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 />( <br />RESPONSE TO LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD (FOR WMMI) CONCERNS: <br />The City is aware that WMMI has been pursuing a vertical expansion of <br />the existing landfill site since 1985. The City, however, has been <br />pursuing the improvement of the existing airport since 1983 and com- <br />missioned both a Master Plan Study (Phase I) and for Airport Zoning <br />(Phase II) in early 1984. <br />As the proposed ordinance is written, <br />conforming use which would be allowed <br />designated in the permit in effect at <br />zoning ordinance. Any new expansion, <br />effective date of the ordinance would <br />Permit. <br />the landfill is an existing non - <br />to continue up to its capacity <br />the date of adoption of the <br />change, or alteration after the <br />require an Airport Zoning <br />Section VII and the definition of non -conforming <br />inconsistent. <br />use are not <br />No environmental review is required prior to the adoption of airport <br />zoning. An environmental assessment will be undertaken, however, on <br />the proposed airport improvement. <br />Minnesota Statutes as well as Federal regulations also provide for <br />protection of airports from non -compatible uses. Please refer to the <br />response to Anoka County Comments. <br />Adoption of the zoning ordinance is not an action which permits <br />development rather it is an action which restricts development. MC <br />review is not required for adoption of the zoning ordinance. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />No changes of the ordinance or plans are required as a result of these <br />comments. <br />RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM DELLWOOD CONSTRUCTION CO.: <br />Mr. Mennen indicates that he has been trying to sell a commercial lot <br />situated on the south side of Hwy. 10 for some time and believes that <br />the Airport will hinder the marketibility of his property even fur- <br />ther. <br />We would disagree with Mr. Hennen's belief and a number of -case <br />studies would support that the attractiveness of commercial and indus- <br />trial property near an improved airport is enhanced. As the draft <br />ordinance is now written, the properties in the B Zone are exempted <br />from B Zone restrictions since the area was platted in 1976. However, <br />the B Zone restrictions that may apply to Mr. Dellwood's property may <br />prohibit certain types of use which would attract high numbers of <br />users directly under the approach. This should not have a direct <br />impact on the ability to market the property, however. <br />4 9-27 <br />