03/11/87 Public Hearing - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

appeal ._Wquid Stay any development until the matter is resolved. If a variance ir~qu~st is denied, the appeals process provides for taking that conflict !th d/strict court in Anoka. OUEglSON AND AN~ER PERICD Tom Kurak 9 1§001 Sunfish Lake Blvd. - Inquired as to who determines what is in co~ ..~ia~ce with safety zoning and who is responsible for removal of items that", are not. Mr. Otto ~i Reglied that the City is responsible for finding significant obstruc~i~ns~ MN DoT Aeronautics Division also performs periodic inspecti~nB~. IIf the obstruction is an existing condition, the city is responsi~.l~ for removing the obstruction or issuing a permit for hazard lightin~;~ if! the condition is a future use, the property owner is responsibl~ f@r it's removal. Joe SentYr~ -iInquired if the airport improvements will proceed no matter what hap~eDs ~t this hearing. Mr. Hartley -[Peplied that City Council has taken action to indicate their desire t~ proceed with improvements and property acquisition of Gateway Airport prbvi~ed nothing comes up in environmental studies. It is not clear cug ~ha~ airport improvements will be made. There are several actors in the P~o~esS~--citizens, City, other agencies and governmental units like Ano~a~i CoUnty, FAA, Department of Transportation, etc. All of those organiza~i,bnslwill have a great impact on whether or not this proposed airport ,i~pr~vement will proceed. Airport safety zoning should be considered,~ fo~ adoption whether an airport is publicly owned or not. The purpose ~fi', to~/ght's hearing is to evaluate the question of what should be included "in a~ ordinance that provides airport safety zoning. Joe Senty, r.,z -~Referred to the southern Zone B and the comment that those properti!e~ a~e exempted from restrictions because they are already developed; /, w~t ordinance will address safety zoning for those properties? Mr. Otto Replied that those properties are exempted from 2.5 acre size restrictions and 15 persons/acre density restrictions. Those properties will fal!,!un~er general use restrictions with respect to height and el ect rOmag~etic interference. Joe Sentyr~ -',Inquired as to the impact on additions and future development on those p~operties in Zone B. Mr. Otto i-~,Re_~91ied that if the properties had come into being after 1979, they wou~dino~ be allowed to expand but since they were created prior to 1979, th~y~are exempted businesses would be able to expand. The owner would stil~ h~ve to apply for an airport permit along with the building permit burl', th~ use would not have to comply with density restrictions. Joe Sentyrz - Inquired if condominiums and day care centers would be allowed to! devlelop. Airport Zoning Board/March 11, 1987 Page 4 of 12