12/11/1990 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY
DECEMBER 11, 1990
5:30 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL
II. JOINT AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
III. OTHER BUSINESS
TV. ADJOURNMENT
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1990
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/JOINT AIRPORT RELATIONS
COMMITTEE MEETING - DECEMBER 11, 1990
The sole purpose of this Special City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 11,
1990 at 5:30 p.m. is to meet and discuss pertinent issues regarding airport noise and
operations as a City Council and Airport Relations Committee. While it is the objective of
the City Council to meet with each of its Commissions and Committees to enjoy an open
forum, there is one agenda item that requires discussion and consideration relative to the
alternatives being considered to meet increased traffic demand at Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport by the addition of at least one runway at the current airport site. The
consideration of additional runways at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport is part of
the dual track airport planning process mandated by the legislature in 1988. The Airport
Relations Committee has studied the issue and is presenting a recommendation to the City
Council that is outlined in the attached memo (enclosed on pages =2 through,:JL)
prepared by Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein that includes additional
information from the "Metropolitan Airports Commission MSP Long -Term Comprehensive
Plan Presentation on Preliminary Airfield and Terminal Development Alternatives",
completed by HNTB and Associated Firms.
Typically, the City Council does not take formal action at a Special City Council /workshop
meeting. The City Council would schedule formal action on the additional runway
alternatives at a later City Council meeting.
Since Hanukkah begins at sundown, it is a practice that the City Council not meet in official
session. In honor of the holiday, there are no additional items scheduled at the Special City
Council meeting and adjournment of the joint worksession is anticipated around 6:45 to 7:00
p.m. A beverage and cookies will be available.
/S/ Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
cc: Jon Hohenstein, Assistant to the City Administrator
Dale Runkle, Director of Community Development
TLH/vmd
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1990
SUBJECT: METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
ADDITIONAL RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of this memo is to summarize and outline information
pertinent to the alternatives being considered to meet increased
traffic demand at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport by the
addition of at least one runway at the current airport site. The
memo will also identify potential impacts of the various
alternatives for the City of Eagan and, in that regard, the
recommended action forwarded for City Council consideration by the
Airport Relations Committee.
Background
The consideration of additional runways at Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport is part of the Dual Track Airport Planning
Process mandated by the legislature in 1988. Expansion of capacity
at the existing airport is being studied by the Metropolitan
Airports Commission in one track while identification of an
available site for a new airport is being studied by the
Metropolitan Council in the other track.
This approach is predicated on the assumption that traffic at the
current airport will increase from approximately 375,000 operations
in 1989 to over 527,000 operations in 2020. If this assumption is
accurate and no airfield improvements were made at MSP, the average
runway delay would increase from less than three minutes to more
than seven minutes in visual conditions and fourty-nine minutes in
instrument conditions. This level of delay is considered to be
excessive by the industry.
Alternatives
It is MAC's conclusion that at least one additional runway will be
necessary within the next ten to twenty years to reduce delays to
the two to three minute range. During 1990, the MAC explored a
variety of options for the current site, including no fewer than
twelve possible configurations for new runways at MSP. These were
reduced to three warranting further study. They are: Concept A -
an additional north parallel, Concept B - an additional south
parallel and Concept C - a north/south runway roughly parallel to
Cedar Avenue.
Expanded information in this regard is enclosed on pages
through , including comparative Ldn contours for each of the
alternatives on pages through These contours
presume a 70% Stage III fleet. The recently passed federal noise
policy will result in changes in these contours to reflect an 85-
100% Stage III fleet by the year 2000. For purposes of comparison,
the 1989 Ldn contours are enclosed on page
9
Preliminary information concerning the noise impacts of the
alternatives is identified on page Maps depicting flight
tracks related to these impacts is included on pages through
The tracks in each of the larger maps are scaled to be
five miles from the runway end. For purposes of comparison, Burr
Oaks, Windtree and the Woodlands lie about five miles from the
runway end under current procedures.
ssues
Eagan is the only community in the metropolitan area which would
be impacted by all three of the alternatives. Other communities
have identified one or another of the alternatives as preferences
because they concentrate impacts elsewhere.
The following issues are appropriate for consideration in
approaching a policy position in this area:
1. City Policy with respect to the Airport - The City of Eagan
has consistently supported the current site of MSP as an
economic engine for our business community and an amenity for
our residents. The City has demanded, however, that the
environmental impacts of the airport be controlled and reduced
to limit the impact of this amenity on our quality of life.
The industrial corridor, support of Stage III fleet conversion
and participation in a variety of noise mitigation strategies
have placed a policy emphasis on coexisting with the airport
at its existing location, while working agressively for a
reduction of noise.
2. Accuracy of the MACIs assumptions - The MAC's analysis assumes
that Concepts A and B, the north and south parallels, will
add only a new landing stream in the corridor area, the new
runway being designated for arrivals only. The Ldn contours
reflect an expectation that additional departure traffic will
occur along existing tracks at higher frequencies. This
assumption may not be practiced by the FAA.
Increased departure frequency will result from the increased
efficiency of dedicated runways. Two runways handling a
combination of departures and landings already tax the
capacity of the corridor. Dedicating one runway to departures
may exceed the current corridor's capacity. If so, the FAA
may move to add one to two additional headings south of the
existing corridor boundary.
While the MAC has indicated a commitment to not opening up new
noise impact areas as a means of keeping the airport at the
current site, the potential for expansion of the operating
area cannot be overlooked as a City position is considered.
If the City were to consider the parallel runway alternatives,
it would be prudent to consider requiring written and
enforceable documentation of the MAC's stated commitment. To
date, the FAA has refused to be bound by such commitments.
C
"Iq
Concept C may be relatively accurate in its assumptions, but
it will also be a dedicated runway, operating only to or from
the south. Traffic during the peaks may deviate from the
three headings depicted in the contours. Tracks reflecting
these probable and possible headings are depicted in the
enclosure. The effect of such turns may be mitigate by the
fact that this runway will be dominated by south and west
bound traffic.
3. Introduction of additional noise in lower impact areas as
opposed to concentrating in or near existing higher impact
areas - Few areas of Eagan are completely free of aircraft
overflights, but the worst impacts are currently concentrated
in the northern third of the community. The construction of
a new runway will increase noise impacts in a broader area of
the City. A third parallel runway will concentrate the worst
impacts in north and central Eagan neighborhoods, near areas
which currently experience them. A north/south runway will
introduce significant levels of noise in the south and west
parts of the City, which currently experience substantially
less.
Due to proximity, the additional noise associated with a new
parallel will be much greater than that associated with a
north/south runway. In comparing the alternatives, the
question is whether it is more appropriate to introduce higher
noise levels near existing high impact areas or additional,
lower noise levels in lower impact areas.
This is complicated by the fact that responses to the impacts
are subjective. It is not possible to define a particular
noise level to be non -intrusive for all people. For instance
the FAA standard for noise nuisance, the Ldn 65, stops at
Highway 13 for the north/south runway. on this basis, few if
any Eagan residents are considered to be noise impacted by
this proposal. The adequacy of this metric is widely debated
in noise circles. As is the case elsewhere, a substantial
number of people in Eagan who live outside of the current Ldn
65 consider themselves to be noise impacted.
4. Consequences of expansion/relocation on the Eagan business
community - The Eagan business community supports the current
location of MSP and its expansion as a means of supporting
local businesses and promoting current patterns of economic
development. In addition, many Eagan residents make their
living either directly or indirectly through the airport.
The business community's support for expansion is also born
in its concern regarding the alternative, relocation. While
expansion of the current airport is almost sure to raise
substantial issues for the City's residential community,
relocation of the airport would change some of the realities
of the City's business economy.
L
r
Clearly, a northern location for a new airport would draw new
development in that direction. While the completion of I -35E
and the enhanced Hiawatha Avenue would make the trip to a new
northern airport only ten to fifteen minutes longer than that
from the downtowns, the difference may be prohibitive for some
types of economic activity. It is doubtful that the change
would be fatal to Eagan's economy as a whole. The commercial
mass already present along I-494 is typical of the economic
activity present on the belt -lines of all major metropolitan
areas. A northern location would, however, imply change, most
likely in the areas of air freight, airport services and
companies with international services and markets.
A southern location would also imply some change, but would
not present as many economic challenges and may present
considerable opportunities. Such a location would tend to
make the I -35/I-494 area into even more of a gateway to the
rest of the Twin Cities. As such, high intensity development
would be naturally drawn to the triangulated area between a
new southern airport and the two downtowns. The role of I-
494 as an interceptor for economic activity would be obvious
in this instance.
5. Will the addition of one runway address MSP's long term
adequacy issues - The addition of one runway will likely meet
MSP's capacity needs in the year 2000. MAC consultants are
studying the effects of additional growth after that date.
If the current site is to serve the region's needs
indefinitely, it will likely require the addition of both a
parallel runway and the north/south runway. Continued growth
beyond that capacity will require the region to revisit the
relocation issue again in twenty to thirty years.
6. Should the City of Ragan take a position in this regard - As
one of the most noise -impacted communities under current or
proposed operations, Eagan's position on the expansion
alternatives will be an important consideration in the
expansion/relocation debate. The MAC, Metropolitan Council
and other cities have expressed interest in Eagan's position
in this regard.
Absent an Eagan position, it appears at the present time that
the most likely alternative for expansion would be the
north/south runway. If a particular expansion alternative
appears to be acceptable to most airport neighbors, the option
to relocate is not likely to occur during this decision
process.
Airport Relations Committee Recommendation
Upon discussion and consideration of these issues, the Eagan
Airport Relations Committee recommended a position outlined in the
resolution enclosed on pages through . The resolution
is based on the Committee's belief that expansion of the current
site will create an unacceptable level of noise in substantial
s
areas of residential Eagan, that these impacts cannot be
sufficiently mitigated even by the introduction of Stage III
aircraft because of the broadness of their effect and that the
consequences of a relocation for the Eagan business community would
be mitigated by promotion of a southern airport alternative.
The Committee appreciates the opportunity to discuss this
recommendation with the City Council. The Committee recognizes
that it represents a departure from previous City policy, but
believes that the extraordinary nature and level of the proposed
impacts warrants a consideration of this change. The Committee
also recognizes that the Council may wish to give additional
direction or request additional information in considering this
issue. The importance of this issue for the City underscores the
need for a frank and open dialogue in its regard.
If you have any questions with respect to this memo or the
Committee's recommendation, please let me know.
Ass, Stant to the City Administrator
Att.
M4W
4w
t1_- o
S"' �-�n;•+ G:l[► CCW
ot
=t
ZEE E
X11 03,11 ►uz a � �■
Im
s r
Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport
Long -Term Comprehensive Plan
Noise Impacts of Airfield Concepts
Homes in Year 2000 9,560
Ldn 65
Area within Ldn 65 10,220 AC
Area within Ldn 60 N/A
Source: H.N''TB 10/10/90
Concepto ConceptB Concept
22,250
No Build
19,240
(wJ4-22 Ext
Residential Population
13,810
in Year 2000 Ldn 65
23,790
-Minneapolis
13.90
-Richfield
4,200
-Bloomington
5,160
-Ft. Snelling
20
-Mendota Heights
320
-Eagan
800
-St. Paul
0
Homes in Year 2000 9,560
Ldn 65
Area within Ldn 65 10,220 AC
Area within Ldn 60 N/A
Source: H.N''TB 10/10/90
Concepto ConceptB Concept
22,250
22,050
19,240
14,760
14,200
13,810
2,900
4,860
3,070
3,290
1,880
1,750
30
20
30
550
180
200
720
910
380
0
0
0
8,940 8,830 7,780
10,270 AC 9,990 AC 10,970 AC
22,680 AC 22,390 AC 23,150 AC
0
fir.,
C1 . iM
Hit
l�
CITY of EAGAN
MINNESOTA
RUNWAY ALTERNATE A
APPLE VALLEY ROSEMWNT 4&
N
WNED
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
/D
CITY of EAGAN
MINNESOTA
RUNWAY ALTERNATE B
ADDLE VALLEY ROSE "NT A
N
ANNED
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY of EAGAN
MINNESOTA
RUNWAY ALTERN)
APPLE VALET ROSEMWNT A
N
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EAGAN
RESOLUTION CONCERNING
THE EXPANSION OF MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Eagan, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the City of Eagan has historically supported the current
location of Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport provided
that its environmental impacts were mitigated through operational
and other means, and
WHEREAS, it has been the policy of the City of Eagan to work
cooperatively with the airport and other agencies to limit noise
sensitive land uses where noise impacts were anticipated, and
WHEREAS, the City of Eagan has permitted and prohibited the
development of residential and noise sensitive areas in compliance
with the representations of the Metropolitan Airports Commission,
Federal Aviation Administration, Metropolitan Council and other
agencies, and
WHEREAS, the City of Eagan, in concert with the Metropolitan
Aircraft Sound Abatement Council and other cities, has pursued
policies for the reduction and mitigation of aircraft noise for
almost twenty years, and
WHEREAS, the MAC has put forward three alternatives for the
expansion of MSP as a part of the dual track planning process, and
WHEREAS, all three alternatives will expand and proliferate noise
impacts rather than mitigating them, thereby inundating substantial
residential areas of the City of Eagan with much more noise than
currently experienced, and
WHEREAS, such proliferation is contrary to state law, long standing
noise abatement policies, and the best interests of the citizens of
the City of Eagan, and
WHEREAS, the improvements proposed at MSP would only extend the
life of the facility for a brief period, while forestalling the
inevitable need to relocate the major airport and effectively
control land uses around a candidate site,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eagan opposes
further expansion of Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport and
specifically opposes those runway alternatives currently under
consideration by the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if expansion of airport capacity is
necessary, the City of Eagan supports relocation of MSP as the only
prudent and effective means of meeting that need while mitigating
noise impacts in highly developed residential areas.
/3
Motion made by:
Seconded by:
Those in favor:
Those against:
Dated:
CITY OF EAGAN
CITY COUNCIL
By:
Its Mayor
Attest:
Its Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I, E. J. VanOverbeke, Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota
County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution
was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof
assembled this day of , 1990.
E. J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk
/ `f
E.
c
cz
Lo M55■
E CD
CD
U L■
C-
*"-# E
00
�- U
1
C
E
o �
CD
o C:
o
/1
c
0
c
0
4-0
co
L
cz
k4e
L
cz
E
U
L
LL
co
cz
L
20
E
QL
0
0
0
/S
E
U-
a
c�
co
a
m
Z
2
16
c
a.
.y
c
r
E
U
E
v�
c
J
CL
to
O-E�
0
O
00
O
0000
N
O
00
O
0000
0
0
00
O
0000
N
N
In
ti
4
(6
d`
N
co
It
N
CO
0
In
CO
qq
T-
Lf)
CY)
,-
w
C�
w
C6
w
T
T
T
��
05
. =
` U
0
O
00
O
Coco
<
CC)
0
O
0
00
00
O
O
0000
0000
T
w
w
O
w
it
w
LO
w
Cl)
w
C)
w
CO
w
N
a-+
L.
N
qtCf)
N
C'f)CC)
CO
O
N
N
Lf)
CY)
N
C3?
c0
L..
O
O
p
LCO
O
�—
rnC
L
w
L
co
�>
LL
a�U
�Lcz
LUQ
.Lco
�E
m
L
co0
fl.
L
�oLL
cz
>+
tnCO
�
O
co
—
c
C
OC
o.
Q
OC
(5
2
H
Q
16
c
a.
.y
c
r
E
U
E
v�
c
J
CL
to
O-E�
O
,C
C
c
O
t
O
U
—
O
�
i
O
C
U
N
> O
O
N
._
.�,
*.A CL
O:;
O
63},a)
co
c
O
'- >,
E
O
O
C
C
O
i
co.0
. —
cu
.—O
O
cu
CL
LL
�c`�cc
C
-p
a>
�
Q
;
c�,c
75—
�,0
C
3
.S
++-
.—
c
O
—
O
0
.�
y �
cu
�+
3
cu
0
.0
c
aON
<
w
O
N
EY
■r l
VF
rA M QW
Co
CLU
0 CL
C O
U O
C
cz M
3 �/
0
Ll
f+
C
Q
C ,
t'o O
Q
Ll
•
c
coCL
a)
C
CL
r
i
E
U
E
C
CL
CO
OE:
W
c
•
�
L
O
O
cz
CL
U
O
•U
cn
CD
cz
O�cacz
�
•L
C)
�
—
cz
LL
cz
Ctd
C
O
�-+
.O+-�
.0-0
c
cz
C
cz
.O
aQ��
0
0
10
w
Ll
f+
C
Q
C ,
t'o O
Q
Ll
•
c
coCL
a)
C
CL
r
i
E
U
E
C
CL
CO
OE:
O
C
w
O
�
_�
O
L
0
Cy)
N
V
5
}'
Q
CV
00
-
O
.�
.cc
cc
. _
w
r
cq
.�
i
O
4-jLLJ
(D
=
c
O
a
CO
M
C
a)��
U
O
U
c
z
c
. w U
_
to
v —
O
._
3
O.�-
.�
O
0
H-
U
0
y�
0 o
co
°'
4a
=
0
-�
.0�
/1
• w
O
0•
O
ert
O e
C
C
O
.
O
L
N
U
>+
Co
a
,�
L
cc
U.
�
Q
�
��
Q�
CZ
.�
r
>
O
O
'�
02
>
C
CIOm
-
•—
L
C
L
O
C
V
O
—
L•
a
OIM-
♦..,
cn
•-
e
0
o
ccz oo
'co
o
ca
N
•o
CIO
c rn
°'
0'
o
CC
C
0
pL
�
Q
o e
V o
.0
�
CO
Cn
w
CC
.c
-a
U
ILong -Term Comprehensive Plan - Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport I
Airfield Alternatives Considered 1-1
Figure
O N
4., CL i
C m
CL
C i
co
w
o — � '- ry
4-0 cd c
� � cin � CO
v c
C6
N
V m c Ct) .�
o
�� =)c
O � � a�
7a7) 0 00
cuCL C6 cu w 0
cz OL
O N CCD O C/)C J J U—CC i N t
'— O _� r
LL
O M C +r C Q
•—
V o
cu E
O cu V i 0 O V
C ._ .l
O O v) ``" �
._
C:) CC 5a '-
.rn O
LO o CL v) Q
c
• • • • • o
J
a
C�o
0
O p ♦w p v
CL }' p LL O
•CO
p O O O O
p Y z U
4-4
o CL
>
V ° o n.
cc
i .0 O O O a.
° •O O 'c
cz O +� r
U �
i -pU�LL O + O' E
r.` �, o
.0 L a)�+ U
.O a U H
OO CO cu
co O a. c
O
• • • • •
ay
> In
O H
O C'O
._
4-0'O U
COLLJ :3 LL
L '�
O Z O
z O
O I'D C O
.(1) 0 N 4-0 �
C O
Q O
O ?+
U .O O CO
�
0O c0 'a .�- O Q
Q� O ,O � O OCL
C �UVc L- C 4 O
.0 co
E O LL- 70 U 0 U >
�Q O v) — O .y
� O = O C O c
O O
� •— as
('z O L O O O V)
w .O O � d. O � a
� > CC — -w E
O — O •` 0
C C C L U
•- —
O O 10
04.. C C (D 00
O� A O C 4" C Q O
cu
♦-+ Qi
O O C�
* p( O Q' O p a
00 O CA Cl) < cc J .�•�
A
c
O
:,4-4
Cz
cz
LU
.Z
IN
c
t�
cu
L
co
coO
O
CD
O
CD
V
CO
c
coa
a�
c
Q
r
L-
CL
F
U
E
H
c
J
a
V)
U c_ _c .r e
.E .� O M
O O C) CV t6 c O M M
#r+ Or to
(z U
0
-W •E E M N
c. Vo
M t co
O c o CO
U
O
•E E o a
o Cf) co C6 >
c o M M .N
L, V� T c
. _ aD
(D
L
CL
O
CCS >% M a �, V
x cc LU
cu co ,-
— W �� QO' _ O co O C
0 Cc •� = •Q ♦"'' d C
c >� 3Q c� v E o O
cd .-. 0— c Q Q � � O J
7 � }• O •-
.r O a.
O cd c c �> c 0
U p J 0 Lu 2
I
Pr
�Ra[7mF =