Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFlying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission - 03/05/1997 APPROVED MINUTES FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1997 7:00 P.M. City Center Prairie Rooms A& B 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie COMMISSION MEMBERS: Carlo Amato, Kent Barker, Tom Heffelfinger, Rob Kilpatrick, Alan Nitchman, Gary Schmidt VISITORS: Jeff Larson, replacing Kent Barker and Blake Middleton, Planes of Fame Air Museum STAFF: Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner, and Barbara Anderson, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting began at 7:15 p.m. Carlo Amato, Kent Barker, and Alan Nitchman were absent. Roy Furman from MAC was also present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted. II. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 4, 1996 MINUTES This item was deferred until the next meeting because a quorum was not present. III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS This item was deferred until the next meeting because a quorum was not present. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. MAC EIS Advisory Committee Update Kipp presented an overview of the EIS Advisory Committee thus far and described the composition of the Commission. They spent the first meeting getting acquainted with each other and identifying some of the issues. The second meeting was centered on forecasts and using the EIS to identify techniques that could be used to define trends. They discussed trying to obtain data on transient traffic use, turnover rates, using the waiting lists at Flying Cloud Airport to get a feel for who uses the airport and the traffic levels, and how building area would be used between private versus corporate uses. The next meeting was not yet scheduled. The three parameters that would be evaluated were: The"No Action"Alternative Expansion of 5,000 pounds with Ordinance 51 at 20,000 pounds. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 5, 1997 Page 2 Expansion of the runway to 5,000 feet with Ordinance 51 reflecting 50,000 pounds. Additional runway area was one of the major issues which will be discussed. B. Request of Elliot Aviation Rmardins!Waiver to Ordinance 51 Heffelfinger stated that he was strongly opposed to granting a waiver for Elliot Aviation to Ordinance 51 as it was precedent-setting. He questioned why this was coming before the Commission as there were other airports that would allow that type of aircraft to land. He noted that there was no section in the agreement that gave MAC the authority to grant any waivers at all, and the only agency that has this authority would be the City Attorney for the City of Eden Prairie, and that was usually done only on an emergency basis under the statute of criminal law. There was no right retained by MAC from Ordinance 51 to grant waivers and it could not be done in advance. If MAC decided to grant this waiver, they would become vulnerable to a lawsuit. He did not believe this issue was being discussed when there were many other things that should be considered by the Commission. Schmidt commented that the waiver request originated from a working relationship that has existed in the past, but upon consideration of Heffelfinger's remarks, he did not believe that it was a good idea to approve a waiver and stated he believed that MAC had not considered all the ramifications of such an action. He noted that MAC has had violations of Ordinance 51 in the past, but he was unaware of any waivers being granted. He did not support approving the waiver under these circumstances. Heffelfinger inquired if it was feasible to close Flying Cloud Airport to certain types of aircraft based on the weight and noise rating. He believed allowing certain aircraft above a certain weight and noise rating level to use the airport, but not others was discriminatory. Schmidt commented that basing access to the airport on noise levels would be discriminatory to some aircraft that have been using Flying Cloud Airport for years. Furman commented that there are many noise issues that the Commission should be aware of. They want to preclude discriminatory legislation, and have sought a nighttime noise level which has been effective, but this would not work with a general aviation agency. They want to be sure they do not enter into an agreement that would cause problems in the future. Discussion ensued regarding ways that they can control noise levels through standards pertaining to rating and weight. It was suggested that it would be easier to prohibit specific types of aircraft from landing rather than something based on weight. It was noted that the tower log identifies each aircraft by type based on its number, which is way to find out what types of aircraft presently use the airport. Schmidt stated that after this discussion, he was going to recommend to Alan Nitchman that he advise his customer to seek another solution as it was not feasible to grant any waivers to Ordinance 51 at this time. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 5, 1997 Page 2 C. Update from MAC on FCM Design Framework Manual Schmidt stated that nothing had been done by MAC on the Design Framework Manual to date. Furman noted he had some concerns with the manual regarding there leases and the landscaping requirements. He stated that when they lease property to construct a hangar, tenants do not have any opportunity to do any landscaping because they have no area around the building. It would be possible for commercial tenants to do some landscaping, because there is usually a little land in conjunction with those leases. Kipp stated that it would be up to MAC as to whether there would be available space for landscaping, but it was usually required for screening along buildings and around the perimeter of the airport. Furman stated he was also concerned about the requirements for screening for garbage areas and how those would be enforced. Kipp responded that this has been a requirement throughout all of Eden Prairie but the manual was intended as a guide for future development at the airport. Furman stated he was concerned about the cost issues involved for smaller tenants who may be unable to meet the standards for new construction. Schmidt stated he believed they should review the manual with their lease commission to get their input and comments and then bring it back to this body for further discussion. Kipp stated that the City and MAC can work together to enforce these regulations if they are accepted. V. NOISE ABATEMENT PLAN/AIRCRAFT INCIDENTS A. Noise Complaints for November 1996 through January 1997 There were no complaints or incidents for this period. VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. Replacement Candidate for Vacant Commission Seat of Mare Bundsaard Jeffrey Bauer was proposed as a replacement candidate for Marge Bundgaard. Kipp stated he would forward the letter making this recommendation to the City Council, and after discussion, it was decided to wait until after the next meeting to make a recommendation for a replacement. B. MATA Conference follow-up VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting ended at 8:17 p.m.