11/25/1985 - Airport Relations Commission k ( city of eagan
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor
PHONE: (612) 454 -8100 THOMAS EGAN
JAMES A. SMITH
JERRY THOMAS
November 25, 1985 THEODORE embers R
Council Members
THOMAS HEDGES
City Administrator
EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE
City Clerk
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ALLAN KLIEN
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
400 SUMMIT BANK BUILDING
310 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415
RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MINNESOTA RULES
PARTS 7010.0100 THROUGH 7010.0700, STATE NOISE STANDARDS
Dear Judge Klien:
I write to express the concern the City of Eagan has regarding
certain elements of the proposed amendments to the State Noise
Standards. These concerns lie in several areas. Thoses areas
are the amendment's tendency to increase municipal liability for
noise impacts, its failure to establish physical boundaries of
noise effect, its failure to address the issue of enforcement
against the airport operator and its deviation from the
Metropolitan Council Guidelines.
In the first of these areas, the City of Eagan opposes the
language in Part 7010.0030 Noise Control Requirement which states
in part that:
"Any municipality having authority to regulate land use
shall take all reasonable measures within its
jurisdiction to prevent the establishment of land use
activities listed in noise area classification (NAC) 1
- in any location where the standards established in
parts 7010.0040 are being or will be exceeded."
Clearly this establishes a legal responsibility on the part of
the municipalities should a land owner take action for injury
arising from aircraft noise. This provison runs counter to the
legal precedents which place responsibility for ground effects
of airport noise on the airport operator. By promulgating such
a rule, the MPCA will open a Pandora's, box of inverse
condemnation proceedings against numerous municipal neighbors of
the metropolitan airports.
THE LONE OAK TREE...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
JUDGE ALLAN KLIEN
NOVEMBER 25, 1985
PAGE TWO
Aside from pre - empting a field occupied by the airport operators,
this requirement would place cities in the tenuous position of
defending themselves in an area in which they lack expertise and
are therefore ill- equipped to either meet the requirements placed
upon them or defend themselves in such actions. Moreover, such
actions would seem attractive to frustrated homeowners currently
precluded from effective suits against airport operators due to
the cost and expertise necessary to conduct them. This would be
especially difficult for local governments in this time of
escalating insurance rates.
Our second area of concern involves the failure of the proposed
amendment to delineate a specific geographic contour describing
the area in which the noise standards "are being or will be
exceeded." Without specific boundaries, property owners affected
by airport noise could prove that the standards are exceeded at
their property through the standard methods of measurement and
pursue damages against the City. Therefore, it would become
necessary for the City to expend time, effort and money in taking
measurements to define the area prior to taking action to meet
the requirements of the rules.
Obviously, this places the cities surrounding the airport at the
whim of the airport operator and the departure controller.
Variations in flight paths and changes in procedure, compounded
by the increase in air traffic volume, could shift and expand the
areas included on a periodic, if not day -to -day, basis. Such a
circumstance would make land use planning impossible as long -term
land use decisions would be completely subject to the periodic
variations of one external factor. This places an undue burden
on the local government by raising its liability in an area over
which it can have no control.
A third concern involves the issue of enforcement. The Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency is promulgating a new rule structure
which broadens the definition of areas affected by noise and
places new burdens on local governments. There is nothing about
the rules, however, which would enhance the ability of the MPCA
to enforce the rules against the source of the noise, namely the
airport operator. Obviously, cities should be concerned by this
because the MPCA has a history of enforcing its regulations
against cities as cities are clearly within their jurisdiction.
The agency has been less willing to enforce its rules against the
political entities such as the Metropolitan Airport's Commission
and the FAA over which they have uncertain authority. Thus, the
avenue is opened for the MPCA to enforce its rules against local
municipalities while adding no incentive or power for it to
enforce its rules against the airport. Clearly, the result of
JUDGE ALLAN KLIEN
NOVEMBER 25, 1985
PAGE THREE
this situation is that the cities affected by the airport will be
forced to take remedial action while the noise generation of the
airport will be neither affected nor diminished.
Finally, we are concerned that the rules proposed duplicate the
Metropolitan Council Land Use Compatibility Planning Guidelines
in nature, yet deviate from them sufficiently to limit the City's
abilities to develop or redevelop within the Metropolitan
Council Guidelines. If such categories are to be presented, it
would be best if they were to coincide in major part with the
Metropolitan Council Guidelines in order that logical consistency
be maintained between agency rules and regulations.
We appreciate this opportunity to address these concerns to you.
If you have any questions about them, please do not hesitate to
contact me. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
Sincerely yours,
(" cVA.J
Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
cc: Dave Kelso
Larry Shaughnessy
Steve King
TLH /db
Administrative Offices
111 rir CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
November 19, 1985
Honorable Allan Klein
Administrative Law Judge
MPCA Noise Standards Hearing
400 Summit Bank Building
310 Fourth Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
Dear Judge Klein:
The City of Mendota Heights is a community located immediately east of
the Metropolitan Airport and bisected by two major freeways, 494 and 35E.
For many years, the City has been concerned with the effects of aircraft
noise exposure. We receive approximately 50% of the overflight operations
originating at the International Airport.
Over 20 years ago, the City took steps, through zoning of land, to
provide a corridor in which aircraft noise exposure would not be a deterent
to those on the ground. Since that time, we have been active to preserve
the integrity of this area, and to confine the aircraft operations to this
area. Both the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Federal Aviation
Administration have been cooperative in this effort, and through our City
Planner, John Shardlow of Howard Dahlgren Associates, we participated in
development of the Metropolitan Council Airport Guidelines, although we are
concerned that the noise profiles used in developing those guidelines are
statistical models that presume aircraft stay in a prescribed corridor while
in reality this is difficult to achieve.
Attached is a copy of a letter from Mr. Shardlow commenting on the
proposed new MPCA noise regulations and expressing our frustrations which
relate to the development of these new regulations.
Our City objection to the proposed regulations pertains to two aspects,
but centers around the primary fact that the regulations contain no mecha-
nism by which the City can determine how to comply with the regulation's
suggestion that zoning and building codes be changed to respond to aircraft
noise levels.
The first area of concern is that of legal exposure to the City.
Section 7010.03 implies City liability to limit non- conforming land
uses and is not totally consistent with adopted Metropolitan Council guide-
lines. It is also apparent that any attempt at compliance with the regula-
tions may expose the City to property owner claims for inverse condemnation.
750 South Plaza Drive • Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 • 452 -1850
Honorable Allen Klein Page Two
Administrative Law Judge November 19, 1985
Overall, the regulations present an unwarranted attempt to impose a
liability on the City through the enforcement requirements. Property owners
have expressed to City Council that enforcement could diminish permittable
use of their property and could result in the City exposure to reverse
condemnation. The City may be in a position whereby we are in conformance
with Met Council guidelines but in violation of State Noise Standards.
The second area of concern deals primarily with the noise contours
which would be set at 63db for the least exposed area. In reality, and by
the MPCA's own measurements, the existing L1065 area translates into an
equivalent of LEQ or LDN 67/68. Since the present standard presents a level
which everyone realizes is impossible to obtain in the next 15 years, we see
no justification in making the standard even more restrictive than that
currently in place. We feel strongly that a combined effort with Met
Council and MPCA, who participated during the three year development state
of the Met Council guidelines, can and would result in a standard that
everyone could realistically hope to achieve.
There is some hope for a future reduction in aircraft noise through
purchase of new Stage 3 aircraft. This is a long and expensive process and
the effects probably will not be noticeable within the next 10 to 15 years.
In the meantime, the restrictions placed on the development of land areas in
our City are intolerable for both the City and the landowners.
We urge you to return the proposed regulations to the MPCA with an
unfavorable ruling and instructions to redraft the regulations to conform to
adopted Met Council guidelines, without City regulatory liability and at a
level which represents an attainable goal. Prior to any reintroductions of
such regulations, the city should be furnished contour maps indicating
levels and areas of exposure.
Sincerely,
j - 13 . 22 cz .u-Tr&
Robert G. Lockwood
Mayor
RGL:dfw
Enclosure
V
Consulting Planners One Groveland Terrace (612)377 -3536
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55403
Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban /I ncorporated
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 4 November 1985
TO: Mendota Heights Council
FROM: John Shardlow, AICP
RE: Proposed Amendments to the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency's Rules Governing Airport Noise
Larry Schaughnessy has brought to my attention the fact that
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is proposing to adopt
new rules to cover airport noise pollution. As at least many
of you will recall, these amendments have been anticipated for
some time. However, I have heard nothing about their progress
for the last several months and there are several aspects of
the proposed rules which I do not think the City of Mendota
Heights can comply with.
Over the course of nearly three years, I attended meetings with
MAC, the Metropolitan Council, PCA, MN /DOT, and all of the
communities which surround the Minneapolis St. Paul
International Airport, in an effort to arrive at a process for
addressing airport noise compatibility planning issues.
Although many difficult issues remained to be settled, this
effort basically ended with the adoption by the Metropolitan
Council of a revised Airport Chapter of the Metropolitan
Development Guide.
To make a long and frustrating story short, from that point
forward it has been understood that the next step is for each
of the affected communities to amend their comprehensive plans
to comply with the new Met Council Airport Chapter. Since day
one, we have made it clear that we cannot and will not comply
with these guidelines completely, but that we would make those
changes which were reasonable to improve the situation.
The Metropolitan Council staff has most recently been saying
that they expect that the Mendota Heights Plan will include
some reasonable attempt to comply with the guidelines and that
they would accept that compromise. Much of the effort from the
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, 4 NOVEMBER 1985 Page 2
beginning of the joint agencies meetings was directed at
coordinating the amendment of the PCA Noise Regulations with
the Met Council Airport Chapter. That never happened.
The proposed rules which Larry sent me are not the same as the
Metropolitan Council Land Use Compatibility Planning
Guidelines. That means that the City of Mendota Heights could
amend its plan and gain the approval of the Met Council and be
in violation of State Law. That has frankly always struck me
as somewhere between ridiculous and an outright insult to the
public which these agencies serve.
The proposed rules attempt to transfer a portion of the legal
responsibility for airport noise on to the municipalities.
They also seem to contain more stringent standards than I have
ever seen before as well. Obviously, if we could not comply
with the former standards, we will be even farther from meeting
these.
I think that it would be appropriate to contact all of the
affected cities and, if possible, join with them in opposing
these rules as drafted. At the very least, the City should
submit written comments to the Administrative Law judge making
the record very clear that there are still major problems with
this whole issue. The city could place itself in a very
vulnerable legal position relative to a future homeowner law
suit if this system were to
y proceed as proposed.
cc: Kevin Frazell
Larry Schaughnessy
Howard Dahlgren
-'' • ■ APPLE VALLEY tlEIGHBORHOODS
. BURNSVILLE a r
t.. '��:�'�� y aF'�°" f r �kk. r,.. im 'SSN -. 3'�I+".Aa7rtltfNJY9.7 Lw,+6!.a,.i,..9C# Yy p4l* • „
,, I EAGAN � i 'r 3 . ::: = '
• FAR MINGTON
■ HASTINGS Y ' . � �•�' , . <s, ,
• INVER GROVE HEIGHTS • '
ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS AND DISPATCH
, ,. ‘, . 1111111.1111111111111111111111111111111
• Bui +..
1 - .i .
. ,,.
mayget vote ....
... ...
on airport:
„..,
, ,
,,, ,;
noise council ... ,
4,,
By Thomas B. Koetting
Staff Writer '
In a development that should please vocal critics of
airplane noise in Burnsville, the prospect of having a , ., i if
Ming Burnsville representative on the Metropolitan
rcraft Sound Abatement Council is good, according
to council officials.
However, that representative might have his or her Atr ”
hands full immediately, because a controversial air - .
plane routing procedure is not going away.. '
Burnsville has had -a non - voting observer on the
council for two years, and its inability to have a for- , • >
mal voice in actions long has been a point of conten- e ` „
tion. The exclusion was based on council rules that , . I
i
only allowed votes from cities sharing a boundary ; 3 it 't
with Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. ,
However, increased pressure and the growing pres- a *, ,.� ..:., �� ' �- �
ence of Burnsville in the airport noise situation has L
forced the council to reconsider its position. Both Wal- i - i t ° ' ` 1
ter Rockenstein, chairman of the council, and Darrell ' x ,. F' • i I
Weslander, manager for sound abatement for the Met- : �'` `' ec i - ': '
• ' \N „ a . , e
ropolitan Airports Commission, said last week that s ,
Burnsville's admission to the council was being stud- V. � 1 -
ied by an advisory committee. � r °--
y ry They said that the issue
: I
was getting top priority and that chances were good , �. 1 .. ' Nit for adding Burnsville to the 26- member voting body. -
"I know you can say, `What's one vote ?' " said Linda „�--,� 4,
Barton, Burnsville city manager. "But in participating ,- . „ ��_
as a voting member your influence is different.'? , - . , "a ?t o r,.
Rockenstein said he did not think allowing. Burns- ' - � AV' ,
ville to vote would open the door to� other - cities that - •
don't share a boundary with the airport. �.F
As long as we are fair with each city and respect
3 � ,
� .
-- Ise cities already on the board, there's no problem t d � � � �
laid. "You have to remember, they've sat there and � � -
,.,tend for two years. They've been very interested, - '' s
and their attendance record is excellent." , ,, 3 t
' If a representative from Burnsville
p gains voting
powers, that vote might be used quickly on an issue , , ,„, "4 ,' t,',
that has been on the minds — and in the ears — of = ,
Burnsville and Eagan residents since,1982. The 180 - ���
degree turn procedure, dubbed the "Burnsville turn"
by residents in the southern suburbs, will be coming The Rev. LeRoy Gardner is doing most of the work on the addition t
Please see Airport/'
. �,ra,cer With whom she had ��� wli�u'g campaign But V oi "' °C11'le - oased Berean • Atli we Berean Lea
group did not meet a ain so gt's found themselves t League, she is afraid she will
g , that more liberal feminist as d odds with fists. Both
t 1 top
•
8 such the pornog�aphy figh
•
I • 1 O
Continued from Page 1
bo for further When traffic enough to use affic is light en
urther consideration. •
runway, just the diagonal
Y, Planes must still be sent off at a variety of
headings in order to avoid having
In a surprise move, the Federal Aviation Adminis_ '
trati a surprise
late October the F ed ral Aviation pro- said that the B td have ef o forced Case THE
■
cedure, in la ee October re cted implementing he the panes five-mile separation. a t ang would have forced air_ Rl
sound abatement council, the a' plan to use just n heading — c 8 , de MINNEA
sound d abteme Metropolitan Council. However, a airportcomimnsi commission and degrees with a
In essence, that restriction
the decision was more an a s would and d th made the runways ould ha virtually been used
said less, and the parallel runways MINNEA
Ong. ed the noise surprise — it was almost exclusively. The woule o the been aced
Rockenstein attributed the decision to misco runways would have increased of m u so a w l
CROSSTOWN !
ication, and said that the FAA had Hnan- up po ed precisely the problem that the 180 -turn was
intent and implications of the rule. He said the council supposed to relieve, Case said.
4
would hear an explanation of the decision
night and would put the issue back decision
sounabate- a
mentcouncil's agenda as soon as I, put more restrictions on the tango
Possible, just the opposite of what it was supposed runway — „it did
said. "Anyway, the load of traffic has increased s Case CONTRO
the wrong maticall since we tested the 180 -de just iii TOWER
The airport has three runways,
parallel to each other and face south wMinnea which run not valid anymore " 18 0-degree turn. It's just Q
s. The other tango Pal and
Mendota Height <
agonal runway —faces Bloo Y — called the di-
cc
Park area of St. Paul. nungton and the Highland Rockenstein said that the procedure did not mean to ca
force all traffic out in one direction, but simply to
The turn, tested from ke meter use of the runway.
19 to O- d• 31, 1984, ur directs all s tested from
with Dec. sec 1, He also said that Burnsville should not b
ern destinations to use the diagonal runway when pas- be comforted _ '
e 18degr tn, which was
by the FAA' s decision. w
sible. They would head out over Bloomington, then _
turn on a 180 - degree heading over Burnsville and sons "The hatrgurnnsv procedure was but none of the tea- 6
Eagan. The intent, said Rockenstein, was to relieve decision," Rockenstein said. "This m
c"`Yle of the traffic heading off the parallel runways anything to do with the
south Minneapolis. ys noise over south Minneapolis, has was a question of
that's why I think they mae g decision, that
However, Les Case, Federal Aviation A there was some miscomm 1-494
tick air traffic manager for the ai dministra- unication." BLOC
cedure did just the o i Port, said the pro - Barton said she was not aware of the degree
diagonal did just the opposite. He said that any time the Burnsville's objections influenced
shut down. With the heldnsville officials the F`�i that
heavy traffic load at the airport, ,but she
the diagonal runway is used sparingly sim 1 port deci sion; nonetheless. pleased with the z
two runways are more efficient than one.
ply because all the southern suburbs e would n have tom on ions in � an ���
monitor the situation closely. tear to Page 1
Continued from Page 1
the street from the pit, said
Ol fices posed the excavation that
it more than 30 years ago,
see nothing wrong with puttii
stuff in."
Former City Council ME rt
Continued from Page 1
■Economic Assistance roof where possible," Harrington said
earlier Services Accoun will , Social
out and
high Michael Jim ( a who t
Human The Economic Assistance Division still will hold saying "If this year, app
school and into the Wentworth Building some client interviews at the Burnsville office but be- thing built, I might move my 1
cause most of its contact with clients is done !„ m>sh) get,
, ;'� Court Services, which is not a the mail, it makes through there. Y
cos Department, will move from the the Human said. sense to centralize, Harrington But Dean B
`; '� the County Courthouse in downtown Hastings. uor high ' rnstengel, of
The county moved the Job Training said, "I don't wa
i
Edward St.,
'` The' Job Training Program will move from the to West St. Paul so it could be closer Porn is outer- live next to a dump."
Program north
tines courthouse to the Wentworth Building. o e parts in Ramsey and Washington nstenged pose argued
y said. The Dakota County gton counties, Harrington landfill would tea
• satellite ty association. Y Program is part of a tai -coon- be a breeding Pose a fire ha:
llite office of the Economic Assistance Divi- reeding ground for rats, <
the at the gridgfi office Building in is Assistance Divi-
join eling of b move is expected - b
the possibility hi of ground water
! office in the Wentworth Building Petted to cost 9 090. tam ination, o and allow in old t
ug l which ran three Remod and asets, which w ould n
cum `"`'nsville office will remain open with a �-
ning cost slightly less than $326,00, Co behind
base outpost to handle the county's child g ector Jeff Connell said• County plan the site undevelopable.
Kamish officials contended t
�►e're As of last week, the only way to make the land
' preparations for the move were able for residential developm
aa��� � trying to do is get Economic Assist -
proceeding smoothly "We're in
i roof and Social t Economic
under one place ni said• "Everything pretty good shape," again is to fill it in
g seems to be falling into landfill. The land is zoned for rc
NEIGHliareli" "".1 1" T
dential development.
Z
01 -►I Z
RI T r T
I- z T a
T I r Z Z C = CO N f T= =I - •--1 111C C O
a ▪ a r O. In u1 z n 0 10 ..I � - ' Al A t
vs /O /f
S O
CI I C m . • - 0 O /0 i a S r I T 1 C
Or V . C . In In S Z - O 1 ICI n N T t17 O r z - 1 MI . O 10 . 0 a 0 0 0! r N r 0 0 SD '<' a
1 10 "'1 0 ' n I_ 0 co d ' ' 010 NO 1 0 rC
T T Z 0 . A O 0 G O M n w S a. ` 0 • _ co co C
✓ w a� I ' 1 . 0 .•• IV r ... 0' Ie i
. 0 0 n u/ 0 U = Q 0 . 0 1111 r (11
_ r'1 1 O T
= 121 O . to ... z
7 1 T S -4
at T T ...r CI) .- 0 0 _ . r r T
0 T 0 0 u r T 1' 0 r C
10 : T 7 r 0 = 7 ` C..
0 O .1.. -.t In 0 T
�, n
7 0 N G I- N
N 0
1
A
r
C 0 0
Q C T CT
T T O
0 T r r
..
M r ,. r
N O. O- .e. W O W 611 - see
0 O W IV 11.4 W V N US V
O O NI 0 co co co ea Gil 0 0 0 0 S O co co
. G C p O O co
O 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O -O 11 Z n
O O O 0 O O O m
o S 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° o ° 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0. o en c o p
0 o Z i a
4 0, z r
v s . .. IC
10 ▪ ,o 0
. Cl. UI N 4.. V $ 0 C. O O. 0 0 O O + O �O
0 0. O O O$ 8 co m
�. T O O 0 0 co co .....1 re.
co O O
S T
01 ?
A
r 'I9
1 or
T T ��
I '■•-
... O.
NI 0
p 1 M.
C .0 0 Gil V IV Gil I
GP 0
to C` O M O
' t v 0 0 0 .* y. 0, o m
7 O O O .- O m
O O O
CO r IT fl '
0-
•� CO N co Cal
0 co - to o t.. c
0 0 0 t . ; - n
0
C a a m --O
0 0 0 ..
o ° o c ., c a
0 0 s
r r
,......A _ __ a
✓ N O LA 0
..
O O O .o f
O O - O O 7 C
O
O O O O -5
r
a
V see. Gil
O 4.3 LP, O O GU
0 C. 0 °
Cl. c 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
am i.
V K2
0
0 0 _
o - a
00 O 0 IV
O O
r
a
z
IC = of cry = • Grp ..... tuf ..e re" r . 'ye a .< m = p a7 01 en 7O m OP O CO _ 01 r °
t e• S 1 7 • 1 1 . • 0 d A O O. ■ 7 • 19 a O = x^ w r N 1,C1 1 O W A 7 1 N ]r C ID 0 r T r ID 1O 11 • 11 r0 A Q 7 0 '
u1 1 5 W 0 = I S < - 1 7 1 O. Or .. 0 s s o 0 • T O .e 1S •
•O s ••c 7 1 9 ? �• 7 7 7 0 ° o n m ftwo
Qf O a y 1 y T 57 •••• ••c al ••. -, 7 7 W = O -y 10 A C7 e C C7 n O O 1 n
-• ID = re 1 T ,- • y `t 0 11. O r O n = •o 0
II •p 1 0 Cr n T< n ` 7 7 7 A = 7 O n S 7
1 A 5 0 =^ 3 O. • 15 .1 1 t O S< n n n n n n 0 O r,
1 O T ♦♦ •O 7 n W Y p 1 C •.•1 O
51 • = •• 7 0 0 - O '5 1 1 In 15 0 0 O• ^ R R' C C C 7 = C 111 1 s C
= ' r r 7 O d O run C - 01 N to O 7 •O Ily . 0 n 1! p 1 1 = 1 • 7 = n .•. 0 111 In 0 15 111 N � . r0 IS
•O T 0 y. 7 W C • al W - • -4 13 r O O 10 re re 0 re 10 ..... 0
a - .. 0 D 0 C x r -5 T 1 f O ^• 7 t77 ••• 1 1 a C O T 1 1 In 7 • 7 � 9 re 1 r. .p � • O N r 7 r. . y 0 W 0 N 1 T 1 ••• 1 0. 0.
y 7 1 7 ••• O O .... 1 r 15 a 0 Or 0 111 0 $ • -t
19 1 T n W 10 N r T= = _ in O m A • 1 n • 0 A - = O •O • 1 •••• •• T
0 O = = 7 19 0 A ^ 7 S 0 - rn 1111 1 = SL ..• A 1° 1 _ 7 • O 1 1 1 0 1 ••• VP
••
1p ••-•• •1 A O N Cr C Y1 S• 1 r 111 A CO .O d_
7 O. n O O 51 111 • G
= = 7 n 7 d 7 = 0 01 0 • O 9 < 0 CO .1 7 = 1 1 . 7 R
F •w 51 -. •••• .. Y r w C Y •...•. 1 r 0 A •••• 50 t'7 •
. O. •••• - CI M A >> p 1 .• O. n 7f S A S -
. • ••r "'. T y.• rf 1° T . 1 116 7 •••• VI 15 01 . 0 i A ? ? W 01 C 7 O Y1 7 O 7 C o n A V r • v A •
.•.. C 6 n .D A 1 C A o S • N
r A .O O. Y ID O 7 = = 1r 7 7•
A T C e 0 an O 01 M 51
s e . .Q S 0 1 fr.
O• 10.
0 10 7
al 6 7 A O` Q7 = ..P s
ail d M O. A A 0. C n T
A •••• .r. 7 0 10 •w A sp T
O 0 • C 0 0 r'! ut
O. 7 T o 51 Ul 0 7
o
a .O 7 0 0 1n
7 = n O
0 1 •. 0 7
5. m 0 =
01 W
....I C
0
T O
Y _ T
d
111 •
N
.<
1 N •••• 0100 W r
• ". ti N r
_ r N N O- NI W -0 NI a 0 0 N- C11
O O N O O N N O
N N 0 CJI O O O N 0 CJI O 6A O O CA 15 O 0 O O O O 1J1 0 0 0 CO O
PT O O O O O O O O L./1 O O O O O O O O a
O O O O O O O O m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 mg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q
0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO O O O O O O O O O O O C
15 0 -
x m -
Zs s
7. rR r
Z
CI• O- 1 (.1 N N e, C C � 01
v CO 0 4.1 0 0 0 O C..0 NI G O O O O O
•"7 • CZ o G. C. 0 o p o c
a o .o
O 0 O O O O 0 O O O 0 0 O O O 0 C. CO
O O O O O O O O O O . 0 0 0 0
W w.. Cr - CP
N
CM •••• N O 1JI O (J1 CB O O .r
0 O Q • O -O
O O O O O 0 0 O CO
O O 0 O 0 O O
%.,. 1
_ N N N
G 0 T C O O G ... ... P7
Ca ? G. ' T
0 0 -o CP o e W r 0... . ? c o o c C
� . ,p � S
CO -J - r�C�I C.f1 _ .
N N e 4 O G T
CJI e, CJ1 CA G
O O O 0 O -Z.•
I A, ..• • .... S
0 O O O O
r
• 141 a
z
j 1
•
CD we
~ O ^ N IJ1 1.4
�' . CM
C11 0 O 0 0 0 0 '•'•
• = O 0 O -0
O O
r O 0 O
O O O O O
i - N
1 U1 =J
O I C11
°1• ° o
_ O 1•J
O O C O
7 O O
z a 0 Z •
Z 0 Z O T � m 0 • f '� 0 < 0 0 < 9
x) a = 1 01 m 1 O r 015 P7
✓ .� C m r 3 n, < 6 OP C
r . i . m< in O O 3
T 0. f. • 01 .•► 0 02/ <
'° 0 a Z m
a o o. ..0 . •w A in r
Pr . r. 0. • 9
0 PO
13 0 1 2C — O 4- A
O < 0 m
< i
1 y 0 f^ -<
Di eq. w
UP f - OP ; 0 i n •
T 1 1 CI 4
C
^, ;
= vg N' O 0
D.
t M m
• + N
ID r ... — -4
rt m 0 44 . [ff
es. ID CA I. in rt
ft •
m
N
O-
a
0
0 .
CIII
.°:. 0 0 0 Cr
Q
- ._ 0
.•
t••• v 0 r
OP .m.
lit
N
1 tV
• CO i� O.
0 ••••1
p O O 0 p O O
W GO O . .• O 0 0 m �+ T �"�
c 0 0 O 0 0 0 CO 0- s a
0 0 00 CO 0 0 0 0 0 m . 0
o _,
s m
.N S z m
N f0 Zr
—
A
N a Y1 X fa A W fV K2 V a d GPI U 13 GO J O �O
O 0 0 o _ 0 0 o m
o °O •0 0 ° °
0. Z
a.
r. W
A
1
i
0
r.�.� O
0 M
w.•
.. N in C G
me v 0 0 0 0 c' •••• 0 0
° 0 0 o 0 o m
C. ffD DS 0 0 o Oo
. . —. O.
A t.. y.
f0
1
7 in
CJI irl
f13 7
0 W d 0 0 �'., -0 T
0 Q 0 m
° r. 0 , P a
S r-
ig 5
9 3
to . �':. -0
T
1 O
0 T
CO r ` T
O f C =
go
O
co = T
r CFI O •
t C
1 1
• r
fT
0 `� p o
.0 o
0 _
o• o -0
. ° 0 0 -
co 0 0 0 0 0 „..
0
O• W N N
' r D c o
0 0 0
rn 0 0 ° o o . 'O a
P.-) 0 0 0 o 0 0 0
•
n ns
y r r
-4 a n •
m o z r •
to to r 5. < to < = i 2 C < = b C
If 0 A a =3 A 07 ! C .n • CO of S
CO
.. < 0 W r m • . A < .0 . 7 C .9...
0 0 = _ T
< < y z, d * D r < _ • • < Z
.O 1 4 7n
n m 7 �.r� a m
+ T — I In T 0 -1 VVI Or -•
RI III ▪ 0 i = 0 .0 m io a
• < - .. ■ m
n • S ID
NZ RI MI R•• • - v.0
o en z" c° < < v -0
Do 0 0 n 0 y M 0
• C 0 0 r 0 0 0 T Ca
0 0 d . 7 0 CI
G T m 6 .O RI ID R [n
. 4- In. a f7 re.
n • • o a •
,o s
6 '.3 eV .
0. A — .
J 0
• w 0
Cr
C C Q
Cr
0 0 0
v.. .•.
.. a
r
a w
° �" o c 0 °
Ul 0 O N O 0 O O 0 +0 00.. 0 o cn o , o 0. 0 o c 0 T CI
p o 0 0 0 Co o O CO a c c CI
O 0 ° p p OO 0 0 C Q O O
0 0 ° p o
CO r -
z m rr Xs
x
w 4.+ r
v 1.5 -
0
ni 0 •••.I 0 O O 0
° p o 0 a m
p O O -CI O O O V
00 C G ° O O Co °
p O
O 0)
o °
0 o m
stk.'
:a a
m
° ° o r-
z
s
0)
0
c
CA WI ... 3
0
T
o O O 2
p ° ° O
r
3
w 0.+
O O
O 0
O 0 -.0
0
O p O
I
�,, w w C.11 0 0 ° O 0) O
0 C. 0 -o
p0 c c °0 0O c P...3 0
•
•
Northwest Airlines Headquarters
MpIs.,St. Paul Int. Airpor \Ilk
N.
/ 1111W/ Ilb■
-. -- .
i I -494 y` �� 1 ® � ' ...,,
) .
/ one Oek •
/1.1 �� Indust Z • - *55
� y o # 13
o
'A, / ,e Yankee Doodle Rd. ,
/ :- % 49
i
\ . `,vo
• \ c
Y
J
O
E° /
Diflloy Rd.
■
0 1
cr
o
Il #77 I -35E o
I I
,
•
I C liff Rd.
8
I
I
iew /I - -- -- -- - - ∎ -- -- -- �--� -- - --J
1 NORTH
== 5000 ft. EAGAN, MINNESOTA
2000
5/1/84 NktiY A UT /11u.4.6
PART V
RUNWAY USE PROGRAM - NOISE ABATEMENT
1. PURPOSE. To define noise abatement procedures for Minneapolis International
Airport pertaining to all turbo jets and all non - turbojet Group IV and V
aircraft.
2. BACKGROUND. The control of air traffic in accordance with aircraft noise
abatement programs is secondary only to considerations of safety. Such programs
developed in the public interest may, in some cases, cause operational
penalties. In cooperation with the Air Transport Association, Metropolitan
Aircraft Sound Abatement Council, Metropolitan Airports Commission and the
Federal Aviation Administration, this informal runway use program was developed
in order to reduce the aircraft noise problem in the Twin Cities metropolitan
area.
3. ACTION. The issuance of air traffic control instructions relating to noise
abatement for all turbojet aircraft and all other Group IV and V aircraft shall
be in accordance with the following procedures:
a. Vector arriving aircraft at 4,000 feet MSL or higher until intercepting
the glidepath unless a particular situation dictates otherwise.
b. Whenever the normal landing pattern is over Highland or the south
Minneapolis area, a noise sensitive message shall be added to the ATIS
infomation.
c. When the parallel runways are in use for departing aircraft, the
following air carriers: Northwest, Ozark, Continental, Western, American and
Midway shall use the south parallel 11R /29L to the extent possible with existing
traffic and airport conditions.
d. As traffic conditions permit, and in conjunction with procedures stated
below, comply with the following runway priority giving first priority or noise
relief to departure noise:
Takeoff Landing
11L and 11R 29L and 29R
22 4
29L and 29R 11L and 11R
4 22
Note: Changes in the nature of noise complaints dictate giving first
priority of noise relief to departure noise.
(1) Runway conditions - clear and dry (i.e., there is no ice, slush,
etc., which might make use of a noise abatement runway undesirable).
(2) Wind velocity does not exceed 15 knots.
(3) Any crosswind component does not exceed 90 from either side of the
center line of the runway in use whenever the wind velocity is five knots or
more.
Page 25
J/ 1/ VY
Note: Best discretion shall be used in determining traffic conditions.
e. To accomplish the noise abatement procedures, cross runway operations are
often required. However, it is not required when visibility is one mile or less
and /or traffic conditions are determined by the person in charge to be heavy.
f. The preferential runway(s) in use shall be the determining factor in
approving or disapproving a touch - and -go, stop- and -go, or low approach.
g. Requests for a circling approach, by turbojet aircraft, for training
shall be denied by the controller.
h. All helicopters requesting ASR approaches shall be accommodated in
accordance with preferential runway procedures.
i. Mendota Heights /Eagan procedures.
(1) Departures on 11R and 11L shall:
(a) be issued heading 105 which will insure that aircraft will
remain clear of the Mendota /Eagan noise sensitive areas unless minimum diverging
headings are needed to separate successive or parallel departures not on the same
route.
(b) When diverging separation is in use, it shall be used based
upon the following criteria:
1 Runway 11R - a heading between 090 and 105 only
2 Runway 11L - a heading between 090 and runway heading only
(c) Proceed on the heading assigned until at least three miles from
the departure end of the runway.
(d) When requested by the pilot of a Group IV or V turboprop, be
issued headings and turns which prohibit flight over these noise sensitive areas
(i.e., river departures).
(2) Aircraft south of runway 29L localizer arriving on 29L and 29R shall
be vectored to at least a 4 -mile final. When issuing a visual approach clearance
to these arrivals, the pilot shall also be advised to make at least a 4 -mile,
(i.e., "cleared visual approach runway 29L, make at least a 4 -mile final ")
j. Aircraft departing on runway 22 and making a right turn shall:
(1) be instructed to remain on runway heading until leaving 1500 feet
(MSL).
(2) not be issued a heading greater than 350 until past the 11L
localizer course.
k. During quiet hours (11:00 p.m. til 6:00 a.m.) the use of runways 11L for
landings and departures and 29R for departures is prohibited for all types of
aircraft, unless an emergency situation requires use of these runways.
Page 26
5/1/84 MSP ATCT 7110.4B
(1) Due to the noise characteristics of the BE -18 ( "Twin Beech ") and
similar "noisy" types of aircraft, apply these procedures during quiet hours.
Departures with noise characteristics may be issued a heading to remain over the
river basin until leaving 3,000 feet or higher befoere proceeding on course.
(Note: Examples of similar noise characteristics to the "Twin
Beech" include the Lodestar, Travelair and DC -3.)
1. Intersection Departures -- Turbojets only.
(1) Controllers shall ensure that intersection takeoffs, for turbojet
aircraft, are not initiated when the departure path is over a noise sensitive
area; i.e., departing runway 4, 29L, 29R.
(2) Controllers may approve Republic (training flights) requests for an
intersection departure from the cargo taxiway and runway 11R for their DC -9's.
m. Local Control shall instruct all turbojet aircraft departing runway 29L,
that will make a left turn, to maintain runway heading. Local control shall
issue the assigned heading after the departure is beyond the departure end of 29L
and prior to transfer of communications.
n. Aircraft departing runway 29L and 29R making right turns shall be
instructed to remain on runway heading until leaving 1500 MSL (1800 when weather
is below 1000 -7) before turning to assigned heading.
o. Controllers are required to be thoroughly knowledgeable with the
provisions of this Order and to exercise their best judgment if they encounter
situations not covered by it.
p. Aircraft departing runway 4 shall be issued headings that avoid
overflying the Veterans' Administration Hospital as much as possible.
q. Aircraft Engine Runup Procedures will be in accordance with current MAC
Field Rules. Any deviations from these rules shall be forwarded to the immediate
supervisor for followup.
Page 27
•
•
/ ) / / -Jb -SS (�(�„abc�G , s � v ri- u5r +'u(
public official who has achieved that
b incarnation the political
bureaucrat. aucrat. t. He He has spent so much
• time running the institution that he is
� eR _ ! now securely institutionalized. He is
� the airport's political broker, its
prophet and its designated defender
against all alien threats — including
! the residential public's right to sane
sound levels where they live. So he
Jim has become the airport's proprietor.
installing paper slot machines,
among other things, to nourish its
Klobuchar ' new grandiosities.
In this role he has offered an
equation: If you let the Pollution
' Control Agency put in significant
I stopped to make a call from a safeguards for the Jet - battered
parking -lot telephone booth In south thousands living near the airport,
Minneapolis a few days ago and had you'll have to close the airport. (
achieved a point halfway between Do you believe that?
"hi" and "this is" when a four -engine
airliner devoured my voice. he airport people contend that the •
When the booth stopped quaking, my state's antinoise standards can't be
party on the other end had met at the airport without
disappeared, possibly concluding emasculating its mission.
that I was calling from the crater of ,
This argument pretends that the
Mount Vesuvius and picked a bad politicians on the pollution agency,
day. I chugged another quarter in the Metropolitan Council and the
the slot, identified myself and was Airports Commission can't find
about to give my location when political language to soften some of
another jet landing at the • those compliance standards and give
Minneapolis St. Paul airport `
obliterated all further attempts at something both to the public's ,
civilized dialogue. eardrums and the airlines' ledgers. t
About then I began for the first time If they can't, never before in human I
to consider seriously the futility of affairs have so many politicians
life under the flight patterns at a been struck mute simultaneously.
metropolitan airport catering to the Let's back up for a moment to some
unleashed competitive drives of the simple principles about why a
airline industry. And then a couple community maintains an airport.
of days later I discovered from the
chairman of the Metropolitan
Airports Commission that we have A community maintains an airport '
our values all screwed up about the primarily to serve the needs of the
airport's role in our lives. community.
Ray Glumack tells us we're not The airport people appear to have a
supposed to burden air commerce better reason:
unduly. He means that the number ,
A community maintains an airport
of landings and takeoffs by primarily to serve the industry.
commercial jets at his airport is the Because the competition in that
Schick test of our intellectual
vitality. and that the number of industry is now wide open and
airlines we serve in Minnesota will airlines can go where they want, this
decide whether we justify the faith means that the community must be a
of Hiawatha and Leif Ericsson. permanent prisoner of the
expanding din. Its only choice is to
Noise, he says, is a federal case and build longer runways and more
therefore basically nonnegotiable. expensive instruments to revolve the
traffic. Reducing the traffic is not a
If I lived in .south Minneapolis, sensible or legal option. t
Bloomington, Richfield or Mendota
If you are a sensible person, You
Heights and had to take the daily have a right to ask, why not?
convulsions. I don't think I'd want
Ray Glumack or the Metropolitan Beyond this, you do not have to
Airports t ominittiion acting as the accept decrees from political
undisputed mikado of airport use
and regulation in Minnesota. 1 would mikados.
look for somenody to regulate The airport is 0 collection of
Glumack and the commission.
runways, carrousels, hangars and
Marriott Host moneymakers. It is not
a barony. It was intended to serve
the public. not to paralyze it.
•
RESOLUTION
c
.AIR TRAFFIC NOISE /CITY OF EAGAN
•
WHEREAS, the Federal Aeronautics Administration, together
with the Metropolitan Airports Commission, promulgated the use
of Runways 11L and 11R as primary takeoff and landing runways
for Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport, utilizing 105`
headings, running easterly of the airport; and
WHEREAS, the 105' headings promulgated in 1972 are not being
adhered by aircraft taking off and landing on Runways 29L and
11R, but no official change has b adopted to revise the
heading established by the preferential runway plan; and
WHEREAS, the preferential runway system impacts existing
and future development, the types of zoning and land uses currently
existing and proposed for the area, noise and safety factors,
and related issues; and
WHEREAS, the policies and procedures formulated by the preferen-
tial runway plan and promoted and adopted by the Metropolitan
Airports Commission, together with the commercial airlines and
the Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council concerning
takeoffs and landings from the Minneapolis /St Paul International
Airport, have been repeatedly violated, including flying at
lower altitudes than designated in the regulations, and diversion
from designated corridors, and
WHEREAS, there are reasonable and viable corridors for landings
and takeoffs easterly from the airport; and
WHEREAS, the quiet hour or restricted hour policy promoted
and adopted by the MAC and the FAA covering nightime and weekend- -
hours is not being adhered to, causing unnecessary noise to
affected residences and businesses; and
WHEREAS, aircraft are flying diversionary patterns into
and out of Runway #22, rather than following the prescibed Cedar
Avenue corridor intended to reduce the impact upon affected
residences and businesses; and
WHEREAS, the City of Eagan and its residents receive the
majority of all takeoffs and landings during the nightime quiet
or curfew hours; and
WHEREAS, ground runups at St. Paul International Airport
have repeatedly created excessive and unnecessary noise and
violation of prescribed and accepted runup procedures; and
WHEREAS, the air traffic counts taken during the weeks of
May 14 through May 18, 1984, May 21 through May 25, 1984, and
June 17 through June 22, 1984, indicate an excessive amount
of the landings and takeoffs occurring over the City of Eagan; and
1 10
WHEREAS the Noise Abatement Runway Use Program, dated August (7
15, 1982, 3.I.(1), provides that Mendota Heights /Eagan procedures
with departures on 11R and 11L shall be issued heading 105'
which will ensure that aircraft will remain clear of the Mendota
Heights /Eagan noise sensitive areas unless minimum diversion
headings are needed to separate parallel departures not on the
same route; and
WHEREAS an Eagan Noise Committee was appointed in the spring
of 1984, a number of meetings were held during the summer of
1984 and a fact finding report presented to the Eagan City Council
at the October 30, 1984, regular ;meeting; and
WHEREAS recommendations to control and regulate air traffic
noise over the City of Eagan were presented by the Airport Noise
Committee; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Eagan City Council
that the following conditions be considered for the purpose
of regulating air traffic noise over the City of Eagan:
1) Formulate an air traffic noise task force in several cities ( i
to further study the impact of air traffic noise over com-
munities adjacent to the Minneapolis /St. Paul International
Airport and to specifically contact the cities of Burnsville
and Mendota Heights for the purpose of creating this task
force.
2) The task force will propose and submit through its local
city councils, local legislators, appropriate legislation
that will affectively serve to control safety and noise'
issues created by aircraft flying over those northern Dakota
County cities.
3) Require that flight patterns over the 'City of Eagan be
on an agreed upon predetermined course and further that
flights be returned to the original flight patterns prior
to the two (2) year takeoff and landing experiment as imple-
mented by the Metropolitan Airport Commission.
4) Special measures be undertaken to restrict runups during
nighttime and weekend hours - and, further, to install all
reasonable equipment to reduce the noise impact from runups
at all times, including baffles, walls and other noise
abatement devices.
5) Impose reasonable penalties on pilots and airline commercial
carriers that do not adhere to appropriate guidelines and C
regulations required for flights to and from the airport.
tk
(
6) Request the FAA and the MAC to require a steeper ascent
and descent of aircraft and, in addition, to extend the
105` heading on Runways 11R, 11L, 29R and 29L for a distance
. of at least five miles from the end of the respective runways
to minimize noise impact.
Motion by: Wachter
Seconded by: Egan
Members in Favor: Unanimous
Members Opposed:
Dated: November 26, 1984 CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF EAGAN
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk Mayor
CERTIFICATION
I, E.J. VanOverbeke, Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota County,.
Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
correct copy of a RESOLUTION adopted by the City Council of
the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota on November 20,
1984.
•
, l 2