04/15/1987 - Airport Relations Commission AGENDA
EAGAN AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY
APRIL 15, 1987, 7:00 P.M.
EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER
CONFERENCE ROOMS A & B
I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
II. OLD BUSINESS
A. Review of Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor
Presentation
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Position Regarding MAC F.A.R. Part 150 Study
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
V. DISTRIBUTION
A. Citizens League Airport Committee Notes
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MEMO TO: CHAIRMAN GUSTIN AND ALL AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DATE: APRIL 13, 1987
SUBJECT: AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING FOR APRIL 15, 1987
I. MINUTES
Enclosed on pages /-3 you will find minutes of the Airport Noise
Committee meeting for March 25, 1987. These minutes, subject to
any change, require approval by the Committee.
II. OLD BUSINESS
A. Review of Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor Presentation
Enclosed on pages 100 you will find a draft position paper on
the Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor. It is the suggestion of
staff that this position paper, together with support documents
by reference be the basis for presentation before MASAC. You
will note that the position paper takes into account the fact
that the two track assumptions used by the Metropolitan Council
are not sufficient to contain diverging separation which is the
norm during peak hour operations at MSP. The position paper
makes as a suggestion not a specific set of headings but rather
adequate analysis of 15 degree cones to place the worst of the
impact equitably between the two communities. It goes on to
recommend mechanisms of ongoing enforcement, ongoing
environmental assessment, consistent communication and the use of
traditional assumptions when appropriate.
The City Council will have had an opportunity to review this
position paper at its work session on April 13. Staff will
forward any comments made by the Council to the Committee at its
meeting on Wednesday. In addition, the Council will consider how
best to approach the development of a uniform position with
Mendota Heights City Council. It is anticipated that the
Council's discussions on Monday evening may be intergrated with
your discussions on Wednesday evening to develop a recommendation
for official City Council action at the regular meeting on
Tuesday, April 21.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve and give staff
direction on the proposed position paper on the Eagan - Mendota
Heights Corridor and recommend course of action for cooperation
with Mendota Heights.
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Position Regarding MAC FAR Part 150 Study
Staff has received an informal request by MAC staff to provide a
preliminary City position on the Part 150 Study Land Use
Compatibility Program. Staff has in the past informed the MAC
that the incomplete nature of the drafts provided to the City to
date prevent positive findings in a number of key areas.
Enclosed for your review, not numbered, is the most recent draft
of the land use portion of the Part 150 Study. Staff has
provided input in this process but has found a reluctance on the
part of the MAC staff to deviate from any of its assertions in
the study. In addition, the City Council is on record as having
recommended for further study three corrective land use measures,
specifically purchase assurance, retrofit insulation and
acquisition of developed property with the qualification that all
three are to be considered only in concert with the City Council
and under their approval of any structure for their use.
The nature of the MAC staff request is that the City prepare and
forward a resolution to the MAC in support of the document in
time for the MAC's regular meeting on April 27. The City has yet
received no formal written request of such position nor any copy
of an updated draft of the land use plan on which to base its
provision. Therefore, it would be staff's recommendation that
any comments on the Part 150 Study or its land use portion be
withheld until the public comment, unless the committee wishes to
recommend to the City Council a position which cites the
inadequacy of the study documents and the process by which a
request for position was made. Absent such a recommendation,
there is no action necessary on this item at this time.
IV. OTHER BUSINESSS
V. DISTRIBUTION
A. Citizens League Airport Committee Notes
Enclosed on pages / /'�.2you will find notes from the April 2, 1987
Citizens League Airport Committee meeting. The meeting involved
economic impacts of airport operation or the disclocation of a
potential relocation. This item is for information only and no
action is required on the part of the Committee at this time.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn no later than 9:00 p.m.
Adm istra ive Assistant
cc: Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator
Dale C. Runkle, City Planner
Paul H. Hauge, City Attorney
Enclosures
JDH /jeh
EAGAN - MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR
DEFINITION The Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor is an outgrowth of
effective community planning and the expressed intent of the
MAC and FAA to concentrate the greatest proportion of the air
traffic where noise compatible land use can absorb it. The
corridor is, by all assertions, the heart of the preferential
runway system. Even as air traffic has exceeded the capacity
of the traditional PRS configuration, the existence of the
corridor has allowed the largest proportion of departures and
arrivals to occur away from more densely populated airport
neighbors. However, the same increase in traffic has taxed
the ability of the corridor to effectively serve this
function.
HISTORICAL The development of the corridor occurred over the years by a
CONTEXT combination of cooperation and confrontation. For many
years, areas of both Eagan and Mendota Heights were planned
and zoned for commercial and industrial uses. This was as
much for safety as for noise reasons. In the early 1970's,
when the preferential runway system was devised, it took
advantage of the land use and open space southeast of the
airport to help alleviate the noise crisis in Minneapolis and
St. Paul.
Because the PRS addressed only the direction of aircraft from
the airport without specific parameters, the traditional
neighborhoods adjacent to the Eagan - Mendota Heights
Corridor received as much noise as the corridor did. Eagan
asserted that aircraft traffic patterns should be modified to
keep the worst of the noise in the compatible corridor. In
an attempt to accommodate this request, MAC and the FAA
established a procedure in 1972 under which aircraft would
stay on or north of the extended runway centerline for a
distance of three miles from the runway end.
The procedure was a significant first step in the evolution
of the corridor, but less than a year later the issue was
brought before MASAC when Eagan asserted that practical
application of the procedure failed to mitigate noise or
reduce overflights of adjacent neighborhoods and, therefore,
was inadequate accommodation for the disproportionate level
of traffic focused on the area by the PRS. Bear in mind that
Eagan wasprepared to accept the premise of the PRS if its
logical extension was the optimal use of the compatible area
provided.
CORRIDOR In an effort to protect the preferential runway system from a
ACCOMMODATION legal challenge, the FAA, MAC, APA and major airlines met to
consider further modifications of the departure procedure.
It was determined that a five degree left turn on take -off
would better utilize the corridor and the procedure was so
modified. On the basis of this accommodation, Eagan rejoined
MASAC and abandoned any challenge of the PRS. This
modification recognized that the orientation of the noise
`f`
compatible corridor was north of runway centerline, where the
land use remains today.
Between 1973 and 1977, two significant events occurred.
Runway 29R /11L was upgraded and extended to handle turboject
traffic. At the same time, the departure procedure was
further modified such that aircraft departing both runways to
the southeast were issued headings ten to eleven degrees
north of runway centerline. Three issues are significant to
further discussion of the corridor. First, these changes
occurred when the PRS placed landings principally on the 29
Runways and the departures on Runway 22, thus reducing
departure impact in the corridor. Second, traffic levels
were sufficiently low that nose to tail departures could
occur and little if any diverging separation was necessary.
Third, the magnetic headings of the airport runways are five
to six degrees greater than their designations. Therefore,
the actual orientation of the parallel runways is roughly 116
degrees and the standard departure headings were 105 degrees.
Over the next ten years, corridor neighbors and their
respective cities developed certain expectations based upon
these headings.
SPECIFIC In the late 1970's, around the time of airline deregulation,
ASSUMPTIONS but prior to the industry's significant expansion, two
studies were undertaken which solidified these expectations.
MAC developed its Noise Abatement Operations Plan whict
evaluated existing noise abatement measures by comparing
impacts with and without each measure in place. The study
focused on a 1977 base case and was completed in 1981. At
about the same time, the Metropolitan Council and
Metropolitan Airports Commission cooperated in the Noise Map
Project to define long term land use compatibility standards
for the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development
Guide. The project which was completed in 1983, was designed
to define differential policy standards for noise impacted
development. As a part of the Metropolitan Development
Investment Framework, the noise map's policy contours largely
define the character of development, particularly in the
corridor area of Eagan and Mendota Heights.
The fundamental assumption of both studies was that 105
degree headings would be the dominant departure routes
southeast of the airport. In addition, both were predicated
on the belief that productive land use control measures or
the use of existent compatible land.use must complement
source noise reduction. Although the MAC plan used an Ldn
descriptor and the MC -MAC study used an Leq, both resulted in
contours which coincided with the compatible land use in the
corridor fairly equitably. While neither Eagan nor Mendota
Heights were completely free of noise, the worst of the
impact was focused at its middle and its overlap inter
residential areas was similar in level and scope.
FAA AND MAC The assumptions of both studies were formulated or approved
RESPONSIBILITY by the FAA and MAC, either directly or cooperatively with
other agencies. Essentially, the corridor headings assumed
in both formed the basis for virtually all land use decisions
through the study period and in its aftermath. With the
implementation of the Aviation Chapter in 1983, cities
affected by aircraft noise were expected to modify their
comprehensive plans to comply with the standards of the
policy contours.
CITY The City of Eagan, through its comprehensive planning
COMPLIANCE process, is essentially completely compliant with the
standards of the policy contours. Where current land use is
not compliant, its long term designation has been changed to
compatible uses consistent with surrounding uses. The City
of Eagan, and I believe City of Mendota Heights to a great
extent, has modified its planning to be consistent with the
expectations provided them by the MAC and FAA. The cities
have provided as much compatible area as they were told was
needed. If the airport needs to modify its expectations, as
it obviously must, it should engage the cities in a
discussion of how best to do that.
EFFECTS OF The post - deregulation growth in air traffic eroded these
DEREGULATION assumptions, however, much as it has all around the airport.
As traffic increased, it became increasingly necessary to
utilize diverging separation between parallel or successive
departures. The need to maintain at least fifteen degrees
separation between increasingly greater numbers of aircraft
resulted in noise impacts beyond those anticipated in either
of the anlayses described above.
Even before the studies were complete, FAA procedure provided
for diverging separation to the north of the 105 degree
heading. Despite its presence in the operational order, the
relative infrequency of its use apparently resulted in its
lack of consideration by the FAA or MAC in the cited studies.
This 90 degree heading when flown from runway 11L resulted in
direct overflights of Mendota Heights neighborhoods.
COMMUNITY On at least two occasions, the increasing frequency of these
RESPONSE overflights resulted in complaints from Mendota Heights to
MAC or MASAC. In both cases, the proposed solution was to
minimize the use of such headings through controller
awareness. In the latter case, occurring in 1984, MASAC also
supported internal changes by the FAA which allowed the
removal of the restricted flight area from a neighborhood in
Eagan and the adjustment of "headings on take -offs to make
more consistent ground tracks keeping aircraft within the
departure corridor." The latter language resulted in some
disagreement on the part of participants as to its precise
meaning.
Eagan's representative, like others, believed the language to
refer to the adjustment of departure headings to account for
the wind, thereby approximating the ground tracks of the
traditional corridor assumptions. This practice is still
followed by FAA personnel who periodically track departing
aircraft and adjust headings into the wind to maintain a
desired track.
This interpretation was repeated by the City of Eagan on no
fewer than three occasions when resolutions were forwarded tc
the FAA, MAC and MASAC specifically referencing the 105
degree heading or operational orders which included that
assumption.
FAA ACTION The FAA interpretation is radically different. The FAA has
asserted that the evolutionary development of the corridor
has been entirely discretionary on the part of the agency.
It has further asserted that the operational boundary of the
corridor lies at the edge of the compatible land use along
runway heading without regard for the equity of its noise
impact; and seemingly siezing as a definition an operational
standard which was abandoned as inadequate after less than a
year in 1973. The FAA has asserted that the intent of the
above quoted language was to:
permit the tower to keep noisy aircraft within the
corridor. This would be accomplished by keeping
departures on or north of the extended runway centerline
or localizer. This would be accomplished by "playing the
wind," consequently, the 105 heading may or may not be
used.
INCONSISTENT Not only does this definition strain the sensibilities, it
IMPLEMENTATION totally ignores essential issues in the initiation of so
radical a departure from stated policy. The FAA suggest
that MASAC authorized the change despite their being
"internal" in nature. MASAC, however, is only advisory to
the MAC on noise issues and no record of MAC action on the
proposal exists. Therefore, the FAA has acted without
approval of the responsible agency. The operational order
which includes the change is dated September 30, 1985, more
than a year after the cited MASAC action, making any direct
relationship unlikely. Moreover, any implementation of the
new headings was not known by MAC at the time of the
Governor's Task Force meetings in early 1986 as MAC
representatives vigorously asserted the 105 degree definition
of the corridor throughout the proceedings.
Moreover, the FAA's stated objective of the change was to
keep noisy aircraft within the corridor. Yet the subsequent
modifications of the operational order have only widened the
corridor by ten degrees while leaving the 90 degree heading
over Mendota Heights intact and in use. In addition, a 1986
study by MAC showed that up to 60% of all traffic departing
11R was south of runway centerline or turned south of
centerline before the three mile limit over Eagan
neighborhoods. This at a time when sensitivity to the
regional noise problem has resulted in 57% of the annual
departures and a similar proportion of annual arrivals are
concentrated in the corridor area.
This definition also overlooks the insidious nature of the
widening. It occurred incrementally thereby spreading its
increased impact over time. Therefore, the FAA has not
recognized a need to undertake an environmental assessment
under FAR Part 1050.ID which requires an environmental
assessment and the submission of an EIS or FONSI for:
New or revised air traffic control procedures which
routinely route air traffic over noise sensitive areas at
less than 3,000 feet ABOVE GROUND LEVEL.
The modification of the 105 heading after almost ten years of
use constitutes a new or revised procedure. The modification
routinely routes traffic over at least two noise sensitive
areas at less than 3,000 feet. The McKee Addition lying at a
distance of three miles has a long term noise compatible
designation, but its current use is not. Country Home
Heights Addition receives overflights on a regular basis as
shown by MAC's study.
Essentially, this significant change was undertaken under
dubious authority, in direct contravention of its stated
objective, without any environmental documentation and, most
important, without ever directly involving the cities or
public it effects.
IMPLICATIONS What does this imply? It implies a need on the part of the
FAA and the MAC to do now that which it has overlooked to
date: a complete and comprehensive study of the environmental
impact of air traffic in the corridor area and mitigative
strategies to focus the worst of the impact at the corridor's
middle without restricting parallel capacity.
The City of Eagan and, I believe, Mendota Heights recognize
that the increase in traffic has created a need for a wider
area of operations. Aircraft could not be constrained
exclusively to 105 degree headings without severely
restricting parallel capacity; yet those headings are the
only ones the FAA or MAC have adequately or differentially
studied to date and the ones on which regional and local
preventive land use are based.
The Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights have accepted a
regional responsibility to absorb noise impacts as is
evidenced by present land use and comprehensive guide plan
designations for future land use. The FAA, through its
F.A.R. Part 150 requirements place as much emphasis on such
land use as it does on operations. Where land use does
exist, the Part 150 requirements imply a need to study
optimal operational use of the area. Flight track
modification remains an appropriate operational alternative.
NEED TO RENEW The Cities' cooperative spirits should not be abused. The
ACCOMMODATION presence of such land use was carefully planned. Difficult
decisions were made to redesignate certain areas in exchange
for accommodations by the FAA and MAC to make them adequate.
Compatible land use did not occur of its own, but rather as
part of a cooperative effort. Since conditions have changed,
as much if not more effort should be placed on defining an
optimal, equitable use of the corridor.
8
PAROCHIAL Unfortunately, parochial interests may taint this discussion
INTERESTS Absent adequate study of the impacts of the broader corridor
procedure, residents on each side of the corridor have
assumed that their increased aggravation is the fault of the
other. Meanwhile interests in South Minneapolis have
asserted that any constraints southeast of the airport create
a bottleneck which sends more traffic to the northwest.
This rhetoric must be faced, challenged and exploded. As to
relative fault by corridor neighbors, each is operating under
the assumptions it was given by the FAA and MAC via the
Metropolitan Council. Unfortunately, the FAA and MAC have
done little to abate the finger pointing. When the FAA has
undertaken to widen the operational area to 25 degrees to
provide 15 degree separations, clearly there is room for
improvement to the benefit of both sides. Adequate study of
a package of assumptions which will focus the worst of the
impact where it can be absorbed best is essential.
As to constraints on capacity, full parallel departure
capacity exists any time fifteen degrees or more of airspace
is available. The Cities of Eagan and, again I assume,
Mendota Heights are willing to jointly study means of
defining sufficient airspace within the compatible area.
This does not mean that flying within an area so defined is
as easy as fanning, but requiring controllers to perform
feasibile though more demanding work is the responsibility o
FAA management. South Minneapolis would still receive.
parallel departures when there is too great a tailwind
component for southeast departures, when weather requires the
use of both ILS approaches on the 29 runways, and when peak
level arrivals would generate greater noise impacts than
would smaller number of departures. In an area with
prevailing west winds a departure pattern to the southeast
cannot be underutilized when it accounts for 57 percent of
all departures.
PROPOSED What does Eagan propose? It is not the intent of the City to
RESOLUTION recapture the noise environment of the past. However, the
noise environment of the past was based on focusing the worst
of the impact equitably between the two Cities, as the
Metropolitan Council contours do, and a modification of
flight tracks accomplish that. To attempt to resolve this
issue, the City of Eagan suggests:
1. Adequate Analysis - The City has proposed in the past and
continues to propose that differential analysis of
several packages of flight tracks with varying
concentrations along each track be studied to define a
feasible combination of headings providing at least 15
degrees separation which places the worst of the noise
impact equitably between the two communities. The Par`
150 process affords an excellent opportunity to addre;.
this matter through both its land use and operations
portions. The current Part 150 corridor element merely
describes the present situation in detail without
examining any mitigative strategies.
2. Ongoing Enforcement - Because human nature seeks the path
of least resistance, any resolution of this issue will
depend upon adequate management to insure that South
Minneapolis receives no more than its operationally
dictated volume of traffic and that operational
parameters defined through analysis be followed.
3. Ongoing Environmental Assessment - Airport neighbors have
become accutely aware of the dynamic nature of the
airline industry. However, when changes must occur,
environmental documentation should be automatic and
preemptive, not grudgingly acknowledged after the fact.
The FAA should not presume to go from the equivalent of a
two way road to a superhighway without public process and
the direct involvement of the cities and citizens
effected.
4. Consistent Communication - It is difficult to adequately
develop citizen expectations when procedures or
assumptions are changed without adequate, direct
communication with the City and its responsible
authorities. If we are informed, we can keep citizens
informed. If we are not informed and the story changes,
citizen complaints against the airport are appropriate
and inevitable.
5. Traditional Assumptions When Appropriate - Groundtracks
corresponding with the 105 degree heading are still the
best noise abatement configuration during late night and
off peak operations. The current operational order still
requires them when diverging separation is not in use.
Noise impacts and overflights outside of the corridor
without apparent reason create the most vehement of noise
complaints.
CONCLUSION In sum, changes have been undertaken which modify
substantially the land use assumptions Eagan and Mendota
Heights must follow. However, these changes were undertaken
without public process. No effort was made to study its
impact or consider its relative equity. Because the general
area was compatible, the rights of those on either side were
overlooked. It is unfair to penalize an area's residents
because its governments have acted responsibly.
The point of this position paper is not to protect Eagan or
Mendota Heights citizens to the detriment of others. Nor is
it to secure a noise free environment. No airport neighbor
can expect that. However, they should be directly involved
in a meaningful way with decisions which affect them. The
point of this paper is to elicit an adequate, substantive
study of the optimal use of the corridor as a full parallel
capacity airway in an appropriate forum. Optimal use meaning
that which equitably centers on the middle of the noise
compatible area. Eagan and Mendota Heights have accepted a
regional responsiblity. The airport has an obligation to
cooperate with the Cities to mitigate the adverse
consequences of that responsibility.
62
1i) ORAF%
MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
C
f1
FAR PT. 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM
LAND USE MANAGEMENT PLAN
1
Working Paper
March, 1987
L__ )
HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF
L
L
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FAR PT. 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM
LAND USE MANAGEMENT PLAN
1
1
Working Paper
March, 1987
L
HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF
Fl
I 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS •
1 Page
1 I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Background - The FAR Part 150 Context 1
B. Purpose of the Land Use Management Plan 1
C. Procedures 2
II. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA 3
A. General 3
B. Compatibility Criteria 3
III. LAND USE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 8
A. Future Noise Contours 8
�._ B. Previous Land Use Planning in the Airport Vicinity. . . 8
1. Metropolitan Council Program and Guidelines 8
2. Comparison of MC Guidelines with Part 150 Criteria. 9
3. Compliance with Guidelines 11
C. Approach to Land Use Management Plan 11
IV. EVALUATION OF LAND USE MEASURES 13
A. Preventative Measures 13
B. Corrective Measures 14
C. Technical Review and Screening 14
D. Evaluation of Measures �8
1. Land Use Plan Amendments 20
2. Compatible Zoning 21
3. Zoning Performance Standards 22
4. Public Information Program 23
5. Building Code Revision 24
6. Soundproof Public Buildings 25
7. Acquire Developed Property 26
8. Purchase Assurance Program 27
9. Soundproof Private Residences 28
i
5
L
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
V. RECOMMENDED LAND USE MANAGEMENT PLAN 30
A. Program 30
B. Priorities 32
C. Schedules and Costs To be provided
D. Implementation To be provided
APPENDICES:
A. FAR Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
B. Metropolitan Council Development Guide, Aviation Chapter
C. Summary of MSP Community Attitudinal Survey, 1986
D. Consultation/Technical Review
E. Draft Implementation Materials
ii
1
LIST OF FIGURES
• Following
Page
Figure III -1 1992 Ldn Contours and Metropolitan Council Policy
Contour 9
Figure IV -1 Preliminary Screeni:g of Land Use Measures 17
Figure IV - Generalized Zoning Map 20
Figure IV-3 Existing Land Use Map 23
•
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table III -1 Comparison of MC Guidelines with FAR Part 150
Criteria 10
Table IV -1 Implementation Responsibilities 15
iii
I. INTRODUCTION
This section of the working paper describes the purpose of the Land Use
Management Plan element of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150
Noise Compatibility Program, outlines the report, and identifies the
procedures which were followed in development of the Land Use Management
Plan.
A. Background
The FAR Pt. 150 specifies submittal of two sets of documents, namely:
o Noise Exposure Maps, one for current conditions and one for aircraft
operations as they are expected to be five years from today, in 1992.
Information on land use, municipal boundaries, and other factors must
be included in this submittal.
o Noise Compatibility Program, including recommendations for abatement
of aircraft noise and for land use management actions to achieve the
most compatible land use in the noise zones.
This report constitutes the land use element in the second of these two
sets of documents. Analysis of noise abatement measures was presented to
MAC in the report "Recommended Noise Abatement Program ". This was the
basis for MASAC recommendations to MAC on March 25, 1986, and was
considered in adoption by MAC of its Noise Abatement Program on April 24,
1986.
B. Purpose of the Land Use Management Plan
The purpose of the Noise Abatement Program is to reduce the effects of
aircraft noise on the communities surrounding Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport. The land use components of the plan are designed to
provide the most compatible pattern of land use within the noise zones,
while creating as little community disruption as possible.
The land use recommendations will include both "corrective" and
"preventive" programs. The corrective measures will be applied mostly in
the higher noise zones, to areas close to the runway ends, and to areas
which are developed in urban uses. Land acquisition, soundproofing and
purchase of limited rights in the properties fall into this category. These
actions would be primarily the responsibility of MAC. The preventative
measures are designed to restrict new development which would not be
compatible with aircraft noise levels. These involve land use control
measures such as zoning and would be implemented by individual
municipalities.
1
C. Procedures
FAR Part 150 requires coordination with affected parties and the
opportunity for public review. The primary means of providing public
participation in the development of the land use programs was through
briefings, reviews, and comments by MASAC, and through review of working
documents with planners from the affected communities and technical
personnel from FAA, HUD, MPCA, MC and other agencies.
The consultant analyses of land use measures were delivered to MASAC, and
subsequently to the Commission. Adoption by the Commission will permit
integration of the land use management measures into the second of the Pt.
ri l 150 submittals, the Noise Compatibility Program.
L
L:.
I• 2
II. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
A. General
One of the objectives of Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 150, is to
establish uniform systems for describing aircraft noise and developing
compatibility criteria. The criteria recommended for use around MSP and
described below are generally consistent with the criteria spelled out in
the Regulation. (The criteria as they appear in the Regulations are
attached as Appendix A).
The purpose of this section is to arrive at definitions of compatibility
that can be translated into land use regulations and land management
programs which are both equitable and consistent with community values.
Among the factors which affect compatibility and which are not addressed by
r the criteria shown in the Regulation's Summary Table are:
o Insulation of a building does little or nothing to reduce aircraft
noise when occupants have windows open or are engaged in activities
outside of the building.
o Land use compatibility criteria developed under the auspices of the
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area differentiate between
single family and multifamily residential development. Typical
construction and decreased emphasis on outdoor activities are
considered to make adequately insulated multiplex development more
compatible with aircraft noise than single family development. These
criteria are incorporated in the Metropolitan Council Development
Guide, Aviation Chapter (see Appendix B).
o There are transportation corridors (Cedar Ave., Route 62, I -494,)
( running through the area within which ground traffic generates Ldn
noise levels comparable to aircraft Ldn noise levels. FAR Part 150
requires that ambient (non- aircraft) noise be considered in the
definition of non - compatible land uses. In practice, noise levels
associated with roadway noise will approach significant levels only .
in the immediate vicinity of the transportation corridor. For
example, at one of the busiest roadway segments in the airport
vicinity, Cedar Avenue adjacent to the I -494 interchange, the Ldn 65
contour would occur within approximately 800 feet of the roadway
centerline.
These and other "local" factors were incorporated into the process of land
use planning for the noise zones.
B. Compatibility Criteria
The following are notes on selected categories of land use, explaining the
`' rationale for the criteria:
3
f'
Residences (other than hotels).
In the Ldn 75+ zone, new residential development should be considered
non - compatible.
In the Ldn 65-70 and 70 -75 zones,'new residential development should be
considered incompatible and should be permitted only where other
development is not feasible, such as the infilling of existing
1 7 - residential neighborhoods. In this noise zone, insulation should be
1 required to achieve acceptable interior noise levels. In addition to
acoustical treatment of structures, potential new residents should be
made aware of the noise environment.
Transient Lodgings
Construction of hotels and motels is generally of a standard that
results in interior sound attenuation higher than that of single family
homes. The nature of their use justifies minimal restrictions,
provided that a healthy indoor noise level is attained. It is
recommended that hotels be permitted in all noise zones provided that
interior NLR sufficient to achieve acceptable interior noise levels is
required.
Schools
It is recommended that schools be considered compatible in the Ldn
(' 65 -70 noise zone provided that they have an interior NLR of at least 30
dBA, but that they be considered incompatible in all higher noise
zones. The special sensitivity of classroom teaching to periodic
aircraft noise events justifies the NLR level more stringent than that
applied to residences. These criteria would be applied to both public
and private schools.
( Hospitals
Hospitals are usually well- constructed, air conditioned, and kept
closed, resulting in high levels of interior noise attenuation.
Provided that specified high interior NLR levels are attained, there
should be restrictions on locating these facilities relative to
aircraft noise only in the more intense noise zones. It is recommended
that hospitals be considered compatible in the noise zone Ldn 65 -70
with an NLR of at least 30 dBA, and in Ldn 70 -75 with an NLR of at
least 35 dBA, but that they should be considered incompatible above Ldn
75.
� - Nursing Homes
Nursing homes are basically residential in character and should be
addressed in the same way as multi- family homes. It is recommended
that they be considered incompatible in noise zones above Ldn 70, -and
permitted in Ldn 65 -70 only with an NLR of at least 25 dBA.
i s
4
i
Child Care Centers
(
f Since classroom instruction is not as important a part of the function
of a child care center as it is of the function of a school, it is
recommended that criteria for child care centers be less stringent than
those for schools. It is recommended that these facilities be
considered compatible in zone Ldn 65 -70 with an NLR of at least 25 dBA
and in zone Ldn 70 -75 with an NLR of at least 30 dBA; and incompatible
i in Ldn 75 +.
Churches
Given that the amount of time per week that a church is used for quiet
activities is small, and the proportion of time spent by an individual
in a church is small, the justification for adopting more stringent
compatibility standards is less strong than that for schools. It is
recommended that the criteria proposed in the FAA's table of criteria
in Part 150 be applied. (For schools, child care centers, or other
types of facilities that are part of a church complex, the criteria for
these secondary types of facilities would be applied.)
Auditoriums and Concert Halls
These uses generate a mix of quiet and noisy activities similar to that
for churches. They are likely to be major public investments and it is
believed that stricter standards should be applied to protect the
investment and to ensure long -term satisfaction with the quality of the
experience in the halls.
It is recommended that the uses be considered compatible in Ldn 65 -70,
with at least 30 dHA NLR, Ldn 70 -75 with at least 35 dBA NLR, and that
they be considered incompatible in noise zones above Ldn 75.
Commercial, Industrial and Recreational Uses
_ .
Most uses in these categories are not as noise sensitive as the uses
11 described previously. It is recommended that the criteria suggested in
L the FAA's FAR Pt. 150 guidelines be applied.
Table II -1 outlines the recommended land use compatibility criteria for the
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport FAR Part 150 Study.
f.
L
; 5
f
TABLE II -1
J LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
I Land Use Ldn 65 -70 Ldn 70 -75 Ldn 75+
Residential
I Residential, other than hotels' N N N
Hotels R(25) R(30) R(30)
Nursing homes' N N N
1 Public Use
Schools (public and private) R(30) N N
i Child care centers R(25) R(30) N
Churches
f R(25) R(30) N
Auditoriums, concert halls R(30) R(35) N
t Parking Y Y Y
Hospitals R(30) R(35) N
Commercial Use
Offices: business, professional, Y R(25) R(30)
government
Retail trade Y R(25) R(30)
: Wholesale trade and retail of building
materials hardware and farm
equipment Y Y Y
Utilities Y Y Y
Manufacturing and Production
�. Manufacturing, general Y Y Y
Research and laboratory uses sensitive
to vibration Y N N
Agriculture and forestry Y Y Y
Mining, fishing, resource production
and extraction Y Y Y
t Recreational
Outdoor sports arenas and spectator
1 - sports Y Y N
L_ Outdoor amphitheaters, music shells N N N
Nature exhibits and zoos Y N N
I, Parks, golf courses, riding stables N
L and other active recreation areas Y Y
6
LJ
1
TABLE II -1 (Continued)
Key
Y Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions.
N Land use and related structures are not compatible and should be
prohibited.
R(25) Land use and related structures generally compatible; measures to
,, or(30) achieve Noise Level Reduction of at least 25 or 30 or 35 dBA must
or (35) be incorporated into design and construction of structures. Normal
construction can be expected to provide an NLR of 20 dBA, thus, the
reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10 or 15 dBA over
s standard construction. These requirements assume mechanical
ventilation and closed windows year round. The use of NLR criteria
will not eliminate outdoor noise problems.
�.; 1 Where the community determines that residential uses must be allowed,
measures to achieve outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR)
sufficient to achieve acceptable interior noise levels should be
incorporated into building and /or zoning codes and be considered in
individual approvals. Federal guidelines recommend NLR of at least 25
dBA (in Ldn 65 -70) and 30 dBA (in Ldn 70 -75). Adjustments to these
recommendations may be necessary in considering specific local
conditions. In addition to acoustical treatment, potential residents in
noise zones should be notified of the noise environment.
2 Appropriate Noise Level Reduction (as specified in Footnote 1) must be
incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these
buildings where the public is received, office areas or noise sensitive
areas.
s Noise Level Reduction specified in Footnote 1 required for residential
buildings.
1.
i:.
7
L
1
III. LAND USE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
A. Future Noise Contours
The development of a compatible land use pattern is a process which will
occur as a result of programs implemented over a period of several years.
Land use controls put in place today will affect development decisions but
will show a perceivable effect only over the long -term. Corrective
programs of land acquisition and soundproofing are expensive and complex,
and again, will show positive benefits in terms of compatibility only after
a period of years. Consequently, the land use program is based on the
future (1992) Noise Exposure Map.
The Ldn 65, 70 and 75 contours for 1992 were calculated using FAA's
Integrated Noise Model Version 3.8. Assumptions made in the calculation of
these noise contours were:
o The projected number of aircraft operations are drawn from the
revised forecasts of air activity recognizing the Northwest - Republic
merger and as presented to MASAC on February 24th, 1987.
o The mix of aircraft types considering planned equipment purchases by
the airlines as far as these are known.
1 .
o Runway 4 -22 will be extended by 2750 feet to the Southwest,
t permitting increased use of the preferential runway system.
o Aircraft departing Runway 22 will make procedural turns to headings
which carry them along the Cedar Avenue corridor (60 %) and 1 -494
1 corridor (40 %).
o Aircraft departing 29 L &R and 11 L &R will follow tracks which are
( identical to those recorded in a radar survey of departure tracks
conducted in November 1986. These data indicate greater scattering
of tracks than was incorporated into earlier calculations of Ldn
contours.
L
B. Previous Land Use Planning in the Airport Vicinity
In addition to aircraft noise compatibility planning under FAR Part 150,
the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan area has a long standing framework of
compatibility guidelines.
i 1. Metropolitan Council Program and Guidelines
{ In 1976, the Minnesota Legislature passed the Metropolitan Land
Planning Act. This Act requires each community in the seven county
metropolitan region to prepare a Comprehensive Land Use Plan which
is to serve as the framework of development for the particular
j' community. These plans must be reviewed by the Metropolitan
Council and are to be kept current through an established amendment
process.
1 8
L
The Metropolitan Council, in turn, is required to submit pertinent
planning information (systems statements) on each metropolitan
system (i.e. sewers, transportation, parks and open spaces,
airports) to each community for use in preparing its comprehensive
plan. In the case of the airport, the "Airports" system statement,
the Council determined that additional information regarding
existing and potential future aircraft noise impact areas would be
needed for land use planning by the local governmental units,
especially those communities surrounding Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport (MSP).
In 1977, the Metropolitan Council, through its Transportation
Advisory Board, developed aircraft noise information. Membership
on the committee consisted of staff representatives from the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Metropolitan Council,
Transportation Advisory Board, the Metropolitan Airports
Commission, local communities and an elected official from a
community adjacent to MSP. A major part of this cooperative effort
was the need to coordinate the development and utilization of a
computer modelling tool that would consider both the State (MPCA)
standard and Federal (FAA and HUD) standards for aircraft noise
control and land use planning.
In March 1983, the Metropolitan Council amended the regional
development policy, i.e. the Metropolitan Development Guide -
Aviation Chapter, to incorporate Guidelines for Land Use
Compatibility with Aircraft Noise. The Guidelines encouraged
L. development in areas around airports in the metropolitan airports
system that can be made compatible with aircraft operations. They
discourage construction of single family homes, schools, churches -
and hospitals in noisy areas around the airports. Less stringent
guidelines are also included for development areas adjacent to
other airports.
2. Comparison of MC Guidelines with FAR Part 150 Criteria
L_ Appendix D to the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development
Guide provides land use compatibility guidelines for the
communities surrounding MSP. For purposes of land use
compatibility planning, aircraft noise is defined in terms of four
Aircraft Noise Zones contained in the Metropolitan Council "policy
contour."
As shown in Figure III -1, the Metropolitan Council Aircraft Noise
t Zones extend beyond the 1992 Ldn 65 noise contour. With the
exception of one small area to the southwest of the airport, the
Ldn 65 noise contour is within Aircraft. Noise Zone Three.
Similarly, the Ldn 70 contour is contained in Aircraft Noise Zone
Two. The Ldn 75 contour is essentially on- airport.
Table III -1 compares the Metropolitan Development Guide's land use
guidelines with the FAR Part 150 Compatibility Criteria as applied
9
( i ( -_ - + _ r ,
/, um tN1 , f rFf L� ,, f.J. v ,2t I 1 �. ' g
i i
- \., .S k `lf x ''' 1 Y A K ; I 1 --f---_,
1 - ' ,4-.-41( t . -�' f iI 4 fF I I t i ///
. f _ , l Y 7 ,. o- -f :fi 7
( . � � \
r V . ! . ; t �• r
� 1 l l + 41r ` `i r , .' i -/'- � •
F (� t c .1___-_'''' �S .` °, ., Er - �'f- \ c i4 t 1 , • ' ` (1 1 1 u 1 I I `_., ?' t +�' < \V
11, ty . :-= � ff✓✓ L1 [ - t . c 'f a _ t i - } -r i '}J f t 4 ' ` . ._
.. r. iumwm_,,A■zt.--e , call' '- )1 ii ' c - • - I lz . - - ; ; ". cn
' - ' ' ---7 1 -1 ,. - . - k4, ' �1 1 = J I $*'- 4 E 9 11?
nil \ • "°, = 3 i Ea 7 n x-
• 41,44,...,.\,) \ !j _ i .: C I S' Li a ' ' ; -` -a r - malls . 1. i
agist. -.\. i t ' ., \ , — i ii i Ff POI a _
I , . ; i' S,1 L. ' ' . -r Mill - :•=i,',,J" M
1' it i
fr: ' ' ' • " ''•""4 • . '',.; ,. '''' 1 III 1 I 4 .. ' • - i - : •----'
. in It (r-'f'' 111111 ,i si- I -, , ' ' ' L '*''' 0 '-!1' tt -\ 1 I iii.II v 1 ',t ' j, - °_,
, i ; . .. , " .---'.' ' ,, ' ,.,,:, , 414 A NO , , , -L: 1 :..
r
. f s r ,
AN 1.1 z a
• ,f:'.., - ,, 4 ., . ._._,.. j Fi a, .•_.;_ :; 11 ,, _ ,`', , it iN_:,,, -- ,...-i o . i ."
+ 'l fr . / ' ? ` 1 � d 4 x93.... .� ttI
, •
� . .his! _ k- = a M s , . -i. .',.4 . t 0
1r 3�' f `- , " pi_ f r
< IL M.
1117. . • a 4 fi t'. -;•): t � C
a It
"i
cu o
r 11 7 • n
CL
o .-. O
*r :_ CO n O
,.ir N O C
n 7 v 1
O O
m c 0
O
c
CO
cu
CA
I .
.
1
[ . • 1
2
0
1
r W
0
2
r
M 0 0 0 01 u+ r n n n
F 1 N N N N N
..7 4 1 a 6 a{� a a a a s pc N II
1 •.7 .t .7 J .7 4 d .] .i W w >.
m ▪ a 2 2` 2 2 2 2 2 2 20 0 a
• W ^ n« n 0 0 O 0 0 0 2
F F n N n 01 .•1 n .n n
4 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F F F F• F. 0 0 0 0
F F F
O. a 1 0 0 0 U 2 a a a N 0 0 0 0 2 / 4 4 0 0 1 n 0 0 1 . 4 2 1 2 2 0 1 0 Y. 1.
2 0 1 2 2 2 2 . 1 .7 .7 .1 Z Z 2 2 2 .3 .3 .7 2 2 2 2 2 2 . 2 . 3 . 3 2 2 0 .0 1
p w« w w 2 2 2 2 U V « w« 2 2 2 0 0 0 M w w 2. 2 2 U U W iK w
U 0 txu t.
a .t
t
0 4 2
2 2 1
J .7 I J W 1..
4 2 4 2 4 2 .3 S
w 0 .7 N« F 0 .3 N w 0 .3 0 N m
m 2 . 4 4 5 6 3 2 . 3 . . 3 4 5 1 . 3 2 w .3 < L W W 1.1 .
W
w
N N h. F 4 R' 0 U F O 1.. E• F 4 a O V F E. 2< u 2 u U = 6 a
< U❑ U w N U N L L 4 V O U w N N S L
4 7 W u F \ >>« u F \ >> U F \ a
W m N N 0 ❑ J Y. a ❑ a N N N ❑ J I. a ❑ N N N '�+ O J 1. 4 J L
. U 4 ❑ D. W W W 0 W 0 V W 2 0 W W W 0 W 0 1• W 2 W W W ❑ W 7 I. W .7 0
W .T. F 2 2 2 W L 0 0 0 w < 4 2 4 0 5 0 0 2 1) 4 ' . a a 2 W L U 0 N 4 U W
0 0 F . 4 7
n n W
... .. a .3
V 0
F F
C F e e
> P 0 N
d 4 1 1
.-. Z n n in
eG .3 r 1
to 42
• F > O 0 0 2 2 \ N 6.
( �F. 2 0 7 .7 .3 r .3 .3 2 .3
4 2 ..7 0 W .
4 U F
N > 2
W w W 11 W
2 ❑
. O 0
1
1 .7 W a 0 0 0 0 0 n n n n n N n n n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O n n n n n n n n 0 N
14 .3 ..3 I1 ... n 1•. I.. I . m 7 7
1 .n n 1.1 .•. ... . .n N N N N N N N N N W
O . G Z 2 Z S Z Z 2 2 Z U Z Z Z Z Z Z L Z U 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z 2 2 2 U U r
i.
.
N
U W
5 a
/i - V - •
0 .n .n n n n o 0 o a n n n n n n n n o 4 4 •
.� ... 1.f I• . 1.1 I.1 1.1 n I.1 1.1 N N N N N N N N N m 4
2 W W O O O O O F
O O O O F
0 O O O F F 'O a
p M > V U U V U a a a a N U a U U U 6 6 a N U a U U U a a C a a a a a a N N - 0
in F 2 W 5 2 2 2 2 .] .7 .7 2 2 .7 2 2 2 .7 .7 Z 2 .3 2 2 2 .7 .7 .7 Z Z F
w 0 0 2 2 4 2 2 0 M Z w« M 4 2 Z 2 U « Z w« « 4 2 4 2 4 2 2555524...0 2
w 0
O . X .. u a
0 I.. • a 5 4 2 4 2
5 63 < .3
•
I L W o -. N F o a N o N o N 2 r
0 N w .3 • L W 2 .7 w J f, 2 W a w 4 < L W ..7 4 S W
w U ❑ W t Y. S 1. < /. O U F 0 L Y. 7 F 4 a 0 0 F L Y. T F 4 a 0 V Y. Y• F 4 a 0 U .7 •
« 0. N S S< 0 7 U N U N L L< U 0 U N •I L L 4 0 ❑ V N L 2 4 U O V W F
w W ❑ >. U w Y \>> w U 2. F \> 0 V F \> U F \> > .3
02 F N 0 N❑❑ -. 1.. a❑ 4 N N N 0 .7 1. a❑ N N N 0 .7 0 a N N 0 ❑ .7 1. a W ❑
W W W W ❑ W 7 Y. W Z 0 W W W ❑ W 0 V W 2 W W W ❑ W 0 Y. W 0 W W ❑ W 0 Y. W .7 V
.7 2 2 2 1 . 3 2 1 . 2 0 0 0 . 4 4 4 a W L V 0 N w 4 4 2 W 2 0 0 N a 2 2 W L U 0 N w
m ❑ rn 4
( .
•
4 ■ Y w <
F W I • • C 0
N 1 • .. n e ■ e • . c 2
a w 1 ■ ■• 0 0 O • P O 0 .3
i_ O O I 7 7 n ..4 •.. d y -. O +.
Y. 2 1 • ✓ 0 Y 1.. 4.
ti 'O Y r w
.. v c u o u c >✓ u a u
N F 1 c• v
O 0 7• a .• 0
0 a s
W a I I •.. ■> c v v v> o o v 2
2 O ✓ • • • ✓ • • > •
w 2 • .. Y 0 Y'O • C Y 1.
.7 a G • P • 0 c - O • F O
O S
O 1 • 7 Y • E • •✓ •.. .. • • N U
O F M C 4 .. ■ •� O. ✓ .. C U Y O• •-• 6 w ..
{. .3
O U - Y • C .0 N ►.
w s 0 C • C % • • • •O 9 0 • 2 Y•
a Y .1 • ■ • u in - • - . - . n • 0 0
I W • C • ■ C O • • O • • • ✓ O • 2 r
N C• • r C C C y O y • C 9 w L
•
•
• g r Y d • • • • • • . J./ • 0 C O • • • 7 7 v • • 7 7 • • C Y • r
9 1. U 0
> • • • C 0 Y 7 U E ■ 7 U Y.
r• .3 • > 4 4. • D` . • Q . Y • 2 • o. Y Z Y.
M L. • O ✓ t • O +• • O +. • • n • O w 0
0
D. v u • u 2 '.. 0 a w 0 • G. 7 OK •.
6 N
i``" 0 W
W 0 W
M .. > 0
`. _ 5 N • w 0 M 2
t." 10
I
V ,
to the MSP environs. In all cases, the Metropolitan Development
Guide is at least as protective as the FAR Part 150 Compatibility
Criteria. Application of the Metropolitan Council Guidelines to
the noise zones defined by the 1992 Ldn will satisfy the FAR Part
150 land use compatibility criteria.
3. Local Compliance with Metropolitan Council Guidelines
As prescribed by the Land Planning Act, the Metropolitan Council's
Noise Guidelines established the policy upon which individual
community planning efforts could then acknowledge airport noise as
a critical consideration in local land use planning and decision
making. Consistent with this requirement of the Land Planning Act,
many communities adjacent to MSP conducted a review of their
comprehensive plans to determine if changes were warranted to meet
the Noise Compatibility Guidelines. Following is the status of
these plan amendments relevant to the 1986 Aviation Chapter:
Minneapolis Under Development
( St. Paul Generally Consistent
City of Eagan Generally Consistent
Mendota Heights Inconsistent - Revision Under
Consideration
Bloomington Generally Consistent
Richfield Inconsistent - Revision Under
Consideration
L.
With few exceptions, the Comprehensive Land Use Plans for all the
communities adjacent to MSP are consistent with the Land Use
f Compatibility Guidelines as incorporated in the Metropolitan
Development Guide. For those communities where the current plan is
"Inconsistent ", revisions are still being considered. In the
event that final revisions remain incompatible with the Aviation
Policy Plan, legislation exists to declare a particular project to
be of "Metropolitan Significance" and subject of additional study
for up to one year. Though metropolitan significance reviews are
somewhat rare, they are a tool which the Metropolitan Council can
_ use to encourage greater communication and coordination within the
community and in adjacent communities.
C. Approach to Land Use Management Plan
The approach has two primary elements. Firstly, in the 1992 noise zones of
Ldn 65 and greater, the policy would be of maintaining the residential
f r a
(1) Land Use Compatibility Guidelines adopted in 1983 Metropolitan
Development Guide amendment are identical to those in the 1986 edition,
except that the timetable for compliance by individual communities has
been extended.
r..
} 11
L!
f . .
character of the neighborhoods while implementing a program which will, in
the long -term, result in the residents coming to terms with the noise
environment in which they live. This is the "corrective" program, designed
to alleviate perceived problems in already developed areas.
The corrective program would recognize the varying responses of different
individuals to aircraft noise as documented in the 1986 Community Survey
(Appendix C), and provide a series of options for resolution of perceived
problems. For the individual who is so disturbed by aircraft overflights
1 that he feels the need to relocate, public purchase of his home and
subsequent soundproofing, attachment of an avigation easement, and resale
would be appropriate. For the individual who can live comfortably in the
area with good soundproofing of his home, noise insulation at public
expense in exchange for an avigation easement would be offered.
The corrective program would have a secondary but important benefit
resulting from growing number of avigation easements in the noise zones;
that of reducing the possibility of individuals moving into the area in
ignorance of aircraft noise levels.
Acquisition of residential areas in the highest noise zones, for subsequent
clearance and use for non - residential purposes would occur only at the
initiative or with the concurrence of the jurisdiction in which the area
lies.
The second element of the program is the "preventive" program, which
[ emphasizes planning mechanisms as a means of preventing new development
which is not compatible with the aircraft noise environment. The area has
a head start in this respect since the Metropolitan Council (MC) Guidelines
r established in response to State Legislation provide a structured and
systematic basis for land use planning compatible with aircraft noise. The
MC Guidelines incorporate the so- called "Policy Contour" which is larger
than the Ldn 65 contour used to define areas of significant noise levels,
I' and requires that planning within this larger area be consistent with the
Guidelines (Figure III -1).
There has been concern expressed that the 65 Ldn contour line does not
include all of the area where "corrective" or "preventative" land use
4 measures should be applied. The areas addressed in the MC program are
extensive enough that a program of planning for consistency in terms of the
aircraft noise compatibility guidelines, with an implementation program,
will adequately meet this concern. The MC Guidelines applied to the
"Policy Contour" are endorsed as part of the FAR Part 150 land use
program.
111 MC has discussed a revision of the "Policy Contour" but as of the date
of preparation of this report, the 1978 contour as presented is the
current statement of MC Policy. If and when the contour is up- dated,
an appropriate revision in the Part 150 program would be in order.
12
L
TV. EVALUATION OF LAND USE MEASURES
The discussion of alternative land use control mechanisms is presented
{ under the two categories "preventative measures" and "corrective measures ".
A. Preventative Measures
( Alternative mechanisms for preventing development which is incompatible
with aircraft noise include:
Land Use Planning. In coordination with the Metropolitan Council,
�.. local governments amend comprehensive land use plans to establish
guidelines for development in noise zones.
Zoning for Compatible Development. To the extent possible, zone to
encourage development or redevelopment of land uses compatible with
aircraft noise. Where commitments to residential development have been
made or where other community development factors override that of
noise compatibility, adequate interior noise level reduction (NLR)
should be required and potential residents notified of the noise
environment.
Zoning Performance Standards. Incorporate adopted noise contours on
zoning maps. Require any new residential or other noise sensitive uses
to meet specified interior noise level reduction standards.
Dedication of Avigational Easements. Require any new subdivisions to
dedicate avigational easements permitting aircraft overflights.
Programming ublic Improvements. Where airport noise considerations
are not offset by community development factors, avoid public improve-
ments which would encourage increased residential growth or density.
Public Information Program. Develop and distribute information
concerning airport noise zones and noise impacts. Target developers,
real estate professionals, and lending institutions.
Disclosure Ordinance. Require buyers of property in airport noise
zones to sign a statement documenting that they know that the property
is subject to aircraft noise. Statements would be attached to the
documents transferring title and would remain a permanent part of the
transfer documents.
Transfer of Development Rights. Provide a mechanism for the sale or
E transfer of development potential, or density, to encourage low density
development within noise zones. Development potential would be trans-
,., ferred from properties within noise zones to designated receiving areas ` outside of the noise zones.
Building Code Requirements. Modify building codes to require adequate
NLR for new construction in areas affected by noise.
` 13
L
I ,
•
B. Corrective Measures
Alternative mechanisms for correcting problems in existing developed areas
include:
Acquire Developed Property. Where there is substantial consensus on
the part of a neighborhood, and where the municipality requests it,
acquire a group of properties. The tract may then be retained as a
noise buffer, used for other airport purposes, or sold for development
in compatible uses approved by the municipality. The Metropolitan
Airports Commission will not make spot acquisitions within a
residential neighborhood which would adversely affect the integrity of
the area or property values. Any resale would involve surrender of
avigation easements.
Purchase Assurance Program. Guarantee purchase of existing homes in
specified areas after the owner has made a bona fide effort to sell the
property. Acquired property would be insulated and returned to
residential use with appropriate easements and restrictions, or if
appropriate, converted to compatible uses which do not adversely affect
the integrity of the area of a residential neighborhood.
Soundproof Private Residences. Apply sound insulation techniques to
[ existing residences to achieve a noise level reduction (NLR) which
E >. would result in acceptable levels of interior noise. MAC would require
avigational easements in exchange for the cost of soundproofing.
Soundproofing Public Buildings. On a priority basis, apply interior
noise level reduction techniques to existing public buildings which
house especially noise - sensitive uses, primarily schools but also
buildings such as libraries, nursing homes and community centers. MAC
would acquire avigational easements in exchange for the cost of
soundproofing.
Purchase Avigational Easements. Purchase avigational easements from
property owners in designated areas.
C. Technical Review and Screening
Technical review of potential measures was coordinated with the
1 agencies and jurisdictions responsible for their implementation. Table
IV -1 shows implementation responsibilities for the measures under
consideration. Comments received through this consultation process
were incorporated in the preliminary screening of land use measures.
'). Figure IV -1 summarizes the preliminary screening. Nine measures were
recommended for further study. The following five measures were not
recommended for further consideration.
(1) Dedication of avigational easements (subdivision regulations).
There is essentially no unplatted residential land within the
Ldn 65 noise contour. Significant administrative effort would
be required on the part of local governments for implementation.
1 14
I
uo . •c
u- 5- • c u- e u -
c ..
i•
...._
I,
a a •
S y y y y
e 4 a • e 4 . •
▪ a .. e •
• 0. 5 0. • 0. C O.
•v • v
5 • • a • • a
e •o
o as
{.
.. a ac m> m> c o
a C C O .... ►• .. M 4 •
4 4 .. 4 0. .O 0. S a
II d 0. v
M o c o 0 e a o - o e
1..c.:
5. w w w
W W W W
...• 0 •• 0 •-40 .40
... • .J 0 .. .J 0 ••• •J 5 ••• .J 0
.. 4 e y 4 e y 4 a y 4 a o. ��"77VV�� C e 4 C C 4 C e 4 C e 4
5 o m V 0. 0 tC
a s 4./ a, a 0 <
■
y 0 0
0. w 1.I C W 4
0 W 1
. N I 1
OC •.
42 •
N J !
15 C 0 S • 0 •O .r
C.
C y C C
Z
5 e V •
5 • •
Z O • V c e O • +J u •
O] .. 0 u i ..+ .. C C V
= e .• e c c c o 0 4' • o•
al CZ C
> .. y .. 0 T E - >
6 > y c x > E
Z !° 0 e •5 o e o� go- - yo c we
., 0 IC _ e w -� C a J 0
V V m
u a.4 o • > E 0
a ....4 • ... _ 0 to .. 4
G7 0 i 'O a o 1[ • • u • • V L a •s
.• O .• 0 C • . C . O C O • • ►V. C w C
O Jr ^ a C 0 C 14 O •"•
.J r. 0 •'. . C C •. .•U •- C .• . 0 a JJ .. C
. 4 "''f aJ a C u aJ C ow .. �4 C .J V
.0 O j > V a s u e •O E u C u o >44 CI E
1. • - o .• c 0. - .0 4E. 5 o e . .V > < i .0 >
1. V u {Y. • S MI e 0 •••1 a y i .• a it
o 4 4 C 5 V 5 .. 0. .. S > 4 a
Q 7 7 ! V S a 0 �- V
W. a •. y •• . 4 5 •• O 4 C •• > 4 0 4 l
W N< U 0 0 0 U O 0 0 1..1 V 0 •O 7 0 U C 0 E
5, 5 d X 0 ti u Z u ti u• Z S 0 , • •n • = .• .•
•• «. .,
t 7 •*•• > C
c
C - y
< ` C <
r ; F .. o
2 d c C . . •
0. +
4 • y y y y
a L .J C y C y C y
N C C y a a • IS a • a a •
4 ... y 4 �• y 4 - y 4 .. &
V to e C K ! C 15 i C 10 i C V
Z ..- a V W < 0 10 < E Y < 0 C
z < E C a C 0. C a ...1
Z E C 0.
N C•p ... C
5 S . c S
• C C .. V C C C V m
to C • ..00 > • O 0 0 > • • . > . • i 0 >
p .. a ••• •^■ V m 4J
e<
0.0 `J .O a o e •O a o e • e a o o • o c
O a .... 4 V .. ..• 4 V ......1.0 .. E
Z . a .. 4 V a .J 4 C a .J .' C
O 0 . a s .• . e a . .. a i .. •• } r �+ 0
.-.4 y .. C V C ••• C V C C V e r
O a C� C V C ....+5 V....m.• .o40
.. C V •• . V i >
F. w .
0 e + a E .+ a+ 0. V 0 0 a e •. o a E a a+
L .. a o 0 o a•o 0 o a•c o a a o < 0
1 14
t 0 d e a to d e e r Mae m o. a s to
Z
M
•
f a
' ., •a
a
C 0 .
y .4
• u
• u
t 1 0 le V .w -
. .. • • a
_`
C 0 M r. 0. e
... W 0 C C ..
4 C c c cu
i .1 a
• A a :5 6d
a V 4 O
• • y • >
1.
'__ O • MS O .• ..• V 4544 a
01 MS M _ N O C 0 • E
L v "•
15
J
f.
E
Y O
V O � V .r+
0 —
„ ‚4
c L e L
W Q.. e
W 0, e O
r e e
0 ! E r 0 .0
Y
I •■ E OC > C tic b
O
! C C O �. L
L L L
It d c ° c 0.
'C > C O. 0 !
O O e -4
▪ V ••'• W
.r O .•• O
J L e 0 1.1 L !
■ . 0 ! 6. C e L
111 G 00 111 11L 00
J+ 0 < .1J 0 <
L .. o. Z 0. •• 0. Z
•
Y 'C
0
...•
0 !
s
! . Y G
Y Y v 0
e v Y
C C E .. A V V C e
C C w C C L C y .+ ! ,
0 y C i C. 0 K! e V • S
— - 0 . . ..
. ..w ••• O Sr .J 1. •• C i C 0 u c O. 0 C 0 0. I. E . 4
o
e ! S C Y
C a o c ! !
O u ac • • e i e c c • c!
c • •.v .+o o •
.0 .•. L 0 0 O u u O .J C V C 0 C
u 0 0 •. •• Y •• C C y W C C y ... Y
.• L ^7 C v v. u 0 C C1 u E C !! u •
'O O \ - ! .u+ C •• G 11. ••• 0. 0 .•. C •+ L
d •• 01 1) 0. •+ 'O u •C 0 U '0 0 .• 0. ••. S 1)
• LI L t 0 'O a .+ d O e .r .J Y L ! L
Q) L _ L •• 0
C i ^i v •• 0 L c L> ', L> O a •• O L n..
`. !{\ v < U O 0! 0 d 0 O d "C 4 ,= 0 ' c
ti
Y u
> CC
er+l
C a 0
Y C
` > c ! C
` Y .,
L e y
O. C ' 1 C V
C •e e e •
Y r L .• .J
O I. 1t e u Y
•r i E G C < G C
L
c� E ` ! —
E� C S • ••••
0
Y
! C .. C C C Y V
L L 1. • . es d 7 • owl 0 a
o u D C 4. . 0 IC ...4
M L C O! 0
L .. - E .... L Y C Y
14 4.6 O. Y .-. a u C • E
L O C. .. a+ 0 aJ u .•. r J . 0
O! . C .. V u . ~ r • C S e
.. Y
4.. 0 > E u O. E •+ e >
E 0 O. O C Y <'
< o c C < 'o
CI
4.
.0
e OO •
I s C
L
k
O Y M
C6 u S r
C o r ° + 0
0 Y Y
• a. •o 4
o `• u
r .. Y O
� L j V 40
• Y 0
S Y .r. •+
i 7
L .. 0 e • o
.. .■a C ..r
e .0 u e - • d 7 r . L O
Z a A •i.
' 16
s
.
t
0 V C w
V O V WI V C V ,n u ., 1.)
•n 0
6 ur• C-• C c-
C - a e y a y !
++ y ad aJ as Y y 0 0 m
C Y • a• * e ,.0. . m 0
G 0
IC e a m O. a 0 0. w 1
U e t C e y m . .. 0.
mS a > a
.. E OC > OC > c 1 . 0 •
OC o 0
e C C O C O 0. 4
Y 4 0 •°� 0 0 y
V 0 •C 0. •0 0. CO. C G
•0 > 0
C 0. C G 7 m - m - 4
a. o 7 m 7 e ••• w •: m
P. U w w y ,. w 0. sr au
I, •, •■ O ..1 0 .r 0 • 0 -
e •
.. S. v e .. V C u i • ad
0. >
y S. m
C m 4 0 m G Y 0 0 S. 0 0. 00 a. 4
V C 0L V 0 .Vd 0. 0 ad G
y 0 y 0 w I. o w I. 0 0 .
0. -00. a -0 0. 0...G a••G a0
• • • 0 •
0
0 E ••C• .o .°., .r •
o a.+ a+ •
C m 0 c .. C . C C
.• c o- 4., c- c•• 0
C.. 0 C - 0 . 0 C.0 .. .
0 C 0 0. 0 C •0 C I. m 4 .d
. - 0 O 0 m 0 L. -- 0 - 0 m - --
O.
., 0. 0 .• u 0. 0 0. 0 a 0. 0 1 •
. - , c .- u e.) ,0 .• C '",� ...0 .- m
C mC •••0 u C •.0~
•.
u .. C , 4 m C 0 C O C m E
u 7
y 0. 4 0 .d y 0 . {, .+ V E
.. aJ e C ••• V y u as u m
m { {{{ll 4 •-) .d u .. a) ad 0 0 C • u C
►o. C . c • o 0 u c 0 . C ., m 6
m •• 43 •Oa+m
7 V u •o 10 . .0 C C V m 4
It 4 y C m • m 0 m m „ m . - .r OC
0_ a V .•• r O> -' S. m 0
V I. m i> 4 m Y m
Zh V: •C 7 m u V 0 m 0 m m 0.
c . -, a M C -, e "7 O ' >+, ."
u 0
u c
aJ
4 6 y 6 • C
C • 0 C • 0 V e 0 m 0 4
tj () ..C. C O V 11) 0C V .. II)
... OC
Y C u O
C . C . ` .0 a m m I. .•"•. 0 -• u 0.
�_. y .. ... m.r Y • 0. • V -' y- co
•- •0
V .0 G• • .0 y M .r 0.• •.• C • - C C
/.. m C O. G C
OC m o
EI OC O e+r V OCO - am-
C ,0 C O. C C 7 a: C C
m C m e C m 1. C 4
4 S . ., V . e ..0.• S. L. ad OC 4 as OC 4 a✓
0
tic S. y y m a • C a m 0 OC m •
O OC so O C • C y • 1 0 + OC m
., y Y .. 4 y
y - D O m C m .., G- C C
G.•• C .. .. 4 C O - C C 0• •
m ..C.
m °" V 0. E E
y 0 0.. 6 ,. . y r V O v •0 L O u •0 .-• C C OC
0. v C d
4 u 0 v C y Y .• C a .••■ C m a -. C A
O m .. 0 m __ V ai C
O 4 > u V C•. G E C ► a.) C C > ad •0 > y C C
4 V > y C
•C C C d 0 r e ti e d o E O a c E o a i 0 s a 0 E
1 _ m
e y
V C
V V
0 IN C a6,
C au •0 m
.r Y ,. c
0 • V
0. 0 a. 5. e
.0 0. e e C
0
- e C I y
.-4 0. e ..+ e
0 ... 0 0. co
O V
e > w
•
• •
i o •o e 0 0
v
e
Y
0 1 Y .0 as
.0
7 0 or w
u o •C 0 inn a.
� m
17
I 1
f:`
i z
O m
C c c m m c c a) c c c C (1)
M N - c0 O y c0 c4 _N N ro (T3 ( ca - 0 u)
Z J a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) O O a) a) a) a) N
cc cc ¢ooacccoocc cc oc cca a >.
O U a E Ti
E C
O c0 c0
- Cr)
> O a)
c
a) l-
a)
O �
co `) y d a)
' a) 7 7
7 O U a) CO
1 (/) _ co C CO 0
_ CO C a) a7 ca _
co c a) E E c L
O
7, cd C j O E
(n v) 7
io O) U O U X O 0)
W Z °' C - C N a) - c a 0 ' >> c0 7 c
CC w C O `. ( aEi
0 a E 0 j 1 3 N 2 a) <1.) E a) a ° oa > m 0)
E
�, Q 0 D o c 0_ U- a m a L
W > 0 a) c a) 70 - o a) a) a) H -
i -0 2 a) m a) c o `) 0) c c 2 Z m u
Q N ) N _ -O 0 _
W 0 O p 0) 7 C a) — c
(1) O N- o . c m 0 a 7 c c E o O 0
2 m ro m> c " >' CO CO O 2 a °D
O ' 0 0 23 V O N a) c U U U
c0 - E w c rn w a) - L L
/:: Z a. E 0 E E S' c o 0:5 c o CC
m c m >, st c c 0
cr) D J 2 _Ti J d U m Z 2 U U) U Z :
0
U
i . . L.L.
> p VOd V1OS3NNIW z < a z
u)
, Z U S101»1SIa 100HOS a
LL Z Z W lI3NfOO OM13W a a a a a
C - W C7
CC z' 0131iH011:1 z a z z a a z z a <<<
w
, (n a- SI10dd3NNIW Z a<ZzZ a<Z
>_
c C o S1HOI3H H1OaN301 a a z z a a z z a < < z
Q
Z m L NVOV3 as z aazzs
a a
- n
NOiONIW0018 < < z z < a s
J
W
Cr
0.. cr u) 0) co u)
a te► -`n I- zz
l` UJ
w Z LU Z W o cc
U w w (,7 CC Qr W
O co w w cc a m 0 w a O w m w
` cc c7 Z z 0 g O J <a. w Z a 0 W
,` -� a ? Z I- �- m Z O a w > I- m
a s Z O m a J a a > cc w o D cr a C w O
I- W a Ni O C7 m O L I W J
Z M J LL > D CC LL W> C t/) LL. > m J
W CL J CC a Cl_ 0 0 W O W 0 a 0 a a s
O w m LLJ Z j CC 0 U w 0 w U Q
a = aOa cr0 00t C w c Z a a a z O
Z 2 Z O O CO D O a O cc Z m 0 a z
a 0 0 w CC D 0 w CC U D 0 0 0 w
J O N 0 a a CO 0 I- a 0:1 o_ 0 a _i a Z
, _
-L.
(2) Program public improvements. The area within the Ldn 65
contours is generally served by existing urban services.
Similar compatibility benefits could be obtained more
effectively through other measures.
(3) Disclosure ordinance. Significant legal and administrative
issues remain unresolved. Similar noise compatibility benefits
can be obtained to some degree through public information
programs.
(4) Transfer of development rights. Very complex legal and
administrative process for local governments. Significant
impact on local development and land use regulation beyond the
areas affected by airport noise.
(5) Purchase avigational easements. Does not reduce noise or
improve land use compatibility. More significant compatibility
benefits if combined with measures to mitigate the effect of
noise. Easement acquisition could be incorporated in other
measures, such as noise insulation and purchase assurance
programs.
D. Evaluation of Measures
This section describes the evaluation of the following land use measures.
Preventive Measures:
1. Land use planning
2. Compatible zoning (conventional zoning)
3. Zoning performance standards (overlay zoning)
4. Public information program
5. Building code revision (required noise level reduction)
Corrective Measures:
4 ., 6. Soundproof public buildings
7. Acquire developed property
8. Purchase assurance program
9. Soundproof private residences
To aid in comparing measures, and to make it easier to understand the
analysis, the discussion of each measure is organized in tabular form.
The presentation covers the following factors:
Description - A brief description of the measure is provided.
Area to Which Measure Would Be Applied - This includes the area
within the Ldn no ise contours and /or the Minneapolis - St. Paul
International Airport Aircraft Noise Zones as appropriate.
Anticipate Benefit - This section briefly lists the benefits the
18
measure would be expected to provide.
Costs - These are the public and private sector costs involved in
i the measure.
Effect on Propertx Values - This is the cost or benefit of the
measure to categories of property owner.
Effect on Tax Base - The impact of the measure on adding property
to or removing property from the tax base is discussed here.
Implementation - This summarizes administrative and other actions
to implement the measure and identifies any special difficulty
anticipated.
Other Considerations - Any relevant considerations not previously
addressed are discussed here.
Conclusion - A recommendation to include or eliminate the measure
in the recommended program is discussed here.
(
r•'
{
4
t:
i
c
(( T_w
! t r
� ,
f
19
r .
MEASURE 1: LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
Description:
In coordination with Metropolitan Council, local jurisdictions amend comprehensive pla
in conformance with the Guidelines for Land Use Compatibility with Aircraft Noi�
contained in the Metropolitan Development Guide, Aviation Chapter (Appendix B).
Areas To Vhich Measure Vould Be Applied:
Jurisdictions within the Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Aircraft Noise
Zones contained in the Metropolitan Development Guide's Aviation Chapter (Figure IV -2).
Portions of the following communities are included in these noise zones: Minneapolis,
St. Paul, Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, Bloomington, Richfield, Mendota,
Sunfish Lake. These noise zones extend beyond the 1987 and 1992 65 Ldn noise contours
developed in the Noise Exposure Map (NEM) Submittal.
Anticipated Benefits:
Establishment and maintenance of the greatest achievable degree of land use
compatibility. New development, infill development of existing residential areas, and
reconstruction /renovation of existing noise sensitive development are addressed in the
Guidelines.
Costs:
Administrative costs of preparing Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Effect On Property Values:
Any changes would be related to specific zoning, density, and capital improvement proram
changes resulting from plan amendments. In general, the value of property dedicated to
compatible uses such as commercial and office development exceeds the value of
residential property if a market for such uses exists.
Effect On Tax Base:
- Overall effect would be minimal, regional demand for various types of land use woula
be unchanged.
- Possible effects on local jurisdictions due to shifting of development from one area
1 to another.
Implementation:
- Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) approves measure.
{ - Metropolitan Council and jurisdictions establish schedule and guidelines for
consistency in plan amendments.
- Metropolitan Council considers revisions to Development Guide as required and reviews
local Comprehensive Plan amendments.
- Jurisdictions prepare draft plan amendments for Metropolitan Council review, and
subsequently amend local Comprehensive Plans.
Other Considerations:
- Costs associated with plan amendment process may be eligible for 80 percent Federal
funding if part of an approved FAR Part 150 Program.
- Federal funding would be limited to areas within 1992 Ldn 65 noise contour.
Conclusion:
Include in the Land Use Management Plan.
i ,
20
- _
______ r -- ,.-- r ---
r -- ,-- (--- r- s--- r .--- ; .
. . , . . . .
-, ; --
-,.' ';.■ i(i ;I. :4vi i ';',.;,.. '. ',,' -..',.. ,i_, - I 'i . ; tj,: E
, c i,-„TK T ul.,,,,,; ;; /2- • .„ , . ,,,, • .,..-., ;•,..,t;.,;, - ,- 1 ,,, , ;•,.., :.• 1; i :- -.
i t
r .. ;,-,' , ;:.; , : ;;,;„ r - ., _. t . l ' y 1, ,--....
' \ . 1 V•s- ...."`Vir Ilvt 1 '' .b ---.-. - ' ,-.i ---' -'-'''. ' t
'' -
---,\--- J
1.7v ' '
,.J ,_,.. ;-L,. Ipia pzik,- 7 i 1 '- . i , , E .-. } r. T. f i :_
0 . :
, , .... , .. , v .. Ti -,.- a k i-s lig r.: ;„ir. r _ l • ; ; 1 i 11 i t _ly, •
.„ ' A•lktilrinlin 0 156 --4--1--rei- t , • L 1 1 t t . i I .1(
i ,t M _ . '''
' l 2 , N=E -.*, - 1E, ' i
1- \■., - plp --i-.5-1.7,-,,-iiiiimp.m. wa, Itizzlo, . .v.;Ift .. ( '[ ;i / 10
MEgs 0 6°4 ,70 NI . 0 * - - h A - 0 13r- i 1
_ im_ .111-1%E.==.0A7 . ;Imp- .. • .,, ,.....‘_,...,,I 4 - - ---, i .-.........-, 5 ,-. 4 - , ,,..; - • —
..., . ..
--- • --, 1
--, - e, 'Ilitglii A
2:- ._. 'a., -..,. 1 ,.. _ . _._ 1 • - -ii . 1 L'Asw,,,,....pc4 .12, I . .
' t 'N‘ - 9=7.51110.7 ,.,L r '0 1 4. 111434,pg, ('' li" I . .„„_,=F i L,1151 . q141#45ET :- : ■ U)
, ! - EL7 .0_ .,...„ .0■•=11M.. I
. '''''r.'31.1.". ''''''''. ''' —....— ' • ,,.,--- _?.... ,,:, —
malzersaglogi..A. I, w
, .27 INIEries.s,,,.. ._i_-_,..__ -, :.-i_ PI -. ...0 . 1 , wia-,..-alti--, n ,- . , .•
, '. i- \ \ .,. • ..znalrear 2 ,, . - : , .,- -_1 -,... r 1 1, 1 11„,,r- . ,...
. . li ,.......... i ,•_. ._ i. pi- mg
ami ' , u , -- ; ---- • I - - s - ,- • .. t ok v
ill...
r 03 Ero; it ' /(-- '
•.-.... . ,. , , .-..11,....el _MA ,.. ...,--,.43--- -
"/.. `‘ - -- (..
Nairdliffir pw - , Q)
l b. _ II'. i' \ ' N \ fl' -.;.- -tia. k ik •■ z fi •,/ 1 - .- i s r tauggrA - C
. : rtit' '.1) ' . - ' s , - - - , ' ' , , 1 1 ,,, _ _ _ = -, t A t j 1 r- rao. 0 i _- • . .
..........,,.. : , --- -- - - - • - i l l - -,..; --,::, " v • \ `----__ i . .
,0 . ,_ ,,, __ ', 1 , t - --), .a t __• ,-, 7.. 7 , - .,1 1 .1% . .. ,.. .1 -- i tir r o_ s tliir 3 =57._ : 111 -- i , y , i7 •5
• -
• . , -,, Nei ,
,- .,-. ,_,,.- • 19 10437.
e ' / , I .. I 2,5,i 1, -- lel% Or/ '—' / =I
. 1 t E . ; :. c' - , . II .,..„ ' ,..-' , /
,,„ ' -
0
410.311friklEi9i., / , / Y vispriii i
.,,,:.,-,_,_:.----:-.; v • / i, 1 '-----'„i_4 _,,, ,,,- ,,,,Itilt !Per' 'IP.1011, % Ai 1-_-,.,)
I - "t--,-__4 . -1. - .4',1 ' - ' 2 r 1 '....i. --•
a IN4 ._■.:, - Pr 7 .! Ilitta i& I : i \ I 2 -,%,, 4:1Li re i .4. re IL li N ? ,./ e ,
I.; -. ■ ill k='
. ‘ - ' . • , P I ' iff gil um ,,,F.-4M, [ `..." . - , ,Ni' ,? ; . -Th ,', - II - 1 61 . 7 .3:l.vT.i-- :::
.%11ron ri t-' Li ■■ /, 'Ir ti • ; . 41° ,;',1 i il • 3 hir ii . :Igt -i- i — '.°
- ,
.; .- .. i ; 1.1 ital. %%mg ' .LT TO ' ( it'd.. - 1-mr• •, ,-, ha t hi 1 t itilmiNtehi: Li......; ti)
' - ildj _ ,,pb, .. ....- -,,, ,_, . - - p,.. ,, 1 - • .„...,..,.,, ,• .., .-,..,; ..... i i gi ,...,,,, .- . ,....; _
' •--.E.,-01- •• we numair va- - flerja 'Fin ..,;._ .r a .--_ _ •4 ■141 ' 1 ,4 4 , _ i ..,
II ' "NITA:hi .67 : 1 .-- 4 4.:,...1 ; 4i . AA RI , i ' Nitv r ' ' 1 2e - ' ' :::
- -4'. . — ■ r a ! , _ i i - >
11 .4 .• , _.,,,
i.:,7.ffial..61,/tPL Illipt q! 7‘• . i 1F-4,...t in r ii .al, 1:: :::: —
_ .„... o . ! ,
, . ,- -.- - -A. 'rale / • 01 . "9
. e rilli7r1 en rillialigilan! ..■`' k• 4 .
,.,:-...,....,,,,,k,..i Ett --3 ' ' - - N. - ' it P - Y„1_ “ ----- st3
0 - GE= • . ' "- - "A s ' " 1 ' Mil. ' " I ' ' ' •
..
• L III Ili
; .- ., ,„:07' .„,,,,,. 7.,..._ . --1, ) a. . - 2 .1t • • ' f I ' 7 . '
.. .
. hi ,, . r ■ I, -mit :---. - , • - - , .- , ' • — 7._ .: ,( ' . - 1 - —
1 , 1 ',-, \ ' . ' ,' .- I .', -20' 7 'r• ' ::::-:
1_ .... .i. 1 -1 1 .r.v , .,-.
ei ,i, • _. .
.... ,. , , • ,., ,,.
. iii ....); Anus . . - . „, , --,_ _ ) - ' tt ,.', . , •.,
....1, ..., 1,‘ 1 •1,.. .... 4 ':,, .g.
-/ '''' • " / " I ' ) , L • . - if I/ JiLIH .A11?...,,1 (ji
. . 4.... • , - - r 1,, l '
' 111 El " — - ( . a •--= —e■ it -Bali nisi , itt. %IWO' ,,
.., .
. ..
, .: . ..., i - • ,. TA-- •(._
...,-. .•;:.;;. (/)
_ .- ; • .•,, , ,_... , u 1 ":.
._1. /. .. - 4 -'
,,_
. t-i Y i ,- ,'"- - ii . , o f .
_
-,...... , .. ,
- t. C
,. no vr . i le
r - - i't-4 - ;,0 - ,--,.-- .).=. .,..., v a.
_
•
..,.....,.........„....,..,‘ •
iv _ . ......
. . - 1 -...• - 2
• . - ._ . , lift 4_ t. • -
• , _...--_-4
O 1:1) -0
I = = 0
=
. !I 1 t•
. I 133
.• - - , - :- . ; ;-'
CU C) 14 4
I : n 1 : r
•, -cr 1 0 CD
(D = 0
Z . 1
-, _ : -a (i) 0
7
a) ,..•
. E
.< --; 0
' N C
.. , ..
0
ID
, N
0
7 . . .. ,
—
c0
MEASURE 2: COMPATIBLE ZONING
1Description:
In accordance with the amended local Comprehensive Plans, local jurisdictions zone
property to permit only uses compatible with specified noise zones.
Areas To Which Measure Would Be Applied:
Areas within the Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Aircraft Noise Zones
contained in the Metropolitan Development Guide's Aviation Chapter (Figure IV -2).
Portions of the following communities are included in these noise zones: Minneapolis,
St. Paul, Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, Bloomington, Richfield, Mendota,
Sunfish Lake. These noise zones extend beyond the 1987 and 1992 65 Ldn noise contours
developed in the Noise Exposure Map Submittal.
Anticipated Benefits:
Prevent introduction of non - compatible development in designated noise zones.
Approximately 459 acres of vacant land within the Ldn 65 noise contour are zoned for
compatible development (Figure IV -2) 3 If developed at characteristic residential
densities, the development potential of these areas is approximately 450 dwelling units
(d.u.) as follows:
Bloomington - 76 acres; Former stadium site, residential development not
likely.
2 Eagan - 75 acres; Three tracts adjoining both industrial and residential
development, potential for 150 d.u.
Mendota Heights - 300 acres; Approximately 150 acres border residential
development, potential for 300 d.u.
Costs:
Administrative costs of rezoning process.
{ Effect On Property Values:
Compatible use zoning would have minimal negative efect if demand for compatible
development exists. Prices for commercially zoned property typically exceed those for
low density residential property.
Effect On Tax Base:
- Overall effect would be minimal, regional demand for various types of land use would
be unchanged.
- Possible minor effects on local jurisdictions due to shifting of development from one
area to another.
() Implementation:
- MAC approves measure.
- Jurisdictions prepare zoning revisions.
- Metropolitan Council provides planning assistance as required.
Other Considerations:
- Cost associated with rezoning process may be eligible for 80 percent Federal funding
�.:. if part of an approved Part 150 Program.
- Federal funding would be limited to areas within 1992 Ldn 65 noise contour.
Conclusion:
Include in the Land Use Management Plan.
•
L 21
MEASURE 3: ZONING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Description:
In coordination with Metropolitan Council, local jurisdictions adopt the Model Ordinanc'
for Aircraft Noise Attenuation developed by the Metropolitan Council (Appendix D).
Areas To Which Measure Would Be Applied:
Areas within the Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Aircraft Noise Zones
contained in the Metropolitan Development Guide's Aviation Chapter (Figure IV -2).
F Portions of the following communities are included in these noise zones: Minneapolis,
St. Paul, Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, Bloomington, Richfield, Mendota,
a
Sunfish Lake. These noise zones extend beyond the 1987 and 1992 65 Ldn noise contours
developed in the Noise Exposure Map Submittal.
Anticipated Benefits:
- Prevent introduction of non - compatible development in substantially undeveloped areas.
- Require appropriate noise level reduction (NLR) for new construction in designated
noise zones.
- Require appropriate NLR for reconstructed portions of existing noise sensitive uses in
designated noise zones.
Costs:
- Administrative costs of adoption, implementation, and enforcement of Model Ordinance.
- Increased construction costs related to NLR requirements.
Effect On Property Values:
No measurable effect.
Effect On Tax Base:
No measurable effect.
Implementation:
- MAC approves measure.
- Metropolitan Council develops Model Ordinance for use by local jurisdictions.
- Metropolitan Council proposes modification to State Planning and Zoning Legislation
(Chapter 362) permitting local controls related to NLR.
- State Legilature adopts special legislation.
- Jurisdictions adopt, implement, and enforce Model Ordinance.
Other Considerations:
- Model Ordinance may be revised as necessary by local jurisdictions.
- Alternative to Building Code Revision (Measure 5).
- Administrative costs associated with adoption of Model Ordinance may be eligible for
80 percent Federal funding if part of an approved FAR Part 150 Program.
- Federal funding would be limited to areas within 1992 Ldn 65 noise contours.
Conclusion:
Include in the Land Use Management Plan.
•
t..
22
I .
MEASURE 4: PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM
Description:
Develop and distribute informational materials concerning aircraft noise and Noise
Compatibility Program elements. Potential materials are shown in Appendix E.
Areas To Vhich Measure Would Be Applied:
Areas within the 1992 Noise Exposure Map Ldn 65+ would be included (Figure IV -3).
Anticipated Benefits:
- Increased awareness of areas affected by airport noise permitting better informed real
estate purchase and financing decisions.
- Possible decrease in non - compatible development.
- Increased awareness of Noise Compatibility Program elements benefitting current
residents in areas affected by aircraft noise.
Costs:
- Small initial cost in development and distribution of program materials.
- Minor administrative costs in maintaining and updating program.
t , Effect On Property Values:
No measurable effect.
Effect On Tax Base:
No measurable effect.
Implementation:
- MAC approves measure.
- Packet of materials developed and distributed to land developers, planning agencies,
housing authorities, local offices of FHA /VA, lending institutions, and real estate
community.
- A computerized list of properties and residents in the airport environs could be
developed to facilitate two -way communication on matters concerning changes in
aircraft noise and Noise Compatibility Program elements.
l
O ther Considerations:
Cost of program development may be eligible for 80 percent Federal funding if part of an
approved FAR Part 150 Program.
Conclusion:
Include in the Land Use Management Plan.
ii
I
r:
23
' r r (--- I ------ '---- 1 ----- ' — r -- :' •
.1 . II, AL " - . 1 •'' : , - 1 - !: '
WW1, 17 --' 1, ' t i.' ;, 1 -I.' li tr,/ Il ,.,),: ; ■,_': .. ,,,, i 1 1, , ; ‘, . ..,,_ - \ , , ,
-;lrii. •'•,, LA ),,- . i - . 4 ,1 0 L . y 7 :.' " ' 1 ■ ' 1 I '• t •' 4' ' - '' M
,) ic e I Li' i ,, - - , ; . r • , ' . 1 : : r•t1 t - ,- ,- -1 - ,• --, 1 - ■ ,
( / 1 \ ,,: 1 . - . 7 . „ - --, 1,.. 1 .,,, - -, ; , hi ....4_ . -... • . 1 . 1 h •- rt i :,-■ , ., , ,, ,, {, , ---;-1 •-, , —•
. ...)•..- 1 1 , ==, _r ,t.,, y ;,,:- . '.:,I'L ,, ...1 r i, )•': I r ' i 1 ` 7 ' i'
' \ ' 1 : ;4' 1--1-11 11Mill ' rr - (1 ' ; ' ''''' I V -'.- '-' •* 4-* , - .-.' ..!. I [.' •` ..r -., • 41: ', ..., , '1 ' 3
. T,1; . =
-----\
mi r,.•,. i.11,1,1..1,i.,„::,..:-.
cil la+ 1 ,1 -- r 4 . - ',1 ; i 1 1 L ■ 1 0 t . ; , % < s '
''.\/,:; ; \ ' i's:i;_•-i . - '' r. ..7rir .,-.--, . e ,E6 1.,, , I., r.r • h-i CU
< -,-. --....vn•-•.-- 1.. ,ell la - a . 2 E 0 ., I- I .t--, , i - -
k., - & • 2.11-4,1411 l g..- 1,._--1 - ,.,• g..,-2 a -.fie*.,,en-.... 1 ,, i ', 1 4444 -,,, I
opt.
• i ir- u
., I f - 1_ rel,___ 401 • c .1 11 ? t . III -'• 1 t i • 1 ....
— ,.,„.81sen [ii ,,,, As ' ,, '; C so ' i i i ■•
- gt gat_ egamist. I IIT,M p iii h , -. . ' ■ - • , 4- -.
. .,‘Arr „mail avaracmi-r i,gqil ig . , 1 ;lin 1 , 4L, a - -_ . •,-- im i
. &Tow ad t4 - is ,- - . •7' i - ti --,- 0 '90 K. • ' 6 -77 2 r , 4 ; ; ; (f)
ni"az.°IligrisErr=2.21' t• .' '' A . . -- .':- ,`.., . :--' ,t ' '.'il
. . 116,-7117=Na 2,..Maiiiii2.11'411 ii - I I . - • .11 i ' :i- Ill 11.1 ' '611
.; . 11,7All ..=...,:almtts 2 . A_ . A ‘4 v,„,,... 1 1 , _ , A E
SMES B - "Ina lt t r. - • qp ' ' t- } .- _ • Vim ■g
m r. , 41.1. k . e :.-_ .-z,,, ow - I • •'-'f - . - s-d - .4. r _ - 4..- _E__ ,x; g
Mu
mi - \.\\, r . - ' 7 gl -..: j 1 r st • 1 i , . III 2 f. i sp)i
■ , , c . ,,, ,, 1 . \ , b ,,, c , ,..,. .„,,..___ , Astir l ft ' ___‘..,., . .-- IF •- , IF er . ,rz . 1 , I T A -, 111036,,
' • elifiZA0'. - , t,, \ , ' ‘ „ „,,, -/ 41 41a 0 Jr '
11)
i f'%'• V, -+- Or
I -. ' ■ . ii° ' \ : 1' It ' 1 , - ., L1-1- ' r d 1 C
40
1 ' t j • j! iiiiI,Y7FLL I.i ''''- ,, .
•_____ A thi , „ .._. f .,„„......,,.. , \ ,......
mul
, —
— . sr.— - - ' , ;'. ) . , • ,• , , • ■-i . -
- — NA i . •
''"1 Al :II' 1': : ,,I .r ' , • , i I 1 .. i.11, .4 ■ ."I"
`• "..:
, .,. -
., _ ..,
---- * --- - 1.: 3
7 ',Irro.; __,-- - - - . ■ . .
v. ._.
Mk . I - NI' . •
P -' :„. , . '...41 . k:, *- 1 ; Ti ' , ,:v4.1 [..1 :‘ i_ s • = .
,..''•••-•,' -.<; • 4 .: - ' , [I MI ; 13 ;
, •-•- ' '; ' ";1 - 14r .--r4: '1 -14. ■•••-' -ielt 1.-t -07'' "': ,., ; - %.)
, ... -.;'‘'L., i : EI r -,-,- - ..7__ kli.111r11 t' l. L .i 4 ......, -.... , , ,-, . • - •• • . , , - I f . -
, ,„ ......„ ... p. . ',, ..., i t , ,r ,, ,--,.... , • i.,
. it.,-i - - 0 _ -. - ksantai . %I 911 dpi kikA. te •• fr , 1,- , «,„ . : , . ,, a
211 ■::: - g ft i . EN ' ''''. a . • 'Z.b\ ‘• ''',
!I IS 1 11 ,en ) ••■ 7 4, ' '2C* 9 ' I .V . N ° i ` \ ' : :r,IN: 6 -
>
-.
„ ..: -.1. . -;‘.,, - ..., • : _ a la - - ,'- fiN ...;_-_ F .,. _ ...,
1- Sit' 07 1 " I MES 1!) ‘ ..a - . ,, ...;4:,..$.-. 4 1
,..,,•7:4-;.i;erti:, (1 ''. ' ' ' 7:3
1„,
CI ; Cill. E
• fir. c 1 ;?'
. - < 1
, •
, ..... .
ID - ----,----•;', , . ;•7 1 ; ,
7 1,1 1 . ,, , 0 : 7 ' .. I ill illi. V „ti . . ,..,ii . i [U . \; .•; tf ri . 11 ( 0
:- ''.'',.. . - ' l • ' ) . f2; ,
Dm*, -- F .. ! . - - k.. rib 4•Vl■ - T1 - : • - i 4- ;7 ,'7..:•7•7til; T; . p . o .
/ ,. • .,.- : ' t r .44.. Lit , 0.. ...,, . --
■... 3 . v in'
' . • ' . Mi i i i 1 • . .''; ' , ! . M O
A ,
_. . ilT . 5 ... ,,,,..„.\.:.,
ipz ,--,- . 9 . _, ..____,,,,. ,._,.,„,.,„,.
. .
pr
.. .... .. ..
. ,
- - -,-- .. L _ ,
E° 7 ' • r - Fr:
. . ,
' ' -7 ' , '- r-Fi - 1 ,!-+ , t')'•(. -.. -- ' • - L . ' ' rrt•
1 1 , * : -/ • . - .....,,,
.. ._ ,
.....,,.,,I,._
< Imp "(■ C .1_ C 14-4 • 'qi 't ) ''''- i ';' 4 ' •tc filt ., • .ta ".:' • ,.1' : Ul
. -r. jar r , . -4 - , .vt - Ff . - .. riti.t oil . - AAP* % •
- ,,--:•_-_,-, - .., .t.,
— . - 0
-3- - 4- 1 . -.,- . .- - , ;., , -
, l ii A; '....h, .
I.
. . _ 1 ,. I - f 4,- ',,. ,, . r,V.; , ,, -- - ,' ....• ',. Cn
/-'1 ---) '-i . J ''' .1. 1 : fr r ,. , . , 4,!.... rp
• . , - f
i f „NI:I Ili. t_ ,_ t i • /./ .
• ,, fe.. ' •• •
• ,t .,. 1 .
r i l e - rd - c . r - ... _,- . , ....,L I r _ ....• 1. ,A14 C
. ■ ,.. , •-: 1 - ' 1 F t 1 „O'e • -__ ,, CL
, -
1
-,-_..-.-
. ,
f , *
a) 0.
......... ., ,.,
1 77 1 ; ; ; " 1 4•7
CO .^i-i';',,'.',.*;'7'...143 C4 ,•;• ; n 2 ,:!. r' CA
rD C ' D
;w2,,;(;-:: •,- " : : 1- , '.. 1 i O. .. Iv
..
. ': '',.■.•'.'1...';:yi P ; !.- ; =
0 '.
'';':■:■;4 . -
- -
• ..)\--::::-_-... _= : to m co
co
- r.) CO
• - • -." ' . • . • - o cu a
0 w
o
(.,1
.. . .. r . u
--lefts-twr.! . 3 ss:
.1 . ,....
—
2 M
- -
MEASURE 5: BUILDING CODE REVISION
Description:
Metropolitan Council modifies State Building Code to require noise level reduction (NLR)
for new construction in areas affected by aircraft noise as defined by Metropolitan
Development Guide, Aviation Chapter (see Appendix B).
Areas To Which Measure Would Be Applied:
Jurisdictions within the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Aircraft Noise Zones
contained in the Metropolitan Development Guide, Aviation Chapter. Portions of the
following communities are included: Minneapolis, St. Paul, Mendota Heights, Inver Grove
Heights, Eagan, Bloomington, Richfield, Mendota, Sunfish Lake. These noise zones extend
beyond the 1987 and 1992 65 Ldn noise contours developed in the Noise Exposure Map
Submittal.
Anticipated Benefits:
~° - Ensures appropriate NLR for new construction in designated noise zones.
- May require appropriate NLR for substantial renovation /reconstruction of existing
structures in designated noise zones.
Costs:
- Administrative costs of adopting, implementing, and enforcing Building Code revisions.
- Increased construction costs related to NLR requirements.
I Effect On Property Values:
No measurable effect.
Effect On Tax Base:
No measurable effect.
Implementation:
- In consultation with State Department of Administration, Building Code and Standards
Division, Metropolitan Council proposes modifications to State Planning and Zoning
Legislation (Chapter 362) permitting local controls related to NLR.
- State Legislature adopts special legislation.
- Local governments adopt revisions to building code.
( Other Considerations:
- May be required to implement Zoning Performance Standards (Measure 3).
- Local administrative costs associated with revision of Building Code may be eligible
for 80 percent Federal funding if part of an approved FAR Part 150 Program.
Conclusion:
Include in the Land Use Management Plan.
24
MEASURE 6: SOUNDPROOF PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Description:
Apply interior noise level reduction (NLR) techniques to existing public buildings, su
as schools, which house noise sensitive uses.
Areas to Which Measure Vould Be Applied:
Areas within the 1992 Noise Exposure Map Ldn 65+ would be included (Figure IV -3). Two
public schools will be eligible; Wenonah Elementary in Minneapolis, and Centennial
School in Richfield.
Anticipated Benefits:
- Protect public investment in existing facilities.
- Provide acceptable interior noise levels for existing noise sensitive public uses.
Costs:
Pei
- Significant capital costs. USDOT estimated cost per 20dB reduction at $5,750 per
classroom in 1977; may now equal $10,000. Total cost of program estimated at
$440,000.
- Administrative costs associated with program initiation and maintenance.
a Effect on Property Values:
No measurable effect.
1 Effect on Tax Base:
No measurable effect.
Implementation:
- MAC approves measure.
- MAC and participating school districts would identify schools to be included
1
program.
- MAC develops priorities and phasing in coordination with school districts.
- MAC develops detailed cost estimates for schools included in initial phases of
programs.
- MAC applies for federal funding, appropriates MAC funds for 20% local share.
- MAC contracts with school districts which are responsible for construction contracts.
Other Considerations:
- Cost of insulation is eligible for 80 percent Federal grant assistance if part of an
approved Part 150 Program, depending upon availability of funding.
- Assurance of continued public use of treated facilities may be required for
eligibility.
- Other schools in close proximity to the Ldn 65 contour may experience classroom
disruption due to aircraft noise. Noise insulation for such schools may be considered
on a case -by -case basis. Such projects may not be eligible for Federal grant
assistance.
Conclusion:
Include in the Land Use Management Plan.
1 1.'
t'
25
•
MEASURE 7: ACQUIRE DEVELOPED PROPERTY
Description:
Purchase groups of properties developed in non - compatible uses and (1) clear and keep
land vacant, (2) sell for redevelopment in a specified compatible use, with an avigation
easement, or (3) use for airport purposes.
I Areas to Which Measure Would Be Applied:
Areas within the 1992 Noise Exposure Map Ldn 65+ would be considered (Figure IV -3).
Acquisition would be emphasized in the Ldn 75+ noise zones. Acquisition of properties
in lower noise zones, Ldn 65 -75 would be considered under the following conditions:
- Other compatibility measures would not be effective.
- Other land use planning factors indicate the desirability of land use acquisition and
conversion.
- Airport development and operational factors indicate the desireability of acquisition.
. - Acquisition initiated by MAC (note that the purchase assurance measures would be
applied only at the initiation of the property owner) would occur only if there is a
substantial consensus on the part of neighborhood residents that they desire
acquisition. It would not be initiated on a "spot" basis without the consent of
affected property owners. The program will not result in disposition of acquired
properties for residential purposes.
Anticipated Benefits:
Remove non - compatible land use from noise zones.
Costs:
The maximum costs would be the appraised or negotiated value of properties plus
administrative costs. Property values in the Ldn 75+ noise zone are estimated to range
from to per dwelling unit (d.u.). Approximately 22 d.u. are located in the
Ldn 75+ noise zone. The costs of implementation will depend upon the extent of the
program and the extent to which acquired properties are resold.
Effect on Property Values:
No effect on properties which are not acquired.
Effect on Tax Base:
- Acquired property would be removed from the tax base.
- Properties resold for compatible use would be returned to tax base.
Implementation:
- MAC approves measure.
- Local jurisdictions provide planning assistance, coordination and proof of community
consent as required.
- MAC develops priorities and phasing.
- MAC contracts with jurisdictions.
Other Considerations:
- Acquisition costs may be eligible for 80 percent Federal grant assistance if part of
an approved Part 150 program.
Conclusion:
rI Include in the Land Use Management Plan.
b
(;x 26
M
MEASURE 8: PURCHASE ASSURANCE PROGRAM
Description:
MAC purchases existing homes in specified areas after the owner has made a bona fi
effort to sell the property and has been unable to sell at a fair market value.
( Acquired property would be converted to compatible use, or insulated and returned to
` residential use with appropriate easements and restrictions.
[ Areas to Which Measure Would Be Applied:
t Areas within the 1992 Noise Exposure Map Ldn 65+ would be considered (Figure IV -2).
t Approximately 5836 dwelling units (d.u.) are contained in the Ldn 65 noise contour.
f Anticipated Benefits:
- Maintain neighborhood stability.
- Increase compatibility through insulation /easement.
- Reduce noise concerns of existing property owners in designated noise zones.
i Estimated participation (d.u.) based on Community Attitudinal Survey (Appendix C)
conducted in August, 1986 follows:
Ldn 65 Ldn 70 Ldn 75 TOTAL
Minneapolis 634 98 3 735
Richfield 405 156 3 564
Bloomington 364 19 383
Mendota Heights 7 7
Eagan 26 26
1436 273 6 1715
(
NOTE: Survey indicates that approximately 35% of residents have considered moving,
this percentage is applied to 4902 single family residences within Ldn 65.
C _ Costs:
- Initial costs of property acquisition could range from $ to $ /d.u.
- Permanent costs of insulation and property transfer estimated at $12,000 /d.u. Total
I cost of program estimated at $20,580,000. $ $
l - Continuing program administration costs estimated at $50,000 /year.
Effect on Property Values:
1._ Value of insulated properties would increase slightly. General benefit to property
values due to improved neighborhood stability.
Effect on Tax Base:
Positive.
Implementation:
[_ - MAC approves measure.
- Local jurisdictions provide planning assistance and coordination as required.
- MAC develops priorities and phasing.
1
Other Considerations:
- Program costs may be eligible for 80 percent Federal grant assistance if part of an
(- approved Part 150 program.
t= .
- Reuse of acquired properties would be consistent with local land use regulations.
Conclusion:
Include in the Land Use Management Plan.
1'
� _. 27
I
' MEASURE 9: SOUNDPROOF PRIVATE RESIDENCES
F'. Description:
Apply sound insulation techniques to existing residences which results in noise level
reductions (NLR) sufficient to achieve acceptable interior noise levels. MAC would
acquire avigational easements in exchange for the cost of soundproofing.
Areas to Which Measure Would Be Applied:
Existing residential areas within the 1992 Noise Exposure Map Ldn 65+ would be
f considered (Figure III -1). Soundproofing would be emphasized in the Ldn 65 -75 noise
zones. Soundproofing in the Ldn 75+ noise zone would be considered if other
compatibility measures are not feasible. The approximate number of dwelling units
within the Ldn 65 noise contour is 5836.
Anticipated Benefits:
- Protection of airport from noise litigation brought by participating residences.
r - Maintenance of housing stock.
- Energy conservation benefits may result.
- Acceptable interior noise levels for participating residences. Estimated
participation based on Community Attitudinal Survey (Appendix C) conducted in August,
1986 follows.
Ldn 65 Ldn 70 Ldn 75 SUB -TOTAL TOTAL
I Minneapolis SF 1178 183 6 1367 1767
MF 345 53 2 400
Richfield SF 753 290 6 1049 1357
k MF 221 85 2 308
Bloomington SF 675 36 711 919
MF 198 10 208
Mendota Hts SF 12 12 16
MF 4 4
Eagan SF 48 48 62
MF 14 14
SF 2666 509 12 3187 4121
MF 782 148 4 934
/_, TOTAL All 3448 657 16
NOTE: All multifamily and 65% of single family residences within Ldn 65
are included.
Costs:
Depending on the degree of noise exposure and the extent of NLR treatment attempted, a
recently completed pilot program indicates that the cost of soundproofing would range
from $6,000 to $25,000 per d.u. Since it is desireable to provide a noticeable
improvement in the noise environment, at least 3 -5dB additional NLR should be sought.
Consequently, it is estimated that program costs would average $8000 per d.u. Total
cost of program estimated at $32,968,000. Continuing costs of program administration
estimated at $50,000 /year.
[ ' Effect on Property Values:
Slight increase in property value possible due to insulation, but probably less than
cost of improvements.
Effect on Tax Base:
No measureable effect.
L__ 28
Implementation:
- MAC approves program.
- Local jurisdictions provide planning assistance, coordination, and program
administration as appropriate.
- MAC establishes priorities and phasing in coordination with local jurisdictions.
Other Considerations:
- Program costs may be eligible for 80 percent Federal grant assistance if part of an
approved Part 150 program.
- Measure is consistent with Metropolitan Council noise compatibility policies.
- Pilot noise insulation study recently completed by MAC and City of Minneapolis.
- Residences in the Twin Cities area typically provide superior NLR (26-32dBA) due to
climate - related construction techniques.
- Measure is only effective if windows and doors remain closed and measure does not
address outdoor activities.
Conclusion:
Include in the Land Use Management Plan.
1
.;� 29
L
V. RECOMMENDED LAND USE MANAGEMENT PLAN
A. Program
The levels of aircraft traffic and the mix of noisy and less noisy aircraft
which will be operating at MSP in the next 10 years indicate that traffic
unconstrained by a restriction on air carrier operations will result in a
peaking of aircraft noise in the 1987 -1989 time - frame. A continuing
decline in average noise levels can be anticipated after this. The program
is designed to address the 1992 situation which is the point at which the
program can be expected to yield significant results in terms of land use
changes.
t
The recommended program consists of two major elements. Firstly, are the
preventative land use controls which will be exercised within areas defined
by the Metropolitan Council's Policy Contour, and consistent
with the criteria spelled out in the Guidelines. The Metropolitan Airports
Commission will sponsor a program of financial assistance to the
municipalities in the implementation of these policies. The policies will
have little direct effect on the more fully developed areas of Minneapolis,
St. Paul, Richfield and Bloomington, but will have more effect on
communities south and east of the Minnesota River which are less developed.
{ Any redevelopment within the area would be subject to the provisions of the
guidelines. Measures which will be included are:
- amendment to land use plans,
- amendment to zoning maps,
- application of zoning performance standards,
- public information program, and _
- revision of building codes.
( The corrective programs will be applied to areas within the Ldn 65 contour.
The measures to be implemented are:
- acquire property developed in incompatible uses and clear or sell for
compatible uses,
- purchase guarantee of homes,
- soundproof schools within, and close to, the Ldn 65 noise contour,
- soundproof homes, and
- soundproof other public buildings.
The preventive measures are primarily the responsibility of the
Metropolitan Council and the local jurisdictions. The corrective measures
will be initiated by MAC. Each corrective measure is described below, as
it would be applied in the vicinity of MSP.
1. Acquire Property Developed in Incompatible Uses and Clear or Sell
is for Compatible.Uses
This measure would involve purchase by MAC of a group of
properties, probably residential, in the Ldn 65 -75 zone, with
either:
30
L
- clearance and maintenance of the area as a buffer;
- use for other airport purposes;
- resale, with avigation easements, for commercial, open- space, or
other compatible uses.
The measure would be applied only at the initiative of the
jurisdiction in which it lies, and presumably only in neighborhoods
where the jurisdictions have established that there is a reasonable
consensus among residents that they prefer to vacate the area.
Redevelopment in a specific compatible use will be subject to
jurisdictional approval.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission will not acquire property on a
"spot" basis except where it is to be subsequently resold as a
residence as part of a program of maintaining the residential
integrity of a neighborhood.
In the discussion of schedules and costs, this measure is not
included since it's application is highly speculative. Should the
demand for this kind of acquisition be identified, the program would
be modified.
The survey of the neighborhoods proposed for priority action in the
implementation plans will identify if these, or other area, are
candidates for acquisition.
2. Purchase Guarantee of Homes and Soundproofing of Homes
The combination of these two measures would be the primary action
applied in the Ldn 65 -75 zones, with homeowners being offered the
option of:
- purchase assurance, or
- soundproofing in exchange for an avigation easement, or
- no action.
Purchase assurance will be selected by those who find the aircraft
noise levels to which they are subjected intolerable, even with
additional soundproofing. If they are unable to dispose of their
homes after bona fide efforts to sell, public purchase will occur,
after which the property will be soundproofed (if required) and
resold as a residence, with an avigation easement.
Individuals who are bothered by aircraft noise but not to the the
extent that they feel the need to leave the neighborhood, will be
offered additional soundproofing at public expense, in exchange for
an avigation easement. The soundproofing may take the form of
general treatment of the whole structure, or treatment of a "quiet
room" at the discretion of the homeowner, if the type and condition
of the building permits.
For the purposes of calculating costs and assigning schedules to
the programs, data from the August 1986 Community Attitudinal
Survey was used. Data on the degree of annoyance experienced in
31
4 �•
L
the different zones, and the percentage of residents who indicated
that they have at some time in the past thought of moving out of
their homes as a result of aircraft noise levels was considered.
It is recognized that the recommended detailed neighborhood
surveys will yield data on specific properties to be treated, and
that the general program estimates will likely require amendment.
[ 3. Soundproofing of Schools
Recent comments from local residents have indicated an especially
high level of public concern regarding the interruption of
classroom instruction by aircraft overflight. The following two
schools are located in the Ldn 65 contours and should be
soundproofed.
- Winona Elementary School, Minneapolis
- Centennial School, Richfield
It is possible that additional schools in close proximity to the
Ldn 65 noise contour experience significant classroom disruption
due to aircraft noise. A follow -up school insulation program may
be required to assess the need for further school insulation on a
case by case basis. Sound insulation for schools outside of the
Ldn 65 noise contour may not be eligible for Federal funding
assistance.
It is recommended that these schools be subject to confirmation by
the respective School Boards that they will remain as educational
facilities. Following such confirmation, these schools would be
{{ eligible for a noise insulation program which includes:
- mechanical ventilation
- double- glazing of outside windows
- acoustical wall and ceiling treatment if required.
4. Soundproofing of Other Public Building
Other public buildings recommended for soundproofing are those
where a quiet indoor environment is important to their functioning.
Libraries, nursing homes, convalescent homes and community centers
within the Ldn 65 contours are candidates for noise insulation.
B. Priorities
Implementation of the preventative measures may be initiated at once, since
the actions are all within the authority of the jurisdiction. If Federal
financial assistance is to be used to support the implementation actions,
FAA approval of the Part 150 compatibility program will be required.
Priorities for the corrective measures will be:
Priority 1 - Insulation of schools in the Ldn 65 noise contour.
Priority 2 - Potential follow -up school insulation program.
Priority 3 - Private residences and land acquisition Ldn 70 -75.
{ 32
L •
i .
•
1_ Priority 4 - Private residences and land acquisition Ldn 65 -70.
Priority 5 - Insulation of other public buildings, Ldn 70 -75.
Priority 6 - Insulation of other public buildings, Ldn 65-70.
1
•
33
b
Citizens League
April 2, 1987
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
I. Dave Braslau
A. Standard Methods for Determining Impact - FAA, ATA
(like brochure), NBAA, and California
1. Braslau concentrates on direct and indirect costs
2. MDA Study conducted by Braslau - Conclusions
a. Air carrier service is demand driven
b. Corporate aircraft important
c. Direct impact increases with City size
d. Airport important but not sufficient
condition to attract business
e. Redistribution of jobs important to City but
not region.
3. MSP gross regional impact at 3 1/2% in 1975, now
much higher + 7% ($3.3 billion) - virtually twice
as high as most airports
a. Expenditures may be misleading - large part
of airline expense is fuel which is purchased
locally but channels dollars out of the
state
b. View MSP as "Port"
1) Handles high value goods
2) Exports from here shipped by air
3) High tech goods higher than other
transportation modes
4) MSP has high percentage of goods shipped
by air for state
c. Overall impact of system
1) Very complex
2) Air Carrier impact dominates
d. Airports don't create jobs, jobs create
airports
1) Generally airport growth is derivitive
from economic growth
B. Types of Costs
1. Capital
2. Operating costs
3. Capital equipment
4. Environmental costs
C. Effect of Noise Budget
1. Some flight reduction
2. Little noise benefit
3. Losses to other regions
4. NWA impacts
5. Loss of greater region service
D. Other Options
1. Buy outs
2. Aircraft purchase
3. Operating subsidy
4. Equitable distribution
5. Optimize operations
E. New Airport Options
1. No solution to noise problem
2. Airport technologies may change realities
1/
3. Landbanking has to be cost spread over region
4. Compatible uses must be found and located
5. Not clear that it's needed, not clear that it's
not
F. If Capacity or Noise Budget Force NWA Out -
1. Lose HQ and Maintenance
2. Still get service
3. Hurt regional reputation
G. Options - What can be done to understand future need?
1. Lay everthing on table
2. Expand Alternative Analysis
3. Understand role of aviation in economy
4. Compare TCMAW /other competing regions
5. Explore innovative options
II. Don Groen - Bloomington Chamber
A. 60% of residents economically effected by the airport
1. 70,000 employees in 5,000 firms (25,000 people 10
years ago)
2. Major developers locate near hubs because of
access
3. Hospitality industry 7,000 hotel rooms (projecting
10,000 - 12,000 rooms by 1992) 65% of business
airport related
B. 30% noise reduction will lead to higher prices, lower
regional draw, etc.
1. Mega Mall impact will lead to 12,000 - 14,000 room
demand for hotels over 10 years
2. New airport would require 9 x 9 mile area to be
sound compatible which requires a considerable
distance outside the metro area
a. Prefers spreading GA to relievers
b. Technology may solve largest part of the
problem
c. Wants to wait and be cautious
III. Dick Granchalek - Minneapolis
A. Urged MAC to do total study of airport impact and part
it plays in regional economy
B. Disagrees w /Braslau and asserts that airports do create
jobs by citing NWA employment
C. Environmental v. Economic Trade -Offs
*D. Says Met Council is studying new airport and siting of
same
IV. Questions and Comments
* *A. Mega Mall will attract a higher number of passengers-- -
Bloomington backed off of restrictions because they'll
need capacity to serve mall
B. Load Factor varies annually between 62 - 65 %, break
even points vary by airline
C. Noise Budget allows local entity to get foot in the
door on noise control - by itself, it won't cut noise
substantially
D. Essential to separate noise and new airport issues
because a "new airport" couldn't possibly be in place
until the noise situation is practically nonexistent
E. New Airport Masterplan to be completed late 1987
/2