Laserfiche WebLink
appeal would stay any development until the matter is resolved. If a <br />variance request is denied, the appeals process provides for taking that <br />conflict to district court in Anoka. <br />ouz9rrON AMID DER PERIOD <br />'lam Kurak - 15001 Sunfish Lake Blvd. - Inquired as to who determines what <br />is in compliance with safety zoning and who is responsible for removal of <br />items that are not. <br />Mr. Otto- Replied that the City is responsible for finding significant <br />obstructions; MN DoT Aeronautics Division also performs periodic <br />inspections. If the obstruction is an existing condition, the city is <br />responsible for removing the obstruction or issuing a permit for hazard <br />lighting; if the condition is a future use, the property owner is <br />responsible for it's removal. <br />Joe Sentyrz - Inquired if the airport improvements will proceed no matter <br />what happens at this hearing. <br />Mr. Hartley - Replied that City Council has taken action to indicate their <br />desire to proceed with improvements and property acquisition of Gateway <br />Airport provided nothing comes up in environmental studies. It is not <br />clear cut that airport improvements will be made. There are several actors <br />in the process -- citizens, City, other agencies and governmental units <br />like Anoka County, FM, Department of Transportation, etc. All of those <br />organizations will have a great impact on whether or not this proposed <br />airport improvement will proceed. Airport safety zoning should be <br />considered for adoption whether an airport is publicly owned or not. The <br />purpose of tonight's hearing is to evaluate the question of what should be <br />included in an ordinance that provides airport safety zoning. <br />Joe Sentyrz - Referred to the southern Zone B and the comment that those <br />properties are exempted from restrictions because they are already <br />developed; what ordinance will address safety zoning for those properties? <br />Mr. Otto- Replied that those properties are exempted from 2.5 acre size <br />restrictions and 15 persons/acre density restrictions. Those properties <br />will fall under general use restrictions with respect to height and <br />electromagnetic interference. <br />Joe Sentyrz - Inquired as to the impact of additions and future development <br />on those properties in Zone B. <br />Mr. Otto- Replied that if the properties had come into being after 1979, <br />they would not be allowed to expand but since they were created prior to <br />1979, they are exempted businesses would be able to expand. The owner <br />would still have to apply for an airport permit along with the building <br />permit but the use would not have to comply with density restrictions. <br />Joe Sentyrz - Inquired if condominiums and day care centers would be <br />alleged to develop. <br />Airport Zoning Board/March 11, 1987 <br />Page 4 of 12 <br />