Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
11/10/1987 - Airport Relations Commission
M E E T I N G N O T I C E The Eagan Airport Relations Committee will hold a Regular Meeting beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 10, 1987 in Conference Rooms A & B at Eagan City Hall 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, Minnesota Packet information will follow for Committee members. For more information about this meeting, please call Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100. AGENDA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOMS A & B WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 10, 1987 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA III. OLD BUSINESS A. McKee Addition Noise Concerns B. MAC Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor Study C. Runway Utilization Committee IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Chamber of Commerce - Airport Adequacy Position V. STAFF REPORT A. Legal Opinion - Nuisance Complaint B. Preferential Runway System Working Group VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. DISTRIBUTION VIII. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRMAN GUSTIN AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: OCTOBER 7, 1987 SUBJECT: AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1987 A meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be held on Wednesday, October 14, 1987 at 7:00 o'clock p.m. It is essential that you contact Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100 to indicate whether you can attend this meeting or not. In recent months, members have become increasingly lax in informing staff of their attendance, resulting in an absence of quorums when key items are before the group. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES Enclosed on pages 5_4 you will find minutes of the Airport Relations Committee meeting of September 8, 1987. These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Committee. Quorum was not present at the October 14th, 1987 meeting and no official business was transacted. II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or with modifications, requires adoption by the Committee. III. OLD BUSINESS A. McKee Addition Noise Resolution -- Enclosed on pages —14 you will find a copy of the resolution presented at the last Airport Relations Committee meeting by residents of the McKee Addition. The petition bears roughly 140 signatures. Considerable discussion was generated at the last meeting, absent the quorum in this regard. Generally, the residents of the McKee Addition have requested a modification of flight tracks and traffic in their area to mitigate impacts on their homes. Staff indicated that little if anything could be done at the City level to impact tracks and that the commercial area surrounding McKee Addition made the general area the most likely to receive aircraft noise. In the alternative, residents indicated a desire that certain alternatives be addressed to mitigate impacts on them or encourage redevelopment of the area for commercial uses. This is definitely the least desirable of the alternatives from the resident's perspective but, absent a means of reducing the impact, they would consider it. 1. In addition, on pages 15 through t,O , you will find descriptions of the corrective action which the Metropolitan Airport's Commission has defined for funding under the F.A.R. Part 150 program. These include the acquisition of developed property, a purchase assurance program and soundproofing of private residences. Unfortunately, these programs will probably only be available to those areas within the outer contour on page II . As you can see, that area ends short of the McKee area and, therefore, the neighborhood would not be eligible under the current Part 150 study for funding. In addition, the Eagan City Council is on record indicating they would consider participation in sound insulation and purchase assurance alternatives, but only if the programs were coordinated through the Council. Neighborhood residents will be on hand to discuss their problems with the Committee and would request a recommendation or finding from the Committee to the City Council in this regard. The staff findings in this regard are as follows: 1. The McKee Addition lies well within the commercial /industrial corridor and a modification of flight tracks, even if it could be achieved, would have adverse affects on neighborhoods bordering the commercial /industrial area to the north and south. 2. The concept concentrating the greatest portion of the traffic over the fewest people has long been acknowledged by the Metropolitan Airport's Commission and the Eagan City Council. Any reduction in concentrations of traffic within the corridor area will be marginal as a result. 3. The only possible relief may come in the way of increased preferential runway system use relative to the Runway 4/22 extension. This presumes that no configuration is developed which utilizes the extension for increased capacity of the airport. 4. With little exception, aircraft in the corridor area are now flying within a reasonable degree of accuracy of landing aids and departure procedures. Only deviations which impact the boundaries of the corridor could substantially reduce traffic over the McKee Addition. 5. The exception to the above findings is during off -peak hours and late -night operations when traffic can be issued headings north of the McKee Addition as there is no competing traffic requiring use of the entire corridor. 6. Funding is not currently available through the Part 150 study for corrective action in the McKee Addition. Any attempt to apply Metropolitan Airport's Commission funds to this area would require special action by the Metropolitan Airport's Commission. The City does not have dedicated funding resources for such programs and any discussion of corrective action would have to occur at the City Council level. 1,. Given these realities, it is probably an appropriate course of action to determine precisely what the desires of the McKee residents are with respect to noise attenuation alternatives and to report them to the City Council with possible options but limited recommendation. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To define findings for Council review regarding the McKee Addition noise resolution. B. MAC Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor Study -- Enclosed on pages 1,1.-t.,1 you will find information pertinent to the Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor Study. The two noise contours found on page 10, constitute the options available to the cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights. You will note the principle difference between the contours as a result of the assumptions for flight track separations during simultaneous departure conditions. As color coding is not possible for the packet, please presume that the northerly of the two contours relates to alternative number 3 while the southerly relates to alternative number 2 assumptions. Staff will discuss the relative impacts of the contours on the two cities at Tuesday evenings meeting. Following the discussion, the Committee should define criteria of choice and formulate a recommendation for the City Council and its consideration of this matter. C. Runway Utilization Committee -- Please refer to your October packet for information pertinent to this matter. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Chamber of Commerce - Airport Adequacy Position - -City Staff has been asked to assist the Chamber of Commerce in the formulation of a position relative to the airport adequacy study. A meeting is planned in the near future to work on this matter. This issue illustrates a matter we have discussed in the past which is the need for the City to represent both its residential and business interests as they pertain to airport matters. As the position is developed, the Committee or representatives of the Committee may wish to meet with the chamber representatives to discuss mutual issues as they pertain to the airport. No action is required on this matter at this time. V. STAFF REPORT A. Legal Opinion - Nuisance Complaint - -For additional infor- mation on this matter, please refer to the October packet. B. Preferential Runway System Working Group - -For additional information on this item, please refer to the October packet. VI. OTHER BUSINESS 3. VII. DISTRIBUTION A. Rosemount Airport Proposal -- Enclosed on page ',( you will find an article from the Minneapolis Star and Tribune pertinent to a proposal by John Richter and James Serrin to utilize the University of Minnesota Rosemount Research Facility for a site for the new airport. While the proposal deserves some attention, it ignores the land use planning currently underway in these areas. Member Mirick and Administrative Assistant Hohenstein have attended meetings at which this issue has been discussed and may respond to questions in this regard. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn at or about 9:00 o'clock p.m. Admin i rative Assistant cc: City Administrator Hedges City Attorney Hauge City Planner Runkle JH /af 4. Subject to Approval MINUTES OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING Eagan, Minnesota September 8, 1987 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee was held on Tuesday, September 8, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Chairman John Gustin, Joe Harrison, Dustin Mirick, and Carol Dozois. Absent were Carolyn Braun, Gary Campbell, Tom Baker and Otto Leitner. Also present were Jon Hohenstein, Administrative Assistant; Bruce Robertson, Administrative Intern and Debra Schmidt from the City Attorney's office. MINUTES With the correction of inserting in the minutes that Carol Dozois as absent during the meeting, upon motion by Mirick, seconded by Dozois, with all members voting in favor, the minutes of the May 12, 1987 Airport Relations Committee Meeting were approved. MAC EAGAN - MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR STUDY Hohenstein discussed the preliminary noise analysis undertaken t concerning the Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor. He indicated that information on noise levels resulting from slight shifts in airline flight paths were shown on page six of the Committee's packet. He went on to state that City staff will be working with Mendota Heights once the final analysis of the data is completed by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The City is also waiting for contour maps and feedback by the Metropolitan Council. At that point Commission members discussed which neighborhoods would be affected by the variation of flight paths utiliziing the Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor and the need for equity between Mendota Heights and Eagan in the number of takeoffs and landings over the cities. Hohenstein closed the discussion by stating that staff will keep the Committee abreast of any information asrai i ah? e relating to the corridor study in the future as it becomes available. TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION WORKING GROUP Hohenstein informed Committee members of the activities of the traffic distribution group that is being coordinated by Minneapolis Council member Steve Kramer. He stated the group's role is to discuss and suggest an acceptable distribution of traffic and noise in the areas near the airport. He went on to discuss the City of Eagan's concerns relating to the group's discussion considering the fact that 50 -55% of airline traffic will fly over the City of Eagan during takeoff and landings. Mirick inquired if the traffic distribution group had discussed the possible extention of Runway 1 422 and asked that the Committee be kept informed on the traffic group's findings on the runway expansion. Gustin briefly explained the effects of runway expansion on Eagan neighborhoods for the two visitors of the meeting. A brief discussion followed concerning runway expansion. Hohenstein changed the focus of the discussion by describing the activities of other airport study bodies. He stated that the Metropolitan Council's Airport Adequacy group continues to meet on the third Thursday of each month. Their study is in the sixth month of a planned 18 month duration and is currently in the fact finding phase. Hohenstein went on to state that the Citizen's League Airport study group also has been continuing to meet on a weekly basis every Thursday at 4:30 at the Minneapolis Community College library. A wide range of airport related issues have been discussed and visitors are encouraged to attend and become involved in the discussions. This group will finish up its work in November. He went on to state that Committee members should consider attending meetings of both groups if their schedules permit. COMMITTEE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Hohenstein discussed the statement of Airport Relations Committee goals and objectives that had been developed by staff and Committee members. He stated that a listing of goals and objectives is important because of the changing nature of the Committee since its inception and the advantage of the group determining its own objectives instead of being given them by the City Council with no input from the Committee. At that point he went through the actual goals and objectives statement and asked Committee members to state their ideas for discussion. Harrison suggested that the Committee get feedback and advice from a ) group called N.O.I.S.E. regarding assistance in getting legislation passed to reregulate the airline industry. He went on to discuss at length how stricter regulations on the airlines would in his opinion improve both service and the noise levels of the airlines. He suggested that City staff determine which city officials of Eagan are currently members of the N.O.I.S.E. group and have them contact their representatives for information on the group's lobbying efforts and how the Eagan Airports Committee could effectively work with N.O.I.S.E. on the issue of airline regulation. The advantages and disadvantages of airline regulations was then discussed at length by several Committee members. Hohenstein suggested that the Committee and staff should further investigate the prospect of having City officials who belong to N.O.I.S.E. contact the group and once more is known the Committee could consider adding coordination with N.O.I.S.E. on airline regulation efforts to Committee goals and objectives. After additional discussion, upon motion by Mirick, seconded by Dozois, with all members voting in favor, the Committee accepted the draft Airport Relations Committee goals and objectives as a working framework that could be added or subtracted from as the need arises. MEDIA PACKET - EAGAN AIRPORT INFORMATION Hohenstein discussed the information pertinent to an airport information packet that was included in the Commission packet. He stated a formal media packet would include information on airport related topics for citizens in the community. This information will be helpful because the City staff currently receives numerous complaints and questions from citizens on airport related issues. 6. «) Harrison suggested that any map that is included in the airport information packet should include Mendota Heights and an illustration of the airport runways. After additional discussion by Committee members, the consensus decision was that the Committee should wait until more information is received by the City before proceeding with the media packet. OTHER BUSINESS Mirick discussed and distributed a computer printout of registered noise complaints by metro area residents for a month long period. Committee members reviewed and briefly disucssed the complaint list. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Harrison, seconded by Mirick, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. BR Date Chairperson Secretary We, the undersigned residents of the McKee Addition of the City of Eagan, do hereby state that: WHEREAS, the McKee Addition is among the oldest and finest built homes in Eagan, and WHEREAS, the McKee Addition lies between the principal departure and arrival flight paths of the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, Planes follow three beams over the McKee Addition. Which means that we receive 55% of all flights daily. The Airport claims voluntary avoidance of night flights - NO they do not, and WIIEAEAS, the frequency of day time air traffic is incompatible with a single family neighborhood, and night flights should be abolished, and '7i IEREAS, the McKee Addition lies between the industrial area of Eagan, and itself is not the only homes in the area bothered by Air Traffic. WE HEREBY PETITION - that the City of Eagan take steps to resolve the incompatibility between excessive air traffic and by eliminating so mart' flights over Eagan and distributing them to other areas within the surrounding communities, and that the City and Corumunity affected consider future options for the Mckee Addition. DATED THIS 7th day of October 1987. " 52.a44-ft..&--,-c- /g----._., . GyriCL (c . 7 0 6 r fz � i e -6' �� �- a , 4 = i , i,..%,_,_, 5";:h o 7 //- ( 16,14 ,-o./ i3..a g_ c? - i f a 0 4 . 4; h ..■...".."-'.......; r .. 7 -� ... -- �` c am` �'`" �J , , -�._,. ,^ _../ ,_ / ,.."_.._. (7q? 2 05 i , g ( cif,==,-- i ;1-7' f ! � ' i %.t'i c��J'L i J J' & We, the undersigned residents of the McKee Addition of the City of Eagan, do hereby state that: WHEREAS, the McKee Addition is among the oldest and finest built homes in Eagan, and WHEREAS, the McKee Addition lies between the principal departure and arrival flight paths of the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, Planes follow three beams over the McKee Addition. Which means that we receive 55% of all flights daily. The Airport claims voluntary avoidance of night flights - NO they do not, and WIIEAEAS, the frequency of day time air traffic is incxiu- 'atible with a single family neighborhood, and night flights should be abolished, and WHEREAS, the McKee Addition lies between the industrial area of Eagan, and itself is not the only hares in the area bothered by Air Traffic. WE HEREBY PETITION - that the City of Eagan take steps to resolve the incompatibility between excessive air traffic and by eliminating so may flights over Eagan and distributing there to other areas within the surrounding communities, and that the City and Community affected consider future options for the McKee Addition. DATED THIS 7th day of October 1987. j 7"" 4: 0 f rrn - /6'? q t,e1rY vyt 'OGG 4 -tx.e. 02/ • 6 5 -./a„ 5/6 .41,4cAL,..gr„tiatt_c/c /. lo e( t,e, a- cs 4 /03V $ � ( e,,,A., (037 All 111,0--- f " q. V't= a We, the undersigned residents of the McKee Addition of the City of Eagan, do hereby state that: WHEREAS, the McKee Addition is among the oldest and finest built homes in Eagan, and PEAS, the McKee Addition lies between the principal departure and arrival flight paths of the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, Planes follow three beams over the McKee Addition. Which means that we receive 55% of all flights daily. The Airport claims voluntary avoidance of night flights - NO they do not, and WHE7EAS, the frequency of day time air traffic is incompatible with a single family neighborhood, and night flights should be abolished, and WHEREAS, the McKee Addition lies between the industrial area of Eagan, and itself is not the only hoes in the area bothered by Air Traffic. WE HEREBY PETITION - that the City of Eagan take steps to resolve the incompatibility between excessive air traffic and by eliminating so many flights over Eagan and distributing them to other areas within the surrounding communities, and that the City and Community affected consider future options for the Mckee Addition. DATED THIS 7th day of October 1987. � -� may- /6\.3 3 1 e- i6s, Ste f ..� fr' i - 7 / /;-- / i -2, D - 111 (--- A 52,11 I A ‘)(-,A-, ic-)i. , 1,c ---, - .......( 0 -- 1 -1 ` 01 ("i'-) ''''') - , C\ A____,) /04.67) /, / / / /W C /61/ e/ -` - / � l --C/.2t, / , , / /;r/(i ,_ ,. // '' 1 ' h-z--/ ( ifie ,.----:" - _._ / `ice // C -/ -?) 7Z g t l C >�� &/e X 71. - 4 , x1 i , / - , t __.,,t,,..,, - n ) )./u.,,:j)1, 2 Al . - 1 1 - ipti) i\ aAL ,i-i-,,,,2.,/p--s,-4-4:2,2 (4"11,-) , , ---- frt/L.-: - p....-6- -- .„," (7.....) 1 It -if 'I '' «. -,---4.--1. Y . ,A.' 1 ( A.. -vv- c (-->'' - e' ---/- \ ,--; e - -- •__.> t —1 L_ IL .__A_______ , ''. L - . ) 10. SIGNATURES IDR THE PETITION ON AIRPORT NOISE IN THE MZKEE ADDITION OF EAGAN. NAME ADDRESS ., 62774---6D-t-e03 / 0 7 3 /1 -66 ,. e•_e_ __„__- / Z / ( --(=-AX--)---e " 6-X-• (-7-)--) . .7-9C) _ ,e,-- cy / -- 7 ---- , c-/ - - 2 , / 0 S / I) 5 3 t 4 ,._i4/,-2,t,t--(—, i, OA X tillvt-A ) ' I O GaA ( r ( 1 C S -t cch, c_ , v c -- < ---- —D 1 ),,, • /" /. / 1,' 1/ 4.- t• t7 I 6 7 CI ,.. c , . ; v 7 a ? 6- per4-7 ri,z-z:71,0 _4 ," / 7 ' ''7 ' ' ' - /' ..2.1 A, e_,..- , 7 , , / . 1 „( 41 , v ,- ,- c,,,, )) ,,_.. ‘...4/2_, , . - ,,, ,, ,. --)-- / 0 7-3 /r.,e,7 ,_ E 0 a-- / 0 S 7 ,.._e_e i 4)(0,ier-61 - ,c11/7 :// / t J .)) e c_. 'irt / L di / CL, / 1 2 L .._ .c.., di 1- / 1 7 / 1 -)(LU etlikiviL f ()° r ..„.„. co ,...„,, Jobs w tc( /ivy Di ii 0A6tvp ..o ,4 , i 7 ' I; '. ' t 't// II. Signatures for the petition on airport noise in the McKee Addition of Eagan. NAME ADDRESS V 4 tp , / ° , 7 ,/;Z: (I 1 / / % ' - - e 9:- ----<---- Z7 5 I / — 42 / ' ' i ,a,czed-z,L, 7 i I t /10 tibizte, ., s,-. c2i.1 .16,„--c 105 / , •, ., ■J i • G '7 L. r ..../ , I / - . ■ ... - y - 0,/ , ,, / 0 7 / j OA-t-e. N aj 1 , / j o 7 I (., ) • - A I i . 2 I . fi / C . , /•;' I y 1 I' L i r / I r i A, y -rrai,,t2L- /6)1( I : , „,.,. . , , r 7 , I" 1 ----) _ /- • _ ...- .. . ... • / 7 , ' ) ,/ L. ._ , 4 7-- ( z_ ,__1_ ' '-''' •-• .._ . ---;_,:2,<. , 5 '- —'s ,-/ ' • ',..__:.._)/ -, (., L - ■. ' / .../ I L. Signatures for the petition on airport noise in the McKee Addition of Eagan. NAME ADDRESS ✓ 5 C 1 1 1 cry a e 9 .5� . / cd [ 1 \ 4 ,/e,,,,. ilivinittk ,— - u(/2, t-e/e/1-7i- 5 /) Ekod----, ( b - el / / " (q d ;Al sti� dp , s ei tt l x ,,, z /e\J " 'I' __ A l f / ‘<,(4z , A co so ke,01_,,4ksf- (4 - ,s's rdcfz ' (titkkv‘dy (frivvv--, VS ., /41 3g- r ,o-i / 3 el6 f e<if-- *tiuf ev-yryz,4-611. /033 u.00 l h l 11 OXit". i 0 V / &IAI/ e A T A, gi-- e,t,e /9 // A.' 61-7 ke, n 7 cs ---- i3,ejlicd 0/ V 4 5 t 4 L DGr7/2.1,1.fi k on• v urAluAl. la( Y• sht„z; r p.-- ?„ iir L., /,/,,,t? i?7 a /cici y it - rofie_c-4 i / 13. SIGNATURES FOR THE PETITION ON AIRPORT NOISE IN THE MCKEE ADDITION OF EAGAN. NAME ADDRESS / 70 /:_) ,. ,it . , 4/ - ) - 7/ .... , :,-------.,_ ,., ,, 9 D 4\-12-LI- k 1 . qin -- i 6 7 C ;07.2 7,93e/4_6( „./ — / e 9 /0 , r Ag,te2 /0 3 ,-, 21 tj-Ptea41-v•- A..,f\o'--e-(2- 1 0 40 c_ U 8 J7 ----------/ / / 0 9 y Me k- 5 T. /., . .. A ilr v d o aL 4111 -3/(‘7.) * r`------ / ( Li 0 'C 2 (--e_e -/L1 /0 3 0 1/4.- , -,Z-e-sz;e L. / 03-) 103 7 taextruLz It.. ..../ / 6 3 69'a&e a 4' 1. otzoa azee' (-- --.\ ,1 1 ,----; ( ;7 1-'..\'' ------ - -( - X„a66 nbzi/ - . .- - - , „, , / --,..;„ 1 Li, . / ( - / ' /(' ‚- 77 - ' / ,.." , - ,, to Y V I r.. 0 cn 0) C c`ii LL V 1- 1- 0 0 o, N i... 0 - m LL F t .� 7 1 Z 1 d i G D J v- I x III III til ran ., 4f114:frilfgellelkiriel I g r ip : i 7 z a.. l'..4 . \ &Nil 1 \ V l rLv V∎-∎ e i ce' ik q i n 'a /� IL* _ I � � ttlerr1 C 1 i t .. •1 - ..� � 1 - 4," — T .;ii�lr.l e I i� ffi r a 1, . T I.& 111111 N•miesli i t rri 1 IiLr P ��+,... s,__ nil IssorNufi ict ro1. ll i ) i ill 11n' r, r i IIB: il lllllll nin 1 , .. � \,_ :::::‘,..,:, rr r I f 3 1 i)N E, l d r • a 111 rrI II I S I �S • nu= b. 1r� r ! „IIR09nrrrEE ae t' a l • O : C• �.�`.I� ��� IIIIII I lnll��l� � , � �- — ' I. ...�r,l. mm 1 r 11 1 rRp� , �... 1111�iirr T Y111,� 111 111111► : . -. , E J '� 111111.111M11:11111111 • 1 ql! E Ee i ! a �' 1,i .1..11 .... �It� "� ,�,�,� ; i•.. EttHltliiii ererlft • 1 IMIlin..IIIIIIprril�lllla - �,' • \` } o E X1011111111111 ILRI r • { �/ ,) C I uW •IE /I EI P �' " � . l ir 9 FI C c a ds s s Oii , /I v\ � �� / �� '1 : S SS :.M3? 6 .C ; 0 0 % .'S S� S S � , z , _, - ( \ Y' = 102g 0 $0203-1 le -1 lip ,':/'''' 0,0:tannElsaB .0 moms y. } p a � ..1s.2.7--.......Emozzoiler-or iip, IR. 1 1 1 *. iii iii_iiiiiii_... i / _ 19t!S • -- • i� _, `1 J \ ` f 1 , 0 ,..-1-,-,_ ,_ ),-,,,,,, 1 I. , , ; , 1 11 1 .....,.,., cf) Ili. �- t ' �� 1 '� �� . . .. 1 .. • I _cu.algi PRINNEg _ k A r� - i 7 t • Fir - •, r 1 1 — 4 - _� iL! � .'1.. gr . M • ■ it 4t9 4,r r ` ` -1117 a.: 1 SS S a ; t i 1 ' ✓ � �1� } I k t � MIS 3_ � - - _ ; 1 M `y :F 1 1111{ i- ,. #} - Lt , �3 /l CJ V e al l't-i 1 . 1 ,, 'i"'i' ^.s '5. 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. 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 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 municipalities. 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 relocation costs and administrative costs. Property values in the Ldn 75+ noise zone are estimated to range from $86,000 to $104,000 per dwelling unit (d.u.). Approximately 22 d.u. are located in the Ldn 75+ noise zone. The total 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. (Net effect not quantifiable.) - Properties resold for compatible use would be returned to tax base. (Net effect not quantifiable. 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 to implement program. Other Considerations: - Acquisition costs may be eligible for 80 percent Federal grant assistance if part of an approved Part 150 program. Conclusion: Include in the Land Use Management Plan. I (P. MEASURE 8: PURCHASE ASSURANCE PROGRAM Description: MAC purchases existing homes in specified areas after the owner has made a bona fide 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: Areas within the 1992 Noise Exposure Map Ldn 65+ would be considered (Figure IV -2). Approximately 5836 dwelling units (d.u.) are contained in the Ldn 65 noise contour. Anticipated Benefits: - Maintain neighborhood stability. - Increase compatibility through insulation /easement. - Reduce noise concerns of existing property owners in designated noise zones. Estimated participation (d.u.) based on Community Attitudinal Survey (Appendix C) conducted in August, 1986 follows: Ldn 65 -70 Ldn 70 -75 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 35Z of residents have considered moving, this percentage is applied to 4902 single family residences within Ldn 65. )sts: - Initial costs of property acquisition could range from $85,000 to $141,000 /d.u. - Permanent costs of insulation and property transfer estimated at $18,000 /d.u. Total program cost estimated as follows: Ldn 65 -70 = $25,848,000 Ldn 70 -75 = $ 4,914,000 Ldn 75+ = $ 108,000 TOTAL = $30,870,000 - Continuing program administration costs estimated at $50,000 /year. Effect on Property Values: 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. (continued) Other Considerations: - Program costs may be eligible for 80 percent Federal grant assistance if part of an approved Part 150 program. - Reuse of acquired properties would be consistent with local land use regulations. - Relocation assistance costs would not be incurred if the program meets the following conditions. (1) Eligible areas are designated and eminent domain not used to acquire property in designated areas. (2) Acquisition of all or substantially all of the designated area is not intended. (3) Property will not be acquired in the event that an amicable agreement is not reached. (4) Property is owner occupied. - A program which promotes residential turnover in excess of normal rates is not consistent with the goal of maintaining neighborhood stability. Program availability should be limited to conform with turnover rates in comparable areas not affected by aircraft noise. - As an alternative to actual property acquisition by MAC, a program of transaction assistance in which MAC provides marketing assistance and guarantees a predetermined sales price may be considered. Conclusion: Include in the Land Use Management Plan. 121. MEASURE 9: SOUNDPROOF PRIVATE RESIDENCES «. ?r ' "' r° 4 `� , ` Qr Description: Cl c:.,. (ya-r Apply sound insulation techniques,,,to existing residences which results in noise level reductions (NLR) sufficient to achieve acceptable interior noise levels. MAC would ;wire 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 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. - 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 -70 Ldn 70 -75 Ldn 75+ SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Minneapolis SF 1178 183 6 1367 1767 MF 345 53 2 400 Richfield SF 753 290 6 1049 1357 MF 221 85 2 308 Bloomington SF 675 36 711 919 MF 198 10 208 Mendota Hts SF 12 12 16 MF 4 4 ;an 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 /single family d.u. and $4000 /multifamily d.u. - Total costs estimated as follows: Ldn 65 -70 = $24,456,000 Ldn 70 -75 = $ 4,664,000 Ldn 75+ _ $ 112,000 TOTAL = $29,232,000 - Continuing costs of program administration estimated at $50,000 /year. (continued) i. 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. 101 Implementation: - MAC approves program. - Local jurisdictions provide planning assistance, coordination, and program 11 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 1 w 1 1 ,o. .r i . i -..) - MI CC s s a r '1/4-1 , . - � I. r �� o to _ II V r� _ , c > r s :shi it L w /II > ,y IX ,-) r.. , ,. > i \V, •, � I�. �� i ,�� gi cr a I > ( r > - I L � _ .,/'" _� III > 1 ; re \� ' ', 14. • or � fG3� , �i _ \ . "41116, ` , ,1 ` T om ' \ `N \ (3 y I _ CC s , -tr-' 1:31 - -1 1 ,i • ' -'.. \i'..-,- i ll — 1 -\ ,r„,:,,,,,, oc I ,;" n V 1 a . \ ,,,,, 10 Ei N , cc • \ ),,,„ A\ „ r Ir 24. — ■4' . / , CC 1 �t� " 1 1 : • . C ICI _ , \ Y., o .* \ . /MO ,...> 1, 0144 . 1 1 ___), t 1-, 1 . ... Kis . ‘ . , 1 _ . _______ M 4.... 00 1 ‘.. 01 , lir _ I_" ' (-4 -, ' , mem ( - , ) c \ ...,.., / 0 • r _ tc ,---i i ---... : Et g 4 _ I \\‘, . . -- . Er '-,)" C.- z - � . / v�. � �/ J , ( it ,le / 41 ,/ ' / I U�OSdUUI�� - i, ' 4 ' . -- — ifr i ., / Qv _ 1°':cr_c%;16.144t4 O , :cr i__ G V! _ � - ; sea y j r1 O N i 7/- i` - a l r 7 V-♦ .. , f `l� - 4�/ — -1. - �' 11 AO o o {J odl "— F pp , �� , . ., (._, , F 2,4, " ,, , ,s ititiwwiticlatios• Sala P ‘0` P. O. BOX 11700 • • TWIN CITY AIRPORT • MINNESOTA 55111 OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • PHONE (612) 726 - 1892 10 -5 -87 To: John Hohenstein, City of Eagan Kevin Frazell, City of Mendota Heights From: Steve Vecchi Enclosed are the results of the LDN 65,70,75 contours generated by HNTB that were based on the following assumptions agreed at the September 23,1987 meeting: 11L,R DEPARTURES SIMULTANEOUS (65 %) NON- SIMULTANEOUS (35 %) Alternative #2 11R.- 115 11R - 110 11L - 100 11L - 115 Alternative #3 11R - 110 11R - 110 11L - 095 11L - 115 NOTE: As you may recall, the Operations Committee decided to deal with the LDN contours for the two alternatives (65% simultaneous dep. & 35% non - simultaneous dep.) rather than consider a L1065 contour, which only deals with peak, 100% simultaneous departures. I would appreciate if you could bring the completed population estimates that correspond to alternatives #1 & #2 to the next scheduled meeting, Tuesday October 20, 1987 at 10:00 am. If you have any questions, please give me a call. CrFIC LOCATION- -CO -t0 28th AVE. SO. —WEST TERMINAL AREA— MINNEAPOLIS -SAINT PAUL. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT brw Y130 3 t ® ID -1^� �, bU 000* 3S (n ' M 3brut 130 \ � y' �^ /\ , Y, rR u ♦+ ry fi TIF &to i i :1 7 .® ¢ S II ¢ 3.�3wrO , m y0¢• / ii 2, J L , a ¢O j c) Y 0 1 i ... Y7 `s � `` f cnN 1., � � - ;e 4 ,1•- m r� _ II ' ; b7l 9 11� Q1n� Jt w. ,n .' •1B31j . / b.,4 ; O II C� 31 an _ Nit- i 11 -, 7 ..... r.boa 3. ® � ,i °, C r ,v\ --,L„.,, 7.!,41. aSlorn ti i ad 1oo¢JS aJ no�n�. : �_ W A L A * dielarilk '� \ '� I '", ii� I' *t1 I 7 1 _ o .. ,i , � 3 e �� �\ > \ \ \ ' Iv I_ T O � �_ u vv rt+ / !F 4 *`4 ' IC I )0-/---- 7 of, I �fj� � . �% � � a r J ,` /� [7, r III _ '''." / :1 t; I ,!: if_ .t ‘; _____1, ",' 4 / / i o ' Lora ' 1\ i 0b t 80ouR M. II ) fj 4 ! 0 f -- ---.; - ,.. - s--. 2 i .....--- ill •/ / �s 1, ry.. , I 0b .s.�M , ., 17,, . ,,:o. maw b3H c ' ` a .i. V 0�O /'�\ _� * — , Inv ____-_-_-, / / I &i` , 1,► If _tea I , ; 1 �LL • ,,,..,, m A -,,,,.. Z � / Q / . elosauulw �•�o e ..., \' i , E MI L, Nlikir j'. 4 b, - ,. ---,,,,„„, , .:—. 1 rr _I,. , .... ,,,, 0o D :, ,.„, . ( N, \ ,,, t , , . ,, Z V °I 4 /i3ado3d 3aodny o , p \s„.._..„._...______ / , \ ___,. I a t _ 1 AP , .0 f� ! IU ® 1 r a A o� , ,, u � � ■ • , I + A • `� 1 , III O'0 G k. CITY OF EAGAN OVERFLIGHT IMPACT ALTERNATIVES Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Homes Comp Guided 17 11 Residential Homes Comp Guided 120 115 Commmercial 137 126 10 Date: October 14, 1987 To: MASAC Operations Committee From: Captain Niel B. Atkinson Subject: Departure NAVAIDS I have been asked to comment on the use of aircraft departure NAVAIDS as they relate to noise abatement proposals being studied by the Operations Committee of MASAC. Three types of NAVAIDS are in use today; ADF - limited accuracy VOR - more accurate ILS - most accurate The use of any of the above as part of a departure procedure would require a turn shortly after take off to intercept a bearing from the NAVAID or a course in the case of an ILS. This would have to be accomplished during a period of high cockpit workload at a time when the pilots' primary concern must be aircraft performance. The pilot is certainly capable of following ground based navigational signals, however it would seem unlikely that precise ground tracking capabilities would be probable given the close proximity to the airport of the noise sensitive area in the Eagan /Mendota Heights Corridor. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION ❑ MINNEAPOLIS FIELD OFFICE Suite 275 — Dupont Center, 9801 Dupont Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55431 (612) 884 -4344 SCHEDULE WITH SAFETY s•,. -r AFFILIATED WITH AFL-CIO _ _ I c:// a . Mississippi River V - I r in - ,..■ . o t., ....., . I iii . .- 1-. o c • .J "i ,,, ,r,- 1 $ i p �„ g E a M 7 m i 1C 1 O F Um Q ay' -M0,U v 1 ) pp CCCC U o.�� y MO' y a I a CJ L — O. c ' c Il Vl N uh o ,.o o , O !n • 2 .y.. y y a . vv �bN J c omm N 7 u o C y c � 0 Cu c; c tj c : oL • E � \ ` ' e ' � y O �"'s c =E o3�L 41 I R i o O J 7 >O . C O.D a .9 .O OO ( - s - '3u D. / a G f \ c do I u U L c O a A c � �° N c J _^ op a -,n� n c h h E a«. N t0 � �n �u y�J7. ? — O 1 me C o o a ▪ 7 ° o _ o y E I - -- - - -- c = c0 • 6 N Nse'�O Y w ... ,yc� u c , :.bcca3 �, h v� co -0Q."0=74-5 ;y.5 .a•oy E. E du uc am u u, ° O o DOO`• - 7 a 8 E.c.- �� o �' E 0ov u c1,-. ou tv c °, c• c y n._. ° c ' - a -. ( ,, 11 .° . o E._ c L u ._ 3 N y c .c✓.O,7,- C y s'^O Oy ? C d Cuc'a',.wo0Lu .cE C' O C 'O &E O'C ". :118.7-1:13.6 '^ Ey°,.N C ooc-^ c ' u m UN c C) 'E',E =� o - ^cvmE o p9 s > u ° _ ' a > " w N c , -cOtt 0.-=.-14.1'v GO LO O C O U a >. O - p O .9 O N N > N u ti o _ '. E . ° oo E•- u =0.0c,.. c �_ y E o , y y "� `N -"u ''' . 5.acm 03 ° 0�v mow E�'c °'• ° o b ti SC Q CEO. u E • �>O R'� c I 38 T LL? `4 aCt C o e ,o E� ., a,ea, o '5',E..°2 , 3CcNio =°a )._ „�.oitl .9. .,-.E.001 co .".° v T C 2 N ..2,4,,,-:.,_• .^ C ° i c. - , ' ' c . °' G c v ."' u `-. 2 N C. ,� CC t7 >''.y m . N m �` N 7 'V G c u '« c u 0 c v •0 -En 8 7 N T cl) , d .- °•= .G fA L• C u c C. «'� O. cg p t `• C _0 . U ° 21:; ' i, ��' � O c .cv °V.°._E u11 •ww vo 0 0 � 3mEC'z u c -a2 F.'.?.‹.om3 .au oC4 F'^v o y 6� ' C N N t t. V TJ ,0 V u .° 00 H y O C N C a c .' w� E o is °may . 'C v °y -b ,at G. ° y . in C 7 v O C S . O `d 3 a,-0 a,-0 y E 8O t A odi p. ..•^ ° ` C ~ Rl ¢ . -,-.6 .�.Q O C, C �•� u �� v E.1,- = °GEv G ° ; . yu o i GG $E 2 E "c' E —,..4 u >. G c c ° u c E 3 . v E* N E.� 'u O'vr 'd c w' °�? o e u u u a S U 'u u — 3.0 c E T ,d c . w o- c 1 ,'-' u u E y ^ .'.•• w 3 . ° 7 G t Q � u u ^ ` c a = • 0 t7 y . = - E. -1" > O o � .. V S ? 7 C ° Z uz^ E u .y •c.c X C C t7 Z O O 7 N C >` N ''- C w'J •� . u° ' - 0 u 0 u N N N �� y.0 C p 7� -o p.c e ,.. O . c N G c N 0 0 =e. ,G7 8 y C O C OH °. E.,4.x, m > 3 °•p — Q O u D c O t '5, L' t g 2 U E c.. < v o E ' O C C ` O '' 7Cb� - .0 �i `.� A'uO V W 'd C.� E . 8„ ^C� �, „ 0 . °^ ry . O'� '- °. © .c,... T ;0 j r 0 v y 0 6 u 0..0 ;;' ^'aA u ° ,O '0 ° . c � u . �, F o v,a < F a'� .0 u •O 6 ^ 3 a -0 -E. cE u A - mcD. ^ ' . .. pa E .0 u t 0 ;;8 .ea .5 ° ° 5p 4". '0V,>" •a u a « .EVl ° ; I o t,Y T 0 o0 > lilt . � ��E ty � ° am o°L° ° " u E�T� - a° ` u u G �a u �;o aE >a w a i�EE]ap .'^ 1~0 5Sc g N C ' a .. N ! O °`i OC , C K•9.YTtY .'-0 u OtC >...•-=u> ._cu> r a &E� � u E >. :' da p = 2S ° a � p a � • LI E��Ey� 3 0 i; 3.>. 2'3',, 2,— u� � - n y p G "' ~ O ° v,, o ] . c c t ca• „ .0.5 3 g v•.- , a - cv u ._y30c / O Ot c• Y , ."I c � 'S O 'C C y Um •C v. i32 4Q� c. o f • al's, uyt � a u cc ' G Ec mu gg v ° Xu a v `" .. o m N n G C �� V 8 K � t r Ca SSm L °c c 0 x c y i n c bT� �i �E2 Ev .Y'o�u uE_ o > o „ ZI F W ^ C y y tJ p .at=... O 7 .'^ u c ∎:>... E [ c N a '.' a '^ u b� h C'OE .Ca 7 '� �b,C T p - pt E n 7 3 C u.( 1" t7 c u ° ^ O • ..,.°. u ,n T, ` g •-. ° E.N°4 C 6 '5 = 4 iiu E c a , O a ,,, c b N r i • "oO a ° r„ EUra ° ,n :d c u .6ti 'c '. C `-,••.��. V 3 y._ N O O O. ^' i?° _ : .nu E 4,u . u G0� ' •° G ,,4 > . . 0 ,n > '' /�"'� '� § v ,•-• 43;•,-,-,-; td `,^ 8 u 9 c 51 ' � « ° ffi E '� I G N • B.S E C i• C n o' �w .2§..,2 0 c c .? 7 . 3 ,,18.3_.:1 c ( 4' t Euu°�' G . G avC°r .2 Q F-r o.c ,ow °: >. � oG u o E C«a o 'E u 3.� �, ';'...9 u.� 3,'«'' a ss v CO .ucoc0- u sG. ° ° o,.. aic g u °,°-o t0 '" F IA 8 E t0.5 1- ° , : 3 co at a . - r Yi o..c ° .v .a E^? ..t, ,;, a b u u c., c c a a, cE '^°u! �� ° c �� c y 0 T.,J is C u 7'd p 3 A E t ^. '` Cy E . ,d L y ,d o !. y v u •O u 7"5 > U O ° N 3 `� i 7 0o E u f] , ,O C t0 a' y E y — U E 8° c 'O.o. ' �. Ocud 0 ° 'O y N o L T O G ', u u g{ E j w V N y N t c C o, ,a° c u 3 m .. . c -. , v i '. .�'O .> O C ' u - 4,g .'.� 0 .. g 0 j. .a - . .y�� 7 G N �C U 3C> 0'E N o v'..-C; u.tdp� . b So•�c :: Uc� , - L' utO'- AI .011. ) r, u N N C 2N >t� C.- F . y —p.u 7 ._ (C) 3 ace•u y4 .u n � •° u c td 0 v, 0.. _. Q g, LIil1P � tL a 5. N N,c G ' c u u 3 ° < 0 ° C o G s •0 cm g c u.4 v 3 ° u n cti u • J E T E a Ev�O N Lr .�u d0 v uc_ N c s A • c = o E y y u u o o u u C 0 :b . f ni 3 •� I? ° e, E . m� 'Q w ° c'a ,avco9 u E 0 - • u . G.y Q C ✓ c c 7 - :J i >,n u G C Cr`... t O r u O ..'^ N O O c 7 h V C1 in ..0 nn3 (_ �LE'a <S•c =a ��°c ° ucu <F -, L uc Li