Ordinance No. 20545 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Draft 9/29/14 Factor 7.“Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities.” Again, the Metro Plan Diagram adheres to the compact urban growth form and sequential development. The separation between urban and urbanizable lands and rural lands formed by the UGB creates a sharp distinction between ultimate urban uses and agricultural uses on rural lands. 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 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. On the east side of Interstate 5, the location of the UGB is either tax lot-specific (coterminous with tax lot boundaries) or specifically identified by a metes and bounds description. On the 7 west side of I-5, Tthe UGB is tax lot-specific where it is coterminous with city limits, where it has been determined through the annexation process, and where it falls on the outside edge of existing or planned rights-of-way. In other places on the west side of I-5, the UGB is determined 7 The location of the Springfield UGB is set out on the table entitled “List of tax lots which are adjacent to and inside, or split by the UGB” and the document entitled “Summary of Methodology Utilized to Refine the Location of the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary.” The table and methodology document were added to the Metro Plan in 2011as part of the adoption of the City of Springfield’s city-specific UGB (through Springfield Ordinance No. 6268 and Lane County Ordinance No. PA1274in 2011. II-G-15