Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 2, 2009 <br /> APPROVED <br /> 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES <br /> 2 WORK SESSION MINUTES <br /> 3 <br /> 4 DATE : March 2, 2009 <br /> 5 TIME STARTED : 5:40 p.m. <br /> 6 TIME ENDED : 10:00 p.m. <br /> 7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Members O'Donnell, <br /> 8 Reinert, Stoltz and Mayor Bergeson <br /> 9 MEMBERS ABSENT : Council Member Gallup <br /> 10 <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Staff members present: City Administrator, Gordon Heitke; Community Development <br /> 13 Director, Mike Grochala; City Planner, Paul Bengtson; Chief of Police, Dave Pecchia <br /> 14 1. Anoka County Airport Extension—Present was Berry Rice, 662 Fox Road in <br /> 15 Lino Lakes, and Kathy Jaconich (sp), 10644 Sanctuary Drive (Blaine)who identified <br /> 16 themselves as representing concerned citizens of the north metro. They provided the <br /> 17 council with handouts John Olson, Anoka County, Public Services Division, was also <br /> 18 present. Mr. Rice noted his concern about the amount of air traffic and noise he <br /> 19 experienced at his home during the recent Republican Convention. Through research he <br /> 20 found out that there is a proposal before the county to expand the airport runway. <br /> 21 Concerned citizens have approached Anoka County on this matter and have found that <br /> 22 Key Air has hired a lobbyist to assist with the expansion approval process. An expansion <br /> 23 to the runway would mean that larger planes could use the airport and that would mean a <br /> ."" 24 more disruptive level of noise. A picture was shown that indicated noise impact by <br /> 25 comparison to other noises. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and Anoka <br /> 26 County are saying that there is nothing going on with this proposal at this time. The <br /> 27 possibility out there, however, is that they could change the definition of a"minor <br /> 28 airport"thus allowing a longer runway, or to change the airport from intermediate status <br /> 29 also allowing an extension of the runway all the way to 8,000 feet (not on the table right <br /> 30 now but would be allowed). The most recent upgrade to the runway(a year ago)brought <br /> 31 it to its current 5,000 feet and was touted as a safety issue. Ms. Jaconich provided <br /> 32 information(by overhead projection) comparing an airport that had about 1,000 feet <br /> 33 added to its runway(Waterbury-Oxford Airport in Connecticut). Information for the <br /> 34 study was accumulated through a Federal Aeronautics Administration (FAA) Part 150 <br /> 35 Study. The information includes operational data and study of noise levels generally and <br /> 36 in some specific areas, as well as a public input element. Study results include findings <br /> 37 that jets increased their usage more than 90% over the five year expansion period <br /> 38 (meaning older planes were replaced by jets). Noise contour maps are also developed as <br /> 39 part of this kind of study. She noted that the resulting mitigation considerations are quite <br /> 40 conservative and, in the case of Lino Lakes and its distance from the facility, there would <br /> 41 probably be no consideration even though, as Mr. Rice has stated, there are already noise <br /> 42 impacts. There are obviously quality of life and property value issues that arise. <br /> 43 A council member asked how the approval process works and Mr. Rice explained that, as <br /> ,..r 44 he understands, the process beings with a request to MAC that would then go to the <br /> 1 <br />