Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-27-01 . - CITY of ANDOVER Andover Planning ~11d Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda November 27,2001 Andover City Hall 7:00p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes - November 13,2001 3. Public Rearin!!: Discussion of Ultralight vehicles. ~ 4. Other Business e 5. Adjournment e • November 27, 2001 2. Approval of Minutes Planning Courtney Bednarz • Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the November 13, 2001 meeting. .. '. .' , ,..". .. ,'. -'-- --.:' .' -, - '-. :. _: - '-, .- ---'-' -', '. .' --- ':.."-' - ,.- City Planner Courtney Bednarz explained that the COl;11IIlission is being asked to review . the reioning and preliminarY plat requests.for the project to be known as 'Ashwo09 .. .. Estates;. The subject propertY has three sewer and water stubs with one being utilized by. . the existing hoine. The City's draft Comprehensive Plan ~ndicates that tliis area will . transition from iural to urban size lots by utilizing the infrastnicture that has already been provided. He stated that the rezoning would bring the Zoning Map and Comprehensiye' , . . Plan into alignment for this property and allow the proposed development to be designed Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 13, 2001 • Page 2 according to the zoning regulations for the R4, Single Family Urban Residential Zoning District. Mr. Bednarz stated that the existing garage on Lot 3 would need to be removed as indicated on the plan. This structure must be removed before the final plat can be recorded. The portion of the existing fence on Lot 2 must be moved back to the proposed property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2. Areas where trees will be saved must be indicated on the plan as required by Ordinance 214. It's the developer's intention to save as many trees as possible. There are also minor notations that need to be made on the plans as indicated in the engineering memorandum. The developer /owner is responsible to obtain all necessary permits. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this item at their June 7, 2001 meeting and indicated that a park dedication payment for the two proposed properties would be required. The Building Official reviews all building permit applications to determine whether the exterior architectural design, appearance, or functional plan will vary from any structures within 300' of the proposed structure. Commissioner Hedin questioned if the surrounding lots are zoned R -1 or R -4. Mr. Bednarz stated that the property to the west was recently rezoned to R -4, however the • remainder of the properties are zoned R -1. Commissioner Hedin questioned what the properties to the south are zoned. Mr. Bednarz stated that the properties to the south are zoned R -4. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Daninger, to open the public hearing on the Rezoning (01- 03) for the property at 732 140th Lane at 7:07 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Falk and Greenwald) vote. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Dalien, to open the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat for the property at 732 140th Lane at 7:07 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Falk and Greenwald) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Daninger, to close the public hearing on the Rezoning (01 -03) at 7:08 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Falk and Greenwald) vote. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hedin, to close the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat at 7:08 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Falk and Greenwald) vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —November 13, 2001 • Page 3 Commissioner Kirchoff stated that the plat was reviewed this past June and most of the questions and concerns at that time have been addressed. He mentioned that the engineering report does state a few concerns, however those items will be completed. Commissioner Hedin agreed. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Dalien, to recommend to the City Council approval of Ordinance No. 8 , an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 8, Section 6.03, Zoning District Map of the City of Andover. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Falk and Greenwald) vote. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. approving the Preliminary Plat of "Ashwood Estates" by Tramm Builders and Realtors, LLC located at 732 140th Avenue NW in Section 36, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Falk and Greenwald) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that these items would be reviewed at the December 4, 2001 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN FOR AN EIGHT LOT • RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWNAS `SILVER MEADOWS' LOCATED AT 16326 VERDIN ST. NW- FOSSIWIELOCK. The Applicant, Mr. Wielock, presented the sketch plan for an eight lot rural residential development to be known as `Silver Meadows' located at 16326 Verdin St NW. He stated that parcel is 40 acres in size, however there are only 8 buildable lots due to the wetlands on the west side of the property. He went on to explain the sketch plan in greater detail. Commissioner Daninger questioned if the Commission has the same proposal that's being presented to the audience. Mr. Bednarz stated that indeed it's the same proposal. The Applicant, Jerry Foss, stated that they would have liked more lots, however because of the wetlands only 8 lots would conform to City regulations. Mr. Bednarz explained that the Commission is asked to informally advise the subdivider of the extent to which the plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, design standards of City, county, state and federal agencies and possible modification necessary to secure approval of the plan. Submission of a sketch plan doesn't constitute formal filing of the plan. He stated that the proposed sketch plan is consistent with the Andover Comprehensive Land Use Plan as the property is designated RR, Rural Residential. The property is located outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Private utilities would • need to be established to serve proposed properties. All lots would be required to meet all local and City ordinances. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —November 13, 2001 • Page 4 Mr. Bednarz stated that the sketch plan proposed two cul -de -sacs that are 650 and 590 feet in length, respectively; Lots 5 and 6 could be provided access from these streets instead of Verdin St. NW. The Andover Review Committee recommends connecting the two cul -de -sacs to provide a `loop' street. This would allow the south cul -de -sac to be eliminated. This design retains the north cul -de -sac to allow Lot 3 to utilize the reduced lot width requirement. This design also eliminates the need for a variance for the length of the north cul -de -sac due to the street connection and allows the southern road to move further north to allow additional buildable area for Lot 8. Mr. Bednarz stated that a variance to a minimum lot area requirement for Lot 6 may be necessary as a result of the roadway adjustment. Every effort should be made to locate the street connection in a manner that will maximize the lot area of Lot 6 and retain enough buildable area for Lots 4 and 7. Property lines may also be adjusted to increase the size of lots adjacent to Lot 7. Mr. Bednarz stated that there is landlocked property to the west of the subject property. This is Outlot A of Lund's Evergreen Estates 2nd Addition. This property is owned by an adjacent property owner to the west with access to Arrowhead St. NW. The Park and Recreation Commission will review this item at their November 15th meeting. • Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if staff was unsure of the sizes of the buildable lots. Mr. Bednarz described the lot sizes for the commission. The sketch presented by the applicant addresses the issue of connecting the street and pulling it to the north. Chair Squires questioned what property it is that has access to Arrowhead. He questioned if Outlot A is buildable, and if so if it would be feasible to have access to cross the property. Mr. Bednarz pointed out the location of the property, which is owned by the same landowner. He stated that the ability of a developer or the City to develop a street through a wetland is limited. He stated that it really isn't possible without a lot of compensation to take the street from Verdin and access the outlot. He mentioned that the likely hood of the property to the west of the wetlands to be developed is unknown and may be limited by wetlands also. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned what would happen if the lots less than 2.5 acres were removed. Mr. Bednarz explained that two lots are below the minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. He stated that.the Commission needs to determine if it's more important to have slightly smaller lots and have the connection or have two cul -de -sacs, no street connection and lots that meet the minimum lot size. is Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 13, 2001 • Page 5 Chair Squires questioned if there is enough buildable land in Lot 3 to make it a lot. Mr. Bednarz stated that in order to determine this for sure there will need to be more engineering research completed. Commissioner Hedin questioned if the driveway would extend across the wetland for Lot 3. Mr. Bednarz stated that indeed the driveway would go across the wetland. He pointed out the location. Commissioner Daninger questioned if the chart in the staff report was built off the two cul -de -sac plan. Chair Squires stated that it was the two cul -de -sac plan. Commissioner Daninger stated that the major issues are the 3 lots under the 2.5 -acre minimum size, and the one lot with a less than 300 -foot frontage. Mr. Bednarz stated that the developer is really looking at variances for two lots under the 2.5 -acre minimum size. The cul -de -sac lot meets the minimum lot width requirement. Motion by Dalien, seconded by Daninger, to open the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Falk and Greenwald) vote. Mr. Foss clarified that Lot 2 is really 2.8 acres in size, not 2.4 acres and meets the • minimum lot size requirement. Mr. Bednarz pointed out the location of the lot. Robert Whitney, 2520 166th Avenue NW, questioned what restrictions and/or provisions the City will put in for the Lot on the NW corner to assure all drainage issues are addressed. Mr. Bednarz stated that the project will be reviewed by the Watershed District where strict requirements will need to be met in order to receive approval. Jim Pearson, 16552 , stated that he has noticed there have been water problems in the past with the Lund development. He requested the properties along the west side be researched thoroughly to make sure all water problems are addressed. Mr. Bednarz stated that the Lund development is an older development; therefore, there are requirements now that weren't in affect at the time it was developed. There was no further public input. Motion by Dalien, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Falk and Greenwald) vote. Commissioner Dalien stated that he prefers the sketch with the road going through instead of having the cul -de -sacs. He stated that it's unfortunate there are some lots less than 2.5 acres, however he doesn't have a problem with it. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 13, 2001 • Page 6 Commissioner Hedin stated that he is concerned with the amount of buildability in some of the lots, however since it's only a sketch plan he will support it at this stage and look for the information to come in with the preliminary plat. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he supports the idea of the interior road instead of having two cul -de -sacs. He questioned if the county would have some input in the outcome since Verdin Street is a county road. Mr. Bednarz stated that the county has received a recent sketch plan of the development. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he can understand the reasoning on giving up some acreage on a couple lots, which are surrounded by the road. Commissioner Daninger stated that he agrees with the rest of the Commission. He stated that he likes the idea of not having the long cul -de -sac for safety reasons. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that when the residents receive the next public notice for the development it will be at the preliminary plat stage, therefore more information will be available regarding the drainage concerns. Commissioner Hedin questioned what the rules are for replacing wetlands in a lot. Mr. • Bednarz stated that a watershed permit is necessary and it's a 2 to 1 replacement. Chair Squires stated that it seems the Commission is in agreement to recommend that one of the cul -de -sacs be eliminated. Commissioner Daninger stated that he would rather see a curved road than a right -angled road. Chair Squires stated that the Commission's consensus is also to move the road to the far west as possible and explore a curvilinear design while maintaining buildability on Lots 4 and 7, since it would be more aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he would hate to have the curve reduce the size of the two lots anymore than their current size. The Commission agreed. Chair Squires mentioned that if it isn't possible to make the curve in the road then it would still be acceptable to the Commission. Mr. Bednarz stated that the development will come back for preliminary plat approval sometime after the first of the year. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 13, 2001 • Page 7 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bednarz stated that the terms are up for Commissioners Dalien, Falk and Daninger at the end of the year. He asked the Commissioners if they are interested in serving another term. Commissioners Dalien and Daninger both stated that they are interested in serving another term on the Commission. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that Commissioner Falk has also indicated that he would like to serve another term. Commissioner Dalien stated that he will be unable to attend the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Chair Squires mentioned that after reading the City Council workshop minutes he was disappointed to find out that the County transportation plan doesn't address a signal at Hanson and Andover Blvd., however it does include a signal at Hanson and Crosstown. He stated that he feels strongly that the intersection of Hanson and Andover Blvd. is much worse and should be a priority over the intersection of Crosstown and Hanson. Mr. Bednarz stated that the long -term plan includes a signal at the intersection of-Hanson and Andover Blvd. • Chair Squires requested the City Council look at moving up the time frame for installation. Mr. Bednarz suggested the Commission spend time reviewing the year at an upcoming meeting to help set priorities for the year 2002. Commissioner Dalien questioned the status of the Ultralight Study. Mr. Bednarz stated that the study should be completed by the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Daninger updated the Commission on the recent Community Center Task Force meeting. He stated that they are looking at a number of potential facilities. He added that no decision has been made as to whether a facility will be built. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Dalien, seconded by Hedin, to adjourn the meeting at 7:56 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Falk and Greenwald) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sara Beck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • 1[ 07 CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Ultralight Vehicles DATE: November 27, 2001 INTRODUCTION The City Council has asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to evaluate Ultralight activity, research regulations and recommend whether a local ordinance is necessary to regulate this activity. If a local ordinance is determined to be necessary, the Planning and Zoning Commission is also asked to recommend language for this ordinance. DISCUSSION Recent Actions FAA Determination The FAA inspected the site and determined that the residential neighborhoods surrounding the sod field constitute a `congested area' which means that the flying of ultralights over them, at any height, is a violation of FAA regulations. To allow FAA enforcement to take place, there must be enough evidence to conduct a criminal investigation. The FAA does not require licensing of the vehicles or pilots. In my discussions with Christine Fiero of the FAA, she has indicated that this decision was made in the early 1980's when ultralights were becoming more popular. The debate over licensing has been discussed since that time without changes to this policy. Nationwide Search For Ultralight Regulations Staff contacted the American Planning Association for assistance in locating any ultralight regulations that exist across the country. Very few specific regulations for ultralights were found. Among those communities and states that specifically regulate ultralight aircraft, the most common tool is a special use permit or some other type of permit issued by the local government or FAA. Specific information regarding nationwide regulations is attached. 0 Ultralight Sound Test • The Planning and Zoning Commission requested that a sound test be completed after the October 23` meeting. Representatives from the neighborhood, pilots and the commission were to attend the sound test. Staff contacted Dave Beckstrom, a flight instructor, the following day and asked him to select a day that would work for the pilots. Despite several phone conversations no date was set by Mr. Beckstrom. Staff then contacted Bill Dubatts, a Coon Rapids resident who volunteered to assist with the sound monitoring. Staff asked Bill to select a date for the test that would work for the pilots. Bill prepared a sound test proposal and contacted staff on Tuesday November 13 to schedule a sound test for the following day at 3pm. Unlike the previous week, Wednesday afternoon was overcast and rain prevented the test from being conducted. Staff asked Bill to find an alternate day on the 14 of November and again on the 19 of November. Bill responded on November 20 that Thanksgiving week would not work for the pilots. Rescheduling Sound Test A sound test needs to be conducted on the site to determine whether the local noise ordinance is being violated. Noise readings from a receiving property exceeding 65 decibels for ten percent of one hour or exceeding 60 decibels for fifty percent of one hour constitutes a violation. Other Research Staff searched for sound data from other sources including manufactures, flight schools, flying clubs, and government agencies. One source indicated that it is not uncommon for an ultralight that is taking off to reach 90 decibels. A comparison list is attached to show comparable activities. Information is still coming in and will be summarized in a memorandum to be distributed at the meeting. Moving Forward The following options have been identified. The Commission is asked to discuss the following options or develop a new option and make a recommendation to the City Council. 1. The FAA governs aviation and has measures in place that should be enforced. These regulations provide adequate protection for residential neighborhoods. 2. The property owner should be required to submit and follow operational procedures that conform to FAA and MNDOA guidelines. 3. A local ordinance is necessary to address resident's concerns by limiting the intensity of the use of the site and providing for the identification of pilots is necessary. 4. There are other places in the community that are better suited for this type of activity. Due to the close proximity to residential neighborhoods, this activity should not be • allowed on the subject property. . Staff Recommendation This process has functioned to educate pilots, staff, the FAA, residents and the commission on this issue. It is now understood that ultralights may not fly over residential neighborhoods. In staff's view this will eliminate much of the concerns for safety and privacy. The noise emitted by these vehicles is another issue, however. Andover has adopted PCA guidelines into an ordinance that establishes a local standard for acceptable limits of noise for each type of property in the City. A sound test needs to be conducted to determine if the local ordinance is being violated. If the noise ordinance is violated by ultralight vehicles, most likely while taking off, this activity should not be allowed to continue on the subject property. If the noise ordinance is not being violated by ultralights, the commission needs to decide if additional action should be taken. In staffs view, the problems associated with low flying and noise are likely a result of a small number of aircraft operators that have not observed estab lished standards. The City can facilitate enforcement of FAA standards by keeping a record of aircraft that use the facility. Residents can alert City Staff, the Anoka County Sheriff's Office or document violations on there own with • photography, for example, to assist the FAA in the execution of their responsibilities. History of Complaints A rural property also used as an airfield is located to the northeast of Prairie Road and Andover Boulevard. There has been an increase in the number and frequency of aircraft taking off and landing at this site this year. On several occasions there were at least four aircraft using the site on the same day. There have been reports of low flying in residential neighborhoods. The FAA, Anoka County Sheriff's Office and City Staff have all received complaints. These complaints generally include the following statements: • The pilots fly the Ultralights too low over neighborhoods and the noise disturbs the enjoyment of residential properties. • This activity threatens the safety of families and properties. • The airfield is used as a training facility for takeoffs and landings. This level of activity is far beyond what should be allowed in a residential neighborhood. • The noise of the aircraft interfere with the enjoyment of private property Property Owner Response • Staff contacted and met with the property owner to discuss these issues. The property owner indicated the level of activity rarely reached reported levels and would be reduced by restricting the number of pilots with permission to use his property. He stated that the site was used for recreational purposes and was not a commercial business. He also said that pilots respect the surrounding residential neighborhood and climb to higher altitudes above the sod fields before • passing over neighborhoods as required by the FAA. He also commented that it takes less than five minutes for an ultralight to takeoff or land, that all FAA guidelines are followed and that similar activity takes place in other communities, such as Ham Lake. The property owner also submitted a set of rules that pilots would follow in the future (attached). Existing Regulations Federal Aviation Administration Ultralight vehicles are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Title 14, Chapterl03 of the Federal Code provides the specific regulations for ultralight vehicles. No pilot or aircraft license is required by the FAA for this type of activity. As previously mentioned, it has been determined by the FAA that residential neighborhoods are congested areas that ultralights may not fly over. If this activity is occurring and can be documented by an independent source such as City Staff or the Anoka County Sheriff's Office, the FAA will provide enforcement measures. League of Minnesota Cities The League had no model ordinance for this type of activity. They directed staff to consult the • Cities of Lake Elmo, Ham Lake, Minnetonka and Bloomington. These cities have addressed similar issues. Lake Elmo In 1989, Lake Elmo had the same discussion Andover is having today. Ultralight activity, and specifically low flying and noise levels, had become a concern for residents. A petition was brought to the council. After a public hearing, a compromise was reached whereby no fly zones were established on maps distributed to pilots and a "mug shot" book containing photographs of all the ultralights using the airfield was created. This allowed residents to identify aircraft that violated FAA standards. This issue has since subsided in Lake Elmo and there is no current ultralight activity that the planning department is aware of. Also of note, there are no local ordinances in Lake Elmo that regulate ultralights. Please refer to Attachment C for further information. Ham Lake Ham Lake regulates landing and takeoffs of all aircraft that require licensing by the FAA or Minnesota Department of Aeronautics. Ultralights are not required to be licensed by these agencies. The area of the City in which regulated aircraft activity is allowed is restricted to specific zoning districts. A conditional use permit is also required to mitigate potential impacts • on surrounding properties. This ordinance was created to address a local issue concerning one helicopter and pilot. Please refer to Attachment C for a copy of this ordinance. Minnetonka Minnetonka does not prohibit ultralights, but does require all aircraft to comply with federal and state regulations and obtain permission from property owners prior to landing within the city. A conditional use permit is required specifically for heliports but not for ultralights. Specific conditions include hours of operation and separation from residential areas. Please refer to Attachment D for a copy of this ordinance. Bloomington Bloomington requires a permit issued by the City Council for any aircraft, including ultralights, that take off or land within the city with four exceptions. Review criteria include safety of surrounding properties, location of activity in relation to adjacent structures and land uses, prevention of nuisances, including noise, compliance with FAA licensing regulations, proof of liability insurance and permission of the property owner. Bloomington's Senior Planner commented that the ordinance was created years ago before Bloomington was fully developed and has not bee used since that time due to the lack of any flight activity. Please refer to Attachment E for a copy of this ordinance. In summary, few communities have found it necessary to enact local ordinances to regulate ultralights. Lake Elmo had the most similar experience. Their approach resolved the two • primary issues that residents had with this type of activity in a proactive manner. The process of identifying aircraft that violate FAA standards was simplified, which aided the FAA in the enforcement of their regulations. Prohibiting Ultralights Airfields can be regulated by local ordinance. Many locations can be eliminated by such an ordinance based on reasonable distances from congested areas, such as neighborhoods, and other criteria designed to prevent detrimental effects on the public health, safety and welfare. All ordinances require justification. A city wide prohibition against airfields may be difficult to justify if it can be demonstrated that aircraft activity is in compliance with all FAA standards and flight activity is limited to undeveloped areas of the city and does not impact residential neighborhoods. Whether or not the City decides to enact a local ordinance to restrict airfields, the city can not control traffic through its air space. This service is provided by the FAA. Even if all airfields are eliminated from Andover, a landing area is located nearby in Ham Lake. ACTION REQUIRED The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to discuss the information provided and provide direction to staff. If the commission reaches consensus on a course of action a recommendation can be forwarded to the City Council. Attachments 0 Attachment A Location Map Attachment B FAA Regulations Attachment C Nationwide Survey Results Attachment D Sound Comparisions Attachment E Neighbor Friendly Flying Proposal Attachment F Draft Ordinance Attachment G Public Notice Respectfully submitted, Courtney Bednarz Cc: Dean Clossey Adam and Christine Winanzyk Wayne and Jan Margotto • LJ ------.-- Ultralite Vehicles Discussion e ~~,.~ ,., ~~;~'_' ~ I' ~~:X. ".'~ -- /y~-j tal \ _ I lB)... ., - \" .... \\ -. I X /:: ~ .JA -.. ~ .. _..-'~ > :::.' :: =~I~- ,~ I 'I :: : ~~,- _ :N 111I 1lI1 ~ . a ~~ ,~ ~~n; ,\'\ -. \~ .. - - - .. .... ~ ~:\ ~ _ "000 "'Ml M.... ~ 'M" \ ~=- _ - .... y;< ~.. - -li- ~ - ..\ - .... -=-:::==.... .... ~ -'. "',. .... .... - .. .... 1>>0 lIIO BI 14110 ~ ~,c" ~ _12'J:l ... _14I'\ll '; Ill" ..,.. ::l 1:11I2 l2I1 I '01710 urn 'Iol1!O wnt ~ :.p'~" mil I 'I'In2 14m. _ ~~:;&':::'.' Ill' ~1.~&1i%~:!%~ ,..., IS M7QI "6 '" 14m u_ ~' I _ .N' .~ ______ . " . .'" ~.~. ;::- - - I ..- i ! 1lI_ .. SlIi .. c>> Ill> DO :. SIll '!'1'2 _,. " '" .... n, /" :::~ lJ.! - "- .... - 1-. -.;; ... IIlOIllI ~ II: '-- :1;;, !\&~ _ l.N ~ t---!!:! =' VI .. _~ ! il!: _ I 111 I vt .. " :a IFf _ U . _ ...j ,Olt _ Ill' If7 'HMO 0. -- III 1111111-...... '211 AN - ~:'l '''!l! - I 'I --':;;.>. -=~'" ,-.... . . . . - J2l... 61(1 .. l'. 310 p' lk 11m lOlI!iI ,"0 .,e 1'1 :II "'~~"* -;:;;- ,'!I.II -, ... ... ..,A iiii: ,,=- n"p, - ~~ - ~- ~DI-=:l~:: i :.;;I~" _-'= = ~ . .= '/l m- "";:; - I... '-- .. I=_~ .'.. i.. ,'~ r" ~ ..~ .... - -',- 1- -. - 0./ l:... -_/;;;; ~_-,_ ......, ~.A. !ii:I'~ _ -=- - 00;_:' -""E'; ="1 ;;; -'/ "i/... i mf .m"~ - - '" = _,r' /,,,,;...j':::'l I! L--- ' - ~ ~ii':~ => :: //~0a~.I!iM~!,~~ : !JJlf1l~::; ~ ... _ \\fU;I! _ ~II. _ ~ I 10 rr~~ur.-:-,,.. = ;;S{m,. !~I!I~! !.il \C2t7 ,,"- . ~. ;l:Im:r..~.~ ::: ::. ~~K ~~ i1I!1U!Ulillli _7U" IL . r ! ! !YIii" ~!!J - ~~ ,,~~ " '5 ~ !I!l;!' Iii" 10iii 'fM~ . I .1!!I!al!l'III~lilS: ~~;j.....)_ ,.", .\ , .Il f~ ..~f!I!I;'" ;:;.~ \~'-.. .....1 !lol!" , 1IIIillillll~Yf;[ \,\ " '~! .!~13! 1'" :\ ~~,,, . ..,.. 'I I'-.. \ '.'i ~ ~~ ~ ~rJ ':!rn, .....\~ ...::: ~IIH !"II/,lililll$.';Y.w ~ ~ ! . ~ !!'. ' '.' _"'v.'P,"","~(~I.,. ,111,11;llill ~.. ~,.... >:;. _ 'ON;;! %~ .Af' \oIQJIl "'112 . ..M.. , "., , . _ . n llll.I,III! ~ "111" / !!a' 1'. ...,.IW \."':m." ',' ..., .\\\..'.,I..Illilll' I.. - ., 1/.""\il.IlUliIHHI'~';._ ~ ~di- fffi ~,;>:,: ~ ,~1,,'~'\J>..JI" I~ 1 7_ rrr-r-,-..;: 1,,':,llI". ~I:"\\))--..--cllllllr. 1""''' "V'rl,.,I,r.r.lllllilllll-> _ ~,. .~~ I e N Project Location Map w-?-' City of Andover Planning Department AOPA Online Members Only -- Federal Aviation Regulations -- Part 103 -- Ultralight Veh.. Page 1 of 5 Attachment B FAA Regulations • 14 CFR Aeronautics and Space CHAPTER I FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Continued) SUBCHAPTER F -- AIR TRAFFIC AND GENERAL OPERATING RULES PART 103 -- ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES Subpart A — General Sec. 103.1 Applicability. 103.3 Inspection requirements. 103.5 Waivers. 103_7 Certification and registration. Subpart B — Operating Rules 103.9 Hazardous operations. 103.11 Daylight operations. 103.13 Operation near aircraft; right -of -way rules. 103.15 Operations over congested areas. 103_17 Operations in certain airspace. 103.19 Operations in prohibited or restricted areas. 103.20 Flight restrictions in the proximity of certain areas designated by notice to airmen. 103 .21 Visual reference with the surface. . 101.23 Flight visibility and cloud clearance requirements. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103 - 40104, 40113, 44701. Source: Docket No. 21631, 47 FR 38776, Sept. 2, 1982, unless otherwise noted. Subpart A -- General L'OP1 §103.1 Applicability. This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that: E r� U AOPA Online Members Only -- Federal Aviation Regulations -- Part 103 -- Ultralight Veh.. Page 2 of 5 0 (a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant; (b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only; (c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and (d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or (e) If powered: (1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation; (2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons; (3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and (4) Has a power -off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed. • §103 §103.3 Inspection requirements. (a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part shall, upon request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the vehicle to determine the applicability of this part. (b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon request of the Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is subject only to the provisions of this part. [TOP] §103.5 Waivers. No person may conduct operations that require a deviation from this part except under a written waiver issued by the Administrator. [TOPl §103.7 Certification and registration. (a) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of aircraft or their parts or equipment, ultralight vehicles and their component parts and equipment are not required to meet the airworthiness certification standards specified for aircraft or to have certificates of airworthiness. (b) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to airman certification, operators of ultralight vehicles are not required to meet any aeronautical knowledge, age, or experience requirements to operate those vehicles or to have airman or medical certificates. AOPA Online Members Only -- Federal Aviation Regulations -- Part 103 -- Ultralight Veh.. Page 3 of 5 • (c) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to registration and marking of aircraft, ultralight vehicles are not required to be registered or to bear markings of any type. Subpart B -- Operating Rules [TOP] §103.9 Hazardous operations. (a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons or property. (b) No person may allow an object to be dropped from an ultralight vehicle if such action creates a hazard to other persons or property. [TOUR §103.11 Daylight operations. (a) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle except between the hours of sunrise and sunset. • (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, ultralight vehicles may be operated during the twilight periods 30 minutes before official sunrise and 30 minutes after official sunset or, in Alaska, during the period of civil twilight as defined in the Air Almanac, if: (1) The vehicle is equipped with an operating anticollision light visible for at least 3 statute miles; and (2) All operations are conducted in uncontrolled airspace. IMP-1 §103.13 Operation near aircraft; right -of -way rules. (a) Each person operating an ultralight vehicle shall maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right -of -way to all aircraft. (b) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a collision hazard with respect to any aircraft. (c) Powered ultralights shall yield the right -of -way to unpowered ultralights. n U TOP §103.15 Operations over congested areas. No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or AOPA Online Members Only -- Federal Aviation Regulations -- Part 103 -- Ultralight Veh.. Page 4 of 5 is over any open air assembly of persons. [TOP] §103.17 Operations in certain airspace. No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace. [Arndt. 103 -17, 56 FR 65662, Dec. 17,1991] jTOPJ §103.19 Operations in prohibited or restricted areas. No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in prohibited or restricted areas unless that person has permission from the using or controlling agency, as appropriate. LTOP1 • §103.20 Flight restrictions in the proximity of certain areas designated by notice to airmen. No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in areas designated in a Notice to Airmen under §91.143 or §91.141 of this chapter, unless authorized by ATC. [Doc. No. 24454, 50 FR 4969, Feb. 5, 1985, as amended by Arndt. 103 -3, 54 FR 34331, Aug. 18, 19891 IToI'1 §103.21 Visual reference with the surface. No person may operate an ultralight vehicle except by visual reference with the surface. ITM §103.23 Flight visibility and cloud clearance requirements. No person may operate an ultralight vehicle when the flight visibility or distance from clouds is less than that in the table found below. All operations in Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D airspace or Class E airspace designated for an airport must receive prior ATC authorization as required in §103.17 of this part. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Distance from Airspace Flight visibility clouds ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Class A ......................... Not applicable.... Not Applicable. AOPA Online Members Only -- Federal Aviation Regulations -- Part 103 -- Ultralight Veh.. Page 5 of 5 Class B ......................... 3 statute miles... Class C ......................... 3 statute miles... Class D ......................... 3 statute miles... Class E: Less than 10,000 feet MSL..... 3 statute miles... At or above 10,000 feet MSL... 5 statute miles... Class G: 1,200 feet or less above the surface (regardless of MSL altitude). More than 1,200 feet above the surface but less than 10,000 feet MSL. Clear of Clouds. 500 feet below. 1,000 feet above. 2,000 feet horizontal. 500 feet below. 1,000 feet above. 2,000 feet horizontal. 500 feet below. 1,000 feet above. 2,000 feet horizontal. 1,000 feet below. 1,000 feet above. 1 statute mile horizontal. 1 statute mile.... Clear of clouds. 1 statute mile.... 500 feet below. 1,000 feet above. 2,000 feet horizontal. 1,000 feet below. — 1,000 feet above. 1 statute mile horizontal. - ----------- - - - - -- More than 1,200 feet above the 5 statute miles... surface and at or above 10,000 feet MSL. [Arndt. 103 -17, 56 FR 65662, Dec. 17, 19911 0 r 1 r 1 LJ • INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: COURTNEY BEDNARZ FROM: JASON ANGELL SUBJECT: ULTRALIGHT FINDINGS DATE: 11/6/01 CC: Following is a summary of the findings provided by the National American Planning Association (APA) pertaining to the regulation of ultralight aircraft. A representative of the APA searched all relative national sites and found only the following. ** Please note that the closest city that regulates ultralight aircraft is Franklin, MI. ** Brunswick, ME An ultralight airpark shall not be used for commercial purposes, shall not provide storage for more than five (5) gallons of ultralight fuel, and shall not be used for flight operations unless daylight • and visual frame of reference conditions are present. All ultralight airparks shall require a Special Permit where permissible, and shall constitute a Major Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. Franklin, MI Application: $125 City Council approves each application. Any person making such application to the Village shall complete an application for EACH intended set of take -offs and landings. A set of take -offs and landings shall be deemed to mean a single take -off and a single landing. If only a take -off or a landing is intended to take place, then the application shall fully explain the means of transporting the craft to or from the Village. State of Massachusetts No person shall land or take off from any body of water administered by the Division in a helicopter, seaplane, or so -called ultralight aircraft without prior written permission of the Director of the Federal Aviation Agency. This shall not preclude forced landings where such landing is necessary to preserve human life or property. 0 City and County of Honolulu, HI • Permits shall be issued only to a hang glider or ultralight aircraft association provided the following requirements are met: 1. Insurance coverage shall be in the following minim amounts: • $500,000 for each accident • $25,000 for property damage • Certificate of insurance shall name the City and County of Honolulu as additional insured. 2. The association shall have the permit readily available and shall present it to a Police Officer or any department employee upon request. 3. Activities shall be restricted to selected City parks as determined by the Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation. -- 4. Associations shall be responsible to ensure their membership complies with all applicable Federal Aviation Agency rules and regulations. • • 2 • i 0 NOISE The following is a list of various sounds, their decibel levels, and the recommended exposure time to each. ound Oecibel Leve ime stun leaves 0 dB o limit his erin 5 dB o limit 'br 0 dB o limit fri e erator 5 dB o limit very a home 0 dB o limit ormal conversation 0 dB o limit j lothes dryer 0 dB o limit ashin machine 5 dB o limit ishwasher 5 dB o limit 0 dB o limit acuum cleaner 0 dB o limit xer 0 0 limit u traffic 5 dB o limit . ' -bike 0 dB o limit . larm clock 0 dB o limit ois restaurant 0 dB o limit ffice tabulator 80 dB o limit utboard motor 0 dB o limit assin snowmobile 0 dB o limit Vera a facto 5 dB 16 hours lectric shaver 5 dB- 16 hours creaming child 0 dB hours sin motorcycle 0 dB 8 hours nvertible ride on freeway 5 dB 4 hours bway train 100 dB 2 hours iesel truck 100 dB hours oodworkingshop 100 dB hours neumatic drill WOO hours I oiler shop 100 dB hours ackhammer 100 dB hours elico ter 105 dB 1 hour ower mower 105 dB t hour nowmobile from drivers seat 110 dB 30 minutes nboard motorboat 110 dR 0 minutes dblastin 110 dB 0 minutes ive rock music 0 -130 dB -0.3 hours uto horn 120 dB .5 miss ro ellor aircraft 120 dB .5 mins ]anger r raid siren . 130 dB 75 mins HRESHOLD OF PAIN 140 dB anger level nshot I40 dB an er level 'et engine 140 dB level ocket launching 180 dB Jdanger level 0 1997 Better Hearing Institute, Washington, DC. All Rights Reserved. LA i, Neighbor Friendly Flying Proposal 0 1. Limit engine use to approximately a 4 - 5 minute warm -up period on the ground. 2. Remain over field until an altitude of 500 feet AGL is reached. 3. Depart to the North. 4. Limit number of machines on the field to no more then 3 - 4 at any one time. 5. Frequent our other fields in Ham Lake, Blaine, Bethel, Ramsey, Oak Grove, Big Lake and Cambridge so as to reduce some traffic at the Andover field. 0 0 • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REGULATING PRIVATE AIRFIELDS AND ULTRALIGHT ACTIVITY IN THE CITY OF ANDOVER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings and Intent. The City finds it necessary to regulate private airfields and ultralight activity to protect the safety and general welfare of residential neighborhoods. It is the intent of this ordinance to establish standards for the operation of airfields and ultralight aircraft. Section 2. Purpose and Implementation. • Through the adoption and enforcement of this ordinance, the City shall protect the general health, safety, and welfare of its residents by providing standards that balance the need to preserve the health safety and general welfare of residential neighborhoods with the rights of private property owners. Section 3. Definitions. A. Ultralight vehicle is a recreational aircraft defined by Title Fourteen of the Federal Code of Regulations. B. Private airfield is any property within the city that is used, or intended to be used, for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any. C. Aircraft operator is any person involved in flight activity from a private airfield in the city. • Section 4. Licensing Requirements • A. Private Airfield. It shall be unlawful for any person to directly or indirectly operate a private airfield within the City of Andover without obtaining a Special Use Permit as defined by Ordinance 8 Section 5.03. A person who operates a private airfield without a valid permit issued by the City Council shall be guilty of a misdemeanor offense. B. Aircraft Operators Aircraft operators shall conform to all applicable Federal Aviation Administration regulations and the requirements of this ordinance. Additionally, all aircraft operators must have written permission from the property owner. Each aircraft operator, prior to engaging in any flight activity, shall provide to the city the following information: 1. Copy of the permission letter 2. Aircraft operator-s name, address and phone number 3. Number of flights per year. 4. Photograph of aircraft The city shall maintain an approved aircraft operator list. The total number of • flights indicated in this list shall not exceed the total number of flights indicated in the applicant's Letter of Intent. If any aircraft operator fails to comply with city ordinances the city may impose penalties or discipline for noncompliance, which may include removal from the approved aircraft operator list. A person that operates an aircraft from any private airfield within the city without being listed on the approved aircraft operator list shall be guilty of a misdemeanor offense. Section 5. Private Airfield Application Submittal Requirements A. Requirements of Ordinance 8 Section 5.03 B. A site plan drawn to scale indicating the following information: 1. Location of property lines 2. Location of landing strip 3. Location of structures • • C. An Approach /Departure Route Plan illustrating aircraft traffic routes that are at least 500 feet from all structures on adjacent properties. Flight activity shall be limited to the areas defined within the Approach /Departure Route Plan. D. A letter of intent including the following information 1. Name, address and phone number of the property owner 2. Summary of the level of activity proposed, including a. Hours and days of operation b. Maximum number of flights per year C. Maximum number of active aircraft on site at one time. Section 6. General Requirements A. All private airfields must be at least thirty (30) acres in size. B. landing and take off area must be designated and clearly marked on the site. No portion of any landing or take off area shall be within 500 feet of any occupied building on adjoining properties. Once a landing and take . off area has been designated, no other areas of the site shall be used for this purpose unless approved by the City Council with an amended special use permit. C. At no time shall any aircraft pass, either in flight or while taxiing, within 500 feet of any occupied building on surrounding properties. D. Private airfields shall be used for recreation purposes only and shall not be used as a commercial business. E. Continuous takeoff and landing by one or more aircraft shall not be permitted. F. The hours of operation shall be set by City Council. G. The city may require additional landscaping or screening to screen and buffer incompatible off -site impacts of the proposed use on adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. H. The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions to the approval of a Special Use Permit. • I. Holders of a Special Use Permit may propose amendments to the approved permit at any time, subject to the procedures of Ordinance 8 Section 5.03. No significant changes in the circumstances or scope of the • use may be undertaken without the approval of those amendments by the City Council. Significant changes include, but are not limited to, hours of operation, number of aircraft, expansion of landing and take off area, and other operation modifications resulting in increased activities and traffic, and the like. The City Administrator or duly appointed designee must determine what constitutes significant change. The City Council may approve significant changes and modifications to Special Use Permits, including the application of new or revised conditions. J. Upon request by the City Administrator or duly appointed designee, the holder of a Special Use Permit shall be required to certify that the use, building, and site are in conformance with the Special Use Permit and city codes. K. If the holder of the permit fails to comply with any of the terms imposed by the Special Use Permit, the city may impose penalties or discipline for noncompliance, which may include revocation of the permit. L. Upon action by the City Council, any Special Use Permit for any Airfield within the City of Andover may be reviewed, amended, or revoked. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of , 20_ CITY OF ANDOVER Michael R. Gamache, Mayor ATTEST: Vicki Volk, City Clerk • WILLEY LINDA M & EDWARD L JR 50TH IN NW OVER, MN 55304 243224440004 BEAM JOHN H & SHIRLEY A 121 ANDOVER BLVD NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224140007 ELIN ARLENE PATTY 137 ANDOVER BLVD NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224140006 DAHL ROGER W & CAROL J 112 150TH IN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 243224440007 CLOSSEY DAVID D MARGOTTO WAYNE T & 1244 98TH LN NW JANET M COON RAPIDS, MN 55433 134 146TH IN NW 253224210004 ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224140001 TOPEFF RANDALL R & GRORUD DAVID & DIANE ERLINE R 14545 PALM ST NW 141150TH LN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224230002 243224440003 HOLASEK WINSLOW 1159 ANDOVER BLVD NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 243224430001 BARRETT DENNIS M & RENEE SOLBERG RONALD G & BALDRIDGE MARY A 14550 UNIVERSITY AVE NW KATHLEEN F 14680 UNIVERSITY AVE NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 14655 PALM ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224140010 ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224140002 253224230001 HALLICH RANDAL J & LYNDA D 14704 BUTTERNUT ST NW OVER, MN 55304 24110011 MAUS RUTH M 14704 UNIVERSITY AVE NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224110014 JENSEN KEITH M & E A 14705 PALM ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224220008 WEBER DUANE L & KAREN K 14717 EVERGREEN ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224120008 HUNT DANIEL E & LAURO CLAUDIA 14733 BUTTERNUT ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224110005 TORGERSON GENE A & JEAN M 14755 PALM ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224220006 HOCKS STANLEY B & BLANCHE K 14732 BUTTERNUT ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224110010 ROSS JUSTIN M & ANN E 14744 EVERGREEN ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224120004 GRANANDER DONALD R & JUNE P 14800 BUTTERNUT ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224110007 NORDSTROM MELVIN J & C J 14732 UNIVERSITY AVE NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224110013 KELLY DOUGLAS E & FETZER CA 14745 EVERGREEN ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224120007 ALMGREN DAVID L & J L 14800 EVERGREEN ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224120003 KORBEL KIP A & VELMA J WILLIAMS JAMES T & JULIE A PETRICH THOMAS J & LOIS M 14801 BUTTERNUT ST NW 14810 UNIVERSITY AVE NW 14815 PALM ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224110006 253224110012 253224220005 ORPHY MICHAEL D & MARCIA A 14826 BUTTERNUT ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224110009 JACOBSON DONALD G & CAROLJ 14826 UNIVERSITY AVE NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224110004 HEIM DAVID C & RENEE E 14827 BUTTERNUT ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224110003 DAILEY JOHN M & SHARON L BLOOMQUIST DENNIS A & G J ENGELMANN MICHAEL S & 14828 EVERGREEN ST NW 14833 BUTTERNUT ST NW NANCY E ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304 14835 EVERGREEN ST NW • 253224120002 253224110001 ANDOVER, MN 55304 243224430005 243224440011 253224120006 KAPITZKE JAMES & LUND TERRY J GARBE GARY R & MARY L MICHELLE 14850 UNIVERSITY AVE NW 14856 EVERGREEN ST NW 14850 BUTTERNUT ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224110002 253224120001 253224110008 243224440014 243224440009 SCHILLING JERALD B & N E 14861 EVERGREEN ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224120005 MCGLENN RUSSELL D & P A 14861 PRAIRIE RD NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224210002 GROENKE EUGENE J & B M 14920 BUTTERNUT ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 243224440013 WANG DAVID T W & CHING DAHL DARRELL A & SOWADA RAYMOND A & FEN PATRICIA A KAREN M 14920 EVERGREEN ST NW 14920 UNIVERSITY AVE NW 14921 BUTTERNUT ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANODVER, MN 55304 243224430005 243224440011 243224440012 BROWN JAY H & SHARON KILBOURN JERRY M & MANAIW R OBERT E III & 14921 EVERGREEN ST NW LEANN L STACEY M ANDOVER, MN 55304 14940 BUTTERNUT ST NW 14940 UNIVERSITY AVE NW 243224430008 ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304 • 243224440014 243224440009 CARLSTROM JEAN M 14941 BUTTERNUT ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 243224440010 KORTEUM CHERYL A 15002 UNIVERSITY AVE NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 243224440008 CARROLLIE CHARLES & SHARION 156 150TH IN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 243224440001 ROSAND BRUCE W & GERTRUDE A 215 150TH LN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 243224430010 ERICKSON DENNIS E & NANCY R 230 146TH LN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224130004 WINIARCZYK ADAM & KULKAY GLEN T & LYNETTE CHRISTINE W 14942 EVERGREEN ST NW 14964 EVERGREEN ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304 243224430004 243224430003 ROGERS LOIS J 15080 EVERGREEN ST N W ANDOVER, MN 55304 243224430002 KAMPA CHARLES L & J M 155 ANDOVER BLVD NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224140005 HEIN MICHAEL L & MELISSA J 165 150TH LN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 243224440002 BOEMER RICHARD & VICTORIA 220 150TH IN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 243224430007 SANDBERG RALPH J & DIANNE E 249 150TH IN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 243224430009 NEROS ROBERT A & P L 172 146TH LN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224140004 ISAAC RONALD E & MARY J 225 ANDOVER BLVD NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224130005 MACKEY MICHAEL D & • MARGARET E 25 150TH LN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 243224440006 HALL DAVID P & LISA A HEYNE MARLO F NEWCOMB ALLAN E & 254 150TH LN NW 275 ANDOVER BLVD NW CORAL A %U OVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304 280 146TH LN NW 24430006 253224130006 ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224130003 ANDERSEN PATRICK L & TRACY L 325 ANDOVER BLVD NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224130007 OTNESS MICHAEL D & CYNTHIA A 380 146TH LN NW. ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224130001 VANDENBOOM BRUCE A 430 146TH LN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224240002 PRICE JEFFREY C & PATRICIA SMALL MICHAEL E 330 146TH LN NW 375 ANDOVER BLVD NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224130002 253224130008 PIMLOTT WALTER F & KATHLEEN C 39 ANDOVER BLVD NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224140009 GIESE KENNETH E 475 ANDOVER BLVD NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224240004 MEISTER DOUGLAS F & COLBERT JEROME R & MARY J CYNTHIA 541 ANDOVER BLVD NW 56 146TH LN NW AJ)OVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304 24230007 253224140003 JENSEN EDNA A 59 150TH LN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 243224440005 ELLISON JAMES R 59 ANDOVER BLVD NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224140008 AUS GARY S & LORI S 650 146TH LN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224230006 LINEHAN JAMES M & PAULA Al DANNENBERG SCOT 425 ANDOVER BLVD NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224240003 REED DAVID B 480 146TH LN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224240001 JOHNSON BRUCE & SUE 580 146TH LN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224240005 BRENNY SEVERIN N & CAROL A 645 148TH LN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224220004 BJERKEBEK EUGENE S & LAURA J 710 146TH LN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224230005 665 148TH LN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224220003 ONEIL MICHAEL K & CARRIE LARSON BRUCE A & JUDY A HEILMAN MARTIN K & M 715 ANDOVER BLVD NW CYNTHIA 715 146TH LN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 720 148TH LN NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224230004 ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224220009 253224220007 MITCHELL JOSEPH G & SONJA LYDEN DANIEL R & SUSAN A HENDRICKSON TURE & 725 148TH LN NW 765 148TH LN NW SARAH ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304 95 146TH LN NW 253224220002 253224220001 ANDOVER, MN 55304 253224110015 WTHERN NATURAL GAS CO PO BOX 1188 HOUSTON, TX 77251 253224210001 Courtney Bednarz om: Courtney Bednarz ent: Tuesday, November 06, 20014:01 PM To: 'Adam Winiarczyk' Subject: RE: Ultralights Importance: High Adam, I understand that noise is not the only issue raised by residents. Staff was directed by the Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a sound test to provide additional information. The test is not the only consideration in determining a course of action. Please, let us be civil and respectful as we move forward. Thank you, Courtney Bednarz City Planner Andover, Minnesota 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover, Minnesota 55304 (763) 767 -5147 direct (763) 755 -5100 main (763) 755 -8923 fax - - - -- Original Message ----- om: Adam Winiarczyk [mailto:adam.winiarczyk @metc.state.mn.us] nt: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 2:55 PM To: cbednarz @ci.andover.mn.us Subject: Ultralights As we said many times before, noise is not the only issue, contrary to what Mr Squires believes. You will need to address the other concerns such as safety, invasion of privacy, etc that the residents brought to you as well. You and the commissioners, of all people, should be savvy enough to noise level issue was brought up by the club, they most likely have and can win this one, otherwise they would have not suggested it. using this ploy to shift the emphasis of this discussion from other legality of it, safety to residents, nuisance, etc to noise levels boy club of P &Z Commissioners led by Chair Squiers were uninformed, enough to fall for it. figure out that if the done their own studies They were obviously real issues like the Dnly; and the good old uncaring, and gullible I don't mean to take it out on you, but we are frustrated and determined enough to win this, because our neighborhood is at stake here. The PCA can assist you in testing, FAA can advise you on rules while they are in the air, but it still is the City's responsibility to address the resident concerns and kick these guys and their airstrip from our residential area. It's absurd to me that this Commission has an ordinance regulating the height of grass, but is not interested in public safety. Please make a copy of this email and put it in Mr Squires' mail box for me. Thanks. &am Winiarczyk'