Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />4. (AVIATION FORECASTS FOR GATEWAY APPEARED TO BE HIGH,) based upon the <br />regional forecasts. Part of the difference is accounted for in the <br />EIAR indicating more actual based aircraft and operations than earlier <br />estimated. Also, documented in surveys of airport users, the <br />existence of a paved runway and improved services would likely result <br />in an early, disproportionate growth, especially in an area of the <br />region where other airport capacity is minimal. <br />5. (RELATIONSHIP TO SEARCH AREA A.) The general issue here is that the <br />proposed Gateway improvements would neither conflict with, nor be <br />capable of substituting for an airport in Search Area A. The EIAR <br />reinforces this assumption and indicates that the airport will serve <br />the local Anoka/Ramsey/Elk River service area. <br />6. (THE NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REEVALUATION) by the City once the <br />airport becomes publicly owned is a concern, since the airport is <br />within the rural service area. The EIAR recognizes this need when an <br />implementation program is initiated. Utility needs and services on - <br />site and in the vicinity have also been addressed. <br />Findings and Conclusions <br />1. A quantitative analysis of the future noise impacts has been included <br />in the EIAR and provides adequate information to implement land use <br />compatibility measures for development through 2005. This information <br />is consistent with Aviation Policy #12 and the land use compatibility <br />guidelines. <br />2. The EIAR adequately addresses the land use safety zoning requirements <br />for Gateway, however, the EIAR fails to mention the requirements of <br />MS 473.806, Subd. A, regarding site P. It should be noted that the <br />City of Ramsey is holding a referendum on April 19, 1988 to determine <br />if the current airport zoning ordinance will remain. Also, the <br />candidate landfill siting law is being proposed for possible elimina- <br />tion in the current session of the legislature. If site P is <br />selected for landfill development, airport funding will be greatly <br />jeopardized. This implication should be recognized in the EIAR. <br />Rather than encouraging legal contestability between the various <br />statutes, effort could focus on possible modifications of the zoning <br />ordinance; or negotiating with the landfill owner to minimize the <br />actual period the landfill operates. A contractual commitment to <br />close the landfill by a certain date may satisfy federal requirements <br />and allow concurrent implementation of the airport improvement during <br />the final period of landfill operation. In order to minimize undue <br />delay for the relocation program, especially if site P is selected, <br />additional examination of development phasing and other local fund- <br />ing measures should be considered. <br />3. The most viable and cost-effective airport development scheme for the <br />City of Ramsey appears to be their selected alternative for <br />development of the current site, additional analysis doesn't appear to <br />be warranted. <br />8-8 <br />