Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Otto - Replied that they would be allowed. <br />Joe Sentyrz - Inquired about property devaluation due to airport. <br />Mr. Otto - Replied that established properties should not decrease in value <br />because they are exempted from restrictions. <br />Joe Se rz - Stated that improving the airport will attract more and <br />bigger aircraft and air traffic will increase. <br />Mr. Hartley - Stated that this question and answer period was intended for <br />clarification of any portion of Mr. Otto's presentation. <br />Citizen - Inquired if proposed safety zones are etched in stone. <br />Mr. Otto - Replied that approach surfaces are defined by FAR; although MN <br />DoT requires land use safety zones to be 2200 feet in length (2,/3 of runway <br />length) and B zones to be 1100 feet in length (],/3 of runway length), there <br />is roam for adjustment. <br />Citizen Inquired if Council will be adopting the ordinance unless <br />something drastic shows up. <br />Mr. Hartley - Stated that there are certain properties proposed to be <br />acquired and other properties that have restrictions on them. It was <br />evident that just the subject of airport improvements and whether or not <br />their property would be acquired was presenting problems for people. <br />Council decided that they had enough information and that it was time to <br />make an intention statement so people could make plans. Council has not <br />made up their minds as far as whether or not there is going to be airport <br />zoning and what will be in it. <br />Citizen - Stated that his property is in Zone A and inquired as to what <br />would happen if his home burned down and the zoning ordinance had been <br />adopted restricting him from rebuilding but a decision to proceed with the <br />airport had not been made. <br />Mr. Otto - Stated that the property owner would have the right to request <br />that the city either grant a variance to rebuild or aoquire the property. <br />If the city determined not to proceed with the airport project, they would <br />rescind the airport zoning ordinance and the property owner in that type of <br />situation would have no problem. <br />Citizen - Inquired if the ordinance that would be adopted be more detailed <br />than the draft being discussed this evening, especially with respect to <br />what would create glare in pilots' eyes. <br />Mr. Otto - Stated that the draft ordinance being discussed is based on a <br />model ordinance developed by the State. Generally, you would not see more <br />specific verbage. Unless there is a real specific problem apparent when a <br />building permit is submitted, typical yard lights, etc. will not be in <br />violation. <br />Airport Zoning Board/March 11, 1987 <br />Page 5 of 12 <br />