01 Public Record Pages 1-204 - Laserfiche WebLink

While urban development may create problems from an agricultural production standpoint, the compact urban growth form is, in many ways, compatible with nearby agricultural activities. First, as urban densities increase, the close proximity of productive agricultural areas provides t the potential to access larger markets for their products, thereby increasing their economic return. Second, close proximity can reduce transportation costs for agricultural products grown near metropolitan population concentrations, enabling local farmers to remain or become competitive with more distant markets. Third, retention of productive agricultural lands immediately adjacent to urban development can provide possible social and psychological benefits to urban residents. Fourth, the compact urban growth form and sequential development avoids the problem of leapfrogging and the problem of surrounding an area of agricultural development with urban areas. Since the most productive agricultural lands are typified by Class I agricultural soils located in the floodway fringes, the boundary of the floodway fringe often serves as the location of the UGB. When the floodway fringe follows a natural bench or when a road creates a dike which defines the floodway fringe, the boundary between urban uses and agricultural uses may be abrupt. In other instances, the transition from urban to rural is not as easily definable on the ground. Recognizing inevitable problems for agricultural production and retention of small isolated pockets of agricultural land that are or would be surrounded by urban uses was not considered a high priority in drawing the UGB. The UG#,B~ is proeisely described, ~i l ted 014 hull 441 njtmetio _ with the A uNil ary Map Tile 3 i4+ t'1 'eEL2o~~e to edition isVo1' file in the Vlayr+iiA4g (l~l' eas "f` S- -ingfiolT nj Tom"`csbmej Lan t~b .rirx~rr~.~-r~cz Coulaty, and COG. tax lot-specific where it is coterminous with city limits, where it has been determined thrroix,h the annexation rocess, and whe-ee it falls on the outside edge of existing or planned rights-of=way. In other places, the UGB is determined on a case-by-case basis throut?lt mtpUretation of the Metro Phil Plan Boundaries Map in this Metro Plan and the following factors (see Metro Plan Plan Boundaries Map K yj. • Protection of Agricultural Lands • Protection o.f. Forest Lands • Ridgeline (Drainage Basin) • 4rderl and Economic Public Services • Floodway Fringe • :Protection of, Wetlands • Protection of Sand and Gravel Resources • Airport Protection Existing Development and Services (City Limits) • Meet Economic Goals + Meet Housing Goals 11-G-15 Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 166