05/15/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

etc. In the. Case of Gateway, a figure of $35/day was used for a oonservative number of '.~ra~Sient passengers expected for the year 1989 (which would be a low traffic Y ~e~r.i~ecause of the ongoing airport construction), and a direct economic h~nefit of approximately $11,000 is forecasted. Once construction is complete, ~tra~Sient activity will increase significantly and the economic benefit in the following year would rise to $115,000 with forecast activity. Mr. Otto sta~ed that airport develotx~ent will not act as a magnet to bring business t~ a community but when businesses are analyzing sites they considerWha~ ~ a community has to offer in the way of labor pool, schools, transpor~a~i~ facilities, utility systems. If a community has another servi~e to~ offer, like an airport, that convaunity has a leg up on competition. In many i~sta~oes, even if a business is not using aircraft, the owners and/or employees do ,~se aircraft. Mr. Otto .stated that after the public hearing process, the final Airport Master Plan ~udy is submitted to the approving agencies; what is needed from the City is aidecision or signal to those approving agencies that the City is serious ab~u~ 'r developing an airport. It is th~ the community's obligation to develop an airport zoning plan to prote~t ~ha% area around the airport from further develoI=nent which could restrict ~il~zation of the airport. Mr. Otto stated that the zoning ordinance ..Wo~Id address height limitations; already to be considered are two radio tow~rs~.and the hill at the landfill. Mr. Otto stated that the elevation of the landfill hill is proposed at 1020', which is the same elevation as the horizontal s~face in the height zoning; it would be in the city's best interest t~ fight any proposed expansion of that landfill which would exceed that eleva~ion and even attempt to get it reduced. Height limitations are normally Mt .a major issue; there is more controversy connected with land use safety zo~ing~ Prior to obtaining any Federal or State participation, the City would have tolbegin working on zoning for an airport. In Gateway's case, Clear Zone A ex~ds 2200' from. runway end and is an area where no development should occur; ~urre~tly, thzs zone would encompass 14 homes and 2 commercial structureS. All of these structures could be allowed since they are beyond the 1000' mark! bU~ they are non-compatible uses and should be aoquired anyway. Zone B restri~ts type and density of develot~ent; development would be restricted to sites 3 acres and larger and uses not normally attracting large crowds. ~erything currently in the north end of Zone B would be non- conforming~ uS~ ~s as the parcel sizes are one acre or less. Those homes developed prior to 1978 may be exempted from Zone B regulations and cannot be considered r~)r~-conforming uses; they could be brought into conformance by enlargir~ the '.parcel sizes or merging the parcels together; this action would result in ~ developable lots being contained in that portion of Zone B. Mr. Otto s~at~d that FAA is very determined that if the airport is developed in Ramsey that the landfill not be allowed to expand. Mr. Darryl~ Malts referred to Clear Zone B and inquired as to when moratorium or zoning Shotlld begin. Mr. Otto replied that if a city is committed to proceeding with an airport, or even continuing with the study, it is important to send a signal indicating so May 15, 1985 Page 5 of 11