Agenda Packets - 1997/10/27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Metropolitan Airports Commission July 10, 1997 . Page 2 • The City's written objections are based primarily on the following basic legal guidelines governing future development of the Airport as specified in the Order: 1. Pursuant to the Order, MAC must "develop the Airport pursuant to the Airport Master Plan formally adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission on August 15, 1983 and approved by the Metropolitan Council on November 22, 1983 (the "1983 Master Plan"). 2. The 1983 Master Plan was adopted on the basis that "since development of Anoka County/Blaine Airport is limited by law to minor status, it will be assumed that its fleet will consist entirely of types D and E aircraft" (see page 50 of 1983 Master Plan). 3. Proposed development and capital improvements at the Airport included in the Plan designed to establish a larger size "Design Aircraft" larger than the "Typical Operating Aircraft" which are types D and E aircraft (now referred to as types A and B aircraft - 12,500 lbs. gross takeoff weight or less) are in conflict with the Order and the 1983 Master Plan and would therefor not be allowed. 4. Minnesota Statutes, § 473.611, subd. 5 states in part that any long-term comprehensive plans adopted by the MAC for the enlargement of existing airports shall be consistent with the Development Guide of the Metropolitan Council. 5. Minnesota Statues, § 473.641, subd. 4 states in part that MAC shall not use revenue from any source for construction of air facilities to expand or upgrade the use of an existing metropolitan airport from minor use status to intermediate use status as defined by the Metropolitan Development Guide, Aviation Chapter. 6. Minnesota Statues, § 473.655 states in part that development of the Metropolitan airport system by MAC must be consistent with the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Based on the foregoing legal guidelines and provisions of the 1983 Master Plan and Order, the City's formal written objections to the Plan are as follows: 1. The Airport history section of the Plan starting on page 1-3 makes no reference whatsoever to the Order governing future development at the Airport. The Plan should be amended to include a full description of the history regarding the Order, the specific provisions of the Order that govern the future development of the Airport, and incorporate by reference a copy of the Order as a new exhibit. 2. The Plan, on its face, fails to comply with the requirements of the Order in that the Plan4110 does not include the Comprehensive Noise Abatement Strategy to protect the health, PC:,i 26 134