Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 11/29/1988 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29 , 1988 7 : 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS : Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF : City Manager Carl J . Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL : All Members Present I . APPEQVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER I TENS gF BUSINESS �� Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Agenda as published . Motion carried unanimously. N BY M TROPOLITAN AIRPORTS CQtJN1gS1ON ON DRAFT M 9TER PLAN FOR FLXING CL VD, AIRPORT Members of MAC Present : Mark Ryan, Airport Planner; Jim Fortman, Director of Airport Development; Gary Schmidt, Manager of Reliever Airport Systems; Greg Albjerg, representing the Consultant, Howard Needles Tammen Bergendoff . Albjerg stated that the presentation would be an update of the Master Plan originally done in 1976 . Albjerg added that the update was necessary due to the ongoing changes in aviation . The following had been completed to update the Master Plan. 1 ) An inventory of existing conditions at the airport, 2) traffic and forecasts to the year 2010, 3 ) facility requirements determined based on the forecasts, and 4 ) alternatives developed considering constrained and unconstrained development . The number of flights had been steadily increasing since 1982 . Albjerg stated that the unconstrained forecast would be an Increase in the number of operations from 210, 000 currently to 390, 000 projected for the year 2010, with the constrained forecast showing an increase to 255, 000 by the year 2010 . The FAA projected an increase to 310,000 by the City Council Minutes 2 November 29, 1988 year 2010 . The number of aircraft based at the airport would Increase from 492 currently to 858 by the year 2010 . Albierg stated that the majority of the air traffic would remain single-engine-piston and multi-engine-piston planes; however, there would be an increase in jet and turbo-prop operations . Albjerg presented the following facility requirements, based on the forecasts : 1 ) Increase the area for hanger storage from the current 90 acres to 129 acres, and 2 ) the runway be lengthened from the current 3900 feet to 5000 feet _ Six jets currently use Flying Cloud Airport and were considered the critical aircraft for the airport . The FAA planning criteria stated that the critical aircraft should be the main concern when planning an airport; therefore, a proposal resulted to lengthen the runway. T:ie ideal runway length for a suall jet would be 5500 feet; however, the State limit for the Flying Cloud Airport was 5000 feet . Albjerg added that the jets could only operate on a limited basis with the current runway length of 3900 feet . Albjerg outlined four alternatives for the building locations and three alternatives for the runway length. Albjerg stated that the noise levels appeared to be the major concern of the residents . The noise contours were used to evaluate the noise levels, based on the Ldn, or the average of the noise generated over a year 's time . Albjerg explained the four noise levels used by MAC and the appropriate land uses for each level . The FAA and HUD consider any land use to be compatible with a 65 Ldn noise level . The EPA documents stated that 87% of all urban areas have an Ldn rating of 55 or greater . Albjerg stated that the noise levels would increase. however, based on the data collected, he did not believe the Impact would be great because the increase would occur gradually over the next 20 years . Albjerg stated that the preferred alternative of the Consultant would be Alternate A for the runway to 5000 feet and Alternate 1 for the building location placing new hangers to the north of the MAC property, immediately west of the existing hangers and south of Pioneer Trail . He noted that MAC had not stated a preference at this time . Zoning Administrator Jean Johnson reported that the City had received a number of letters regarding the proposed preferred alternate presented by Howard, Needles, Tammen& Hergendorf . The Planning Department found the preferred alternative to be incompatible with surrounding land uses and the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan for the six reasons outlined on Page 6 and 7 of the Staff Report dated October 26, 1988. A study was currently being done for a proposed Minor Airport at a location in the northwestern Hennepin County area, and Staff believed this new airport would better serve the small jets and corporate planes . Planning Staff believed that City Council Minutes 3 November 29, 1988 Alternative C, the no-build alternative would respond well to the majority of users at the airport and would adequately meet the demands for the next 10 years or more . Johnson suggested that the present hangers be rehabilitated prior to a new hanger area being studied . The Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission voted 3-2 to approve the recommendation of HNTB. The Planning Commission had reviewed the documents and voted 7-0 to support the Planning Staff recommendation per the Staff Report dated October 26, 1988 . Lambert reported that this item was reviewed by the Parks, Recreation a Natural Resources Commission at its November 7, 1989 meeting and voted 6-0 to support the Planning Staff 's recommendation for the no-build alternative per the Staff a Report dated October 26, 1988 . Y Bentley asked City Manager Jullie for clarification on what action was expected of the City Council at this time . Jullie replied that the purpose of the meeting tonight was to provide a public forum for MAC to present its proposal . MAC would then take the comments of the City Council, City Staff, and the public under advisement. Jullie recommended that the Council take the matter under advisement, allow time to review the public 's comments, and review the legal rights of the City. Bentley said that the City's position would only be advisory and the Council did not have the authority approve or deny. City Attorney Pauly replied that MAC had the authority to adopt various regulatory ordinances; however, at the time that the legislature gave authority to locate and site a new major airport, there was a provision inserted in that authority which permitted local regulation in the case of a major airport . Pauly added that a major airport was one that serves regularly scheduled flights : by definition, Flying Cloud Airport would not be considered a major airport_ Pauly believed that there was local authority. Pauly stated that there were State provisions which provided for the development of joint airport zoning boards, which stated that in the event of a conflict between local regulations, other regulations, and regulations imposed by a joint airport zoning board the more restrictive regulation would prevail . Pauly suggested seeking an opinion of the State Attorney General for the interpretation of the provision. Peterson suggested that after hearing all the information presented the Council should consider one of three possible actions : 1 ) no action, 2) defer action, and 3 ) take action immediately. Anderson stated that he was concerned because the airport expansion was an important issue and he was not sure of where the City stood and what rules needed to he followed. Pauly replied that the purpose of tonight 's meeting was to gather information, react, and comment regarding the information presented . City Council Minutes 4 November 29, 1988 Harris asked at what point in MAC' s process would the City Council have an opportunity to react to the final proposal . Jim Fortman concurred with City Attorney Pauly regarding the purpose of tonight ' s meeting . He added that it did not require Council action at this time . The next step for MAC would be to hold a public hearing to bring out the issues, the recommendation for a public hearing would be presented to the Metropolitan Airports Commission on December 19, 1988 with the actual hearing scheduled for sometime in January, after which the information would be forwarded through the committee process . The final recommendation would be considered by MAC in March 1989 . Bentley asked Fortman if the action by MAC would be to adopt the favored alternative as part of the Master Plan, but any actual development would require another plan . Fortman concurred . Fortman added that additional public hearings would be req;:ired . Anderson asked Fortman if the flight data presented tonight was prepared before or after action was taken at the major =' airport to limit use by small aircraft . Anderson then asked if MAC was actively attempting to direct the smaller aircraft to the minor airports . Fortman replied that MAC owned 7 airports in the Metropolitan area; a major facility at MSP International, an intermediate facility in St . Paul, and the five minor facilities . Fortman added that the forecasts were developed after MAC established the policy to encourage small aircraft to use other facilities; however, there was nothing in the forecast stating that a specific number of flights would be directed to Flying Cloud Airport . Peterson asked Schmidt if the evaluation summary had taken into consideration the proposed land uses and safety zones which are currently within the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan . Schmidt replied that the noise zones where established to let potential property owners know that a noise factor would be expected for that property area . He added that 20 existing homes were located in Zone D; however, this study did not project any potential new development . Schmidt said that the City 's Comprehensive Guide Plan depicted safety zones; however, as the Joint Zoning Board ceased in 1980, and there were no established safety zones at Flying Cloud Airport . Schmidt stated that Safety Zone A would suggest no residential development (but possible be use for a park or a golf course ) ; Safety Zone B would suggest 1 residential home per 3-acre lot . Schmidt added that actual safety zones would not be determined until a Joint Zoning Board was established to take action . Pidcock asked Schmidt how recent were the data regarding the number of homes in the noise evaluation study. Schmidt replied that aerial photos had been taken in 1987 and a street survey conducted in 1988 . i City Council Minutes 5 November 29, 1988 Pidcock asked Fortman for clarification of MAC' s position regarding the redirection of small aircraft traffic . Pidcock commented that she understood that directing the small aircraft to the outlying airports would have a negative affect on areas around those airports . Fortman replied that the MAC as a matter of policy was trying to encourage general aviation to use facilities other than Wold Chamberlin Field . He added that MAC had invested considerable money in the St . Paul- Downtown Airport to encourage the business jets to use this facility. Fortman said that in some instances it was uneconomical for businesses to have the business jets at outlying airports; depending on how the firms used their aircraft . ` e Schmidt asked to respond to the Planning Staff ' s memo . Schmidt stated that MAC disagreed with Staff 's comment that the forecasts indicated that Flying Cloud Airport would be adequate until 2003 . He said the current number of operations was at 209, 000 , which was quickly closing in on the year 2003 f prediction of 229, 000 . Schmidt did not believe that rehabilitating the existing hangers would provide additional hanger storage . He said the existing hangers were designed to provide the most efficient use of space possible and added that if the existing hangers were rehabilitated using the current development standard of larger single door hangers, there would be less density. a Schmidt disagreed that developable acreage would be removed from Zones A & B . He added that Zone A could be compatible for park use and/or a golf course and that Zone B could be guided for residential use . Schmidt stated that a Joint Zoning Board would enact the guidelines . t Schmidt believed that the concerns regarding the landfill and the US Fish and Wildlife Refuge being incompatible were; unfounded . He said that MAC had donated land to the US Fish and Wildlife Refuge and noted that the land elevations tended to keep the birds in the Refuge area and not affect the aircraft . Schmidt said that the landfill was not currently in operation and the FAA had not determined it necessary to take action at this time to suspend operations of the landfill . Schmidt concluded by stating that the flight patterns would not change drastically from the existing patterns . The Downtown-St . Paul Airport served the mix of corporate jets and small-engine planes without any major difficulty and the MAC team believed the same operation could occur at Flying Cloud Airport . Schmidt did not view the mix of jets and small- engine aircraft as a major safety issue . Doug Fell, 10449 Huntington Drive, believed that the City Q needed to weigh who made up the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission and what its business relations were to Flying City Council Minutes 6 November 29, 1988 Cloud Airport . Fell questioned the claims that the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport would benefit Eden Prairie and added the he had not seen any facts or figures to substantiate any benefit to Eden Prairie . Fell asked MAC to comment on what percentage of the flights at Flying Cloud Airport were corporate business flights, a type which would contribute to Eden Prairie 's success . Fell stated that the noise studies had been conducted during the week and asked if a further study would be done for the weekend air traffic. Fell believed that the noise data presented were inadequate and that the frequency of flights should also be considered as a major factor . Fell asked why Flying Cloud Airport was able to accommodate 440, 000 operations in 1968, yet MAC indicated that 1 the year 2013 the airport would not be able to accommodate 392,000 . Fell believed that there was no true need for the expansion; however, he also believed that the City or its residents ' comments would not have any effect if MAC wanted the airport expanded . Fell asked what the current weight class was for aircraft a utilizing Flying Cloud Airport and how the weight limits would be increased . He stated that Flying Cloud Airport was =. currently classified as a small airport; however, it would only take the action of the Legislature to change the classification to a major airport . Fell concluded by stating that he would not like to see this expansion as part of the ° Master Plan and added that the Eden Prairie Planning Commission had voted for the denial of the plan . Ron Funk, 13700 Theresa Place, stated that as a pilot and owner of planes located at Flying Cloud Airport, he believed that Flying Cloud Airport was good in its current state . Funk added that Flying Cloud Airport was like a club, a place to communicate with other pilots . Funk believed that special, consideration regarding safety measures needed to be considered when combining the small jets and the small-engine planes . Mary Jane Swanson, 9440 Eden Prairie Road, stated that she vas concerned that the noise level studies were done before the opening the ILS ( Instrument Landing System) . She believed that the ILS system would drastically change the character of Flying Cloud Airport . Swanson added that Flying Cloud Airport could become a training field for the pilots which needed to re-certify for instrument training. Swanson said that because Flying Cloud Airport was a controlled field the pilots considered it a safer field than the Lakeville Airport. Swanson believed that a noise study should be conducted after the ILS was installed . Swanson asked if the projection for operations included t City Council Minutes 7 November 29, 1988 training flights . She asked why MAC believed it was necessary to house more aircraft when new airplane sales were at a minimum . Swanson believed that the installation of the ILS and the extension of the runway indicated the encouragement of the turbine aircraft moving to Flying Cloud Airport . She added that due to the minimal sales of the new turbine aircraft the planes would be the older turbines, which were noisier than the new models . Kent Barker, 15801 Cedar Ridge Road, stated that he had served on the original Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission, which had been developed due to the noise disturbance to the surrounding neighborhoods . Barker stated that the now-defunct FTC wanted �o use Flying Cloud Airport as a touch-and-go training area for jets . He added that MAC and the City of Eden Prairie had worked jointly to block this use of Flying s Cloud Airport . Barker said that an agreement had been made reluctantly to increase the length of the runway to its present length and to have some additional navigational support . Barker said that MAC's rationale was that by directing the traffic over the river it would decrease the noise over the homes; however, the actual control over the flight pattern still remained with the pilot . The noise level regulations of FAR 36 for Flying Cloud Airport were the same as those for JFK or O 'Hare MAC wanted heavier aircraft and had agreed to a 20,000 pound gross limit; however, it had j never been enforced. Barker added that at the time when the heavier limits were permitted MAC agreed that it would not request any further expansion of the limits and in fact had indicated that the purchase of the Lakeville Airport would be the airport of choice for the jet traffic due to the convenience of ground transportation at I-35. The objective of the Flying Cloud Airport Commission was to create a balance between the businessmen in the community to help create a better relationship between the community and the airport . Barker questioned where the expansion would stop, it was now considered that the proposed expansion was to accommodate the critical aircraft, which were the 6 jets currently housed at Flying Cloud Airport, but what will happen when heavier aircraft is brought in, will further expansions again be necessary. Barker stated that MAC had said that there was no significant impact to the residential area; however , on two separate occasions noise level readings had been taken from his yard which indicated noise levels which exceeded the acceptable levels of MAC. He added that MAC had said these levels were aberrations caused by inversions . Barker asked if the residents of Eden Prairie, because it was considered a quiet area, should be subject to the addition of aircraft noise because Eden Prairie was not up to the acceptable noise level . P Barker stated that another subject, which had not been mentioned, was the helicopter traffic. He added there was no i } 3 i } City Council Minutes 8 November 29, 1988 control over the flight patterns or the elevations of the helicopters, which were very noisy. Barker also questioned what the possible tax loss could be to the community if Flying Claud Airport continued to buy up more and more land . Barker questioned what the limits would be on night traffic at the airport and would any regulations be enforced . Barker concluded by stating that he lived as a neighbor to the airport and did not have a problem with the airport as it was originally intended to operate . Barker believed that the community had given a great deal to the airport, but with the proposed expansion questioned if Flying Cloud Airport would continue to be a good neighbor in the community. Dean Edstrom, 10133 Eden Prairie Road, stated that Mr . Barker had addressed many of the points he had intended to make and endorsed Barkers comments . Edstrom believed that Flying Cloud Airport was to become a reliever for the International Airport to solve MAC's problem of small jet aircraft at the International Airport . He did not believe that this type of aircraft would be compatible with a residential area . Edstrom did not see any benefit to Eden Prairie . Edstrom believed that there would be pressure from the businesses to bring the small Jet aircraft to Eden Prairie rather than the St . Paul- Downtown facility. He added that he considered this to be a breach of an agreement . Edstrom believed that these issues had all been resolved with the agreement made years ago that no further expansion would be requested . Wallace Hustad, 10470 White 'Tail Crossing, believed that the original agreement had been to keep the jets out of Flying Cloud Airport, which MAC had said would be accomplished by not providing jet fuel at Flying Cloud Airport . Hustad believed the current existence of the 6 Jets housed at the airport as a direct violation of a commitment made by MAC. Larry Simonson, 16199 Valley Road, stated that he and 7 other residents on Valley Road opposed the extension of the runway. Simonson believed that the expansion would open many issues in the future and added that he would prefer the airport remained as is. Clark Horn, 7608 Erie Avenue, Chanhassen, stated that he was a pilot of one of the smaller aircraft housed at Flying Cloud Airport and added that he would like to keep his plane at Flying Cloud . Hangar space is in demand at Flying Cloud and he questioned if the hangar space was needed for the jets . He believed that the greatest demand for hangar space was currently coming from the smaller aircraft. Horn noted that MAC was also conducting hearings on how to handle the operating deficits at the outlying airports, which included Flying Cloud Airport; and added that he was concerned that the hangar space rent would be increased, which would drastically affect the smaller operators . Horn stated that if Mode C was I i i s City Council Minutes 9 November 29 , 1988 accepted additional navigational equipment would have to be installed in the smaller aircraft or they would no longer be able to use the Flying Cloud facility. Horn believed that the character of Flying Cloud Airport should be kept to accommodate the small aviation pilots . Horn said that instead of having no jet fuel available at Flying Cloud Airport, the situation was just the opposite and with limited fuel available for the smaller aircraft . Doug Sandstad, 8921 Knollwood Drive, stated that he was pleased with the Staff Report and believed the Master Plan had been nicely summarized . Sandstad encouraged the Council to listen to the Staff 's recommendations . Chad Worcester, 17120 Cedarcrest Drive, stated that he was still confused on what Eden Prairie could do to stop the expansion of the airport . Worcester stated that he had been Informed when he purchased the property that his home was in the flight pattern, but had also been told that it was not a problem. Worcester concurred that currently there was no real problem with noise with the exception of one noisy jet . Worcester was concerned about the jet traffic increasing and the affect on the noise levels . He noted that a DC9 could conceivably land on a 5, 000 foot runway. Worcester was concerned about the value of his property being reduced if the Jet traffic was allowed to be increased. i Peterson asked City Attorney Pauly to address what the position of the City was at this time . Pauly replied that the answers were not clear at this time and he recommended taking steps to acquire information from the Attorney General . Bob Gardner, 15701 Cedar Ridge Road, stated that he had replaced Kent Barker on the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission . MAC's intent was to keep aircraft flying and the airport operating and, therefore, was not sensitive to the residents of the community. Gardner noted that the airport control tower was only open from 6AM to IOPM; however, planes did land at Flying Cloud Airport after 1OPM. He added that MAC had not acknowledged that planes did land after IOPM or were flying too low and current regulations were not being enforced . Gardner believed that the noise data provided were biased and should be obtained from an independent group. Gardner requested that the City collect its own data . Jack Va nRemortel, 16031 Summit Drive, stated that he was not bothered by the planes; however, he had noticed an increase in the use by jets . He believed that Staff had given the Council a disservice by not presenting both sides of the issue, both negative and positive aspects of the plan . VanRemor to l said that many residents throughout the country today had a "not in my backyard" attitude . He believed that the expanded airport would be an asset to the community which should be shared with the surrounding communities . VanRemortel stated that he did City Council Minutes 10 November 29, 1988 ? not have enough information at this time to support a plan . He presented the Council with an article written about "grid- lock" for our airports . VanRemortel believed that the City needed to begin preparing today for the needs of the future . Daryl Benson, 8676 Shiloh Court, believed that Staff had done a good job in considering the facts . Benson noted that not only was the noise study done during the week but it did not include any jet traffic. Benson added that he was concerned about the control over the flight patterns; because the pilot determined the pattern now, he believed there should be more control . Benson stated that at the end of the proposed runway was a riding stable where horses had actually run through fences when jets had flown over . Scott Mace, 16150 valley Road, stated that he was opposed to the expansion . He believed that Flying Cloud Airport was a tolerable neighbor now, but an expansion would not be tolerable . Noise was the primary objection and it was this area of the study which he considered to be the least accurate . Mace believed the study to be unscientific, there was no information regarding peak traffic noise levels. He believed that the consultants had avoided areas that would conflict with the result that it wanted . Mace concluded that the use would be incompatible with the area. Joel Lehrke, 8901 Knollwood Drive, stated that he was in favor of the airport expansion . Lehrke believed that an economic benefit would be realized by Eden Prairie from the surrounding communities . Lehrke noted that the new Citation 3 engine which was newer and quieter than the older jets would not be able to land at Flying Cloud Airport because of the 20,000 pound weight restriction . The newer aircraft also needed a longer runway to operate, which would also create a safer runway. Lehrke noted that the safety zone limits were to limit the height of the buildings constructed in the area . Lehrke stated that being a pilot for Northwest Airlines, he believed that it would not be feasible to bring in the larger aircraft such as the DC9 or the 727 because of the larger ground support which would be necessary to serve these larger airplanes . Jay Olson, a Richfield resident and Flying Cloud Airport businessman and member of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission, stated that an open house was scheduled for December 3, 1988 to show the type of aircraft which would be utilizing Flying Cloud Airport and extended an invitation for the Council to attend . The Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission did want a good neighbor policy. The airport did contribute to the community and was totally self-supporting. 100 aircraft housed at Flying Cloud Airport were owned by Eden Prairie residents and 72 percent of the flights were business related. 43 percent of those having aircraft at Flying Cloud Airport had said they would relocate their businesses if i City Council Minutes 11 November 29, 1988 Flying Cloud Airport was not available . Jay Peterson, 8626 Coachman Lane, stated that his concern was the impact of lengthening the runway and the increased noise . He had noted a big difference in noise levels between the small engine planes and the jets . He believed that any increase in jet traffic would contribute to unacceptable and intolerable noise levels . Fortman stated that he appreciated everyone coming out to present their opinions . He requested a copy of the tape being made of the meeting to allow MAC to respond in detail to the many questions presented tonight . Mayor Peterson acknowledged that a copy of the tape would be provided. Fortman stated that the reason for the meeting tonight was because MAC did consider the residents of Eden Prairie to be important . He 4 added that this was why the study had been presented to the Planning Commission, the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission and two open public meetings had been conducted . Fortman stated that noise was always a sensitive subject and was difficult due to the different perceptions by individuals of acceptable and unacceptable levels . Fortman stated that the noise study was a scientific study accomplished by using accepted procedures . Fortman understood the sentiments of the residents . Fortman stated that MAC was responsible for providing aviation facilities for the 7-county metro area . It was the current policy to update plans every 5 years . Fortman questioned how MAC was to fulfill its obligations without having an airport in someone 's "backyard" . He commented that the same comments made here tonight were heard in each community. MAC 's policy was to maximize the use of all existing facilities before building new ones . Fortman noted that this proposal was part of a planning process and not that of a construction process . Fortman stated that a substantial investment was being projected; however, if the users could not help support the facility, it would be unlikely that MAC would proceed with the investment . Fortman noted that there would be no financial contribution from the City of Eden Prairie as all revenues for the airport were derived from the users, or State and Federal funding which comes from user taxes . Pidcock asked Fortman if after hearing the same objections from every community, MAC had not become blase to the comments . Fortman replied that it actually reinforced to MAC that the concerns were real . Anderson was concerned about the City having little or no control over the expansion . Bentley stated that what he heard from the residents tonight was a concern about the potential for a completely different use than what currently existed with the number one concern being the increased jet traffic . Bentley believed that there City Council Minutes 12 November 29, 1988 was an economic benefit to the community. The flaw in the report was that it did not address the concept of the entire metro area, it only addressed what was proposed for Flying Cloud Airport . He said it would have been helpful to see where Flying Cloud Airport fits in with the 7-county airport scheme . Bentley noted that it would only take the addition of one foot to the proposed 5000-foot runway to have Flying Cloud Airport classified as an intermediate airport . He believed that the fear of many of the residents was that the push was to eventually create an intermediate facility. Bentley believed that the residents were not concerned with an increase in air traffic, but rather the type of air traffic. Bentley did not believe that Eden Prairie could tolerate an Increase in jet traffic and added that he did not believe that the report had shown the need for the increase . Peterson stated that he was concerned with the recurring theme that the City of Eden Prairie or the MAC has little control over the recreational and commercial aviation and that there was an absolute right of these aircraft to land whenever and wherever they wanted . Peterson noted that as a city Eden Prairie exerts its authority to monitor recreational water craft, but it yet could not control the air traffic . Peterson believed that if MAC could not control the number of planes or the noise level of those planes, then it was MAC•s responsibility to look ahead and purchase the land to allow 7 recreational and commercial aircraft absolute access to the facility. Peterson did not believe that the residents of Eden Prairie were saying "not in my backyard" , but by asking that the good-neighbor relationship be continued, they were simply expressing their legitimate concern about the increase in jet traffic . Peterson believed that the residents wanted to let MAC know that Eden Prairie had rights too, and added that those rights were just as absolute as those who will use the airport . He believed that MAC needed to either manage the air traffic or buy the land . MOTION : Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to accept the reports of the Planning Commission, Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission, and Staff to deny the proposed plan by MAC for the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport Motion carried unanimously. III . OTHER HUSINE,jS IV. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10 : 00 PM.