06-22-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

V i ■ fi ;'^-r § '{i .\-Vm f- ’ • - ■< M::Xr »■■ -V^ isEfmm^ ^ Lmm. Several services arc important in adequately serving additional raral centei dc\elopment, but sewage disposal is the most critical. L'rban-density development m an unse\vered rural center poses the risks of on-site sewage system failure, contamination of groundwater and eventually the expense of new on-site or central sew-cr system installation. The possibility also exists that remedying a pollution problem may require an e.xtcrtsion of metropolitan sev-er service through rural areas. Lack of sewer service is a serious constraint on the amount and type of development that rural centers can safely accommodate. Some parts of the rural Metropolitan Area, especially Anoka County, arc receiving large amounts of scattered urban development This scattered development poses service problems and may, at a later date, 'csult in very high local service costs. The Council proposes a strategy that offers local goveminent an alternative way to structure this development by designating and creating a "rural center." These new centers would be limited enclaves for urban-density land uses, facilities and services within the local governments’ broader corpofaf iunsdictional boundaries. They would not be coterminous with the entire corporata iurisdictional limits. Under this strategy, a local government would identify an area to receive urban-density residential, commercial and industrial development and the facilities, including local central sewer, where appropriate, ‘eded to serve it. Financing of necessary support services would be a local responsibility. Areas of existing urban-density uses are likely candidates for selection as new rural centers. Rural centers should accommc'^ate additional development consistent with their ability to finance and administer services, including sewer, roads, water and stormwater drainage. If additional land is needed to accommodate growth, rural centers should extend .services in a staged, contiguous manner. Residential, commercial and industrial development at urban densities should be accommodated only in rural centers with central sanitary sewers that are meeting state and federal water quality standards. Larger projects should be located in freestanding growth centers that have a full range of services. Rurai-to-Urban Transition Planning Runl-to«urban transition areas are areas that may eventually be needed for expansion of the urban service area but are currently part of the rural service area. While these areas will not be considered a separate regional policy area, the Council encourages local governments to plan for potential expansions of the urban service arc., in their comprehensive plans. Communities planning for transition areas should consider land characteristics (such as soils, wetlands, watershed boundaries, agricultural soil capabilitv ’i. existing land use and development patterns, the transportation system, and long-range plans for expansion of local and regional utility swtemi. Tranritioo areas should yenerallv be contiguous to the existing urban service area. In most cases, it would not inclucte the entire iurisdictional limits of the local government, but might if the community wishes to plan for the eventual urbanization of the area. Land in a transition area should be protected from incompatible development patterns and land uses that mav later obstruct the extension of urban services. The most effective strategy to protect the transition area is to restrict development to very low-density (one per 40 or less) residential development or agricultural uses, which preserves large parcels intact until they can be subdivkied into small lots and provided with urban services. If residential subdivirions are lined, clustering should be encouraged. The large parcels remaining mav later be efneientiv'IHfuUiJ