No preview available
 /
     
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