Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023 04 18 AIS Comp Map Clarification Project W_ATTNAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 4/18/2023 Meeting Type: Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.: Chelsea Hartman/DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-3648 Estimated Time: 45 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) Council Goals: Provide Financially Responsible and Innovative Government Services ITEM TITLE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP CLARIFICATION PROJECT ACTION REQUESTED: Provide feedback to staff on drafts of the property-specific Springfield Comprehensive Plan Map (web map and PDF) and on the potential adoption approach. ISSUE STATEMENT: As part of continuing to develop the Springfield Comprehensive Plan, a key step is to create a map that shows existing plan designations for each property in Springfield by interpreting and clarifying the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Diagram. The map will add greater certainty with a solid visual understanding of existing plans and policies and will streamline the land use research process with better property lookup tools. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Briefing Memo Attachment 2: 2004 Metro Plan Diagram Attachment 3: Advisory Body Membership Attachment 4: Advisory Body Discussions Summary Attachment 5: Draft Springfield Comprehensive Plan Map (web map and PDF) DISCUSSION: The process to create a Springfield Comprehensive Plan map has involved property research, letters to property owners for areas that required clarification and interpretation, discussions with the project’s Technical Resource Group (TRG) and Project Advisory Committee (PAC), and learning from other jurisdictions. Planning Commission provided feedback on November 1, 2022 followed by guidance from City Council on November 28, 2022 on potential mapping options for how to approach creating the map. In winter 2023, initial draft maps were shared with the TRG and PAC and their feedback informed the refined drafts that are being shared with Planning Commission and during outreach for review and feedback. Several technical and policy considerations informed the creation of the property-specific Springfield Comprehensive Plan Map. Planning Commission feedback on the draft maps and on the potential adoption approach will inform refinements and next steps as staff begin to prepare materials for the adoption process later this year. Outreach efforts underway include mailings to property owners, an online and in-person open house, an online survey, a news release, fliers, and other strategies from the Community Engagement Plan. A summary of feedback received during outreach will be shared with PAC and TRG. To prepare for adoption of the map, staff are drafting text amendments and supporting materials that will be shared during a Planning Commission work session prior to a joint public hearing with Lane County as part of the adoption process later this year. M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield Date: 4/18/2023 To: Springfield Planning Commission From: Chelsea Hartman, Senior Planner BRIEFING Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Clarification Project MEMORANDUM ISSUE: As part of continuing to develop the Springfield Comprehensive Plan, a key step is to create a map that shows existing plan designations for each property in Springfield by interpreting and clarifying the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Diagram. The map will add greater certainty with a solid visual understanding of existing plans and policies and will streamline the land use research process with better property lookup tools. 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 property-specific Springfield Comprehensive Plan Map that clarifies the boundaries of plan designations on the Metro Plan Diagram, which was adopted as an 11” x 17” paper map shown in Attachment 2. The Metro Plan Diagram is a “broad brush,” graphic depiction of projected land uses and major transportation corridors but does not meet today’s needs for showing which plan designations apply to each property within the region. 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 (DLCD) awarded funding for the project. The Planning Commission in its role as the Committee for Citizen Involvement provided direction on the Community Engagement Plan on March 1, 2022. Staff have provided regular updates to the Planning Commission throughout the process. Why this Work Matters • Local Ownership & Decision-Making: The property-specific Comprehensive Plan Map will show plan designations for each property within Springfield’s land use jurisdiction and will become part of the Land Use Element (a chapter) of the Springfield Comprehensive Plan. • Better Service: The map will provide timely, accurate information with property research tools that are convenient, quick to access, and easy to use—ultimately providing confidence in decisions. In addition to a PDF map, there will an online interactive map that is free to access, similar to the current draft web map. Users will be able to identify a plan designation Attachment 1, Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM for specific properties throughout Springfield with this tool without reliance on staff for basic answers. • Large Projects on the Horizon & Requirements: Springfield must adopt a 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 policy and technical research and through informed conversations to seek input on mapping approaches. • Staff interviewed seven cities across Oregon about their mapping decisions. • Staff conducted detailed research for properties that required clarification or interpretation of the Metro Plan Diagram, including ensuring Springfield’s draft map reflects refinement plans and any adopted changes to the Metro Plan Diagram since it was adopted in 2004. Given the scale of the Metro Plan Diagram, it wasn’t clear where to exactly draw the line between plan designation colors, so staff researched all properties that appeared to be near more than one color on the Diagram. References for property research included previous land use decisions (e.g., staff reports and adopted ordinances), the City’s permit database, and refinement plans. • As part of research, staff sent early letters to property owners to seek their knowledge and confirm the understanding of the plan designation for areas that required interpretation. Postcards are also being mailed to all owners of properties that were researched to let them know a draft map is available for review and feedback. • A Technical Resource Group (TRG) and Project Advisory Committee (PAC) have provided insight on desired outcomes for the map through a series of four 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 and a summary of the discussions is in Attachment 4. DISCUSSION: Earlier discussions with the TRG and PAC informed questions about potential mapping options that were presented to Planning Commission and City Council. Planning Commission provided feedback on November 1, 2022 followed by guidance from City Council on November 28, 2022 on options for how to approach creating the map. Decision-makers provided general feedback in support of staff recommendations on several key topics, including: • Do not designate public rights-of-way. • For refinement plan areas, show most of the refinement plan designations in detail for the interactive map. For the PDF map, create a simplified map and legend by consolidating Mixed-Use designations into one and consolidate designations similar to Parks and Open Space, Public Land, etc. Do not amend refinement plan text.  • Show Nodal Development Areas as “overlays” and treat Nodal Development Areas the same way across Springfield for consistency.  • Allow for some flexibility in the boundaries with clear parameters (e.g., property line adjustments, land divisions, large development areas, and lines between properties designated Public Land, Government & Education, Parks & Open Space, and similar designations). Attachment 1, Page 2 of 4 MEMORANDUM Based on property research and following this guidance, staff created initial draft maps to share with the TRG and PAC in winter 2023 to discuss suggestions for refining the drafts before broader community outreach. Both the TRG and PAC provided positive feedback on the PDF map since it was simpler with a consolidated legend and symbology. Both groups provided suggestions to make the web map look more similar to the PDF map and encouraged staff to explore options to further simplify the map and legend while maintaining the intent of adopted refinement plans. TRG and PAC feedback informed the revised PDF map in Attachment 5 as well as the updated web map. Consolidating similar designations as Public Land and Open Space Based on TRG and PAC feedback, staff are proposing a slight shift from the initial guidance from Planning Commission and City Council, which focused on retaining most of the refinement plan details while not amending refinement plan text. Upon further review of refinement plan text, staff are proposing to consolidate designations such as Government & Education, Public Land, Public/Semi-Public, Public Land & Open Space, and Parks & Open Space under one combined “Public Land and Open Space” designation. This approach will simplify the map and legend while honoring the original intent of refinement plans. This approach will require minimal text amendments to reflect the change in any designation names to Public Land and Open Space. Flexibility with clear parameters In November 2022, Planning Commission and City Council provided guidance to staff to allow for some flexibility in plan designation boundaries with clear parameters. 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. The property-specific map will not show areas where flexibility is allowed, however, a general note may be provided. Staff are working to draft language to describe how and when flexibility will be allowed to include in the Springfield Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. Locations and situations where flexibility could apply include: • Large sites with split (multiple) plan designations where specific plan designation boundaries 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 near Public Land and Open Space designations • Property Line Adjustments, Land Divisions, and Replats, if applied for under a Type 2 procedure Staff will continue discussions on how and when to allow flexibility, including vetting ideas with staff from DLCD to learn about related case law and how other jurisdictions have approached this topic. Attachment 1, Page 3 of 4 MEMORANDUM Adoption Approach During the TRG and PAC discussions, there was interest in understanding how the map will be adopted and how it will be maintained map over time. City staff have been discussing an adoption approach, which includes: • Adopt a Land Use Element with the property-specific map and supporting language as part of the Springfield Comprehensive Plan that replaces the Metro Plan Diagram and chapter II-G for land within Springfield’s UGB. • Adopt PDF maps at a scale sufficient to determine the plan designations of particular taxlots and the precise location of plan designation boundaries. Document supporting details such as: o Table describing taxlots with split plan designations o Summary of methodology and findings for how staff clarified and interpreted plan designations • Related text amendments to implement guidance from Planning Commission and City Council (e.g., language about not designating rights-of-way) in the Metro Plan, Springfield Comprehensive Plan, refinement plans, and Development Code. During the TRG discussion, DLCD staff offered to meet with City staff to provide insight on how to adopt and maintain the map and how to allow for some flexibility in plan designation boundaries with clear parameters. In addition to seeking feedback from Planning Commission on the potential adoption approach during this work session, staff will vet the approach with staff from DLCD, Lane County, and Eugene to discuss potential tradeoffs. Next Steps The draft maps are being shared using strategies from the Community Engagement Plan, including mailings to selected property owners, an online and in-person open house, an online survey, and sharing about the input opportunities using social media, a news release, and fliers at the Development Center counter. A final meeting with the PAC will be held to share a summary of feedback received during outreach. The TRG is a more technical-focused group and opted for the outreach summary to be shared via email. Staff will continue to have individual follow ups with TRG members as needed. To prepare for adoption, staff are drafting text amendments and supporting materials that will be shared during a Planning Commission work session prior to a joint public hearing with Lane County as part of the adoption process later this year. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide feedback to staff on drafts of the property-specific Springfield Comprehensive Plan Map (web map and PDF) and on the potential adoption approach. Attachment 1, Page 4 of 4 Attachment 2, Page 1 of 1 Attachment 3, 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 *No longer working for 1000 Friends of Oregon or serving on the PAC. 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 Discussions Summary A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) and a Technical Resource Group (TRG) helped the City of Springfield with policy and technical questions for this project by providing feedback at a series of meetings held in 2022 and 2023. This document captures key takeaways and highlights recommendations made during these meetings. Each meeting held to date is summarized below (organized in reverse chronological order). The PAC consists of people who live or work in Springfield as well as several land use planning experts in the private sector. The TRG consists of staff from Lane Council of Governments, Lane County, City of Eugene, Springfield Public Schools, Springfield Utility Board, Willamalane Park and Recreation District, and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development. Both groups play an advisory role and have not been asked to come to consensus or make a recommendation about the questions discussed. Key Takeaways for Project Advisory Committee & Technical Resource Group’s 4th Meetings The PAC and TRG met in late February and early March 2023 to review updated Comprehensive Plan Map drafts and to provide insight and suggestions to staff on desired outcomes for the map. User Friendliness of Comprehensive Plan Draft Products COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP PDF Springfield staff noted the PDF version of the map is a simplified illustrative version of the map, making it easier to read and engage with, but necessitating further investigation through use of the interactive map to see the full detail of designations (differences appear primarily due to the nuances of each of the refinement plans). Both PAC and TRG members provided predominantly positive feedback on the PDF map. Following are key takeaways: • Combining of similar categories makes the map much more readable, Attachment 4, Page 1 of 12 • The map strikes a good balance of accessibility while incorporating necessary detail (though it needs disclaimers that it’s illustrative and not a full representation of what’s been adopted) • The PDF map needs clear reference to its relative incompleteness in portraying ALL plan designation nuance. The map needs very clear reference to the interactive map for obtaining a complete picture of plan designation nuances. • There was some concern that map viewers still might miss that crucial point and draw inaccurate conclusions. • Staff emphasized that the whole project is being processed as a Post Acknowledgment Plan Amendment (PAPA), that they have been working with property owners on particularly nuanced interpretation and clarifying the map to reflect current adopted plan designations. Staff clarified that no property boundaries will change because of this work. Staff also noted they are assembling a list of more subjective plan and zone conflicts that may be addressed at a future time. INTERACTIVE (WEB-BASED) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP Both groups had more feedback on the interactive map. • Members in both groups expressed a desire to see an interactive map that looked more similar to the static PDF map. This included a desire for more general simplicity, but also greater consistency with symbology (colors, fills, outlines). Another key issue was the larger legend in the interactive map. Springfield staff noted that they had some short- term and permanent limitations with the formatting of the map, but plan to incorporate many of the suggested symbology changes in follow up versions. • The map would be more user friendly with better grouping/ordering of categories (even if the large list is maintained). • Springfield staff noted that some of the distinction between the PDF and Interactive Map is intentional. The Interactive Map presents unique and additive value by being customizable, catering to varying levels of curiosity. The interactive map can look at different scales so it’s easier to share the full detail of what’s been adopted, which caters to different users’ interests in what they want to see, while the illustrative PDF map is more simplified for legibility. • Both groups expressed desire for the interactive map to include tax lots lines. Also requested was the addition of waterways and of hyperlinks or other ready access to other resources (like RLID). Some pointed out that the static PDF shows the Willamette River Greenway and this should also be shown on the interactive map. Staff explained that the tool allows for identification of the tax lot presently when clicking on a property but does not show tax lot lines. Staff noted that while some additional information can be added, other information is problematic for a public facing resource due to their proprietary nature. Staff also want to make sure they only show detail they have confidence about – noting, for example, that they are still doing research on the Willamette Greenway in Springfield. Attachment 4, Page 2 of 12 • Some who work with this map will exploit any lack of clarity. Things must be clear. Maintaining user-friendliness and the amount of content in the map will be an important question of balance for the City. Clarifying the Truth, Today and Going Forward WHAT IS BEING ADOPTED? Both groups were very interested in understanding what would ultimately be adopted as the plan designations, or as one participant put it: “pinning down the truth” for the purposes of plan-- based decision making and unitization. This included questions about which map is being adopted (static vs interactive) and other nuances like the process for maintaining it. Is it a dynamic map that is adopted? Is it a table related to another layer maintained by someone else (e.g., cadastral)? What is proposed for adoption, and how does this truth get maintained in an authoritative way? • Springfield’s initial thinking was to adopt the interactive map since that’s the best reflection of what’s currently adopted but recognizes the tradeoffs in doing so. A decision is yet to be made. • Springfield staff reiterated the objective nature of the project. Springfield staff do not intend to be in the position of drawing arbitrary lines for the purpose of this project. The City is utilizing the most authoritative existing information. Wherever possible, the City takes advantage of data already out there that is vetted/adopted/widely accepted. MAINTAINING FLEXIBILITY • Springfield staff are still internally discussing the questions posed about adoption. Ideally, the goal is to adopt it at a property specific level. Also trying to figure out how to adopt it in a way that allows us to update the map without having to do a plan amendment when tax lot lines shift. Trying to balance that we want it to be property specific but also keep it updated and maintained without making an intense land use process every time. • Springfield notes that the technology is getting better for dynamic maintenance. The City is committed to setting the foundation for what’s coming next with improvements in technology and developing clear procedures for map maintenance. • City of Eugene staff are in the same position. They are currently working on urban reserves and considering potential leeway with where those boundaries are. How do we adopt something but figure in maintenance and how we update? Is it in cycles? How do we incorporate shifts over time? • DLCD noted that this a complex question. DLCD is very interested in helping Springfield get this right and offered to bring DLCD expertise to bear in vetting different options and legal pitfalls. DLCD offered to meet with City staff to provide guidance to provide flexibility to implement plan/zone changes, but at the same time not giving anyone the idea that we’re just rubber-stamping things. Attachment 4, Page 3 of 12 Key Takeaways for Project Advisory Committee & Technical Resource Group Meetings 1 through 3 The Project Advisory Committee and Technical Resource Group each met three times from July through October 2022 to discuss key technical and policy questions and to provide insight and suggestions to staff on desired outcomes for the map. The Project Advisory Committee consists of people who live or work in Springfield as well as several land use planning experts in the private sector. The Technical Resource Group consists of staff from Lane Council of Governments, Lane County, City of Eugene, Springfield Schools, Springfield Utility Board, Willamalane Park and Recreation District, and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development. Following is a list of questions and a high-level summary with key takeaways from discussions held by each group. Both groups play an advisory role and have not been asked to come to consensus or make a recommendation about the questions discussed. Overlays NODAL DEVELOPMENT 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). The term “Nodal Development Overlay” for a plan designation likely no longer makes sense for the majority or all of these areas. a. What 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. Glenwood Attachment 4, Page 4 of 12 d. Would your thoughts on display differ between a PDF version and an interactive, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) web research tool? PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION SUMMARY • Initial general agreement that it would be better to show what was officially adopted – helpful from a user perspective to know that in addition to the base designation there is something else applied to the property that needs research • However, desire for a consistent approach across Springfield where possible, with preference for representing as an overlay so the base designations are familiar (residential, commercial, etc.) and so map maintenance/display is easier TECHNICAL RESOURCE GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY • Point is to make the map clear to property owners about what they can do • Some liked idea of compressing/flattening to bring any areas with Nodal Development overlays into the base plan designation while others liked the idea of overlays • There was also conversation about the benefits of the map reflecting what is adopted • Eugene will likely retain Nodal Development overlay as documentation but ideally would not retain Nodal Development as overlays and instead implement them through base plan designation and new zoning to remove layers of complexity WILLAMETTE GREENWAY 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: Attachment 4, Page 5 of 12 PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION SUMMARY • Agreement that the Willamette Greenway should stay on the map, and that a green outline is perfect • Suggestion to coordinate with City of Eugene so that there are commonalities across both cities’ GIS and there is consistency in map display across jurisdictions TECHNICAL RESOURCE GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY • Approach in Eugene is to continue to show since it’s currently on the Metro Plan diagram; trying to be specific that they’re clarifying where the boundary is and not changing it • General agreement that showing it on the Comprehensive Plan Map is a good idea / helpful to partners, acknowledgment that display may be different between GIS and PDF • Ideas for display included solid line, diagonal stripes / hatched Neighborhood Refinement Plans REFINEMENT PLAN DISPLAY 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. PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION SUMMARY • General agreement that the ideal outcome is for consistent lexicon = Option 4, with acknowledgment that it would require some additional work (refinement plan amendments) • Interim possibility that could be achieved now (no refinement plan research for needed text changes) = Option 3 Attachment 4, Page 6 of 12 • From user perspective, simplicity and navigability are key – having things link is preferred, collapsing and consolidating differences TECHNICAL RESOURCE GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY • General preference for Options 3 and 4 over Options 1 and 2 • People liked Option 3 because it shows existing conditions without the need to refer to other maps or amend refinement plans, while Option 4 would create more work but would be the most streamlined/legible for the public in general • Keep in mind original purpose of the project – Option 3 aligns better with “we’re just clarifying and cleaning up,” while Option 4 may cross a line into “we’re amending refinement plans” • Several supported Option 3 to complete work sooner with the possibility of moving to Option 4 later to create something that’s easier to read • From Eugene’s perspective, Option 3 seems the most straightforward for Springfield to document existing conditions on one map, but also need to think about need to amend the Comprehensive Plan map every time you amend a refinement plan designation Addressing Gaps RIGHTS-OF-WAY DISPLAY 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 many rights-of-way as designated o Note: Designations for rights-of-way are shown on the Glenwood Refinement Plan Diagram. 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. b. Should our decision on whether or not to designate public rights-of-way match how we handle zoning in public rights-of-way? PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION SUMMARY • No reason to show from a public-facing, user standpoint; Metro Plan currently shows as black lines in some areas • Appears no legal reason from planning documents to show, and like consistency with approach to zoning when right-of-way vacations occur • If City willing to make administrative/text changes, not designating or showing on the map is another step toward user-friendliness and map modernization Attachment 4, Page 7 of 12 • Misleading to show a designation color over right-of-way on the map – start with a blank slate TECHNICAL RESOURCE GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY • Eugene generally does not zone right-of-way so is planning to not designate • Important to think about clear definition of whether plan designation applies to property boundary or to the centerline of right-of-way; also define designations (and zoning) elastically to account for when property lines adjust • Distinguish between map data maintenance and map cartography – just because right- of-way centerlines go to middle doesn’t mean you have to show that way on map DESIGNATING WATER RESOURCES 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? PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION SUMMARY • Agreement with recommendation in the memo TECHNICAL RESOURCE GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY • No objections to recommendation in the memo • In GIS, meanings of “ordinary high water” and “centerline” seem conceptually simple but can be difficult to pin down in practice – suggestion to establish an official adopted way to determine ordinary high water and centerline over time; there can be a delay between cartography and legal descriptions changing (sometimes not properly changed for years) DISPLAYING WATER RESOURCES 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? PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION SUMMARY • Including landmarks improves map legibility, but there should be a limit to which waterways are shown on the map to avoid unnecessary clutter; if showing, need clear criteria for what is/is not shown • Potential confusion if someone looks at map and thinks they’re looking at a complete list of water resources; concern could be addressed with a note on the map stating that the waterways aren’t exhaustive and/or directing viewer to other relevant resources • Suggestion to try showing waterbodies as an experiment on draft map for review and discussion Attachment 4, Page 8 of 12 TECHNICAL RESOURCE GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY • In general, more context is better to help orient as long as map remains legible • Distinction between interactive web map, where layers can be toggled on and off, and PDF, where legibility is important and can be more difficult • There may also be situations where people need more information on how water resources (e.g., wetlands) impact developability of a property, although this can make maps become complex quickly and it’s important to note that there are different implications for data maintenance. Tradeoffs of Specificity v. Generalization FLEXIBILITY OF PLAN DESIGNATION BOUNDARIES 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 (e.g., outside city limits but within the pre-expansion UGB areas, publicly owned land, etc.)? PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION SUMMARY • General agreement that this flexibility (or ambiguity as emphasized) is not beneficial • Only time this seems beneficial is when moving waterlines affect a property line TECHNICAL RESOURCE GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY • Some support for keeping designations vague/flexible in some cases (e.g., open space along waterways, EmX/transit corridors, public land/use, government, parks/open spaces/natural areas) • Eugene has taken the approach to adopt a specific plan designation for properties inside the UGB but outside city limits that only applies upon annexation • Counterpoints: Specificity important, especially if related to a Buildable Lands Inventory or land needs analysis justifications; specificity also fits better with Statewide Planning Goal 14: Urbanization Data Coordination & Ongoing Boundary Changes OTHER AGENCY INFORMATION 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? PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION SUMMARY • The Project Advisory Committee was not asked to discuss this question (the Project Advisory Committee’s lens was more policy/user-experience focused) Attachment 4, Page 9 of 12 TECHNICAL RESOURCE GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY • Discussed idea of including language in Springfield’s Comprehensive Plan stating how line is to be determined and resource being used MINOR SHIFTS OVER TIME 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. o 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 example: By ordinance? Text in the Comprehensive Plan document? Text in the Development Code or Municipal Code? Or a combination of these sources?  o 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? PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION SUMMARY • The Project Advisory Committee was not asked to discuss this question (the Project Advisory Committee’s lens was more policy/user-experience focused) TECHNICAL RESOURCE GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY • Put language in Springfield’s Comprehensive Plan so that there’s no process where you have to guess intent of map’s lines; include processes relating to map/data maintenance • Lines based on other agencies’ determinations have different levels of precision and it’s not always clear – include understanding of precision in language Accessible Information IMPROVEMENTS TO USER EXPERIENCE What about your experience with finding information about a property’s land use planning requirements would you like to improve, whether on the City’s interactive map (MapSpring), PDF maps, or requests for information from staff? PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION SUMMARY • Discussion centered on user-friendliness and navigability of Springfield’s website • Agreement that MapSpring is an excellent tool that should be easy for people to find • Ideally, click on a parcel and it opens a set of links to all relevant plans and resources TECHNICAL RESOURCE GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY Attachment 4, Page 10 of 12 • The Technical Resource Group was not asked to discuss this question (the Technical Resource Group’s lens was more technical/agency focused) LEGIBILITY What are your recommendations (if any) for displaying map information clearly and understandably for a wide variety of audiences and needs? PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION SUMMARY • Using standard colors across jurisdictions and planning professions (e.g., American Planning Association land use color categories), including some landmarks, and using a uniform lexicon would help legibility • Translate jargon and simplify language TECHNICAL RESOURCE GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY • Utilize tools to ensure ADA accessibility • Where possible, minimize text and rely more on iconography, color, symbols • Continue to make maps that can be viewed as a PDF and printed in addition to providing interactive maps OUTREACH 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. PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION SUMMARY • General agreement that the City should promote this tool and make it widely available. Ideas included: o Update to City Council o Promote on project website o Share through online newsletters o Share to interested parties, including local architects, planners, contractors, builders, realtors o Staff speaking tour to affiliated development professionals, focus/interest groups o Include info about it in other outreach/tabling events o Promote on social media (e.g., LinkedIn) Attachment 4, Page 11 of 12 TECHNICAL RESOURCE GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY • City of Eugene has had some success using virtual information sessions (record live Q&A and post on website with a survey or a way for people to interact with it on their own time); drop-in sessions and virtual office hours are also helpful • Partner with planned events (e.g., school events, grocery stores, etc.) • Important to identify underserved communities that may generally be out of the loop Attachment 4, Page 12 of 12 •. �-'F \> I)'- I t' . r� , 1 •• 8-'-"' SPRINGFIELD \;---... I\ \ �·�. �\ - /\\\ ,/ ',, \ 0 1/4 1/2 -q -: -. . """"""1 , � LJ '--<'" -�f / '')(="'= , 11� --r � i� -":•�---�-� ,/' �'� b:f'tJD L \\'��'\:a= . .,._----'· / ""\' \-\ ' ( i'.JIL I. .....,'-�> LU \, � � I f �)i4.L 1 I I�-•----, . .. 1 Mi. --· . .... ,· -- /�I ........ -- --- """.;;�:� · .. �= . ··. ... : ' -- n� �J:1:1:r::1_ '\ t,. There are no warranties that accompany this product. Users assume all responsibility for any loss or damage arising from any error, omission, or positional inaccuracy of this product. )�_ I[/ -·l ---1 --------1;· .. _---:;-;-_::::>7 If\· -��::::J.----'\11\ -::: ..\:'• ., ' �--�-----",-.L----------\·:. --\ '. ' - ./-. H•,111111111 ,I ,II� �..\ , \\ r, 1111 11E:c] ...... -< v i / Task 3: DRAFT Springfield Comp Plan Diagram - Refinement Plan Areas* Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Residential Mixed Use Commercial Neighborhood Commercial -filEI I Iii �- fll'J ·---· I I ·---·Urban Growth Boundary Comp Plan Designations** Community Commercial (CC) Major Retail Center Commercial Mixed Use Commercial/Industrial Mixed Use LMI/CC Mixed Use Heavy Industrial Special Heavy Industrial Campus Industrial Employment Mixed Use Booth-Kelly Mixed Use -Light Medium Industrial (LMI)-General Office Nodal Development Area Willamette Greenway � �- Office Mixed Use Mixed Use (general)** Public Land & Open Space** Natural Resource Sand & Gravel -Urban Holding Area -Employment *Please click on Refinement Plans for web link to the spe cific plans/designations for each area. ** Please note that some similar designations have been aggregated to simplify readability. Consult the draft Comp Plan web map for precise designations: LINK / ,/1/ Attachment 5, Page 1 of 1