, 2a, 2b, 3) would be brought over onto the map.
o Option 4: Bring the refinement plan designations into the map where applicable but
consolidate designation names to streamline and minimize the legend items. This option
may require amending the text of affected refinement plans.
Addressing Gaps
2. Should Springfield designate public rights-of-way (e.g., streets)? If so, should the map show
designations for public rights-of-way, or should the map show rights-of-way in white/as blank
space?
a. Should there be a written policy to reflect the map approach?
o Note: The Metro Plan shows rights-of-way as designated.
o Note: Designations for rights-of-way are shown on the Glenwood Refinement
Plan Diagram for the local streets but not major streets like Franklin Boulevard.
Explanation for result: The local street network was conceptual so it did not make
sense to use actual right-of-way as a boundary for the districts/designations.
o Note: Currently, the zoning map shows some rights-of-way as zoned, but the
approach is inconsistent throughout Springfield.
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4
b. Should our decision on whether or not to designate public rights-of-way match how we
handle zoning in public rights-of-way?
3. Please refer to the May 22, 2022 memo from the City Attorney’s Office for guidance on the
City’s approach to assigning plan designations (or not) to streams and rivers. For properties
adjacent to and including these water areas, this guidance would result in plan designations
applying to the edge of a property up to the ordinary high watermark for navigable
waterways (Willamette and McKenzie Rivers) and to the centerline of a stream for non-
navigable waterways (e.g., the Mill Race, creeks). Are there reasons we should consider an
alternative approach?
4. Plan designations must generally apply to waterbodies that are not navigable waterways
(e.g., naturally occurring wetlands, artificially created ponds). Should the map show these
water resources in the spirit of an interest in providing useful information, or keep them off?
Overlays
5. Many of the Nodal Development areas throughout Springfield incorporate Nodal
Development as base designation instead of having a Nodal Development overlay apply.
Staff are researching the extent of the designations’ adoption history and appropriate terms
(whether overlays or base designations).
a. What do you think about making Nodal Development part of a property’s base
designation name and moving away from using the term “overlay” for this plan
designation (not zoning) when we adopt the Comprehensive Plan map?
b. Would a separate map of nodal development areas in general make better sense as
opposed to putting this information on the Comprehensive Plan map?
c. For areas where Nodal Development overlays (not base plan designations) may still
apply, how would this overlay show up best on the Comprehensive Plan map? Do you
like the outline approach of the Metro Plan Diagram (shown in red) when considering
there are other overlapping sets of information in this example (e.g., the diagonal lines
for a Mixed Use overlay)?
Note: This may not be a
question for the PDF
version of the map we
adopt if we choose the
“holes” option for the
areas of our map within
neighborhood
refinement plans.
However, this will matter
for our online interactive
version of the map.
Attachment 5, Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4
6. The project team is leaning toward continuing to show the Willamette Greenway on
Springfield’s future Comprehensive Plan map. Can you think of reasons to not continue to
show it on the map? What is your preference?
a. If we show it, would a line/outline or as another type of shape or symbol be best?
o Note: The Metro Plan Diagram currently shows it as a solid green line:
Tradeoffs of Specificity v. Generalization
7. Any examples of where it might help to leave the plan designation boundaries flexible? In
other words, not precisely define where the plan designations fall in an area of Springfield by
showing tax lot lines (for example, outside city limits but within the pre-expansion UGB
areas, publicly owned land, etc.)?
Data Coordination & Ongoing Boundary Changes
Note: Questions 8 and 9 were asked only to the Technical Resource Group.
8. How do we address designations made based on other agencies’ information? For example,
the Natural Resource designation in the North Gateway UGB expansion area was based on
the extent of the floodway established by FEMA. Do we shift the designation once we get
new information, or do we leave it as-is based on the date adopted?
9. How should we handle minor shifts to property boundaries over time for maps like our
Comprehensive Plan Map, which are “for information only” and are not official survey or plat
maps that come from property line adjustments or land divisions? Specifically, what leniency
should the GIS team have to make minor adjustments to the map’s features as they change
over time? Examples of minor shifts considered for this situation: if a river meanders or if
there is a slight difference in how property lines show up on a computer screen due to
electronic adjustments.
a. Any advice on which legally authoritative documentation to use to let GIS make these
changes without having to formally adopt amendments to the map every time? For
Attachment 5, Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4
example: By ordinance? Text in the Comprehensive Plan document? Text in the
Development Code or Municipal Code? Or a combination of these sources?
b. Related to shifting water boundaries: Could we follow a tax map as opposed to a deed if
the County has a mechanism to recognize that change? How might we handle this with
Assessment & Taxation? Or, could we follow the Department of Geology and Mineral
Industry’s updates to its channel migration study?
Accessible Information
10. What are your recommendations (if any) for displaying map information clearly and
understandably for a wide variety of audiences and needs?
11. What are your recommendations (if any) for spreading the word about the project when a
draft map is available for public review and comment?
o Note: The goal is to have this occur well before the adoption/public hearing
process.
o Note: The City has an approved Community Engagement Plan available for
reference.
Attachment 5, Page 4 of 4
Considerations for Springfield's Tax Lot-Specific Comprehensive Plan Map
Options Advantages Disadvantages Other Notes & Considerations
Changing the designation of a public right-of-way would require a Plan Amendment
process.
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-
way.
Creates additional, ongoing map maintenance work for staff and creates issues of
how to interpret where lines should go. The plan designation may be set by a legal
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
Springfield's tax lot boundaries occur.
Makes the PDF version of the Comprehensive Plan Map less legible due to greater
difficulty in locating a property.
Possibility of the issue to require additional focused work. See notes column.
Not a one-stop reference: additional searching for the separate refinement plan
diagram required. This research would be required for all properties within
refinement plan boundaries.
Would need a note on the map or other text to make clear that the areas in the refinement
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.
Would need to resolve how to address any properties within a refinement plan area
where the associated refinement plan text specifies that these properties presently
include Metro Plan designations as separate from the refinement plan designation.
Helps the mapping staff team to minimize need for coordination to update
the map for Refinement Plan Amendments.
Fastest option for completing the map and preparing for adoption.
Helps simplify the map legend with fewer layers of compliance shown.
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.
Need to establish written policy for how plan designations would or would not be affected
by right-of-way dedications and vacations.
Possible need to create a policy in the Comprehensive Plan and have a corresponding
Development Code provision similar to SDC 5.20.140 (Zoning of Vacated Right-of-Way)
to address plan designations.
Could explore a policy to provide authority to the mapping staff team to shift designation
boundaries along with the automatic updates to the tax lot layer that comes from outside
sources.
Need to identify situations where tax-lotted areas (e.g., property acquired for roadways
through purchase rather than dedication) should be treated as rights-of-way and not given
a plan designation.
Displaying Neighborhood Refinement Plan Information
Designating Public Rights-of-Way
Option 2: Do Not Designate Rights-of-Way
Option1: Designate Rights-of-Way
Potentially less ongoing work to maintain the map so it is up-to-date.
Regional consistency: Eugene Code 9.1070 is a model for the policy
Eugene will develop (not designating rights-of-way).
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
designation through a Plan Amendment process, and the 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.
Attachment 6, Page 1 of 4
Options Advantages Disadvantages Other Notes & Considerations
This would result in two plan designations for all properties within refinement plan
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
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.
Creates a hard to read printed version of the map with very long legend with many
designation names-- some of which are very nuanced and some of which might
cause confusion in their similarities. However, not a concern for MapSpring (the
online, interactive version of the map).
Takes longer to create as compared to Options 1 and 2.
Requires text amendments to refinement plans. Takes additional time to research
and decide which amendments to propose. Outcome not guaranteed, as these
amendments would also be part of public hearing and decision making process to
adopt the Comprehensive Plan Map.
Could lose nuance of the different variations of specific designations with this
option. Risk of overlooking the different reasons for such specificity. For example,
the planning intent for Parks & Open Space, Public Land, Government &
Education, and similar variations as described in the text might not allow for
aggregations, especially if the implementing zones have different lists of allowable
uses. Potentially time intensive to determine why/why not to consolidate names by
reading refinement plan text and by reviewing code language to determine which
differences in designation labels are semantics or punctuation (a "clean up"
opportunity) vs. which ones represent substantive/intentional differences in
development intent.
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.
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
for a hybrid of Options 3 and 4.
Could consider an approach that achieves the intent of Option 4 without amending the
Refinement Plan text (if so, map users will still need to know to go elsewhere for
information about specific plan designations).
Could consider possibilities of an interim step of this version. For example, could
consolidate the Mixed Use variations of Mixed Use 2, 2a, 2b, and 3 on the map but retain
the Parks & Open Space, Public Land, Government & Education, and similar variations,
or vice versa.
Shows more specificity about refinement plan designations as compared to
Options 1 and 2 and would mean a more streamlined research process as
compared to Options 1 and 2.
Addresses concern with the long lengend created by Option 3 by
streamlining a bit.
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.
Could create subheadings in the map legend or other mini legend boxes to make clear
which designations apply to each refinement plan.
Helps map maintenance: staff would need to update only one map when a
Plan Amendment occurs.
Users of the map become immediately aware of the applicable plan
designation for a property (no need to search other places).
Would keep each refinement plan in-tact and on the same “level” as the
rest of the city.
Helps simplify the Comprehensive Plan map with fewer graphic elements
and layers of compliance shown.
Faster to create as compared to Options 3 and 4.
Attachment 6, Page 2 of 4
Options Advantages Disadvantages Other Notes & Considerations
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.
Would change the text and diagrams of some of the more actively used refinement
plans (for example, Glenwood).Make sure policy intent of the Nodal Development designation remains the same.
Takes more time to map this change as compared to Option 3.
For the online interactive map (not applicable to a PDF, printable map): Someone
may forget to "click"/turn on this layer of information.
Would need to assign a base designation for the properties that currently only have
Nodal Development as a base designation (Mohawk and portions of Downtown)--
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.
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
(costly, potentially lengthy application process) for small amounts of wiggle room
(e.g., 10 feet).
May create plan/zone conflicts unless policy is clear that the choice of plan
designation must not create such conflicts.
Will require text to address this approach in the Springfield Comprehensive Plan
and in the Development Code.
Maintains validity of Buildable Lands Inventory findings.
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).
The quickest way to get a visual overview of where Nodal Development
Areas are located throughout Springfield.
Shows a consistent approach throughout Springfield.
Retains familiar terms in base designations (e.g., residential, commercial,
industrial categories).
Option 1: Set the boundaries (lines) between plan designations so they are fixed
Option 2: Allow for some flexibility in the lines with clear parameters
Requirements can be written to maintain validity of Buildable Lands
Inventory findings.
Requirements can be written to not require property owners to submit a
Type 4 Plan Amendment.
Requirements can be written in a clear, objective way to offer
predictability/certainty while still allowing for wiggle room in plan
designation boundaries.
Provides some ability to respond to on-the-ground reality at the time
development is contemplated.
Leaves no question of what the plan designations are.
No additional work needed to create new rules and procedures.
Displaying Nodal Development Areas
Providing Flexibility for Some Designation Boundaries (Large Split-Designated Development Areas & For Other Specific Circumstances*)
Option 1: Represent as previously adopted (some overlays, some base designations)
Option 2: Represent all as base designations
Option3: Represent all as "overlays"
Make sure policy intent of the Nodal Development designation remians the same.
Aligns with zoning terms and practice (Nodal Development is treated as an
Overlay District in the Springfield Development Code).
Shows a consistent approach throughout Springfield.
Aligns most directly with the scope of work to represent what was adopted.
Attachment 6, Page 3 of 4
Options Advantages Disadvantages Other Notes & Considerations
May create plan/zone conflicts unless policy is clear that the choice of plan
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
Option 3: Keep the boundaries entirely flexible
Greatest ability to respond to on-the-ground reality at the time development
is contemplated.
Attachment 6, Page 4 of 4
Attachment 7, Page 1 of 4
Attachment 7, Page 2 of 4
Attachment 7, Page 3 of 4
Attachment 7, Page 4 of 4