Minutes - Council - 01/23/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

opinion of whether or not the airport safety zoning ordinance is subject to review and revocation. The Attorney General's opinion was received December 20, 1989 and reflects that the citizens have the right to review and revoke ordinances dealing with land use issues. A copy of the Attorney General's opinion was submitted to Mn/DOT, along with follow-up questions. Those follow-up questions focused on the impact to the airport project resulting from the Attorney General's opinion, the inclination of the Commissioner to place airport zoning in effect, and whether or not cost sharing of the airport improvements are jeopardized. The response from Mn/DOT was ambiguous. Mr. Otto recommended that a meeting be held with Mn/DOT to review positions relating to the Gateway North Industrial Airport project prior to making any final decisions regarding implementation of the Airport improvement project. Mr. Otto noted that if the City were to make another attempt to adopt a safety zoning ordinance, it would have to be substantially different from the one that was previously adopted and defeated; if it is too different, it might not meet Mn/DOT criteria. If the City were to purchase the Airport, a joint zoning board with affected cities could be formed and that board could establish safety zoning. Mr. Otto noted that statutes require airport safety zoning to be in place or that a reasonable attempt is being made to provide airport safety zoning; very few airports in the metro area have zoning in place; it took Duluth approximately 11 years to get zoning in place. Mr. Otto stated that there have also been meetings with FAA, Mn/DOT and MAC to determine the various agencies' commitment to the airport improvement project. FAA indicated that the earliest funds would be available is late 1991 or 1992 and that they would not participate until the landfill activity ceases; the earliest date landfill activity would cease is late 1992. Mn/DOT was interested in scheduling a meeting with the City to determine the feasibility of initiating a State/local project, with conditions, that would be eligible for later reimbursement. Those conditions consist of the City committing to a one-third cost share for Phase I acquisition ($330,000) and reviewing the feasibility of amending the project to include a crosswind runway. Mr. Otto stated that he reminded Mn/DOT that a crosswind runway was considered earlier in the process and Mn/DOT indicated that it would require closing a portion of Cry. Rd. #57 and funding would be very unlikely. In response, Mn/DOT indicated that the concept of a Missisippi Bridge and transportation rerouting, a crosswind runway is feasible. Mr. Otto stated that the current layout plan and environmental assessment were prepared on the basis of a one-runway layout and that was the information provided to the public. The City should discuss the crosswind runway issue with Mn/DOT further. Mr. Otto stated that there is still a landfill/airport conflict issue. Mn/DOT is satisfied with the conditional use permit and it's time limit on existing landfill operations, but is concerned about the selection of Site P. In summation, Mr. Otto recommended appointing a City delegate to meet with Mn/DOT to discuss ambiguities with regard to implementing the Gateway North Industrial Airport Project. Councilmember Peterson expressed concern with continuing to spend funds to a point where so much has been invested that there is no option but to proceed with the airport improvements project. A brief discussion ensued to again review options for establishing airport safety zoning. City Council/January 23, 1990 Page 9 of 16