Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/08/1994 - Airport Relations CommissionAGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE EAGANv MINNESOTA RAGAN CITY COUNCIL CEAMBERS TUESDAY FEBRUARY 81 1994 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA A. Organizational Business II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion - Part 150 Program for Homes in Commercial -Industrial Guided Areas IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Policy Review - Lone Oak Forest Subdivision - Noise Zone IV B. Dual Track Airport Planning Process - MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan V. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota B. MASAC Meeting C. ENAC Update Heights Corridor of January 25, 1994 VI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD VIS. VIII. NEXT MEETING - Tuesday, March 8, 1994 IX. ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will make every attempt to provide the aids, however this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 681-4600 with requests. MEMO TO: CHAIR RING AND ALL MEMBERS OF TEE AIRPORT FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR EOEENSTEIN DATE: FEBRUARY 2& 1994 SUBJECT: EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OF -FEBRUARY at 1994 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be held on Tuesday, February 8, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 681-4603 if you will be unable to attend this meeting. For those who are new to the Committee, the meeting will follow shortly after thecommittee and commission orientation session which is scheduled for 5:30 on February 8. You should be receiving additional information in that regard under separate cover. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, is in order for approval by the Committee. A. Organisational Business --At the first meeting following the appointment of new members, the City's committees and commissions traditi Wally perform their organizational business. Enclosed on page is an updated Committee member address and phone list. Please review it to.determine the accuracy of the information included. 1. Election of Chair --The Chair is a voting member of the Committee. The principal additional duties associated with the Chair are facilitating Committee meetings, recognizing persons wishing to speak and coordinating votes on motions: Staff also consults with the Chair from time to time with respect to agendas and schedules for meetings. Other than that, the Chair has the same duties and responsibilities as other members of the Committee. The former Chair, Tim Ring, did not seek reappointment to the Committee. Staff will coordinate nominations and election of this position. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS. ITEM: To elect.a Chair for the Airport Relations Committee for 1994. 2. Election of Vice -Chair --The Vice -Chair is a voting member of the Committee who conducts meetings in the absence of the Chair. Other duties and responsibilities of the Vice -Chair are the same of those for all Committee members. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To elect a Vice -Chair for 1994. 3. Meeting Time 8 Dates --Typically, the Committee meets on the second Tuesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. This schedule II assures that meetings and staff preparation do not conflict with City Council meetings which occur on the first and third Tuesdays of the month. The Committee may choose a different schedule if it serves Committee members' needs better. If the Committee is going to continue to meet on the second Tuesday of the month, the only conflict identified in 1994 is the month of November when the regular meeting falls on election day, November S. Staff would recommend that the Committee consider shifting that meeting to Monday evening, November 7. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To establish meeting time and dates for Committee meetings for 1994. 4. Meetings --in recent years, the Committee has maintained a practice of completing all meetings no later than 9:00 p.m. unless extended by an action of the majority of the members present to complete business on an approved agenda. The Committee may wish to decide whether it wishes to continue this practice. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny continuation of the practice of adjourning Committee meetings prior to 9:00 p.m. unless extended by a majority of those present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the January 11, 1994 meeting are enclosed on pages through for your review. These minutes, as presented or modified, are in order for approval by the Committee. III. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion - Part 150 Program for Homes in commeraial- Industrial guided Areas --The Committee continued this item at its meeting of January it with direction to staff to take the item to the Advisory Planning Commission meeting of January and prepare certain materials for Tuesday's meeting. The item was presented to the Advisory Planning Commission on January 25. A copy of their minutes regarding this item is enclosed on page 76 . In general, the APC recognized the significance of this issue and expressed an interest in the same types of information the Airport Relations Committee has been requesting. They suggested the ARC move forward with its public meeting open house and requested that they be included in the notice for the meeting. They also requested information concerning funding levels for the Part 150 program and were open to the Airport Relations Committee's request fqr a joint meeting following the open house. Enclosed on pages 11 through -/,,a is a copy of the draft questionnaire relative to this item. Also enclosed on pages -L441— through 1%S are revenue and cost projections based upon the MAC's CIP for the next four years. Three scenarios are identified. The first assumes that the MAC will receive the funding level being requested in each year. The first contingency a's assumes that they will receive the $11.5 million being requested in 1994, but that the FAA does not increase funding from there. The second contingency assumes that they will receive the same level of funding as was received in 1993. Depending upon the scenario chosen, the City will have $3.5 million, $2.5 million or $578,000 for purchase alternatives in the next four years. The wide variation does impact the feasibility of certain acquisition alternatives. You will note as a matter of scale that the McKee Addition acquisition is approximately three times the value of all the potential acquisitions combined. As a consequence, if the Committee and APC are predisposed to recommend acquisition of the McKee Addition, staff would recommend that the City pursue an alternative funding source through the MAC and FAA like that requested by the Cities of Richfield and Bloomington for their noise -impacted areas. For additional information concerning the type of analysis done by the City of Bloomington relative to their purchase request, please refer to the Notice of Public Hearing which is enclosed on pages/6 through ,6_�. Also enclosed on page i!27 is a copy of:,correspon- dence received from Colleen Johnson regarding her interest in the home buyout alternative and requesting that she be included in any mailing list relative to this item. Staff has been in touch with the staff of St. Thomas Becket Church at 1080 Lone Oak Road. They have agreed to make their sanctuary available to the City for this purpose on either February 21 or March 7. Because of the short turnaround between the Committee's next meeting and the February 21 date, staff has tentatively public scheduled March 7 at the church for the open house. The Committee should discuss whether to hold their next regular meeting on March 8 immediately after the open house. In addition, at the last meeting, Dustin Mirick asked whether the house at the corner of Lexington and Lone Oak had any historical significance. Staff has looked into this matter and has found that the house, although extensively remodeled many years ago, was once a country school. In its current condition. it probably has no significant historical value. Nonetheless, it is an interesting bit of Eagan history of.which I was not aware previously. ACTION TO HE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide staff direction on: 1) a public open house for noise -affected residents tentatively scheduled for March 7, 1992 at St. Thomas Becket Church and 2) distribution of public information including the letter and questionnaire as presented. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Policy Review - Lone Oak Forest. subdivision - Noise Sone IV --At its meeting of January 25, the Advisory Planning Commission also received a presentation by staff concerning aircraft noise and land use planning standards in anticipation of their consideration of the Lone Oak Forest Subdivision application which will come before them at their meeting of,February. A background memo relative to this item is enclosed on ages y� through -5ffor your review. Also enclosed on pages throughare an area map and plat map for the property. Essentially, t e subject parcel is located on the eastern boundary of Eagan between Lone Oak Road and Highway 55. As noted in the memorandum, it lies within Noise Zone IV and, as such, should be reviewed in the context of airport noise impacts. The memo outlines the Met Council standards with respect to consistent, provisional, conditional and inconsistent land uses. The City has used these criteria in the past, but it may be appropriate at this time to formally adopt them if new developments are going to continue to occur within the noise zones. Staff has recently dealt with a hotel project which is also subject to the noise restrictions in the area. The hotel has agreed to a condition relative to sound transmission consistent with the standards. It would be important to be able to apply the` residential standards to any residential applications occurring within the corridor area and the noise'zones in the future. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend to the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council land use compatibility standards for the Lone Oak Forest Subdivision. B. Dual Track Planning Process --Enclosed on page � is a copy of the public notice for the scoping document for the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport Long -Term Comprehensiv Ian. Exc s from the scoping documen re enclosed on pages through Also enclosed on page is the cover memo rom the capacity enhancement plan oA ,the airpoA summary of that plan is enclosed on pages � through Also enclosed on pages Zs_ through 14fz are excerpts of the capacity enhancement plan describing each of the enhancement options and their delay cost savings. The function of these decision documents is to identify the types of information which ought to be reviewed in the alternative environmental document on the existing airport site. As a consequence, in reviewing the information enclosed, please focus on what types of information ought to be included in the environmental review rather than the accuracy or adequacy of the information itself. If the Committee feels that the areas identified to be reviewed are adequate at this time, it is not necessary to make any comments to the MAC. If the Committee wishes to see additional areas reviewed in the AED, it should make a recommendation at this time so it can be processed by the City Council in time for the March 2 MAC deadline. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend any comments relative to the MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Plan scoping documents as presented. V. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor --Enclosed on pages, through is a copy of the Advisory Circular relative to the two depbtrture profiles required of each airline for each aircraft type following a study by the FAA. The MAC and Northwest Airlines are currently developing standards for each of these departure profiles and studies of which procedure is to be used at each runway will occur at a later date. B. MASAC Me ting of January 25, 1994 --Enclosed on pages I through are the operations and complaint summaries November and December which were distributed at the January MASAC meeting. They show continued high levels of impact and overflight in the Eagan area with resulting complaints reflected. As a consequence of the APC meeting on January 25, staff was unable to attend the MASAC meeting. Dustin Mirick or Lois Monson may wish to make comments relative to that meeting. C. ENAC Update --Any members of ENAC present at Tuesday's meeting, can make comments relative to the Eagan Noise Abatement Council's activities. VI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Any visitors wishing to address the Committee may do so at this time. VII. INFORMATIVE Enclosed on pages L50 through /0—is the membership list for the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Please keep this list -for future reference. VIII. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be on Tuesday, March 8, 1994. A special open house workshop meeting will be on Monday, March 7, 1994 as noted above. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn no later than 9:00 p.m. unless extended by a majority of the members present to conduct business indicated on the agenda. Assi ant to the City Administrator Attachments JDH/vmd 1-25-94 AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE ADDRESS AND PHONE LIST W. Dustin Mirick 1-95 Michael Schlax 1-97 MASAC Representative 3119 Joyce Ct 3784 South Hills Ct Eagan, MN 55121 Eagan, MN 55123 H) 686-6208 H) 452-2574 W) 726-2931 Jane Vanderpoel 1-95 Rita Younger 1-95 960 Savannah Road ARC Alternate Eagan, MN 55123 2930 Burnside Ave H) 454-2890 Eagan, MN 55121 W) 296-5523 (H) 687-9624 (W) 331-4063 Lois Monson 1-95 Steve Soderling 1-96 MASAC Alternate 4657 Park Cliff Dr 4368 Sandstone Drive Eagan, MN 55123 Eagan, MN 55122 H) 688-6597 H) 687-0578 W) 937-4391 Pat Todd 1-97 Bob Cooper 1-96 731 Golden Meadow Road 1472 Highview Avenue Eagan, MN 55123 Eagan, MN 55121 H) 688-7928 H) 454-1250 W) 892-4286 W) 624-3550 Lance Staricha 1-95 Jon Hohenstein (Staff) ARC Alternate MASAC Alternate 3895 Newtown Ct City of Eagan Eagan, MN 55123 3830 Pilot Knob Road H) 688-8817 Eagan, MN 55122 W) 296-1902 H) 681-0467 W) 681-4603 `I Subiect to Approval MINUTES OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE Eagan, Minnesota January 11, 1994 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport. Relations Committee was held on Tuesday, January 11, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Bob Cooper, Lois Monson, Jane Vanderpoehl, and Dustin Mirick. Absent were Tim Ring, Greg Langan Pat Todd and Alternate Al Bachel. Also present was Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein. ACTING CHAIR A quorum was present but neither the Chair nor the Vice Chair were in attendance. Mirick was chosen by acclamation to act as chair for the meeting. AGENDA Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Vanderpoehl, all members voting in favor, the agenda was approved as presented. MINUTES There being no corrections or additions, the minutes of the November 3, 1993 meeting were approved as presented PART 150 PROGRAM Mirick introduced the item and noted that policy issues regarding the Part 150 program were previously discussed when the program was initially started. Hohenstein then reviewed the changes since the last policy discussion. They are that the MAC's 150 program is being funded at higher levels than the initial year of the program, the City's proportion of the program has increased due to a modification in the MAC'S funding formula and the city of Richfield has successfully requested the buy out of two neighborhoods using funds separate from the Part 150 program. He stated that in 1994 a larger eligibility contour will be utilized for the program and noted that it would be appropriate for the City to review its decision to provide sound insulation to affected households prior to entering those neighborhoods. He stated that five areas of the City are currently guided for commercial and industrial uses in the long run which would be eligible, for sound insulation or acquisition under the Part 150 program. He stated that the amount of money flowing to the City could result in all affected homes being sound insulated within approximately five years or certain target homes being acquired over a much longer period of time. He stated that was the reason that separate funding sources such as that pursued in Richfield should be discussed if acquisition is to be considered. Cooper asked if we have received much interest recently in.property acquisition. Hohenstein stated that there was interest at the.time the Part 150 program was set up but that insufficient hmds were available for any meaningful activity in that regard As a consequence, the City determined to undertake sound insulation He stated that the committee may wish to have public meetings with the affected residents to determine whether they would be interested in purchase options at this time. Hohenstein then reviewed the five areas guided for commercial and industrial land use that are eligible for the Part 150 program in 1994. Area one is located on Pilot Knob Road, north of Avalon Avenue. Area Two is located on Lexington Avenue between Lone Oak Road and Highway 55. Area three is the McKee Addition. Area four lies along Highway 55 between Lexington Avenue and 149. Area five lies along Blue Gentian Road, north of Highway 55. ARC MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 2 Mirick asked if there was any historic value for the house at the corner of Lexington and Lone Oak. Hohenstein stated that he would look into the matter for the next meeting. Cooper asked if the City receives many complaint calls from the five areas. Hohenstein stated that the MAC complaint map reflects a significant amount of phone calls and that the City receives some as well. He stated that many residents have indicated that they do not call because they do not believe the complaints result in any changes. He stated that some residents have indicated that they are significantly bothered but do not use the complaint number. Cooper stated that the City should request one year's worth of complaint data for the live areas. Hohenstein stated he would contact MAC in that regard. It was suggested that a public meeting be held to discuss the noise abatement options with the neighborhoods again. Vanderpoehl suggested that in addition to a public meeting, the City should distribute a questionnaire regarding the level of annoyance and preference between insulation and acquisition. Cooper suggested that a do nothing option should be added to the questionnaire. Monson stated that the City should make clear the potential impact of the questionnaire so that people do not perceive it to be simply an opinion poll. Hohenstein suggested rather than a standard public meeting, an open house should be held as is being done for road improvement projects. Vanderpoehl asked if that could be held in the neighborhood The committee agreed that that would be a good location. Cooper suggested the old St. Thomas Becket Church as a location. There was discussion about the need to make clear the potential outcomes of the meetings and the discussion to minimize frustration by residents who have dealt with the issue for many years. Cooper stated that some people will be frustrated no matter what the outcome is but that there is a need for clear information concerning the options. Vanderpoehl stated that correspondence with the neighborhood should not guarantee an outcome but that the information provided will help the committee and the City make an informed decision regarding the issue. Mirick reiterated that itis important to have the meeting in the neighborhood. Vanderpoehl suggested that before the next meeting of the committee, a letter and questionnaire be drafted for review by the committee which outlines what has changed since the Part 150 program began, the basic questions concerning annoyance and mitigation alternatives and an invitation to attend the informational meeting. Hohenstein then reviewed the new Ford Town funding alternatives provided by the MAC. It was suggested that a second grant from the Part 150 program might be appropriate for the McKee Addition or other areas to be acquired Mirick asked when the Advisory Planning Commission next met. Hohenstein stated that the Planning Commission would meet on January 25. Upon motion by Monson, seconded by Cooper, all members voting in favor, the committee directed staff to take the information to the Advisory Planning Commission in January and that the results of the Planning Commission discussion be returned to the Airport Relations Committee for its meeting of February 8. Following that, an informational meeting would be scheduled with the public to review the options discussed. OTHER BUSINESS Hohenstein reviewed the current status of the Minnesota Public Lobby lawsuit which seeks to apply state noise standards to the airport. He stated that the appeals court had found that the state standards do apply and that the MAC is appealing the decision to the Supreme Court. e ARC NIINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 3 NEXT MEETING Due to scheduling conflicts on February 8, the next regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee was scheduled for Thursday, February 3, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Vanderpoehl, all members voting in favor, the meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m. Date Secretary SENT BY: 2- 2-94 : 10:12 ;SMSON WILCOX SHEL 612 681 46124 2/ 2 Page 12/HAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MINMES JANUARY 25, 1994 AIRCRAFT HOISB/LAND USB PLAI1SM STANDARDS PART ISO LAND DSE PROGRAM Jon nohenstein, Assistant to the City Administrator, presented to the Commission an overview of the Metropolitan Council's policy regarding land use Planning in aircraft noise impacted areas. Mr. Hohenstein outlined the information contained in his January 19, 1994, memoranda which was included in the Commission members' Packets.. He answered questions from commission members. In conclusion, Mr. Hohenstein requested •feedback" from the Commission members with respect to alternative land use planning and the proposed Part 150 Land Use Program. Chairman Voraeek and Member Merkley expressed an interest in Part attending the neighborhood informational meetings regarding the 150 Land Use Program. ADJOURSRRRI Heyl moved, Merkley secondeed# the meetingto a9ilo p.mhAll e January voted 25, 1994 Advisory Planning in favor. Secretary - Eagan Advisory Planning Commission ILRJ R-95%: 612 432 '3780 02-02-94 10:16AM P002 #22 Date Dear Resident: The Federal Aviation Administration recently approved an application by the Metropolitan Airports Commission to expand the eligible area for the Part 150 Land Use Program to include your neighborhood. As you may already know, the Part 150 Program provides for sound insulation or. property acquisition for noise affected homes around the airport. The expanded area adds about 160 homes to the program in Eagan. The Eagan Airport Relations Committee would like to invite you to a public Open House on Monday evening, March 7, 1994 from 6:30-9:00 p.m. at St. Thomas Becket Church at 1080 Lone Oak Road because it has been a number of years since your neighborhood last had an opportunity to discuss this program,. The purpose of the open house is to permit you to come at a time convenient for you and meet with Committee members and City staff to talk about your questions and concerns on a one on one basis. Maps and background materials will be available at the meeting. We will also be inviting MAC representatives to discuss how the Part 150 Program works. In the coming months, the City will be considering whether it is better to sound insulate eligible noise affected homes or to purchase some or all of the homes so people can move away from the noise impacts. To help make this decision, the City wants your input. A form will be provided for written comments which you can complete at the Open House or mail to the City afterward. The City will also consider surrounding land uses, feasibility of reuse and cost, since a fixed amount of money will be available for the program each year. On average, it costs $15,000 to $20,000 to sound insulate a home compared to the purchase price and redevelopment costs of acquisition. At current funding levels, the MAC can insulate approximately fourty homes a year. Acquisition can affect fewer homes per year and, therefore, it would take much longer to reach all 160 homes. As a consequence, it will be important to weigh all issues carefully before the City makes a policy decision in this regard. In addition to the Open House, residents will also have an opportunity to comment on the program alternatives at meetings of the Airport Relations Committee, Advisory Planning Commission and City Council later this spring. If you received this letter, you will also receive notices for those meetings. Please fill out the enclosed form and bring it to the Open House or return it to the City. If you -have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 681-4600. Sincerely, Jon Hohenstein /cz CITY OF EAGAN PART 150 LAND USE PROGRAM RESIDENT QUESTIONAIRRE 1. How frequently are you bothered by aircraft noise? Never Monthly • Weekly Daily Several Times a Day 2. How would you describe the aircraft noise impact at your home? Low Moderate Significant Severe 3. If you could have your home sound insulated or purchased to deal with the noise nuisance, which would you prefer? Insulate Purchase Do Nothing 4. If you could have your home insulated within the next four years or purchased within the next twelve years, which would you prefer? Insulate Purchase Do Nothing 5. What questions or concerns would,you like to see addressed at an public meeting regarding this issue? 6. What is your address: Please return this completed form to the Open House on March 8 or mail it to: Jon Hohenstein City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 /-3 PART 150 REVENUE PROJECTIONS MAC GRANT EAGAN $ EAGAN SHARE INSULATE/HOME POSSIBLE INSULATED INSULATE CERTAIN INS CERTAIN COST NET AVAILABLE CONTINGENCY 1 CONTINGENCY 2 1994 $11,480,000 6.57% $754,236 17,500 43 27 472,500 281,736 281,736 0 1995 $14,500,000 6.57$ $952,656 17,500 54 952,650 754,236 53,100 1996 $17,300,000 6.57$ $1,136,610 17,500 65 1,136,610 754,236 262,800 1997 $18,000,000 6.57$ $1,182,600 17,500 68 1,182,600 754,236 262,800 ACQUISITION RELOCATION DEMOLITION CONTINGENCY TOTAL LEXINGTON 4 @ $100,000 400_,000 90,000 92,000 84,000 666,000 4 @ $100,000 400,000 90,000 92,000 84,000 666,000 BLUE GENTIAN 11 @ 140,000 1,540,000 247,500 354,200 323,400 2,465,100 KOLOFSKI 7 @ $80,000 560,000 157,500 128,800 117,600 963;900 2 @ $70,000 140,000 45,000 32,200 29,400 246,600 PILOT KNOB 2 @ $80,000 160,000 45,000 36,800 33,.600 275,400 SUBTOTAL $3,200,000 $675;000 $736,000 $672,000 $5,283,000 MCKEE 108 @ $75,000 8,100,000 2,430,000 1,863;000 1,701,000 14,094,000 TOTAL $11,300,000 $3,105,000 $20599,000 $2,373,000 $19,377,000 `�) ® ) elya R C� IVED bloominflfon, minndnofa NOTICE of Public Hearing NOV 18 1993 By the City Council DEPUTY EXEC. DIR. Based on resident requests, the City Council is considering a proposal to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to conduct an airport land use compatibility program consisting of acquisition of 74 family occupied single houses, two -2 family uses houses and one vacant single family lot. The proposal has been prepared by the City of Bloomington in consultation with the Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood. The properties. proposed for acquisition are the closest single family homes to the end of runway 4/22. The proposed acquisition area is a single-family residential area along 12th, 13th, Bloomington, 16th, and 17th Avenues north of 82nd Street and along 18th and Old Cedar Avenues and 86th Street adjacent to Wrights Lake Park in Bloomington. The properties considered for acquisition are shaded on the map printed on the back of this notice. Located at the end of runway 4/22, this is the most noise impacted area of Bloomington. The homes are within the 1992 LDN 70 and 65 noise contours. DATE OF HEARING: Monday, November 29, 1993 TIME OF HEARING: 8:30 p.m. PLACE OF HEARING: City Council Chambers Bloomington Municipal Building 2215 West Old Shakopee Road HOW TO PARTICIPATE: 1. Submit a letter expressing your views to the address or fax number below and/or; 2. Attend the hearing and give testimony about the proposal. FURTHER INFORMATION: Larry Lee, Director of Community Development City of Bloomington 2215 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, Minnesota 55431-9971 (612) 887-9635 (FAX) 887-96M An acquisition proposal has been prepared which describes project costs and financing, proposed land reuse and fiscal compacts on the city, school district and Hennepin County. Copies of the proposal may be obtained from the Community Development Department, City Hall Offices, which are open from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. PROVIDING NOTICE 70 TENANTS: If you are the registered owner or taxpayer of a property affected by this notice, and you lease or rent all or part of the property to other persons or businesses, the City Code requires you to notify each tenant or lessee. You may either post this Notice, or a copy, in a conspicuous place within the building or notify each tenant or lessee individually. PROVIDING -NOTICE ZV OWNERS: If you are a tenant in a fop affected by this Notice, please inform the owner or property manager that you have received this Notice of Hearing. eds min%worts*Ma.Ma it IL 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................................................................... 2 Purpose........................................................................... 2 Summary Conclusions......................................................... 2 BACKGROUND..................................................................... Area Description and Maps .............................:.................... HISTORY OF NOISE MITIGATION ........................................... 4 MSP Facility Expansion Plans ............................................... 4 Met Council Policies........................................................... 4 MAC's Part 150 Program .................................................... 5 Legal Authority ................................................................. 5 Bloomington City Council Part 150 Policies .............................. 5 Meetings with Homeowners .............:.................................... 7 Northeast Task Force.......................:................................. 8 Neighborhood Reuse Plan .................................................... 9 Review by the Public and Other Agencies................................17 PROJECT COSTS...................................................................17 Estimated Costs of Acquisition, Relocation, Demolition ...............17 PROCESS AND SCHEDULE .......................... LAND DISPOSITION..............................................................18 FISCAL IMPACTS.................................................................19 Property Tax Impacts............................................................ 19 School District Impacts............................:..........................20 CountyImpacts.................................................................20 FINANCING.........................................................................21 FederalGrant...................................................................21 LocalShare......................................................................21 i9 �.rt+•.� y•. Purpose By this proposal, the -City of'Bloomington and residents of the Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood petition the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to consider and approve an airport land use compatibility program consisting of acquisition of 74 occupied single family houses, two -2 family houses and one vacant single fainly lot. -These properties are the closest to the end of runway 4/22 in Bloomington. The homeowners support the proposed acquisition as their preferred way to mitigate the impacts of aircraft noise. This document contains information MAC will need to complete its application to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for federal grant funds to accomplish the acquisition. Summary Conclusions • A land use compatibility program around MSP International Airport is a cost effective approach to maintaining the airport. • The estimated purchase price of the homes will be approximately $7.2 million. Other associated, costs including relocation, demolition and administration will be about $4.3 million. The total estimated project cost is $11.5 million. • The City and homeowners will cooperate with MAC to prepare an acquisition, resale and reuse plan which protects the residents, minimizes public expense and provides noise compatible reuse for the current and proposed future airport configurations. • The City of Bloomington agrees to purchase a portion of the lands for public use and to cooperate with MAC on a method to sell the remaining land to private owners. • Land resale should cover between 80% and 100% of the local match share of federal funding. The Metropolitan Airports Commission's cost of participation in this acquisition is estimated between $0 and $1,000,000. .2- j7Lyelasyiu� Area Description and Maps The Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood is a single and multi -family residential area along 12th, 13th, Bloomington, 16th, and 17th Avenues north of 82nd Street and along 18th and Old Cedar Avenues and 86th Street adjacent to Wrights Lake Park in Bloomington. Located at the end of runway 4/22, this is the most noise impacted area of Bloomington. The homes are within the 1996 LDN 70 and 65 contours when runway 4/22 is extended. The Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood also experiences land use and traffic impacts from adjacent commercial properties and TH77. The reuse plan proposed in this application is designed to resolve these conflicts. Figure 1: Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood The 1990 Census reports the population of the Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood as 195, with 74 single family housing units and two -2 family units. One lot is vacant. a/ -3- MSP Facility Expansion Plans MAC's Long Term Comprehensive Plan for Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) proposes extending runway 4/22 2,750 feet to the southwest toward Bloomington and adding a north -south' runway parallel to TH77. Both runway improvements will increase overflights and noise levels in Bloomington residential areas. The extension of runway 4/22 is in MAC's 1994 capital improvements program. The FAA has stated its intention to use the extended runway in conjunction with the north 11/29 parallel. This 'T' operation mode will substantially increase the number of flights over Bloomington and the Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood from about 13,000 per year to 47,000 per year. The additional flights will all be the more noisy takeoffs. Table 1: Air Traffic to Southwest over Bloomington Projected With 1992 4/22 Extension Annual takeoffs 10,950 45,625 Annual landings 2,555 1,825 Total annual operations 13,505 47,450 Source: Runway 4/22 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, October 10, 1991 - Table 4.9 page 79 In June 1993, MAC stated its intention to include off -airport noise mitigation such as house insulation and acquisition as part of the capital cost application to FAA for a 4/22 runway extension. In its comment letters on the 4/22 extension DEIS, the City of Bloomington has advocated the principle of including noise mitigation as part of the capital cost for airport projects. Metropolitan Council Policies The Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Aviation Guide, policy 10 says: 'Airport operations and land uses surrounding an airport should be compatible with each other and with the role and function assigned to the airport. Where an incompatibility exists, affected agencies and jurisdictions should develop a program to mitigate the incompatibility in both operations and land use. '1 The guidelines for determining land use compatibility with aircraft noise presented in Appendix B of the Aviation Chapter say that areas situated close to aircraft take off and landing points should be redeveloped to more compatible land uses. The Aviation Guide suggests that only non- residential uses are appropriate within the LDN 70 contour. r Metropolitan Aviation Development Guide Chapter, Metropolitan Council, January 1990, p. 52.) MAC's Part 150 Program MAC has determined that the City of Bloomington will receive about 6% of the annual Part 150 noise mitigation giant funds for MSP Airport. These funds are insufficient to mitigate noise through acquisition. At the expected region -wide Part 150 funding level of $10 million per year and an average insulation cost of $20,000 per house, it will take about 30 years to noise insulate Bloomington single family homes within the 1996 LDN 65 program eligibility contour. If Bloomington's share of Part 150 funds were used for acquisitions, it would take 20 years to. complete the 77 Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood acquisitions. To both the residents and the City, this is an unrealistically long timetable for acquisition. .For these reasons, the Bloomington City Council, with advice from the Planning Commission and Northeast Siudy Task Force, determined that the City's policy will be to devote Bloomington's share of Part 150 monies to noise insulation and petition MAC to apply for a separate grant to acquire homes in the Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood. Legal Authority MAC and City of Bloomington have statutory authority to enter into agreements to acquire the Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood for noise abatement purposes and to carry out a plan for the area's redevelopment. The purposes for establishing the Metropolitan Airports Commission, stated in Minnesota Statutes (MSA) Section 473.602, includes: 1. Promote the public welfare and national security; serve the public interest, convenience and necessity; 2. Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement, control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and 3. Promote the overall goals of the State's environmental policies and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports. MAC is granted powers to acquire lands for purposes contemplated by MSA sections 473.601-679, which includes a provision of noise abatement and minimizing the public's exposure to noise. Bloomington City Council Part 150 Policies In 1987, MAC started the process of applying for federal grants to mitigate aircraft noise impacts on noise sensitive uses, primarily single family homes surrounding the airport. By 1992 MAC had implemented a policy which delegates substantial control over noise mitigation priorities to cities. Pursuant to this delegation, the Bloomington City Council adopted a series of policy statements for use of noise mitigation funds at their meetings of May 19, 1987, October 29, 1990, December 9, 1991, January 27, 1992, and November 2, 1992. The City of Bloomington established block priorities for an area containing 1,280 single family homes within the 1996 LDN 65 Part 150 eligibility area. Block priorities were determined based on level of noise exposure and distance from the extended centerline of runway 4/22. Figure 2 shows these block priorities. The 1993 Part 150 program insulated 30 homes in priority blocks 1 and 2. c?,3 -5- Figure 2: Part 150 Noise Insulation Block Priorities On January 27, 1992, the City Council identified an inverted L-shaped area north of 82nd Street and west of TH77 as a potential acquisition area. The area is referred to as the 'deferred area* because the City Council deferred any.noise insulation here until a decision could be made on whether to acquire the homes. Figure 2 shows the location of the deferred area. The deferred area has the highest aircraft noise levels. It also is impacted by other land use incompatibilities. These problems raised the question as to whether it would be better public polio- to insulate or purchase these homes. The CityCouncil directed staff to meet with residents of this deferred area to determine whether they wished to have their homes insulated or acquired. Within the deferred area, the City Council identified nine houses that clearly should be acquired. These. houses had high aircraft noise exposures and were isolated from residential neighborhoods. Six of these homes located on 13th Avenue are scheduled for acquisition in 1993 using Part 150 funds. a� Meetings with Homeowners As part of their consideration of a Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program, the Bloomington City staff and Council members conducted a series of meetings with home owners in the deferred area to determine whether they preferred the acquisition or insulation options offered as part of the MSP Part 150 program. MAC staff participated in these meetings to explain the Part 150 program options, future plans for runway extensions and additions and how these airport improvements would effect the neighborhood. Residents also toured the noise insulation demonstration house on Standish Avenue. In these meetings, residents described how they have been impacted by aircraft noise, that they are intolerant of the present situation and very concerned about increased impacts once runway 4/22 is extended. Residents were almost unanimously interested in acquisition and relocation. After two information and discussion meetings, owners were asked to complete a "straw poll" ballot to indicate their preference for acquisition or insulation. The results are indicated in Table 2 for four distinct neighborhoods within the deferred area. Figure 3: Acquisition Neighborhoods tt v O's -7- Table 2: Homeowner Preference for Acquisition Acquire Insulate No Answer Uncommitted Neighborhood 1 * " 22 2 3 (12th & 13th Avenues) Neighborhood 2 28 (Bloomington, 16th & 17th Avenues) Neighborhood 3 5 (18th & Old Cedar Avenues) Neighborhood 4 • 5 1 — — (86th Street) Source: Department of Community Development, City of Bloomington, October, 1992. • Six homes identified for acquisition on 13th Avenue and three at the northeast corner of Wrights lake were not polled. Northeast Task Foree In 1992, the Bloomington City Council appointed a 15 -member resident and business task force to examine land use issues in the portion of Bloomington north of 90th Street and east of Xerxes Avenue. The study area includes the Part 150 deferred area and the Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood. The Northeast Task Force examined major impacts in the study area, including the impacts of aircraft noise and future plans for expanding MSP Airport, and recommended specific land use strategies to the Bloomington City Council. The task force spent considerable time, reviewing aircraft noise information and the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan. In their report to the Bloomington City Council, the task force concluded that: • Part 150 funds should be used to acquire the six top priority noise sensitive homes with land use conflicts (3 north of 79th Street on 13th Avenue and 3 just south of 79th Street on 13th Avenue). • Non -Part 150 funds should be used to acquire the three noise sensitive homes with land use conflicts northeast of Wrights lake Park and the properties should be integrated into the park • Acquisition and redevelopment in the following area should be considered as long as insulation of other noise sensitive dwellings is not delayed: - west side of 13th Avenue South of 80th Street for rc-use as a park; - east side of 13th Avenue South of 80th Street for reuse as open space or replacement garages for Georgetown Apartments (so that the current garage locations can be utilized of r butd�apmg and play areas); - east side of Bloomington Avenue, 16th and 17th Avenues between 81st and 82nd Streets for re -rise as a teen center and park; - the area bounded by 18th Avenue, 82nd Street, Old Cedar Avenue and 83rd Street extended for re -use as a unified office plaryted development with substantial buffering for the residential properties to the west. • Accelerate insulation of all homes within the 1996 LDN 65 noise contour that are not purchased. • Do not acquire the six parcels along 86th Street on the south side of Wrights Lake Park - maintain as iesidential and insulate in order of priority. Neighborhood Reuse Plan A reuse concept plan for the Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhoods has been reviewed and approved by the Bloomington Planning Commission after a public hearing on August 12, 1993. Minutes of the hearing are attached in Appendix A. The objectives of the City's reuse plan include: • Develop uses compatible with aircraft noise in excess of LDN 70 db; • Recover property tax base lost with acquired homes; • Stabilize single and multi -family neighborhoods surrounding the redeveloped area; • Add public recreation open space; • Separate commercial traffic and access from remaining residential areas. Re -use plans for the Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood anticipate conversion of the noise sensitive residential uses to noise tolerant non-residential uses. The intent of the re -use plans is to improve neighborhood conditions and compatibility with aircraft noise by: • Removing 78 homes that are exposed to significant aircraft noise; • Adding public park space to a neighborhood that is lacking open space; • Reserving land for community identified quasi -public needs (such as a teen center); • Adding land for accessory non-residential uses (garages and private open space) to improve the quality of existing multi -family residential area without adding any new dwelling units; • Assembling full block office/warehouse redevelopment site with excellent access and highway visibility. Figures 4a to 6b illustrate existing uses and proposed reuse plans for the four acquisition neighborhoods. The type and intensity of reuse shown for the 8200 Old Cedar block can only be obtained if all the parcels between 82nd Street and 8300 Old Cedar Avenue are combined for redevelopment. Figure 4a 12th/13th Avenues EXISTING LAND USE J � E: "79th .Street Tr-7Lj �T l" I o fF�e , i i K. rAUVr% - PfAi W REsiornrr� R„Ei.iDa+�I•L � Y^f""'T E. 80th Street , rnuvf�-Frrnt�Y R(5ioh�'rnL C < 3� N Oj "E 82nd .Street. Option 1; Vacate 13th Ave. Develop parcels and road right of way for public park. 1 E. 80th Street R n R2t.Coy�,wl d C fv a .0 .. N TM Figure 4b 12th/13th Avenues PROPOSED LAND USE E 79th Street_ � :TT i.r l eF��vn,,ay , ' 1 pita.• • I e(.Pce. 7 E. 80th Street V7: P^erfAFNTS J E. 82nd Street _ M, CL is rt rt• 18th Avenue S. CZ IOGP4 L Resp«.rr i'S�N6lK �j� •i �• P�""i _ We _----- •— c- R«w. .� s�N Le 4 R 4 I sips. m co: CL rt Q I r� Bloomington.Avenue S. Old Cedar Avenue S. Figure 5b Bloomington/16th/17th/ 18th/Old Cedar Avenues PROPOSED LAND USE E. 80th Street. 77 +rrl L " ` '��-- `- `• ; � ice"`— i r`` V ' -.- PUBLIC PARK QUASI -PUBLIC (I.e. Teen Center) Note: Vacate 16th & 17th Ave. and E. H7st St. rights of way. E. 82nd Street o(FKE .61 pip- Ui i� '7 W) .i. 1 -- C id Tri Q I i> � Q .c 10 ,c - O- iO i — m. G� Figure 5b Bloomington/16th/17th/ 18th/Old Cedar Avenues PROPOSED LAND USE E. 80th Street. 77 +rrl L " ` '��-- `- `• ; � ice"`— i r`` V ' -.- PUBLIC PARK QUASI -PUBLIC (I.e. Teen Center) Note: Vacate 16th & 17th Ave. and E. H7st St. rights of way. E. 82nd Street o(FKE .61 pip- Ui '7 14) � i> � Q I E. 83rd Street �( -13- E . 82nd ST e O W U O 3C2, Figure 5c Bloomington/16th/1- .h/ 18th/Old Cedar Avenues PROPOSED LAND USE DETAIL Site: 168,000 square feet Building: 60,000 square feet 2 story Parldng: 180 spaces 4/1000 leasable square feet The type and intensity of reuse shown in this plan can be obtained only if all the parcels between 82nd Street and 8300 Old Cedar Avenue are combined for redevelopment. 17th Avenue S. Old Cedar Avenue S. $1 rP Rt 7m`M0• FJ R C � 7 7 7 7 01111 � Y r` Trunk Highway 77 >CCD ti = � w r z d r r� Figure 6b Wrights Lake PROPOSED LAND USE Note: NE Task,oree recommended the southerly 6 lots not be acquired and remain as a residential use. O 200ms E. 84th Street Muvri —FRAU p�.�orwu� 77 Wrights Lake Park PARK i I� PUBLIC . PARK E. 86th Street . Review by the Public and Other Agencies The Metropolitan Council must review and approve changes in the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. In addition, MSA 473.621 requires that land acquisition costing more than $5 million and involving relocation of residential properties is subject to Metropolitan Council approval. The City has submitted the Northeast Noisepoint reuse concept to the Metropolitan Council for preliminary comment and incorporated the Council's staff comments in this application. The Metropolitan Council has informed the City that the appropriate time to submit the proposed Northeast Noisepoint acquisition project for Metropolitan Council review is following City Council adoption of a comprehensive plan amendment contingent on Met Council approval. The proposed acquisition is not subject to Metropolitan Significance or State Environmental Review. In 1993 the MAC prepared a federal environmental assessment for acquisition and relocation of 356 houses in the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods in Richfield. The Commission and FAA determined that this acquisition for noise abatement was consistent with existing environmental policies and objectives in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and would not significantly affect the quality of the environment. Because the proposed acquisition of the Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood involves a Federal action, the National Environmental Policy Act and regulations require preparation of an environmental; assessment resulting in either a fording of no significant impact or the completion of an environmental impact statement. None of the properties within the proposed acquisition area have restrictions associated with previous use of LAWCON or other Federal.or State funds. There are no known buildings or areas of historical or archeological significance within the proposed acquisition area. There are no designated wetlands within the proposed acquisition areas. Estimated Costs of Acquisition, Relocation, Demolition The estimated cost of acquiring 77 properties within the Noisepoint area is $11,452,000. In the cost estimates, consideration was given to the acquisition and relocation requirements under federal, FAA and'state regulations. This $11,452,000 estimate includes the purchase, relocation payments, costs of appraisals, title work, demolition, as well as miscellaneous costs. The estimates are based on information provided by the relocation/acquisition consultants employed by MAC. The following table summarizes the costs by item. Table 3: Summary of Estimated Acquisition and Relocation Costs Acquisition Relocation Other Contingency TOTAL $7,165,000 1,140,000 1,653,000 1,494,000 $11,452,000 Source: City of Bloomington, Department of Community Development, October 1992. See Appendix B for parcel -by -parcel detail. 3S - 17 - The City of Bloomington's Assessing Division maintains information on each home's physical features and condition. The City's assessors find in this case that the total estimated fair market value of homes`'to be acquired .is about $5,975,000. Estimates for purchase of properties is based on 120% of the Assessor's estimated market value. Relocation payments are estimated at $15,000 per home. Other costs of $21,750 per home are based on the following per home costs: $380 inspection fee, $9,000 acquisition and relocation consultant fee, $750 appraisals fee, $900 title fee, $370 legal fee, $7,500 demolition, $2,500 property management, $350 survey. A contingency of 15 % is included in the budget. PROCESS AND SCHEDULE This section describes a proposed approach for the acquisition. Prior to starting acquisition, MAC's acquisition consultant should consult with the City and homeowners to develop a relocation plan and procedures manual, including hardship guidelines and a purchase priority system. The City will cooperate with MAC and its acquisition consultant to prepare an acquisition plan which abides by state and federal requirements, protects property owners and minimizes public expense. The City will assist MAC and its consultant with information as requested, but believes owners will prefer to keep a distinct separation between the City and the acquiring authority. MAC's experience with the New Ford Town and Rich Acres acquisitions in Richfield should provide useful guidance on appropriate public information, purchase order priority, hardship case and relocation issues. The homeowners and City anticipate a short buyout period (6 to 18 months) to minimize costs and impact on residents and to minimize public -costs. Most residents are anxious to have a decision on acquisition and to relocate. Once the acquisition decision is made, residents' desire to leave will grow.stronger. In Figures 4, 5 and 6, the City has presented a reuse plan for the acquired properties. Both MAC and the City of Bloomington are interested in reuse of the acquired property in a way which is compatible with existing and planned future aircraft operations. The City proposes to purchase about 14 acres of the property from MAC at its vacant fair market value, as determined byy u�xdependent appraisers, for park, rights-of-way, and public uses. An additional 4 acres will be sold to adjoining multi -family residential properties to improve their site plans and function. Five acres would be sold to a developer or company for construction of noise compatible office or warehouse use. The City will cooperate with MAC on a process to sell these lands to private owners and to approve necessary comprehensive plan amendments and rezoning. 36 FISCAL IMPACTS Transition of the Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood from residential to noise compatible commercial and public uses will have only minor financial impact on units of local government which rely on property tax revenue — Bloomington Independent School District #271, Hennepin County and the City of Bloomington. The property value of the Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood represents 0.13% of both the school district's and City's tax base and 0.013% of Hennepin County's tax base. Bloomington's Administrative Services Department has reviewed and compiled calculations presented here, assuming future use of the acquired properties consistent with the reuse plan in Figures 4, 5 and 6. Property Tax Impacts Property tax estimates are a computation of the total tax capacity of the acquisition homes and the tax capacity of the replacement uses, multiplied by the City's pay -1993 tax capacity extension rate. For taxes payable in 1993 (based on 1992 market values) the total tax capacity of the acquisition area is $77,000. The City's primary 1993 tax capacity extension rate is 116.093. Therefore, lost residential property taxes would be $89,400. Property tax for the new commercial/industrial property, net of fiscal disparities, is estimated as $76,800. State HACA aids should increase about $50,000 as a result of the proposed acquisition. The City's utility funds will lose about $22,800 annually from loss of the 76 houses, minus sewer and water utility fees paid by replacement uses estimated at $6,100 annually. Other City services and fees collected for services should not be noticeably affected. In total, the acquisition and proposed redevelopment would result in a slight increase in property tax collectionsrand service costs. Table 4: Impact on Property Tax Collections and Service Cost Associated with Acquisition of the Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood Estimated 1994 All Taxing Units Residential Property Taxes (Loss) -$100,000 New Commercial/Industrial Property Taxes (Gain) +$128,000 State Aids (HACA) (Gain) +$50,000 Fiscal Disparities (Loss) -$51,200 Net Operating and Maintenance Savings (Gain) +$8,500 Net Total Annual Impact (Gain) +$35,300 Source: City of Bloomington, Administrative Services Department Hennepin County, Property Tax Department In addition, the City will have a one-time cost of about $1,006,000 to acquire and convert from the existing single family residential uses to the proposed pattern of commercial and recreation open space uses. This includes the cost of the land the City proposes to purchase from MAC for park and rights-of-way. 19- School District Impacts Table 5: Annual Revenue Impact on Bloomington Independent School District #271 Associated with Acquisition of the Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood Property Tax Basic Excess Referenda Levy (Loss) State Aids General Education (Loss) Transportation (Loss) Textbooks and Equipment (Loss) Facilities (Loss) Operating Savings Net Annual Impact (Loss) (counted in Table 4) -$15,174 -79,165 -2,992 -1,296 -2,552 -0- -$101,179 Source: Bloomington School District Administrative Staff, October 21, 1993 The estimates in Table 5 assume that none of the 17 public school students currently residing within the Northeast Noisepoint Neighborhood will -remain in Bloomington. Any students who move elsewhere in Bloomington would reduce the loss described in Table 5. State aids to school districts depend on number of students and their level in school. The state gives more aid for students in high school than for students in elementary school. According to the school district estimates, there are 9 elementary students and 8 junior high and high school students living in the homes proposed for acquisition. This is equivalent to 17 average daily membership (ADM) and 19.94 weighted daily membership (WADM). This amounts to approximately 0.1490 of the total School District #271 enroliment WADM. WADM are used for calculating general education state aids. Other state funding programs where the schools anticipate an aids reduction as a result of this acquisition are transportation, textbooks and equipment, and facilities aids. The total net annual cost to the school district may be as much as $101,179 each year. The school district has commented that no teacher reduction would be associated with the loss of the 17 students, especially since the City and district believe that some of these families with children will move to other Bloomington locations. County Impacts In 1993, Hennepin County received 35.14% of the revenue from property taxes collected in Bloomington. The County's net change in property tax collections is assumed to be positive if the parcel between 18th Avenue and Cedar Avenue is redeveloped as a 60,000 square foot -office. (See Table 4) 39 _)n_ 71► : ►_ tap, A number of United States hub airports have acquired or have plans to acquire single family houses around airports as a method of mitigating aircraft noise impacts. Both federal and local funds will be required to implement the proposed acquisition program. Federal Grant FAA funds are available -to the MAC for airport related environmental mitigation and sound abatement projects. AIP discretionary funds could be used for acquisition. To qualify for AIP funding, the property to be acquired must be part of a MAC noise abatement or improvement master plan. The FAA has approved and partially funded MAC's grant application for acquisition of 356 houses in the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods. The City of Bloomington requests MAC to use the same funding approach for acquiring property in the Noisepoint area. Local Share After the homes are acquired and demolished, the land should be sold for uses consistent with a reuse plan adopted by the City and accepted by the Metropolitan. Airports Commission. FAA grants typically require a 2 % or 25 % local match. This amounts to $2.3 to $2.9 million for the proposed acquisition. The City of Bloomington proposes to purchase about 14 acres of acquired property from MAC at its vacant fair market value as determined by independent appraisers. At an estimated market value of $1.65 per square foot, the City's purchase price, for 14 acres of park land would be $1,006,000, equivalent to about one-third of the local match. The Council has not identified a funding source for the City's purchase. The office parcel between 18th and Old Cedar Avenue should bring between $4 and $6 per square foot or $670,000 to $1,008,000. This would also be equivalent to about one-third of the local match share. Four acres are proposed for sale to adjoining multi -family properties to facilitate general site improvements. At an estimated market value of $1.65 pet square foot, the purchase price would be $287,500. Depending on the local match share (20% or 25%) and actual revenue from land sales, MAC's cost of participation in this acquisition is estimated between $0 and $1,000,000. - 21 -- Page 2 Appendix A. Planning Commission Minutes of 8/12/93 1) On September 1, 1994, the allowed total sign area shall not exceed 228 square feet a ign size shall not exceed 100 square feet per face for any business sign; 2) Plans for the three permanent signs and the temporary third sign shall be app d by the Director of Planning and permits shall be obtained before installation of a f the three permanent signs or provision of new sign faces for the temporary si , 3) The temporary sign shall be removed entirely from the she by S mber 1, 1994, or upon completion of the permanent 100 square -foot third sign, w . ever occurs first. The applicant shall either: A) post a bond or irrevocable letter of credit ex ' ' .g not sooner than October 1, 1994 in the amount of $20,000 guaranteeing the re al of the existing freestanding sign by September 1, 1994, or B) grant the City land its contract the right to enter the property and remove the sign and assess the cost of remova the property owner; 4) All existing temporary sip ags and banners shall be removed from the site prior to the issuance of any permi or the three approved business signs and no flags, banners or other W of tempora ignage shall be allowed on the site while the variances for the three business sig mains valid and in use except as permitted by ordinances; 5) The sig lances approved in Case 8962ABC-93 shall be valid only for the property while used as ote airport parking facility; and e*000 6) of the signs shall have at least a 20 -foot setback from a property line abutting a public street or traveled right-of-way and the location of the third permanent sign shall be as approved by the Director of Planning. ITEM: 2 CASE(S): 100018-93 APPLICANT: City of Bloomington REQUEST: Review of Part. 150 Noise Compatibility Land Re -Use Plans COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Thorson, Napier, Lenczewski, Delegard and Schneider. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Hunt, Gussler. STAFF PRESENT: Lee, Hawbaker, Ingraham and Sharlin. SPEAKING FROM THE PUBLIC: None. DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION: Mr. Lee, Community Development Director, provided background on the Federal Aviation Administration's Part 150 Noise Abatement Program including a description of the program areas for noise insulation and acquisition. He noted the City's insulation and acquisition policy program areas that were formulated approximately two years ago. Mr. Lee stated that the primary issue before the Planning Commission is not whether the homes identified should be acquired but the Land Re -Use Plans that need to be included in an application for acquisition funding. Mr. Greg Ingraham, Senior Planner, reviewed alternative reuse plans by classifying the plans into four areas based on location. Mr. Ingraham noted that the plans have been reviewed by the Northeast Bloomington Study Task Force. Mr. Thorson asked if consideration had been given to the vacation of 13th Avenue. Mr. Napier asked K neighborhood retati-land use had been considered as this issue was raised during the Wal-Mart hearings. Mr. Napier also raised the issue of maintaining the cost of parks, as the primary reuse of the properties would be for park purposes. Planning Coinmiision Synopsii August -12, 1993 Pape 3 Mr. Thorson focused comments on the 13th Avenue re -use -plan and felt that an expansion of park concept for 13th Avenue should include an alternative that would allow for the development of a stormwater eollgetion pond. Mr. Napier noted that the acquisition is a long-term process. •. . ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION: M/ Napier, S/ Lenczewskl: To close the hearing. Motion carried 5 - 0. Mt Lenczewski, S/ Napier: The Planning Commission recommends concept approval of the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Land Re -Use Plans, including the .vacation of a portion of 13th Avenue and use of land for a stormwater ponding alternative. Motion carried 5 - 0. ITEM: a CASE(S): 979SA-93 APPLICANT: Paul and Kim McDaniels LOCATION: 10116 Pleasant Avenue REQUEST: Temporary conditional use aermit for a beauty shop in the home. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Thorson, Napier, Lenczewski, Deieoard and Schneider. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Hunt and Gussler. / STAFF PRESENT: Hawbaker and Sharlin. APPEARING FOR THE APPLICANT: Paul, and Kim McDaniels SPEAKING FROM .THE PUBLIC: None. DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION: Mr. Hawbaker presented the Staff repo nd noted the recommendation for a three-year temporary conditional use permit subject to four nditions. Mr. Napier, in reference to past minutes on the item, asked if there were any problems parking on the street. Staff was not aware of any current problems with the operation of business. ACTIONS OF THE M/ Schneider, 31 Le ewaki: To close the hearing. Motion carried 5 - 0. M/ Schneider, nczewski: Having reviewed the Findings In Sectiori 19.22(5)(A)(il,(i7,('ni) and (iv) in Cane 9798 3 to recommend approval of a five year temporary conditional use permit for a beauty shop to ome. Motion carried 5 - 0. DIT S OF APPROVAL RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION: all customer parking shall occur on -she in the driveway and off of the public street; 1 no business signs shall be allowed; 3) no appointment& or customers shall be scheduled or taken after 8:00 p.m. and only one customer &hall be served at any time; and, PROPERTY INFORMATION ESTIMATED COSTS 7 9117 12th. Ave. So. 86.900 104,280 " '2 15,000 21.750 21,155 162,185 9020 13th Ave. So. 75,600 �W §-.!:'F2. _I5,000 21.750 19,121 146.591 803013th. Ave. So. 73,500 t=Ya 88,200 15,000 21,750 19,743 143,693 9040 13th Ave. So. 88,600 106,320 15,0-0-0 21,750 21,461 164.531- 9050 13th Ave. so. 94.600 -,4 101320 15,000 21,750 20,741 159,011 8102 13th Ave, So 76300 3F,- 91,900 15.000 21,750 19,253 147,833 9108 13th Ave. So. SW 85,ODO86W 102,000 15,000 21,750 20,813 159,56-3 8114 13th Ave. So. M 103,920 15,000 21,750 21.101 161,771 8118 13th Ave. So. 77,100 92.520 15,000 21,750 19,391 148,661 8136 13th Ave. So. 71,000 95.200 15.000 21,750 19,293 140,243 8139 13th Ave. So. 78,300 qj 93,960 15,000 21,750 19,607 730,317 8140 13th Ave. So 74,400 l: l 89,280 15,000 21,750 19.905 1-44,935 $001 13th Ave. So.0 4.000 0 0 0 0 0 8003 13th Ave. So. 50,200 60.240 15.000 21,750 14,549 111,539 800713th. Ave. So. 88,400 1-06,080 15,000 21.750 21.425 164.255 8015 13th Ave. So. 58,500 7-0,200 15,000 21.750 16,043 122,993 9W 13th Ave. So -- 94,300 101,160 15,000 21,750 20,687 159.597 8037 13th. Ave. So. 59,000 x 7-0.800 15,000 21,750 16.133 123,683 9041 13th Ave. So. 711300 94,200 15.000 21.750 19.643 150,593 8045 13th. Ave. So. 79,600 -Mm 95,520 15.000 21.750 19,841 152,111 8049 13th. Ave. So. 78,M 70. 93,600 15.000 21,750 19,553 149,903 8105 13th. Ave. So. -56,000 --, , - 67.200 I5.000 21,750 15393 119,543 8111 13th. Ave. So. 81,600 r"? 97,920 15,000 21,750 20,201 154,871 811713th. Ave. So. 64,100 76,920 15000 21750 17,051 130,721 9125 13th. Ave. So. 41,100 Ml 49,320 15,000 21,750 12,911 98,981 8131 13th Ave. So. 65,400 Uffl 78,480 15,000 21,750 17,295 132,515 813513th Ave. So. 35300 SM 42.600 15,000 21,750 11,903 91,253 8141 13th Ave. So. 95,200 102,240 15,000 21.750 20,849 159,839 SIUBTOTAW� �%Wm;mr %M502= ASOMB: V 8113 Bloomington Ave. So. 1 108,200 129,940 15.000 21,750 24,989 191,579 8119 Bloomington Ave. So. 106,400 27,680 15,000 21,7501 24,665 189,095 8125 Bloomington Ave. So. B9,900 107,980 15.000 21,750 21,695 166,325 3131 Bloomington Ave. So. 94.= 13.040 15.000 21,750 22,459 72 29 172.259 8137 Bloomington Ave. So. 104,500 125,400 15,000 21,750 24,323 86 473 196,473 9143 Bloomington Ave. So.]' 84,500.��l --10-1,-400 1-5.000 21,750 20,723 a 8 159,973 811216th. Ave. So. $3,500 100,200 15.000 21,750 20,543 257,493 :140,519 8119 16th Ave. So 71,200 95,"0 15,000 21,750 1029 5 812416th. Ave. So. 68,600 82,320 15,000 21,750 17,861 136.931 813016th. Ave. So. 72,400 86,890 15,000 21,750 19,545 7 142,175 8136 16th. Ave. So. 71.100 85,320 15,000 21,750 18,311 140,381 814216th. Ave. So. 94,600 101320 15,000 21,750 20,741 159,011 8113 16th Ave. So. 72,600 97.120 15,000 21,750 18391 142,451 8119 16th Ave. So. 70,400 84,420 15,000 21,750 18,185 139,415 8125 16th Ave. So 66,100 79,320 15,000 21,750 17,411 133,481 8131 16th. Ave. So. 70,600 8477-20- 1-5,000 21,750 18,221 139,691 8137 16th. Ave, So. 71,900 86,280 15,000. 21.750 18.455 241.485 8143 16th. Ave. So. 92.400 110,880 15.000 22,750 22.145 169.775 811217th Ave. a 73,400 88.080 15.000 21,750 -21.750 18.725 143,555 811817th. Ave. So. 71,200 -83.4-40 1-5.000 18,329 140,519 812417th. Ave. So. 77,300 92.760 15,000 21,750 19,427 149.937 813017th. Ave. So. 72,200 86,640 15,000 21,750 18,509 141,899 813617th. Ave. So. 70,600 84,720 MODO ---21,750 19,221 -20.741 139,691 8142 17th Ave. So. 34, 101320 15,000 n,7T0- 159,011 8113 17th. Ave, So. 80.000 %.000 15,000 21.750 19,913 152,663 8119 17th. Ave. So. 75.300 90,360 15,000 21,730 19.-067 146,177 812517th. Ave. So. 79.400 95,280 .000 21,750 -21,750 19,805 151,835 So 131 17th. Ave. So. 70,9W 85.080 4-.00-0 --20.147 18,275 140,105 IL37 17th. Ave. So. 8111W 97,560 15.000 21.750 -22,245 154,457 143 17th. Ave. 33o. 81 92,40D lig'sBu 13,000 21,750 169.775 wmrrv- 8400 Old Cedar Avenue 54.300 65,160 15,000 21,750 15.297 117.19-, 9406 Cedar Avenue 86,600 103.920 15,000 21.750 -21.101 161,7771-1 8412 Old Cedar Avenue 78,200 93,940 15,000 21,750 19,589 150.179 777 7776xW 77=;9IT 1700 Eut 86th. SL 62,900 -T374-so 1-5,000 21,750 16,835 1708 E= 86th. St. 67,500 91,000 15,000 21,750 17,663 35-4!-J�-� 1716 E. 36th. SL 93,000 111,600 15,000 21,750 22a53 170,603 1800 E. 86th Sc %1900 116=0 15,000 21,750 22,955 175,9851 11810 96th. St. 77,900 W 93,360 15.000 21,750 19,517 149,62-71 1820 E. 36th. St 90,200 108,240 15,000 21,750 21,749 166,739-1 I-513 M=$29 8201 IgLh Avenue So. 65,500 78,600 15,000 21,750 17,303 232,653 8209 Ifth Ave. So. 113,500 136,200 15.00-0 21.750 25,943 198,893 8229 181h Ave. So. 159,800 191,760 25,000 21,750 34,277 2-62,797 8239 18th Ave. So. 69,500 93,400 15,000 21,750 18.023 138,173 3257 18th Avenue So. 81,400 97,680 15.000 21,750 20,165 154,595 8206 Old Cedar Ave. 75,700 s 90,840 15,000 21,750 19.139 146,729 8214 Old Cedar Ave. 79.400 95,2110 15,000 21.750 19,805 151,935 9220 Old Cedar Ave. 67,500 81.0DO S32 15,000 21,750 IT66-3 135.413 8234 Old Cedar Ave. 97,900 117,480 15,000 21.750 13-5 177,365 8256 Old Cedar Ave 78,300 M,,'��1975� 93.960 15.000 21,750 ff:607 150,317 SUBTOTAL 899,500 1,066.200 150,000 217,500 215,055 1.649,755 TOTALIALL-PROPERTY-. '100 'I '165 0001 "M 000,jMJ:;493.744,, I1;452,068 Appendix C. City Council Minutes of 1/13/92 and 1/27/92 intends to Only use the portion of the license pertaining to Pracio,a metals. If there was an intention to have a pawnshop, he SaW a conditioel use permit would be required as pawnshops are not a permitted use in the Central Business (CB) toning district in which this business Is located. Ne said the applicant has been in business at this location since 1988, and hes been dealing in precious metals. Fallowing discussion, notion was made by Andrews, Sacco by Mahon, and all voting eye, \Estate close the hearing, and to approve a pawnbroker/precious metal dealer license for Jawslry i Coin with a restriction that the license is for precious metals only as roval of a conditio al sae permit would be required if a pawnshop was to be located on se -premises. . Resolution re Regional The\redt'h equested to consider the draft of a Reef met Transit Facilities Plan Transit Facilities Plan prepaetropolitan Council and to adopt a resolution of comment on the pion Item i.1 forttotheMetro Council's Janary 21 public hearing on the pion. Copies of R-92.6 the dre submitted to the Council with the agenda material. The Director of Pum NYorks said the purpose of the Regional Transit Facilities Plan is to provide a guide for ansit decisions that have to be made 1n the rear ternand long range. He said the plan Ludes the transit concepts which the Metre Council would like to occur together with sWfkc plan recommendations and estimated expenses, and an implementation plan Including %ping. staging and funding rocommerdst ions. Mr. Xonehall Said staff is gensr*ll tpportive of the plan except in some instances. He said a resaamerdatfon that there be ra rther construction of mixed use freeway lanes would not be realistic, and the ren ion fors light rail transit lane in 135Y is not supported by ridership figures or cost, Could crest* problan in Bloomington by forcing freeway traffic onto city streets. MXIdthe rimary LRT route to proposed between the central cities of Miraeapolis andth the 135w route being the second choice. M* Said all of the reasons stthe pion are set forth in the resolution as wall es the ressoro for their ocertain portions. Discussion was held on the LRT options included in the plan, nd Naulelcoemented that the most significant pert of the resolution Is in the sixth paint sting to the LRT plus fang conversionalt*rneUve. She questioned the Sacco of the ram included to which Mr. Xanoh*ll said these figura were excerpted directly fro the t3\rorvomn*'Impact statement. Spies said if the Council Is not in favor of lightaiternotives being corafderad, 1t Mould Sat forth Its eppesition. gestsdthat such en action should be Separate from this resoluslon lnamchoiaminM decision Ming sada on LRT not only boom@ of the leek of tdiasbut because of lack of flwtcing. Schuler prep, that disaasion omit for this region be • topic an a future study mating agenda. Following discussion, notion was sde by Johnson, sesarded by Noule, and all Voting eye, City FAR Part 150 The Council had scheduled tis for a staff presentation on area selection and priorities Program/Ara Selection for the FAR Part 150 aircraft noise mitigation program. Following Council review, and Prioritization direction to the staff was requested for preparation of a policy for adoption at a future Item 7.3 Council seating. The City to a participant 1n the Metropolitan Airports Commission FAR Port 150 off - airport raiseMitigationprogram. In ordsr to allow MAC to prepare yearly and cumulative Part 150 program isplamentotfon Best forecssts for FM application purposes, city -specific Page 5 - January 13, 1992 Part 150 program participation and phasing oust be determined. As part of the plam;:K process, Bloomington ant submit its area selection and prioritization to MAC. The Director of Planning indicated that proposed Part 150 mitigation programs include sound insulation, purchase guarantee and land acquisition. A Bloomington program can contain one or a combination of these mitigation program, and should be calculated on `. MAC/MSP total allocations of 26 million, $8 million and $10 million annual funding levels. Bloomington's program allotment would be based an 20Z of the total MAC/Msp allocation. He indicated that staff prepared four program scenarios for Council review, copies of ihich were submitted with the agenda motorist together with background Information an the FAR Part 150 program. In response to a question by Houle as to whether action was expected at this meeting, the Mayor said the presentation would be made tonight with Council action to be taken later. Mr. Geehwiler said MAC is expecting a response from -the City by January 27, and there is no meeting scheduled for January 20 became It is a legal holiday. The City Manger proposed that the Council take its action an January 27, and to advise MAC that they will be notified on January 28 what action the Council had taken. Mr. Geshwiler illustrated an a rap the @rams of the city that would be involved in the FAR Part 150 program which includes those areas in the 70 Ldn and 65 Ldn noise contours. He said 1,152 single-family hetes and 1,911 multifamily dwelling units in Bloomington are affected with•150 eingle•famfly hams and 1,064 mlti•famfly units in the 70 Ldn contour. Ho uld these figures are based on an assumed expansion of runway 4.22. in response to. a question by Mahanasto that sasuption, Mr. Geehwiter said the information provided by MAC Showed'their application for Part 150 funding was based on that expansion. The Director of Community Development sold when PAC prepared Its, application for the furling, it had to sake certain assumptions and extension of runway 4.22 was one of these namm Clans. Hesaid the cities surrounding the airport were not asked for their input. Question was raised by Andraws If acceptance of the allocation for Rloomingtonns portion of the ftsds,would be considered approval of the ready extension. Mr, lee said according to MAC, their opinion is It would not be. Mahon asked that the City Attorney also respamd to that question when this matter is again before the Council. Mr. Geshwiler sold the City's sceneries for program participation were boxed on a one or two-year exclusion of the aro covered by the Northeast Bloomington study so furls for Saud i'nsulatlon wautdnnt be used on residential properties that could be proposed for conversion to a non•residentisl use as an outcome of the study. He said the City is • Wing given the apportunity to prioritize the program, since there are limited fuss, to guarantee they would be used In the neighborhood most severely impacted by mise. For that reason, he said it is important not to allocate fads for an area that is not proposed to resin as residential. In addition, he amid staff believes the Housing and Redevelopment Authority could be Involved in the program a that hams proposed for sound insulation could also be brought up to Code compliance through the extension to this area of the RNA's home improvement program. Robert Martin, Associate Planner, reviewed his sues to the Cantil outlining the four uwrfos to be considered as follows: Beed Insulation Program One . A program providing soul Insulation booed on mise contour Level whereby sit single-family and mnitlpla•famlty units would be sound Insulated basad an location in the TO Ldn and 63 Ldn area. Depentding an the funding Levet, this program could acomplish all single-family residential sound insulation goals by.Yur 4 of the program and amid rasult in either Year 4 and Year 5 funding surpluses. Funding surpluses would allow for future soul insulation of either single-family or adtiple•family units in the Northeast Bloomington Study exemption area. Page 6 Japery 13, 1992 Sound Insulation Program, Two . A scenario that would provide sound insulation neer+ on noise contour level whereby all single-fmily and sultiple-family units would be sane insulated based on location in the 70 Ldn ans 65 Ldn area. Priority would be given to single-family and eultiple-family units in the 70 len area with the remaining units to be sound insulated or improved based an remaining surplus progrm funds. All units would be eligible, regardless of location 'or consistency with adopted plans. This scenario would 'include the Northeast Bloomington Study exemption area along the perimeter or edge abutting 1-494 and TN 77. This scenario would permit major sound insulation and rehabilitation of existing ndtiple-family development. Sound Insulation Program/Land Acquisition Program One - This program scenario would be an =tensionofthe first program scenario in that it would cabins sound insulation of all single-family dwellings not including the Northeast Bloomington Study exemption area until Completion of the study and would use the land Acquisition Program to acquire single-family dwellings not consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The properties to be purchased would be based on a consensus mag residents of the area to vacate. Moving and relocation expenses were included In the calculation of projected costs. Sound Insulation Program/Land Acquisition Program Two - This scenario would combine sound insulation and land acquisition of single-family dwellings not consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan land Lisa designation and sound Insulation within the 70 Lon and 65 Lein area. The scenario would Include the Mcrthesot Bloomington Study exemption area, and Lord acquisition would Involve opproxiootely So to So properties, with acquisition to be basad an a consensus among residents of the area to vacate. Mr. Sharlln indicated that the total estimated program costs and objectives of the four scenarios were included In his report with the cost of the first sound insulation program $5,575,000; of the second soul insulation program in excess of 510,000,000; of the first sourd Insulation and lord acquisition program being $6,064,000; and of the second alternative for sound insulation and land acquisition being $9,994,200.' Guestion was. raised by the Council as to dither staff could Identify existing land uses that are not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan to which Mr. Gashwiler sold that was posslbla. Andrews commented that if a single-family home was in an area recommended for sultlple-family by the Comprehensive Plan, and then converted to that use, the number of person iopected by aircraft note@ would be increased. Mr. Lee sold MAC has advised it did not anticipate allowing this to occur. In further response to a comment by Couheilmember Ardr@ws, he sold Part 150 monies carat be used to Implement State safety rands. Oiscusslon on held an the scenarios presented, and Nihon said it is important to get citizen input before a Cantil decision is rode, and not to give residents the idea that a great number of hams would be purchased, because this is rot the case. Haute asked when It would be known what MRA6s Involvement could be. Mr. Gashwiter said discussions have been held with MAC as to whether In the lard acquisition program If those fads could be used to write down hones that the MM could then acquire and convert to a different teed use. Me said a writedown of the lend costs could stretch those fads. Me mid the City has rot yet received a definitive response from MAC on this possibility. No noted that if the MRA could be involved with such a program, the umbar of homeowners to be helped would be increased. Petersen asked how many locations would be involved, to which Mr. Geshwiler said that Information amid be provided for the Council for its test meeting. Mr. Lee said the NRA Is else preparing a mom an the feasibility ofcoordiratins their remodeling program Page 7 January 15, 1992 with the sound insulation program provided by Port 150 funding. Polity decisions would have to be made by both the RRA and CanclI an the coordination of the two program. The Mayor noted that there would be no difference In the funding allouti m to Bloomington, however, whichever program alternative was chosen. Mr. Lee said that was correct but that Bloomington would have to follow polity guidelines to assure that Jt received all of the allocated funding. For this reason, he said it would be ties to proceed with the program with more dimenaion because It could always be cut back if desired. Mr. lee said one program that wasn't discussed by Mr. Shoplift was the purchase guarantee program whereby homeowners in the 65 loin contour, who have lived there at toast two years, and who have tried to sell their houses but have been unable to find a buyer, may receive Part 150 funds for the fair Market value of the property.- Once the property is acquired, the how would be sand insulated rd resold by NAC-mith.the proceeds from the sale going back into the program. In response to a cement by Mahon as to whether the soul insulation program should be coordinated with a Code compliance program, Mr. 6eshwiler said this is something Mich the Council most address, as to whether participation in the sound insulation program would also be contingent upon Code compliance and whether there should be same measure c the limit of expenditure of funds bead on the. value of the home. The Mayor said these are valid considerations because $20,000 shouldn't be spent on a house that isn't in Cxe compliance and isn't involved in a program to bring it into compliance. Mahon suggested that with the meetings scheduled for the Northeast Bloomington Study that the use of the Part 150 funds could be discussed at the ease time. Mr. Lee said that would riot be practical because of the amount of information already scheduled for consideration at than coatings. He said if neighborhood input is to be sought, special Meetings should be caroidered. He sold it would be difficult for residents to determine which of the sceneries to areider because the only information they could be given is that given to the Conch at this soattn0. He said this is a preliminary plan to get the Council's reaction, and it would be better to fine trate the information and present it a; • rwfghborboad Meeting at a later date. Mahon said in the information to be provided by staff there should be Identification of the areas store lend acquisition would be desirable and where sound insulation would be feasible. -The Council concurred that this matter should be continued to the next meeting on Jaasry 27. Final Site Plan and The Caned was requested by Melvin Siam and Associates at the Mall of America to approve Building Plans for the final site plan ad building plow for seven animal enclosures to be located In Animal Enclosures Nnmtt's Camp WOW adjacent to the wilderness theater and rangers station. Each Case 8235A-92 enclosure would contain ams animal, and the enclosures would vary in size from K to S6 Item 5.1 "are fest each. The Planing C®isaton and City Council had Previosly approved a conditional use pom,t for the keeping of non•domestim animals with six condtties. The Natural sed Historical Resources Commission, at its mating of January 7, ratm�rded approval of the first site and building plans for the animal enclosures with the following corditions: 1. the IsplamMation of the operational procedure a for the care, feeding, exercise and rotation of the animals, sed the design of the reptile and bird_ enclosures be reviewed with the %HAC prior to accpenncy, 2. six months after moaning, all Knott's animal operation be reviewed by the NRRC. The Director of Planing explained that is, proposed, .adding that the U. S. Department of Agrieuture has jurisdiction over the keeping of mammals, and the U. S. Fish and wildlife Somfes has jurisdiction over the keeping of birds. TMre would be an ernal review by these agencies of the care of these animals. Following discussion. Notion was made by Page a January 13, 1992 negotiated settlement, Ms. Harris said it would be because there wouldn't be any he,r,r-, costs and payment by the City of the quick take price of the property. _Following discussion, action was made by Schuler and seconded by Peterson to adopt t -e resolution. The vote on the motion was ayes, Schuler, Spies, Houle, Johnson and Peterson, and Rays, Mahon and Andrews, and the motion carried 5.2. Resolution Designating N,he Council was requested by the Bloomington Housing and Redevelopment Authority to Neighborhood for MNFA opt a reselutfon designating an area of Bloomington as a neighborhood which would Rehabilitation Program eRa a the XRA to make application to the Mimesets Housing Finance Agency for up to Item 4.9 5300, in funds in their Blighted Residential Property Acquisition and Rehabilitation R-92.10 Prose=. Under this pr me the following activities would be allowed: financing acquisition of blighted propert s: financing demolition of blighted properties; providing gap financing for rehabilitation blighted properties; and providing gap financing for construction of new housing on blight properties. The Assistant NRA Administrator said it would be preferred to have this p ram apply city-wide but that is not possible under MNFA's guidelines which require a Icants to designate a neighborhood. The PRA is recommending the area from 90th Street to nd Street between 135w and 12th Avenue to be the designated neighborhood. SAe so only mai: or seven hones have been identified in that area as being in poor condition, a there would be no intention to demolish homes. The intent would be to acquire and rehabi ate the houses. In response to a question by Mahon as to vh this particular area was chosen, Ms. Harris said determination of the are@ was made by the RA. Spies sold port of the rationale for the NRA choosing this particular area was to ext the arae that is in the existing program. He said It is the intent of this program try to eliminate deterioration of the existing housing stock by preserving it. Mahan as ff this is a multi-year program to which IIs. Harris said It is hoped It will be. She sa the NRA's experience has been that with the neighborhood programs, funding is centinucd f arother year. Following discussion, motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Hot71g, ind all voting aye, to adopt the resolution. MN/DOT Sienal The Council was requested to approve an agreement with the Stateof Mim'Na for an Optimization Agreement eleven intersection Airport South area project of signal optimization and n inq assiz Item 4.10 lance. Provisions of the program include furnishing the City with four softwa programs R-92.9 for anal -yob, timing and mluation purposes, together with technical trainf ng fo two employees in a pilot program. Impi~tatlon of the coordinated signal timing. will scianplished with the 24th Avenue, East 61st Street, Killebrew Drive and Last 70th Str signal systems. The agreement in addltlen to the software and technical training provides for a lump sun payment of $13,750 to the City upon completion of the work. Following discussion, motion was acme by Andrew, seconded by Johnson, and all voting aye, to adopt a resolution approving the agreement and authorizing its execution by the rP�etl�e -- FAR Part 150 Program The Ceulcil was requested to approve a fading strategy for the Part 150 Raise mitigation Itam 7.G program to'be submitted to the Metropolitan Airports Commission. At its January 13 staeting the Coach discussed the FAR.Part 150 program and poatpened a decision on the strategy to be approved parading receipt of a staff report an gantfan Lthat had been raised. gackgrasd information was provided to the Cauaaeil by the Planning Divfiien staff, and included a program summary and recommendation for authorisation of the program described in Table G. January 27, 1992 The Director of Planning advised that Part 150 is a federal program that provides f,n ;rg to the Metropolitan Airports Commission to give to metro area cities surrounding the airport, including Bloomington, to alleviate noise problems caused by the airport. He said a program would be based on three possible funding levels to be received by MAC with .,Blocmington's allocation being either approximately S6 million, S8 million or S10 million over a five-year period. The tables included in his metro to the Council shoved program summaries for three different, five-year funding levels. Table 6chart showed that after a five-year program.nine homes would have been acquired, 569 homes would have been sound insulated under a first level of funding, 913 under a second and 1,193 under a third level. By deferring fundinig for the homes included in a portion of the Northeast Bloomington Study for two years, generally east of 12th Avenue and north of 82nd Street plus within one block of Cedar Avenue down to 86th Street, more hones could be treated earlier in the program. Mr. Geshwi ler said the City Attorney's aseu indicated that acceptance of the funds from MAC for the FAR Part 150 Program would rat be considered an endorsement of the extension of runway 6.22. However, Mr. Ornstein recommended that the letter of transmittal include a reaffirmation of the Council's position on the 6.22 runway extension as enunefated in Resolution 87.93 and the letter dated December 9, 1991, from the Mayor to Richard Theisen, Office of Aeronautics, Department of Transportation. He reviewed the informa- tion contained in Associate Planner Robert Sharlin's auric to the Council, which indica- ted that while MAC feels that the combination of soul insulation and Code compliance program would be a positive aspect, the responsibility for implementing the coordination would bathe City-$. if homeowners signed an avigation release, they would receive a 1002 sound insulation grant but if they did not sign the release, they would becompen- sated for 80% of the cost of the sound insulation withthebalance of 20% to betheir responsibility. The avisation agreement would be between the homeowner and MAC'snd would not be binding upon future owners of the property. Mr. Geshwiler said because of the potential cost of the purchase guarantee program, staff was not recommending participation in this aspect of the Part 150 Program, with regard to whether or not seed insulation should be based an a percentage of the value of the property, MAC had no recannerdation because of their desire to see as many homes helped as possible, but did Indicate they would discuss this question with their consultant and the program's Policy Advisory Committee. In response to a question by Houle as to the rationale for recoaaerding the City's parti- cipation be based an Table A, Mr. 6eshwiler said staff reeammids this particular strategy with the exclusion of homes included in the Northeast Bloomington Study because more haves could be treated earlier In the program. In addition, he said it would be inappropriate to haw single-family hot$Lremain in an area for which a higher density or different use is proposed. There are approximately 162 single-family homes that.heve been identified in the Northeast Bloomington study area for a higher density than currently exists. Me said this two-year deferral is being requested for the areas of most severe noise so a determination can be made as to whether they should be soul Insulated or acquired. Mahan said he had a problem with,atimfrating a part of the area because of the regative connotation that is given to these homeowners.. Mr. Geahwiler responded that staff does not want the Part 150 Program to drive the Northeast Blooming- ton Study. No said If funds are used for sand Insulation in the study area, It would establish that the single-family homes would be remaining for a long ties in the future. Mahan asked if a homeowner had a remodeling project uiderway and it set the standards of the Part 150 Program whether they could be reianbursed for the fads that had spent prior to their home being a part of the program. The Director of Community Oevelepment said Page 10 January 27, 1992 that question was addressed in the Part 150 Grogram and both MAC and the F.0 saic ro reimbursement could be made for Mork completed before the home was part of the Part 150 Program. 'Discussion was held on the letter of transmittal to MAC, and the City Manager .noted there was discussion about flexibility and changing of noise contours. He said that informa- tion'"should be included in the letter of transmittal along with the other inclusions regarding the City's continued opposition to extension of runway 4.22. Following discussion, motion was erode by Peterson, seconded by Mahon, and all voting aye, to approve the program as recommended in Table 4, and to include in the letter of trans- mittal to MAC information concerning flexibility of changing the noise contours, and the City's stated opposition to extension of runway 4.22 as set forth in Resolution 87.93 and ■ letter dated December 9, 1991, from the Mayor to Richard Theisen, Office of Aeronautics, Department of Transportation. S1 of Existing Sign a variance to allow an existing sign to be increased from an allowable 100 square feet 3801\6.2 to 111.1 square foot for addition of an electronic message board. Case Item The Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 9, recommended approval of the R-92.variance based on making the required City Code findings in section 2.98.01(3)(A -E) (i -iii) based on compliance with the following Conditions: 1. a brick base shall be installed from grade to the bottom of the sign, the width matching the width of the sign, and the height of the sign not exceeding 20 feet, \awning sign permit be secured. Fol low0kdiscussion, nation was and& by Mahon, seconded by Johnson, and all voting aye, to adopt aolution granting the variance based on compliance with the conditions set forth by the ming Commission. Renewal of 1.494 The Council was r ed to approve a professfonal services agreement between the City Corridor Commission of Bloomington and the 94 Corridor Commission whereby the City would provide half Coordinator Service of the time of Associate P r Don Jses to the Commission in exchange for a payment Agreement of 615,750 to the City. Mr. on would act as the Coordinator for the Corridor Cam Item 6.4 mission, which approved the profs foetal services agrodmnt at their regular setting an January 15, 1992. The terms of removal as are the same as the 1991 agreement except for an increase In the story cost sharing. The primary scope of tris work Wing aeompliched.by this Coeatsaion ' the preparation of a andel Travel Dement management Strategy ix the eitias of Bloaml , Edina, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and Richfield. Following discussion, motion was Mahon, seconded by Johnson, and all voting aye, to approve the renewal of the agreement. Approve Transfer of The Council has requestedtotransfer $730 within the RohVilvity from Line 528 Funds !applies to 553 Capital Outlay ta.appraprian leads to W to purchau a telebf nodular Itam 6.5 machin used for vision tests for driver's Liaanse rarawls. t1on was lest aised by Mahon as to when the City would W starting Issuance of driver's IN es to which the C1ty Manager said the City has been meeting with the state an the obi to offer this service, and has received approval. The Oiractor of Administrative, gem ut ena seth• ice service would begin an nam as the necessary equipment is reeelved. No ami •ry would be housed a the present loaatlan of the Motor vehicle Nurema but after a fel period, it may be necessary to find a bigger Location for this office. Ne plc t mar be allocated in the 1993 budget for this purpose. Page 11 January 27, 1992 inter -Office CORRESPONDENCE DATE: January 22, 1992 TO: Mayor, City Council and'City Manager FROM: Rick Geshwler, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Part 150 -Additional Information Item 7.4 At its January 13, 1992 meeting, the City Council requested additional information regarding the Part 150 aircraft noise mitigation program. This memo provides a program summary and recommendation. The attached memo from Bob Sharlin provides background information in response to the City Council's previous questions. PROGRAM SUMMARY The staff's recommended Part 150 program is a combination of Land Acquisition (LAP) and Sound Insulation (SIP) programs. The program sets priorities according to noise exposure and type of -dwelling unit. The priority is as follows: PRIORITY 1 LDN 70 noise exposuie and Single Family Residence PRIORITY 2 LON 65 noise exposure and Single Family Residence PRIORITY 3 LDN 70 noise exposure and Multiple Family Residence PRIORITY 4 LDN 65 noise.exposure and Multiple Family Residence A program summary based on three different, five-year funding levels is.as shown in Table 1:. TABLE 1: PROGRAM SUMMARY LEVEL I LDN 70 - LAND ACQUISITION - 9 SINGLE FAMILY $1,050,000 LDN 70 - SOUND INSULATION - 142 SINGLE FAMILY $2,414,000 LDN 65 - SOUND INSULATION - 427 SINGLE FAMILY $2,455,250 $5,919,250 LEVEL II LEVEL I, PLUS LDN 65 - SOUND INSULATION - 344 SINGLE FAMILY $1,978,000 $7,897,250 LEVEL nl. LEVEL 1 ✓4 II, PLUS LDN 65 - SOUND INSULATION - 231 SINGLE FAMILY $1,328,250 LDN 70 - SOUND INSULATION - 49 MULTIPLE FAMILY $ 624,750 $9,850,250 0 TABLE 2 illustrates three alternative funding levels being evaluated by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. It also shows the recommended LAP and SIP allocations: TABLE 2: RECOMMENDED PART 150 PROGRAM FUNDING (in thousands) SIP -FUNDING LEVEL ALLOCATION YEAR LAP 1 11 III 1 $ 350 $ 833 $1,228 $1,623 2 350 833 1,228 1,623 3 350 833 1,228 1,623 4 — 1,183 1,578 1,973 5 1,183 1.578 1.973 $1,050 $4,865 $6,840 $8,815 TABLE 3 illustrates the number of dwelling units which could be treated per year. At the bottom of Tables 3 and 4 is an estimated of the number of untreated units that would remain under each alternative. TABLE 3: NUMBER OF DWELLINGS IN PART 150 PROGRAM LAP SIP TREATED YEAR ACQUIRED 1 II III 1 3 49 72 95 2 3 49 79 190 3 3 59 214 282 4 0 206 274 343 5 Q ?.4fl zu �.@3 9 569 913 1,193 NUMBER OF -UNTREATED DWELLINGS AFEER 8 YEARS LDNI 65 - Single-family 575- 231 0 LDN 70 - Multiple -family 980 980 931 LON 65 - Muldple-family 847 847 847 IZW TABLE 4 illustrates the effect a Northeast Bloomington Study deferral would have on the program. SIP funding would be delayed for two years for 80 single-family homes in the deferral area (generally east of 12th. Avenue, and north of 82nd Street, plus within one block of Cedar Avenue down to 86th Street). The deferral actually results in more homes being treated earlier in the program due to the higher cost of insulating these homes. TABLE 4: NUMBER OF DWELLINGS IN PART 150 PROGRAM (with Northeast Exclusion) LDN 65 homes versus LDN 70 homes LAP YEAR ACQUIRED 1 SIP TREATED II III 1 3 49 92 161 2 3 119 2.14 282 3 3 49 72 126 4 0 145 261 343 5 _Q 20 274 281 9 569 913 1,193 NUMBER OF UNTREATED DWELLINGS AFTERS YEARS LDN 65 - Single-family 575 231 0 LDN 70 - Multiple -family .- 980 980 931 LDN 65 - Multiple -family 847 847 847 It should be noted that funding will be provided to meet the noise abatement needs of only between 20 percent to 4Q.percent of the dwelling units within the Part 150 program boundary. This is due in part to the concentration_ of funding for single-family units and the number of units within the LDN 70 contour. Based upon City staff estimates it would cost an additional 915.8 to $19.7 million dollars to provide Pan; 150 noise abatement to all eligible dwelling units within the boundary area. Planning Division staff recommends that the City Cduncil request the Metropolitan Airports Commission to provide funding for the alternative Part 150 program illustrated in Table 4 (with the Northeast Bloomington Study area deferral). RG:co Plannln0PERPTIPART150.1`6L s� IFClof ® bloomington, minnesota Muridpd Bolding • 2215 West Old 9rckopee Rocd . 61corrinston, Wrresota '-5431.3096 . (612)881.5611 . FAX(612)187-;-_-' Neo W. Peterson ` Mayor January 29, 1992 'Mr. Steve Vecchi Manager of Noise Abatement Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 - 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 RE: MSP Part 150 Sound Insulation Program Dear Mr. Vecchi: Mark E. Bernhcrd3_-n Mcrcber At its meeting on January 27, 1992, the Bloomington City Council approved the attached Part 150 program forecast programs, area selections and priorities for the City of Bloomington. The City of -Bloomington understands the formula proposed for allocating MSP Part 156 funds among five cities surrounding the airport. Bloomington further understands that a city may elect to defer expenditure of its yearly allocated funds. In this case, the deferred monies will be documented by MAC staff and used by the remainder of the eligible cities. When a city de- cides to spend its deferred monies, the deferred amount will be subtracted from the next yearly allocation of cities which used the deferred monies. The City understands that the 1996 Integrated Noise Map LDN 65, 70 and 75 contours used to determine Part 150 area eligibility assumes takeoffs using 200, 220, 250 and 350 degree headings. The City expects that the Airport's and FAA's practice will be consistent with the takeoff routing assumptions. In the event practice deviates from assumptions, the City expects MAC to revise the Part 150 fund allocations and area eligibility, and invite -the City of Bloomington to revise its area selection and priorities. AN AFFIRMNNE ACTKW/EOUAL OPPORNMM EMPLOYER W. (61ZU7.9677 Mr. Steve Vecchi January 29, 1992 Page 2 The Bloomington City Council emphasizes that -its participation in the Part 150 sound insulation program does not constitute either expressed or implied approval of extending runway 4-22. With regard to the extension, the City's position remains as stated in Council Resolution 87-93 (attached). cc: John Himle,'MAC LE/]®e 1_�Is� STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF BLOOMINGTON The undersigned duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Bloomington hereby certifies that attached hereto is a true and correct copy ofthe original Resolution No. 87-93, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Bloomington, Minnesota opposing extension of Runway 4-22 at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport as proposed in the Metropolitan Airports Commission's Far Part 150 Submission. Passed and adopted June 8, 1987. on file in the office of the City Clerk, City of Bloomington, Minnesota. City CI rk E. L. Woulfe, CMC Dated this 27th day of January; 19 92 =a% (-�8 10 MAMMASAW f OORM R JoNma A694{ I Pokc Eagan. MN 55122 e, - -t f OORM R JoNma A694{ I Pokc Eagan. MN 55122 e, MEMO -Nty of eagan TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REICHERT CHAIR VORACEK AND MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: JANUARY 19, 1994 SUBJECT. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL - AIRCRAFT NOISE/LAND USE PLANNING STANDARDS This memo is a brief overview and discussion of the Metropolitan Council's policies concerning land use planning in aircraft noise impacted areas. The policies are incorporated in the Council's Metropolitan Aviation Development Guide Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Investment Framework (MDIF). It has been in place since about 19133 and has been amended several times since then. Two current planning issues relate to these policies. The first is the City's opportunity to provide sound insulation or consider property acquisition in the most severely noise impacted areas of the City through a federal noise abatement program administered by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. This Issue is outlined in an enclosed, separate memorandum which was also shared with the City's Airport Relations Commission. The second issue is the potential future development of vacant property within the Council's Noise Policy Contours. While these issues are coming forward at the present time by coincidence, the essential issue is the City's approach to Comprehensive Planning and land use in the context of aircraft noise impacts. Attached for your review are the relevant excerpts from Appendix B of the Aviation Chapter of the MDIF. It outlines the areas of relative noise impact and defines compatible and incompatible land uses within them. The basic premise of the Metropolitan Council's guidelines is that noise is more Intrusive to certain types of land uses and building structures than it is to others. Commercial and Industrial uses and the heavier construction methods associated with them are the most compatible with outside noise. Residential uses, especially low density, detached homes are the least compatible. Em The Noise Zones are defined by their incremental noise levels, the highest and most restrictive being dose to the airport and the lower and less restrictive being farther'from the airport. The Noise Zone contours are irregular in shape because they are generated by a computer model which takes Into account flight tracks, aircraft type, altitudes, frequency of overflight and differences in noise generation between landings and departures. The Aviation Chapter and its Noise Zones relate primarily to preventive land use planning. The purpose of the guidelines is to minimize the presence of incompatible land uses in noise impact areas and to prescribe, conditions for borderline uses to minimize noise Impacts; -The companion memo concerning the MAC Part 150 Land Use Program describes the corrective measures available to a smaller, more impacted area within the Noise Zones. Because the Federal Aviation Administration uses a different, noise measurement than that used to describe the Noise Zones, the areas are similar, but not coincidental in shape and size, While the FAA does sponsor the Part 150 programs for corrective activities, the agency's primary noise abatement policy is to encourage noise compatible uses within noise impacted areas. Historically, Eagan has been effective at discouraging residential land uses in the Noise Zones. Unlike most cities in the region and around the country, much of Eagan's development occurred after the advent of Jet aircraft and the dramatic Increases in air travel by the public and business community. For this reason, -Eagan was able to set aside a large area. in the northern part of the City largely for commercial and industrial land uses. The so-called Noise Compatible Corridor basically extends from the Eagan. Woods/Holiday Inn area near 1-494 and Hwy 13,to the West Publishing/UPS area on Hwy 149 to the Northwest Airlines/Cray area in the northeast part of the City. Much of the area has been guided and/or zoned for such uses for many years. Some isolated _ residential areas do exist within the corridor either because they were zoned or developed prior to the City's original Comprehensive Plan. For additional reference, attached you will find aircraft flight tracking and noise monitoring data generated by the Metropolitan Airports Commission for the month of October of last year. Data for prior months is available and more recent data will be available soon after the next APC meeting. You will note that the predominant air traffic patterns roughly correspond to the corridor area described above. In addition, it should be noted that weather considerations resulted in fewer departures over Eagan than is typically the case. The basic thrust of the Metropolitan. Council guidelines is to discourage the location of new developments of incompatible land uses within the Noise Zones. The guidelines differentiates among uses by describing them as consistent, provisional, conditional or inconsistent. The compatibility of different uses varies by Zone. Residential land uses are incompatible within Noise Zones 1 -III, meaning that such uses should be discouraged in all but in -fill circumstances and then only upon .meeting the conditions outlined in the guidelines. S7 Based upon these standards, the City would be discouraged from permitting the five areas outlined in the companion memo to develop as single family uses were they proposed today. Since all five are designated in the Comprehensive Guide Plan as commercial or industrial uses, the fundamental issue is whether the City should actively encourage redevelopment consistent with the Guide Plan or wait for redevelopment to occur privately In the future. Consideration of new residential land uses is conditional within Noise Zone IV. The planning approach to this area should be similar to that for a conditional use permit. That Is, it should only be permitted If it meets certain conditions. The proposed project would need to be reviewed in the context of the eight Conditional Land Use Factors listed in the guidelines. If the proposal cannot satisfactorily address or mitigate each of the factors, it should not be permitted. This analysis would vary on a case-by-case basis. The fundamental issue In the case of potential residential developments within Noise Zone IV is whether the noise Impacts can be mitigated for future residents- and whether the City can be assured that future residents will be informed of the noise environment for their property to Insure that they can make informed decisions regarding potential purchases. The City's responsibilities with respect to implementation of the guidelines is outlined in the attachment as well. In summary, they are: Adopt Land Use Compatibility Guidelines - The current Comprehensive Plan Incorporates the Noise Zone Map and refers to cooperating with regional agencies to minimize adverse noise impacts, but the guidelines themselves are not incorporated in the current plan. The City has recognized the guidelines and responded to Metropolitan Council concerns when a Guide Plan Amendment is necessary for a particular development. The City Included the standards as conditions of the Burrview Ponds Addition, which was not completed. in recent years, the City has also noticed developers of residential projects within one-half mile of the contours of the need to consider noise attenuation within their developments. 2. Develop and Implement Appropriate Local Ordinances and Codes - Most of the City's current zoning is compatible with the Noise Zone standards. The City has not adopted the Metropolitan Council's Model Noise Ordinance which incorporates the guidelines and certain noise attenuation and building standards within local codes. 3. Implement Land Use Planning Strategies to Reduce, Prevent or Mitigate Aircraft Noise Impacts - The City currently is involved in the Part 150 Sound Insulation Program. The Multi -Family Residential Land Use Study considered aircraft noise impact as one of the factors in its findings for the reguiding and rezoning of certain parcels. Other strategies outlined in the guidelines have not been pursued to date. M Commission Roles The Airport Relations Commission began a discussion of this matter at its January meeting. At that time, the ARC asked that the same information be provided to the APC to insure that the land use considerations are addressed within the appropriate forum. Following the initial APC discussion, the ARC would like to host neighborhood meetings for the five areas within the Part 150 contours to determine the level of interest they may have in Insulation versus purchase alternatives. The ARC would has also requested a joint workshop with the APC to address these matters together and share perspectives from each Commission's respective discipline. Conclusion Staff will be present at Tuesday's meeting to expand on this issue and answer questions In its regard. It is anticipated that ongoing discussions between the Commissions will occur over the next several months in this regard. If you have questions in the meantime, please let me know. As ' an o Me City Administrator 6/ APPENDIX B GUIDELINES FOR LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH AIRCRAFT NOISE Noise generated by aircraft takeoffs and landings is a significant public issue in the Twin Cities Area. This appendix to the aviation chapter of theetro o� DevelopmentQmLck includes guidelines that communities around the airports in the area should use to discourage incompatible land uses and encourage compatible ones. The guidelines were adopted by the Metropolitan Council on March 24, 1983. Two sets of guidelines are included in this appendix. One for land uses in 11 communities around the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport where most noise problems occur (see Figure B-1) and the St. Paul Downtown Airport (see Figure B-2), and one for land uses around six minor airports in outlying parts of the Twin Cities Area (see Figures B-3 through B-8). MAJOR AND INTERMEDIATE AIRPORTS The Noisemap study team developed aircraft noise contours for MSP International Airport. The contours reflect both current and expected future operating conditions and, to some degree, the frequency of potential exposure to aircraft noise. The contours, similar to elevation contours on a geological map, form four irregulat zones radiating out from an airport, each representing less overall noise. Documentation of the extensive analysis undertaken by the Noisemap study team to develop the contours is available from the Council in a separate technical report. The Metropolitan Noisemap Project was conducted by the Metropolitan Council in 1977 and 1978 in cooperation with the technical subcommittee of its Transportation Advisory Board, the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Affected communities and agencies participated. One major project was to identify the current and probable future aircraft noise environment around MSP. Although these contours provide the primary basis for preparing land use compatibility criteria, the actual noise levels vary widely by time of day, days of the year and type of operation (takeoff or landing). It is more appropriate to address land use within zones of noise exposure rather than contours. Figure B -I presents four noise exposure zones based on the contours to be used in determining compatible land uses adjacent to MSP. Similar aircraft noise exposure zones were identified for the St. Paul Downtown Airport. Noise contours were prepared under a joint agreement of the FAA and Mn/DOT-for the draft environmental impact statement on the airport's expansion program. While the noise exposure zones for MSP relate primarily to normal busy -hour values, zones for the St. Paul airport include both busy -hour and average annual exposures. Figure B-2 shows the noise exposure zona for the St. Paul airport. The zones lying within the various noise contours, described below, are generalized areas. The specific application of noise zone boundaries will be established by each affected community in reviewing, and in some cases amending, its local comprehensive plan. The process will include technical assistance from the Council to help in the definition of zone boundaries in the plan. The intent is to select specific land use, zoning, topographic and other boundary conditions that increase the reasonableness of noise zones for noise abatement activities. 125 mal FIGURE S•I AIRCRAFT NOISE ZONES FOR MINNEAPOUSST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 1 1 1 St. Louis 1 Park ' 1 Edina LTJ w L ---J Roseville Saint Paul Qi ' West St. Paul Eagan 12 3 4 Noise Zones tf' Exist' n0 Runway YQ U Exist! Airportryt Property y Nob: Noiw Polity Cordour 1w MSP to be upddW MGM" LUvoponrr Could mAsw/ap m m d MSP LW*Twm ComproMmivo PW VoMduled for eomplotbn In INC 63 126 The four aircraft noise exposure zones for major and intermediate airports can be classified as severe, serious significant and moderate, rcspcctively. They are described below. NOISE EXPOSURE ZONE I Zone I is immediately adjacent to the airport property and can be generally described as having a severe noise problem. It is subjected to aircraft noise greater than 80 LEQ (equivalent sound level) during the busiest hours of operation at MSP and 70 Ldn (level -day -night) at St. Paul Downtown. It is an area frequently affected by both takeoff and landing operations. In addition, the proximity of the airport operating area, particularly the runway thresholds, reduces the probability of relief resulting from future changes in the operating characteristics of either the aircraft or the airport. Both the existing and expected noise intensity in the area are severe and permanent. No new development other than that dedicated to nonnoise-sensitive land uses should be considered. In addition to preventing future noise problems, the severely noise -impacted areas surrounding MSP should be fully evaluated to determine alternative land use strategies including eventual changes in existing land uses. NOISE EXPOSURE ZONE II The noise impacts in zone II are generally sustained, especially close to the runway ends. Zone II is exposed to aircraft noise of 75 to 80 LEQ for takeoffs and 70 LEQ for landings during the busiest hours at MSP and between 65 and 70 Ldn at St. Paul Downtown. Based on the proximity of the affected area to the airport, the seriousness of the noise exposure is such that sleep and speech interference can be routinely expected. In addition, given that aircraft operations, particularly departures, are still relatively close to the runway centerlines (extended), created noise exposure can be expected. The noise intensity in this area is generally serious and oftentimes continuing. New development should be limited to uses that have been constructed to achieve certain interior to exterior noise attenuation and that discourage certain outdoor uses. NOISE EXPOSURE ZONE III Aircraft noise impact in zone III can also be categorized as sustaining. However, the intensity is such that it should be considered significant, or somewhat less than serious. Zone III is exposed to aircraft noise of 70 to 75 LEQ for takeoffs and 65 to 70 LEQ for landings during the busiest hours at MSP and 60 to 65 Ldn at St. Paul Downtown. In addition to the intensity of the noise, the location of buildings receiving the noise must also be fully considered. Operational changes can provide some relief for certain uses in this area. If residential development is located outside areas that are exposed to frequent arrivals and departures, is constructed to achieve certain interior to exterior noise attenuation and is restrictive as to outdoor use, it may be acceptable. Certain medical and educational facilities that involve permanent lodging and outdoor use should be discouraged NOISE EXPOSURE ZONE IV Zone IV is best descnbed as a 'gray' area where aircraft noise exposure might be considered moderate. It is exposed to aircraft noise 65 to 70 LEQ during the busiest hours. Noise exposure 46y 128 is predominantly related to takeoffs. Land uses are likely to receive the most benefit from changes in operations. The area is considered transitional because potential changes in airix)rt and aircraft operating procedures could lower noise levels. Another factor to be considered is the ambient or background noise environment. Development in this area may be generally free from land use restrictions as such, but can benefit from insulation levels above typical new construction standards in Minnesota. While such measures may abate the level of interior noise, insulation cannot eliminate outdoor noise problems. Building locations and site planning can help mitigate both interior and exterior noise in some cases and must be encouraged. NEW DEVELOPMENT AND MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT 'New development' means a relatively large, undeveloped track of land proposed for development (for example, a residential subdivision, industrial park or shopping tenter). 'Major redevelopment' means a relatively large parcel of land with old structures proposed for extensive rehabilitation or demolition and different uses (for example, demolition of a square block of old office and hotel buildings for new housing, office, commercial uses; conversion of warehouse to office and commercial uses). Guidelines for land use compatibility with aircraft noise are summarized in Tables B-2 and B-3. The guidelines apply to noise exposure zones f. through IV as previously defined. An explanation of the four ratings of land uses in the tables --consistent, provisional, conditional and inconsistent land uses --follows: Consistent Land uses that are acceptable. Provisional: Land uses that must comply with certain land use provisions to be acceptable. These provisions are described in the following section entitled 'Provisional Land Use Requirements.' Conditional.- Land uses that may be identified as conditionally acceptable in local comprehensive plans. The Metropolitan Council will review and authorize conditional uses incorporated in local comprehensive plan amendments for compliance with the factors set forth in the following section entitled 'Conditional Land Use Review Factors.' Inconsistent: Land uses that are not acceptable even if acoustical treatment were incorporated in the structure and outside uses were restricted. PROVISIONAL LAND USE REQUIREMENTS Land uses that meet the following requirements are acceptable: Structures built after December 1983 shall be acoustically constructed so as to achieve the -interior sound levels described in Table B-1. 129 Table B-1 STRUCTURE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS' Land Use Residential Educational/Medical Cultur&VEntertainment/Recreational Office/Commemial/Retail Services Industrial/CommunicationNtility Agricultural Land/Water/Area/ Resource Extraction Interior Sound Level s 45 dBA 45 dBA 50 dBA' 50 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA ' These performance standards do not apply to buildings,, accessory buildings or portions of buildings that are not normally occupied by people (See Table B-6 for listing of standard land use coding.) ' The noise descriptors used to delineate the noise polity zones are: MSP, one-hour LEQ, and St. Paul Downtown, combination of annualized Ldn for Zones 1, II,. and M and L10 in Zone IV. ' Special attention is required for certain noise sensitive uses (for example, concert halls). Each local unit of government that has land within the airport noise zones will be responsible for implementing and enforcing the structure performance standards (Table B-1) within its jurisdiction. The Metropolitan Council will review the adequacy of these standards as part of its review of amendments to each community's comprehensive plan. CONDITIONAL LAND USE REVIEW FACTORS When a local government submits a land use plan amendment proposing the potential authorization of uses identified as conditional in these guidelines, the Metropolitan Council will use the following factors in determining whether to approve the provisions relating to proposed conditional uses: 1. Specific nature of the proposed use, including extent of associated outdoor activities. 2 Relationship of proposed use to other planning considerations, including adjacent land use activities, consistency with overall comprehensive placing and relation to other metropolitan systems. 3. Frequency of exposure of proposed uses to aircraft overflight. 4. Location of proposed use relative to aircraft flight tracts and aircraft on -ground operating and maintenance areas. 5. Location, site design and construction restrictions to be imposed by the community of the proposed use with respect to reduction of exterior to interior noise transmissions and shielding of outdoor activities. 66 130 6. Method community will use to inform future occupants of proposed building of potential noise from aircraft operations. 7. Extent to which community restricts the building from having facilities for outdoor activities associated rwith the use. & Distance of proposed use from existing or proposed runways, parallel taxiways or engine run-up areas. 6� 131 Table B-2 LAND USE COMPATIBILM GUIDELINES FOR MAJOR AND INTERMEDIATE AIRPORTS, NEW DEVELOPMENT AND MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT NOISE EXPOSURE ZONES Land Use Type L I m IV Residential INCO PROV PROV PROV Siogk/Mulupki with Individual Entrance INCOr INCO INCO CONDI MuhiplevApartmeni with Shared Entrance INCO INCO INCO CONI Mobile Home MCO INCO INCO COND Edurstluo and Medical Schools, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes INCO INCO INCO PROV' Cultural, Entertainment, Recreational Indoor COND COND COND PROV Outdoor COND COND COND CNSV OfDce, Commercial, Retail COND PROV PROV CNST Services Transportation -Passenger Facilities COND PROV PROV CNST Transient Lodging INCO PROV PROV PROV Other Medical, Health and Educational Services COND PROV PROV CNST Other Services COND PROV PROV CNST Industrial, Communication, Utility PROV CNST CNST CNST Agricultural Land, Water Arae, Resource CNST CNST CNST CNST Extinction Nor. For infill, rcconsirurtioo aced additions, even though ccnain land uses arc generally incoaYstent in a given rax, maenuating circumstances could justify the project and the community should address this in its plan amendment, as appropriate. I Applicable for off -airport use only. I INCO means i.^^ stcat. I COND means conditional. ' PROV means provisional. s CNST means consistent. 132 Table B-3 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR MAJOR AND INTERMEDIATE AIRPORTS, DMU DEVEIAPMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION OR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES Iced Use Type, Residential Singk/MultVa with Individual Entrance Multipia/Apartawnt with Shared Entrance Mobile Horne Education and Medical Schools, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Colmnl, Entertainment, Recreational Indoor Outdoor 011lee, Commerdal, Retall- - - - - Services Transportation -Passenger Facilities Transient Lodging Other Medical, Health and Educational Services Other Services NOISE EXPOSURE ZONES I D HI TV COND'COND GOND GOND GOND PROV PROV PROV GOND COND GOND GOND CORD GOND GOND PROV GOND PROV PROV PROV COND GOND COND CNSV --PROV-PROV-PROV-CNST — GOND PROV PROV CNST COND PROV PROV PROV GOND PROV PROV CNST GOND PROV PROV CNST Industrial, Communications, Utility PROV CNST CNST CNST Agricultural Land, Water Areae, Resource Extraction CNST CNST CNST CNST NOW For Infill, reconstruction and addition, even though certain Imid uses are generally btmrnlsnmt in a given zone, eeetmming ebarttn mm could jnstiry the project and the mmmuNry should address this In its plan amerndment, as si praprtate. I Applicable for oNairpart use any. r COND mom conditional. s PROV meam provisional. e CNST means comment. - - 6? 133 ACTION BY AGENCIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS Implementation of the guidelines in particular and the promotion of land use compatibility in general includes the following agencies,governmental units and actions. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL • Encourage federal and state cooperation to reduce source noise. Recognizing that the most effective place to reduce noise is at the source, the Metropolitan Council, along with other concerned parties, requests a firm commitment from airport operators and all federal and state agencies to reduce noise at the source. The Council, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and affected municipalities should determine the most effective approach to reducing noise at the source and jointly pursue its implementation. • Develop specific noise zone boundaries. The specific extent of noise zone boundaries will be established in a process involving Metropolitan Council staff and local governments. The intent is to select specific land use, zoning, topographic and other boundary conditions that best reflect land use planning and regulatory considerations and forecasts of noise exposure. • Monitor implementation of airport operational plans and community noise attenuation programs. The Council should encourage cooperation among airport operators and the affected communities to develop jointly and implement airport operations and community noise attenuation programs including the FAR Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Plan for MSP. • Provide planning assistance and coordination. The Council should provide technical assistance and general guidance to the affected local governments in the application of the land use guidelines and the noise exposure zones. • Review comprehensive -plans and land use agreements. The Council will review consistency of local plans with the Metropolitan Development Guide. • Monitor and evaluate changing conditions. The Council, in cooperation with the airport operators, local planning officials, airport user groups and other governmental agencies, should monitor and evaluate changes in land use, zoning and airport operational procedures that might affect the viability of the land use compatibility program. The evaluation function would be continued on an annual basis by the Technical Advisory Committee's Aviation Subcommittee, which coordinates activities of the airport operators, local planning officials, airlines, other governmental agencies and the public. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION AND OTHER AIRPORT OPERATORS • Implement airport operational procedures for noise abatement.Airport operating procedures can reduce noise both on and off an airport, while the distribution of aircraft operations can reduce the number of people affected. The MAC and other airport operators should prepare operational plans for each system airport. 145 2d Participate in the preparation and financing of a program of strategies that will address existing incompatibilities. MAC is expected to participate in the preparation and financing of a program to address existing incompatible land uses. In affected areas, the airport operator is expected to participate in a program to eliminate the. incompatibility. This program should be reflected in the operator's annual capital improvement plan and five- year capital program. AFFECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS • Adopt land use compatibility guidelines. Communities affected by airport operations should adopt the land use compatibility guidelines, make appropriate amendments to their comprehensive land use plans and submit the amendments to the Council for approval. • Develop and implement appropriate local ordinances and codes. The communities should encourage compatible land uses near the airport by implementing the appropriate building codes and zoning ordinances. • Implement land use planning strategies to reduce, prevent or mitigate aircraft noise impacts. in preparing or revising land use plans, each community should consider the following strategies, where appropriate, to reduce or prevent incompatible uses and to mitigate the impact of excess noise exposure: a. Insulate structures located in noise -sensitive areas. b. Adopt building noise attenuation standards for new construction, additions or substantial rehabilitation. C. Disclose degree of noise exposure to prospective home buyers. d. Develop policies on the location, relocation and closing of public structures in aircraft noise impact areas. C. Develop policies on the extension of utilities into aircraft noise impact areas. f. Zone or rezone property. g. Redevelop appropriate areas. MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY (MPCA) • Establish review process agreement with Metropolitan Council to review variance requests. To assist kx:sl governments with reviews of local development that may require variance from the MPCA standards, the MPCA and Metropolitan Council will establish a specific process by which proposed variances will be considered. The MPCA board reviews variance requests from the standards. FEDERAL FUNDING1_B LA DN PLANNING Aviation Policy 9 states that airport operations and land uses surrounding an airport should be compatible with each other and the role and functions assigned to the airport Where an incompatibility exist; a program should be developed by affected agencies and local jurisdictions to mitigate the incompatibility in both operations and land use. Under the Council's land use compatibility guidelines for aircraft noise, the MAC is expected to participate in the preparation and financing of a program to address existing incompatible land uses at all airports under its operation. 146 7/ ( In the case of MSP, the MAC has adopted a 27-point noise abatement program to address operational measures and includes preparation of a land use compatibility plan. This plan is a federally sponsored activity by the FAA Under Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR Part 150), federal aviation trust fund monies can legally be used in areas off airport to implement land use management programs nose abatement. The MAC has prepared the FAR Part 150 plan according to FAA criteria and submitted the plan in June 1989 for FAA review and approval. For MSP, the Council's noise policy contour is used as the basis for identifying those areas in which 'preventive' land use measures and strategies are to be applied. The FAR Part 150 noise contours for L will be used as the bass for identifying those areas in which 'corrective' land use measures and strategies are to be applied as depicted in Figure B9. The Council recommends and supports continued linkage of the operational and land use measures to ensure increasing compatibility during the multiyear implementation of Part 150 Program. The recommended land use measure, priorities, costs, scheduling and implementation responsibilities are outlined in Table B-7. HELICOPTER AND HELIPORT Guidelines for Land Use Compatibility The FAA Advisory Circular (AC IJO/5020-2) provides technical guidance for communities and heliport operators in calculating the acoustic environment near new heliports. The circular is intended to provide assistance in preliminary evaluation of the noise compatibility of sites for heliports where none exists. It is not intended for the evaluation of existing heliports. In lieu of adopted federal standards for helicopter noise, the circular can provide a standardized method for performing preliminary noise evaluation of heliport sites. The evaluation method described is a two-phase process. The first phase uses estimated noise levels and distances to determine whether a proposed facility would meet recommended acceptable noise criteria. A second phase is used if, based on earlier estimates, the proposed facility will clearly not meet the nose criteria. This phase involves detailed on-site measurement of noise to determine whether the heliport could meet the noise criteria. Heliport Model Ordinance A separate heliport model ordinance has been prepared by the Council to assist those communities having to respond to heliport proposals by having an adopted ordinance and established review procedures. The model ordinance is intended to provide the bass for a community to establish appropriate land use controls and administrative procedures for a siting of a freestanding heliport facility. 147 is NEW 11 4'. OPPM m PIN" lb"llb. W 7' 7�RH Iy ILE , NA �IL T W tcol 1 mE F N �UNt a UMK MUMU 11..7 .tt .Il. pV. L�•Y •I I �` �y, �'tl t a,• w l I • �.. "Go VEL Aa -u . �, e. d 1 •.I t l • . . \ 'r \ %9\ yam` ak .a.. iii.. r'i r, y ay y dj, ' 201 a`� .av ave - ov. faw lm• \ I tI: fo •• _• 2N hYr ::.Y �Vr rN -t : w• a. • `'rr't�4t'.,f�l� �n a•r• ,ro � '�' \ swr .4 to all J4 F. A. an• . �i ;•. � a •�. � yt• - , so, fe w VVV Ln Im n K � • vc ¢i , r . N; METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis. MN 55450-2799 Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 PUBLIC NOTICE MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LONG TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE ALTERNATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT SCOPING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET DRAFT SCOPING DECISION DOCUMENT An Alternative Environmental Document (AED) will be prepared by the Metropolitan Airports Commission fora Long Term Comprehensive Plan for Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport to satisfy the air transportation needs through the year 2020. The Long Term Comprehensive Plan is one element of the Duel Track Airport Planning Process mandated by the Minnesota Legislature; the AED is being developed under the Alternative Environmental Review Process approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board in March, 1992. The Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and the Draft Scoping Decision Document are designed to develop the issues that will be addressed in the AED. A public meeting to discuss the Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision Document will be held on Tuesday, February 15, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. at the Washburn High School Auditorium, 201 West 49 Street, Minneapolis, MN. The Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision Document will be available for review after January 31 at the following locations: Minneapolis -Washburn Library, 5244 Lyndale Avenue South; Hennepin County - Oxboro Library, 8801 Portland Avenue South; St. Paul - Highland Park Library, 1974 Ford Parkway; Dakota County - Hastings Library, 830 Vermillion; City Halls of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington, Richfield, Eagan, Mendota Heights, and Inver Grove Heights. Copies of the document are available upon request. Comments are due by March 2, 1994. Please direct all comments and inquiries to Jenn Unruh, Metropolitan Airports Commission, 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55450; (612) 726-8189. The Metropolitan Airpons Commission is an affirmative action employer. Reliever Airports: AIRLAKE • ANOKA COUNTYISLAINE • CRYSTAL - FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN �V 3. RGU MeM=litan Airvorts Coniniission Contact person Nigel D. Finney and title Address 6040 28th Avenue So Minneapolis. MN 55450 Phone 612-726-8187 4. Reason for EAW Preparation 0 EIS scoping 13 mandatory EAW 0 citizen petition 13 RGU discretion 0 proposer volunteered If EAW or EIS is mandatory, give EQB rule category number(s): 5. Project Location County Hennepin City/Twp Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport See Figure 2 for project location. 6. Description The Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) consists of a new runway, taxiways, aprons, internal roadways, and building areas and supporting infrastructure improvements (changes in ground transportation facilities) to accommodate the future air transportation needs of the region. MSP LTCP Alternatives The MAC adopted an MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP Alternative 6) in November, 1991 as required by the 1989 legislation. The legislation further required the MAC to update the economic and air service assumptions and forecasts for the year 2020, and update the LTCP based on the updated assumptions and forecasts. MAC considered 12 runway concepts and 14 terminal concepts in the development of the LTCP. These concepts were screened to the following six LTCP alternatives: Alternative l - Construction of a second north -parallel runway north of, and parallel to the existing north -parallel runway, an additional passenger terminal east of the existing terminal, and satellite gates and a passenger parking/drop-off facility on the west side of the airport (Figure 3). The new runway would function principally as an arrival (landing) runway. 3 17 Alternative 2 - Construction of a second north -parallel runway as described in Alternative 1; a replacement passenger terminal building on the east side of the airport; and a passenger parking/drop-off facility on the east side of the airport (Figure 4). The runways would function as in Alterative 1. Placing the passenger terminal on the west side of the airport creates a "new front door" for MSP. Alternative 3 - Construction of a second south -parallel runway south of, and parallel to, the existing south -parallel runway; an additional east passenger terminal building; and satellite gates and a passenger parking/drop-off facility on the west side of the airport (Figure 5). The new runway would function principally as a landing runway. The existing south parallel would function principally as a departure (take -off) runway. Alternative 4 - Construction of a second south -parallel runway as described in Alternative 3; a replacement west passenger terminal building; and a passenger parking/drop-off facility on the east side of the airport (Figure 6). The runways would function as in Alternative 3. Placing the passenger terminal on the west side of the airport creates a new front door for MSP. Alternative 5 - Construction of a north/south runway on the west side of MSP; an additional east passenger terminal building; and satellite gates and a passenger parking/drop-off facility on the west side of the airport. The new runway would be used almost exclusively to and from the south for both take -offs and landings. Alternative 6 - Construction of a north/south-runway on the west side of MSP; a replacement west passenger terminal building; and a passenger parking/drop-off facility on the east side of the airport. The new runway would function the same as Alternative 5. Placing the passenger terminal on the west side of the airport creates a new front door for MSP. 7. Project Magnitude Data The total project area of MSP will increase from about 3,000 acres to approximately 3,500- 3,800 acres, depending on which LTCP Alterative is selected for further development. The MSP terminal building areas will increase in total area from 80,184 gross sq. ft. to 318,656 gross sq.ft. by 2020, according to the terminal facility requirements documented in the existing MSP LTCP. Total area of other future commercial space (maintenance, storage, etc.) is not known at this time. 4 'r 9. Land Use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses, indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potentia/ environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks. Current land use was derived from 1990 aerial photographs. Affected land use adjacent to MSP is summarized in Tables 1 - 3. TABLE 1 LTCP ALTERNATIVES 1 & 2 EXISTING LAND USE WITHIN YEAR 2000 DNL 60 NOISE CONTOUR Land Use Area Within DNL 60 Noise Contour Acres Percent No Build Alt 1 & 2 No Build Alt 1 & 2 Water, Floodplain, Wetland 1040 1110 7.3 7.9 Commercial 460 480 3.2 3.4 Industrial 760 680 5.3 4.8 Single Family Residential 2930 2900 20.5 20.5 Multi Family Residential 280 260 2.0 1.9 Pubic/Open Space 1560 1640 10.9 11.6 Public/Quasi-Public Facilities 1330 1330 9.3 9.4 Airport 2480 2490 17.4 17.6 Vacant 2160 2050 15.1 14.5 Highways 850 810 5.9 5.7 Farmsteads 20 10 0 0 Vacant (Planned) Industrial Park 420 380 3.0 2.7 TOTAL 1 14,290 14,1401 100.0 100.0 P F I TABLE 2 LTCP ALTERNATIVES 3 & 4 EXISTING LAND USE WITHIN YEAR 2000 DNL 60 NOISE CONTOUR Land Use Area Within DNL 60 Noise Contour Acres Percent No Build Alt 3 & 4 No Build Alt 3 & 4 Water, Floodplain, Wetland 1040 1050 7.3 7.4 Commercial 460 480 3.2 3.4 Industrial 760 800 5.3 5.6 Single Family Residential 2930 2870 20.5 20.2 Multi Family Residential 280 270 2.0 1.9 Pubic/Open Space 1560 1640 10.9 11.5 Public/Quasi-Public Facilities 1330. 1170 9.3 8.2 Airport 2480 2450 17.4 17.2 Vacant 2160 2200 15.1 15.5 Highways 850 860 5.9 6.0 Farmsteads 20 20 0 0 Vacant (Planned) Industrial Park 420 440 3.0 3.1 TOTAL 1 14,290 14,250 100.0 100.0 TABLE 3 LTCP ALTERNATIVES 5 & 6 EXISTING LAND USE WITHIN YEAR 2000 DNL 60 NOISE CONTOUR Land Use Area Within DNL 60 Noise Contour Acres Percent No Build Alt 5 & 6 No Build Alt 5 & 6 Water, Floodplain, Wetland 1040 1310 7.3 9.1 Commercial 460 600 3.2 4.1 Industrial 760 600 5.3 4.1 Single Family Residential 2930 2470 20.5 17.1 Multi Family Residential 280 200 2.0 1.3 Pubic/Open Space 1560 2890 10.9 20.0 Public/Quasi-Public Facilities 1330 960 9.3 6.6 Airport 2480 1 2570 17.4 17.8 Vacant 2160 1670 15.1 11.6 Highways 850 900 5.9 6.3 Farmsteads 20 0 0 0 Vacant (Planned) Industrial Park 420 290 3.0 2.0 TOTAL 14,290 14,460 100.0 1 100.0 The expansion of MSP will not be compatible with some existing land use, notably residential development in Minneapolis and Richfield. However, the MAC is in the process of acquiring homes in two areas that have experienced severe problems — Rich Acres and New Ford Town in Richfield. Although the Metropolitan Council has adopted land use compatibility guidelines for the existing MSP, the Council will initiate work in 1994 on revising these guidelines. In the off-site impacts report of the MSP Interactive Planning Group, the adjacent affected communities identified compatibility criteria for an expanded airport. The Council will consider these criteria as part of its process of determining the type and amount of development considered appropriate for the areas surrounding an expanded MSP. Dual Track Airport Planning Process NIVT9 MAC MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Pian Figure 14 MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Plan r . to uw�. m roar N M1 Dual Track Airport Planning Process MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Plan Figure 16J IV. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES AND BWACTS INTRODUCTION The issues and impacts to be addressed in the AED will focus on development alternatives for MSP only, with the primary purpose to document differences in environmental effects between the alternatives. The environmental effects of new airport development options are being addressed separately in the New Airport Comprehensive Plan AED. The detailed analysis of the environmental, community, social and economic effects of expanding the existing airport versus the construction of a new airport in Dakota County (and of other reasonable alternatives to these options),will be undertaken in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) following completion of the MSP and New Airport AED's. ISSUES AND IMPACTS REQUEUNG DETAILED ANALYSIS The following issues and impact areas were determined in the MSP LTCP scoping process to be potentially significant and to require detailed analysis in the AED. Measures to mitigate the impacts will be discussed, where appropriate. Forecasts The airport. activity forecasts developed in 1989 for use in the Long -Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for MSP and for the New Airport Site Selection Study were updated in the Spring of 1993. The updated forecasts will be used in the MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Plan update, the New Airport Comprehensive Plan, and for environmental documents relating to these studies. The forecast update process was initiated in October 1992, when a public hearing and a series of expert panel sessions were conducted to solicit input on forecast methodologies, aviation assumptions, and socio-economic assumptions. An additional expert panel session was conducted in May, 1993. During these sessions, issues were raised regarding the latest socio- economic projections, and uncertainties with various aviation assumptions. To address these uncertainties, alternative scenarios were included in the forecast update. These scenarios provide a range of forecasts higher and lower than the baseline forecast of airport activity through the year 2020. Noise Noise sensitive areas and facilities (residences, schools, parks, etc.) will be identified and analyzed to determine the noise impacts of the candidate sites. The effect of aircraft noise on stress-related health disorders will be addressed. Future day and nighttime sound levels will be calculated and compared with existing levels, state standards and federal criteria. The future -7- sound levels will be calculated, using the latest version of the Federal Aviation Administration's Integrated Noise Model (INM). The noise analysis to be conducted will include contour analysis for Average Day -Night Level (DNL) and the State 1,10 descriptor, grid point analysis for time -above -threshold 85 dBA noise level and peak Sound Exposure Level (SEL), and aircraft overflights. The DNL metric was developed under the auspices of the U.S. EPA for use in describing aircraft noise impacts and other environmental noise impacts. DNL is the logarithmic average sound level measured in decibels weighted to closely approximate the sensitivity of the human ear. It is based on the yearly average for a 24-hour Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). The metric is weighted to account for increased noise sensitivity between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM with a 10 dBA (decibels on the A -weighted scale) penalty applied to noise events during that nighttime period. The output of the noise model includes a noise contour connecting points of equal noise level, which can be used to estimate the number of people and noise sensitive land uses within specified DNL sound levels. For this study, DNL 65 and DNL 60 will be used and will be applied to a conservative future year. The L1065 metric is used by the State of Minnesota in setting State noise standards. The L,o is based on a sound level (65 dBA) exceeded 10 percent of the time (6 minutes per hour). It is calculated for the worst hourly noise condition that could occur off each runway end. It says nothing about how often the condition actually occurs, but does show what short-term conditions could be in these areas. The time -above -threshold (TA) is a measure of the time during a 24-hour day that a point on the ground experiences aircraft -generated noise above specified levels. The level of 85 dBA represents the point at which single -event (not DNL) levels are considered potentially disruptive. Unlike the DNL metric, which uses logarithmic averages in its internal calculations, the TA metric uses arithmetic means to calculate total noise. This latter technique can better demonstrate small changes, in noise patterns, and can show changes in noise on a scale commensurate with changes in the number of aircraft overflights. Peak Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is a calculation of the highest single aircraft A -weighted sound level at a specific point on the ground. Comparison of peak SEL for the various alternatives at the same geographic points shows various single -event impacts by alternative. The analysis of aircraft overflights focuses on areas near the ends of runways. This analysis provides a straight forward comparison of runway use by alternative. Noise abatement measures and land use compatibility measures will be considered for each MSP LTCP alternative. These include the rerouting of some flight tracks (especially departure tracks) over less noise -sensitive areas, and preferential runway use. Other measures will be considered as appropriate. A comparison of noise impacts for each alternative will be presented. wiqS /i?Gtol �•er'/en��y J 0 In /- 17!�-> C�L 4 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport 6040 - 28th Avenue South a Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 0 Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 TO: Interested Persons FROM: Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director- Planning and Environment (726-8187) RE: FAA Capacity Task Force Report DATE: January 27, 1994 Enclosed for your information is a copy of the final report of the Federal Aviation Administration Capacity Task Force for Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP). This document provides the results of the approximately 18 months of work dedicated to evaluating ways to enhance capacity at MSP. Issues such as airfield improvements, facilities and equipment improvements, and operational improvements are considered and evaluated in the report. As we have previously indicated, this analysis is carried out without regard for constructability or off airport impacts. These factors must.be taken into account in a more comprehensive airport planning process, such as the update of the Long Tenn Comprehensive Plan fot MSP that is now getting underway. As such, the report of the Capacity Task Force will be used as input into the planning process. The FAA process does not attempt to forecast activity, but to look at the facilities needed to allow the airport to operate at certain levels of activity. The two levels of analysis are defined as Future 1 (530,000 annual operations) and Future 2 (600,000 annual operations). Future 1 is reasonably dose to the current 2020 forecast of operations (520,400) such that it can be used as a surrogate for the 2020 forecast. The report indicates that development of one additional runway is justified to meet Future 1 levels, and that a new north -south runway provides the greatest benefits at levels up to Future 1 and is the recommended action. At Future 2 levels, two additional runways are justified, with the recommended action being the combination of the north -south runway and the north parallel runway. I hope you will find this report useful. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative anion employer. Reliever Airports: AIRLAKE • ANOKA COUNTYIBLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYWC CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN �O (�i 1 I t` t.$.... `t t 1 f.0 S�` �. � 1. t.• _l �I. � . I.I hq +4l tfr� Int 4 1 I. _. Figure 1. Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Figure 2. Capacity Enhancement Alternatives and Annual Delay Savings c%llinneapolit-faint `Pau/ Intemational;/lirport Capacity Enhancement `Plan Figure 1. Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Minneapolis, Minnesota .0• USAF Aro M snuchw st Largo Apron •r• Existing Runway Proposed Runway/Runway Extension 1111111® Existing Taxiway r _ _ Proposed Taxiway/Taxiway Extension lr ■ 0 Buildings F3= Location of future terminals 9-3 c7Llinnea olis-`faint Taullnternationalc/lirport C'afarit} Enhancement `Plan Figure 2. Capacity Enhancement Alternatives and Annual Delay Savings Fadlitles and 19. 21. 22. 23. roc CAT I ILS approach lights on Runway 29R CAT IIID ILS on Runway 29R with RVR CAT Il/III ILS on Runways IIL and 11R with RVR Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) Doppler VOR installed at MSP Runway centerline and touchdown zone lights for Runway 4/22 RVR for Runway 4/22 rceauoe m-trau separations to 25 nm for like classes of aircraft in IFR Converging IFR approaches FMS transitions to existing approaches Continue enhancement of reliever airports 23a. 25% of small/slow aircraft 23b. 5096 of small/slow aircraft 868/$1.3 864/$1.3 3,182/$4.6 2,405/$3.5 2,402/$3.5 13,822/$20.0 t t 3,48635.0 3,520/$5.1 45,834/$66.3 2,655/$3.8 4,466/116.5 7,304310.6 3,617/115.2 8,868/$12.8 19,275/$27.9 The savings for airfield improvements are in addition to the savings for PRM at all demand levels. The savings for facilities and equipment and operational improvements are in addition to the savings for PRM at Future 1 , and Future 2. The savings benefits of these alternatives are not necessarily additive. t These improvements were not simulated. Therefore, no dollar figures are available. Then is a description of . each of these items in Section 2 ---Capacity Enhancement Alternatives. Estimated Annual Delay Savings* Alternatives (in hours and millions of 1992 dollars) Airfield Improvements Baseline (420,390) Future 1 (530,000) Future 2 (600,000) 1. New N/s Runway 17/35 on west side 6,534/$9.5 20,757/$30.0 43,677/$63.2 of airport, south of parallel runways 2. New Runway 11N/29N 800 ft. north 4,05135.9 17,526/$25.4 38,741/$56.1 of Runway IlL/29R 3. New Runway l Is/29s 1,000 ft. south 4,127/$6.0 20,147/$29.2 44,936/$65.0 Of Runway 11R/29L with threshold staggered 3,000 ft. to the west 4. New Runways 17/35 and 11N/29N 8,438/$12.2 26,296/$38.1 56,548/$81.8 (combines alternatives 1 and 2) 5. New Runways 1IN/29N and 1is/29s 7,190/$10.4 24,904/$36.0 54,542/$78.9 (combines alternatives 2 and 3) 6. Extend Runway 4/22 2,750 ft. to Sw with t Taxiways C, D, and M and a queuing taxiway 7. New full-length parallel taxiway 600 ft. 92731.3 1,147/$1.7 2,340/$3.4 south of Runway 11R/29L S. Dual crossover taxiways between 2,084/$3.0 3,294/$4.8 3,787/$5.5 Runways I IIJ29R and I IR/29L 9. Departure sequencing pads on t Runways 29R,11L, and I IR 10. Additional exits on Runways 11R129L and 11 V29R t 11. Additional exits on Runway 4/22 t 12. Aircraft hold areas (penalty boxes) t Fadlitles and 19. 21. 22. 23. roc CAT I ILS approach lights on Runway 29R CAT IIID ILS on Runway 29R with RVR CAT Il/III ILS on Runways IIL and 11R with RVR Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) Doppler VOR installed at MSP Runway centerline and touchdown zone lights for Runway 4/22 RVR for Runway 4/22 rceauoe m-trau separations to 25 nm for like classes of aircraft in IFR Converging IFR approaches FMS transitions to existing approaches Continue enhancement of reliever airports 23a. 25% of small/slow aircraft 23b. 5096 of small/slow aircraft 868/$1.3 864/$1.3 3,182/$4.6 2,405/$3.5 2,402/$3.5 13,822/$20.0 t t 3,48635.0 3,520/$5.1 45,834/$66.3 2,655/$3.8 4,466/116.5 7,304310.6 3,617/115.2 8,868/$12.8 19,275/$27.9 The savings for airfield improvements are in addition to the savings for PRM at all demand levels. The savings for facilities and equipment and operational improvements are in addition to the savings for PRM at Future 1 , and Future 2. The savings benefits of these alternatives are not necessarily additive. t These improvements were not simulated. Therefore, no dollar figures are available. Then is a description of . each of these items in Section 2 ---Capacity Enhancement Alternatives. cMinneapolis-`faint `Paul International airport Capacity Enbantement Tlan Background The capacity enhancement alternatives are catego- rized and discussed under the following headings: • Airfield Improvements • Facilities and Equipment Improvements • Operational Improvements Figure 1 shows the current layout of the airport, plus the airfield improvements considered by the Ca- pacity Team. Figure 2 lists the capacity enhancement alternatives evaluated by the Capacity Team and presents the esti- mated annual delay savings benefits for selected im- provements. The annual savings are given for the activ- ity levels Baseline, Future 1, and Future 2, which corre- spond to annual aircraft operations of 420,390, 530,000, and 600,000 respectively. The delay savings benefits of the improvements are not necessarily addi- tive. Figure 8 presents the recommended action and sug- gested time frame for each capacity enhancement alter- native considered by the Capacity Team. s i` i { i f n Such S r a rstt tWinneapolii- faint Taul International cXirport Capacity Enhancement `Plan Airfield Improvements 1. New north/south The new north/south Runway 17/35 would be used Runway 17/35 on west primarily for departures to the south and arrivals to the side of airport, south of north. In both cases, the new runway would supple - parallel runways. ment the existing capacity of the parallel Runways 11R/29L and 11L/29R since they can be operated inde- Estimated savings In Delay pendently of the new runway under most visual flight Demaod Baedme Fun== flmne2 niles (VFR) conditions and some instrument flight rules Hn 6,534 20,757 43,677 () conditions. $IW $95 $30.0 $631 During peak departure periods in a north flow traf- fic condition, the new runway would be used for arrivals from the south, thus allowing intensive use of the paral- lel Runways 29R and 29L for departures. During an ar- rival peak with a north flow of tragic, the new runway would again be used for arrivals along with Runways 29R and 29L. The limited number of departures that occur during an arrival peak would use the parallel run- ways. During departure peaks in south flow conditions, the new runway would be used for departures, in con- junction with departures on Runways 11L and 1111, with arrivals also occurring on Runways 11L and 11R. During arrival peaks in south flow, the new runway would handle all departures, freeing up all of the capac- ity of the parallel runways for arrivals. Estimated 1992 project cost is $116 million. Annual savings at the Baseline activity level would be 6,534 hours or $9.5 million; at Future 1, 20,757 hours or $30.0 million; and, at Future 2 activity levels, 43,677 hours or $63.2 million. 2. New Runway 11 N/29N 800 Constructing a new parallel northwest/southeast feet north of Runway 11 L/29R. runway, Runway 11N/29N, 800 feet north of Runway 111J29R would provide for an additional independent Estimated savings In Delay parallel arrival and departure stream under VFR. Parallel Demand Fume t 1 ET= 2 runways separated by distances of less than 2,500 feet Hn 1 4,051 17,526 138,741 are considered dependent under IFR. Under IFR, these IM $5.9 $25.4 656.1 two runways must be treated as a single runway for ar- rivals and departures. However, the ability to segregate arrivals and departures to two runways does provide some capacity benefit for dependent parallel runways. rut a `Paullnternational 3. New Runway 11 S/29S 1,000 feet south of Runway 11 R/291. with threshold staggered 3,000 feet to the west. Estimated Savings In Delay Demand Baseline Future l Ftume 2 lits 4,127 20,147 44,936 $M $6.0 $29.2 $65.0 4. New Runways 17/35 and 11N/29N. (combines alternatives 1 and 2) Estlmated Savings In Delay Demand Baaelime Finarel Future Hn 8,438 26,296 56,548 SM $12.2 $38.1 881.8 S. New Runways 11N/29N and 11 S/29S. (combines altematives 2 and 3) Estimated Savings In Delay Demand Baee6oe IF 1 Fun=2 Hrs 7,190 1 24,904 54,542 $M $10.4 1 $36.0 $78.9 Bnhanrement 'Plan Estimated 1992 project cost is 8191 million. Annual savings at the Baseline activity level would be 4,051 hours or $5.9 million; at Future 1, 17,526 hours or $25.4 million; and, at Future 2 activity levels, 38,741 hours or $56.1 million. Constructing a new dependent parallel Runway 11S/29S 1,000 feet south of the existing Runway 11R/29L would provide for an additional independent parallel stream for arrivals and departures under VFR. Under IFR, these runways would be dependent since they are separated by less than 2,500 feet. However, the ability to segregate arrivals and departures to two run- ways does provide some capacity benefit for dependent parallel runways. The 3,000 foot stagger between the thresholds of Runways 11S/29S and 11R/29L may cre- ate wake vortex avoidance problems for some aircraft. Estimated 1992 project cost is $82 million. Annual savings at the Baseline activity level would be 4,127 hours or $6.0 million; at Future 1, 20,147 hours or $29.2 million; and, at Future 2 activity levels, 44,936 hours or $65.0 million. Estimated 1992 total project cost is $307 million. Annual savings at the Baseline activity level would be 8,438 hours or $12.2 million; at Future 1, 26,296 hours or $38.1 million; and, at Future 2 activity levels, 56,548 hours or $81.8 million. Estimated 1992 total project cost is $273 million. Annual savings at the Baseline activity level would be 7,190 hours or $10.4 million; at Future 1, 24,904 hours or $36.0 million; and, at Future 2 activity levels, 54,542 hours or $78.9 million. t2,7t OHinneapolis-,faint `PaulInternational c/lirport Capacity Enhancement `Plan 6. Extend Runway 4/22 2,750 As currently configured, Runway 4/22 intersects feet to the southwest with Runways 11LJ29R and 11R/29L. Air traffic control pro - Taxiways C, D, and M and a cedures for operations conducted on intersecting run - queuing taxiway. ways are, by necessity, more restrictive than for opera- tions conducted on non -intersecting or parallel run- ways. As a result, Runway 4/22 does not add any capac- ity to MSP. As currently proposed by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), the runway would be extended 2,750 feet to the southwest with a 1,550 foot displaced landing threshold on Runway 4. The takeoff point on Runway 22 would be shifted to approximately 700 feet southwest of the Runway 4/22 and 11L/29R intersec- tion. This would effectively eliminate the intersection of the two runways and increase their capacities when used in combination when wind and weather conditions per- mit. This runway use configuration is one of the.pre- ferred modes for purposes of noise abatement, which is the primary purpose of the extension. The elimination of the Runway 4/22 intersection with Runway 11LJ29R for most operations would also permit a runway use configuration including landing on Runways 29L and 29R, with takeoffs on Runways 29R and 22. This mode would produce, a very slight increase. in airport capacity, when wind and weather permit its use (about 35 percent of the time). However, queuing problems for Runway 22 departures would limit use of this configuration during the peak hours. Additionally, the extension of Runway 4/22 would allow some aircraft to operate at higher gross takeoff weights, carrying either more passengers or serving more distant markets. This capability is particularly im- portant to long-haul international operations in the high temperature conditions experienced during the summer months. The extension would also permit the airport to maintain long-haul international operations during those times when Runway 11R/29L is not in ser- vice. Currently, Runway 4/22 is the longest runway when Runway 11R/29L is not available, but at its cur- rent length, long-haul operations would experience weight restrictions. An extended Runway 4/22 would permit the airport to perform maintenance on Runway 11R/29L without restricting long-haul operations. Estimated 1992 project cost is $27 million. c7Ninneapohs-cfaint `Paullnternational airport Capacity Enbanrement Plan 7. New full-length parallel A new parallel taxiway on the south side of Runway taxiway 600 feet south of 11R/29L would improve the flow of ground traffic to .Runway 11 R/29L. and from the runway and around the terminal area. De- partures originating in the cargo, general aviation (GA), Estimated Savings in Delay and maintenance areas south of Runway 11R/29L Demand B.se6ne Fume r F,mne2 would have access to the departure queue without hav- Hn 927 1,147 2 Sao ing to cross the runway. Similarly, arriving cargo and sM 813 $1.7 83.4 GA traffic would have access to their terminal areas without crossing the runway. This improvement would reduce congestion in the Gold Concourse apron area and would reduce the risk of runway incursions by traf- fic crossing the runway. Estimated 1992 project cost is 816 million. Annual savings at the Baseline activity level would be 927 hours or 81.3 million; at Future 1, 1,147 hours or 81.7 million; and, at Future 2 activity levels, 2,340 hours or 83.4 million. S. Dual crossover taxiways A new dual crossfield taxiway on the east side of the between Runways 11 L/29R terminal area would reduce taxi-in/taxi-out times for and 11 R/29L. aircraft at the Green and Gold Concourses. Addition- ally, it would alleviate congestion on Taxiways C and D in front of the Red and Blue Concourses, the baggage Estimated Savings In Delay handling runnel area between the Gold and Red Con- Demand Base Fuwe r Fawe 2 courses, and the Green Concourse gate pod. This taxi- 3,787 His$3.0 way improvement would significantly improve the abil- s1W s3.o s4.e $4.8 ity to get aircraft from one side of the terminal to the other and reduce taxi times. Currently, aircraft at the Gold Concourse assigned to Runway 29R or aircraft at the Green Concourse as- signed to Runway 29L must taxi past the Red, Blue, Green, and Gold Concourses to reach their respective departure queues. Along this route, there are several constrained areas within which the airport traffic con- trol tower must already coordinate all ground move- ments to prevent gridlock on the airfield. These con- strained areas, along Taxiway C and D, the tunnel be- tween the Red and Gold Concourses, and the gate pod on the Green Concourse, could be bypassed using this new taxiway. Additionally, the taxi travel distance be- tween the Green Concourse and Runway 29L and be- tween the Gold Concourse and Runway 29R would be shortened. Due to the current taxiway structure, the ad- ditional capacity created by any airfield improvement y`tlinneapolis- faint `PaulInternational cdirport Capacity Enbancement Plan could not be realized without this crossfield taxiway in place. Furthermore, these taxiways would allow the tower to establish a circular taxi flow around the termi- nal complex. A new terminal is planned on the west side of the airport, and the existing Red, Blue, Green, and Gold Concourses would then be realigned into two long piers. The space between the piers would be paved to permit aircraft to park between the concourses. With this new terminal development, the crossover taxiway will be essential to the flow of ground traffic to and from the runways. Until the terminal is developed, however, construction of the crossover taxiways would be extremely difficult, due to the presence of Northwest Airlines maintenance facilities, the configuration of the airport roadways, and the location of the post office. Estimated 1992 project cost is 820 million. Annual savings at the Baseline activity level would be 2,084 hours or 83.0 million; at Future 1, 3,294 hours or 84.8 million; and, at Future 2 activity levels, 3,787 hours or 85.5 million. 9. Departure sequencing pads Air traffic flow control often dictates that aircraft on Runways 29R, 11 L, and hold at the runway thresholds before take -off because of 11R. departure flow restrictions. Construction of holding ar- eas for Runways 29R, 11L, and 11R would improve the ability of departing aircraft to bypass those aircraft waiting for departure clearance and relieve congestion on the taxiways. These pads could also serve as runway - end deicing facilities. Estimated 1992 project cost is 824 million. 10. Additional exits on Runways The addition of improved exits on Runway 11R/29L 11 R/29L and 11 L/29R. and 11L/29R would aid in reducing occupancy time for arrivals on the two runways. By reducing arrival runway occupancy times, the airfield can be operated more effi- ciently when arrivals and departures are evenly mixed. Additionally, a reduction in runway occupancy times to an average of 50 seconds or less would facilitate reduc- ing arrival -to -arrival in -trail separations on final ap- proach to 2.5 nm for aircraft of similar class, thereby providing an important additional capacity advantage. Estimated 1992 project cost is 810.5 million. t26t �C/ V i u c%finneapoJv-faint'Paullnternationalairport C'apatityEnbantement Plan 11. Additional exits on The addition of improved exits on Runway 4/22 Runway 4/22. would aid in reducing occupancy time for arrivals on the runway. By reducing arrival runway occupancy times, the airfield can be operated more efficiently when arrivals and departures are everdy mixed. Additionally, a reduction in runway occupancy times to an average of 50 seconds or less would facilitate reducing arrival -to - arrival in -trail separations on final approach to 2.5 nm for aircraft of similar class, thereby providing an impor- tant additional capacity advantage. Estimated 1992 project cost is $16.5 million. 12. Aircraft hold areas Construction of holding areas for arriving aircraft (penalty boxes). waiting for gate space would relieve congestion near the terminal area and allow more efficient taxiway utiliza- tion. Facilities and Equipment Improvements 13. Category I ILS approach Instrument flight rules (IFR) that restrict operations lights on Runway 29R. (IFR 1—ceiling 200 to 1,000 feet and visibility 0.5 to 3 sm) occur about 8.2 percent of the time, and the im- pact of the associated delays can be significant. Install- ing CAT I ILS standard approach lights on Runway 29R would reduce visibility minimums from '/4 to'/2 sm and provide an improved precision approach, thereby in- creasing capacity and reducing delays. Installation of the lights is complicated by the Minnesota River and public parks to the east of the runway. Estimated 1992 project cost is $1.7 million. 14. Category 11/III ILS on IFR that severely restrict operations (IFR 2—ceiling Runway 29R with Runway below 200 feet and visibility below 0.5 sm) only occur Visual Range (RVR). about 0.2 percent of the time, but the impact of the as- sociated delays can be significant. Installing a CAT II/in Estimated Savings In Delay ILS on Runway 29R would reduce visibility minimums Demand Bucum Fun= i Forum 2 and enhance operational flexibility by providing a sec- Hn 868 1 2,405 3,486 and CAT II/HI ILS and thereby help to maintain capacity SM $13 1 $3.5 $5.0 during very low instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Installing an additional RVR on Runway 29R /D/ (27) ,%finneapolit-`faint Taullnternational airport Capacity Enhancement `Plan would reduce visibility minimums and enhance opera- tional flexibility and thereby help to maintain capacity during very low IMC. Estimated 1992 project cost is $6.4 million. Annual savings at the Baseline activity level would be 868 hours or $1.3 million; at Future 1, 2,405 hours or $3.5 million; and, at Future 2 activity levels, 3,486 hours or $5.0 million. 15. Category II/III ILS on As an alternative to installing a CAT II/III ILS on Runways 11 L and 11 R Runway 29R, CAT II/VI ILS approaches could be in - with RVR. stalled on Runways 11L and 11R to provide dual ap- proaches, if these installations were more feasible. In - Estimated Savings In Delay stalling additional RVRs on Runways 11L and 11R Dm d Bawh Fvmm 1 F==2 Would reduce visibility minimums and enhance opera- Hn 864 2,402 3$20 tional flexibility and thereby help to maintain capacity SM $13 $35 $5.1 during very low IMC. Runway Monitor (PRM) has demonstrated that simulta- Estimated 1992 project cost is $5.9 million. Annual savings at the Baseline activity level would be 864 hours or S1.3 million; at Future 1, 2,402 hours or 83.5 million; and, at Future 2 activity levels, 3,520 hours or S5.1 million. 16. Precision Runway Monitor The capacity of MSP would be significantly in - (PRM). creased by the ability to conduct simultaneous (inde- pendent) parallel approaches in all weather conditions. With existing radar equipment, current FAA criteria re- Estimated Savings In Delay quire 4,300 feet between parallel runway centerlines. D®aud Budin Fugue 1 Fuuue2 Hn 3,182 13,822 45,834 A developmental program known as the Precision IM $4.6 $20.0 $66.3 Runway Monitor (PRM) has demonstrated that simulta- c28t neous independent parallel approaches can be con- ducted in all weather conditions on runways spaced less than 4,300 feet apart. This program relies on improved radar surveillance with higher update rates of aircraft positions and a new air traffic controller display system. When PRM equipment becomes available, installing it at MSP would allow independent parallel ILS approaches to be implemented. National standards for simulta- neous (independent) parallel approaches using the PRM to runways separated by 3,400 to 4,300 feet were pub- lished in November 1991. MSP's parallel runways are separated by 3,380 feet, and a waiver has been obtained to conduct simultaneous (independent) operations us- %l CMZ cPaullnternational 17. Doppler VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) installed at MSP. 18. Runway centerline and touchdown zone lights for Runway 4/22. 19. Runway Visual Range (RVR) for Runway 4/22. Enhancement Tian ing the PRM. Current FAA plans call for a PRM to be operational at MSP in May 1995. Estimated 1992 project cost is $6 million. Annual savings at the Baseline activity level would be 3,182 hours or $4.6 million; at Future 1, 13,822 hours or $20.0 million; and, at Future 2 activity levels, 45,834 hours or $66.3 million. The installation of a Doppler VOR at Minneapolis - Saint Paul would provide an additional source of accu- rate fix information to pilots performing instrument ap- proaches to MSP. The replacement of the existing VOR (preferably at a site consistent with the Master Plan for MSP) would provide for improved instrument ap- proaches, enhance safety, and better serve the needs of the users. Estimated 1992 project cost is $0.9 million. Installing runway centerline and touchdown zone lighting would reduce visibility minimums for Run- way 4 from 2,400 feet to 1,800 feet. The primary ben- efit would be in adverse weather. Estimated 1992 project cost is $1 million if done as part of another project and $2 million if done as a standalone project. Installing an RVR on Runway 22 (Runway 4 has an RVR) would reduce departure visibility minimums on Runway 22 to at least 1,600 feet and reduce approach visibility minimums from '14 sm to 4,000 feet. The pri- mary benefit would be in adverse weather. Estimated 1992 project cost is $0.2 million. /D j t29t ,%inneafolis faint Taullnternationalairport CaParitV Enhancement °Plan Operational Improvements 20. Reduce in -trail separations Reducing separation minimums to 2.5 run for air - to 2.5 nm for like classes of craft of similar class would increase arrival rates and aircraft in IFR. runway capacity. Aircraft capable of takeoff weights of 300,000 pounds or more and the Boeing 757 may par - Estimated savings in Delay ticipate in the separation reduction as trailing aircraft I)mand IiasrLne Fuduel Funue2 only In order to use reduced final approach in -trail H,s 983 53o sea separations, it must be demonstrated that runway occu- tM $1.4 $0.8 so.s pancy times for arrivals are consistently 50 seconds or less. Annual savings at the Baseline activity level would be 983 hours or $1.4 million; at Future 1, 530 hours or 80.8 million; and, at Future 2 activity levels, 583 hours or $0.8 million. 21. Converging IFR approaches. Under VFR, it is common to use converging runways for independent streams of arriving aircraft. Because of the reduced ceilings and visibility associated with opera- tions under IFR, the FAA has established a procedure for conducting simultaneous instrument approaches to converging runways in IMC. This procedure uses non - overlapping Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) obstacle -clearance surfaces as a means of separation for aircraft executing simultaneous missed approaches. It requires a 3 run separation between the missed ap- proach points on each approach. "TERPS+3" (as this procedures is often called) is an independent approach procedure that requires no dependency between the two aircraft on converging approaches. At MSP, these re- quirements would result in landing minimums of ap- proximately 1,000 feet, which are basically VFR mini- mums, with arrivals using new Runway 35 and Run- ways 29L and 29R. New FAA procedures and technology may permit use of converging approaches to Runway 35 in IFR con- ditions. This may be achieved by allowing an overlap between missed approach airspace for Runways 35 and 29L, using time to separate approaches instead of dis- tance. Precision missed approach guidance, using Glo- bal Positioning System (GPS) satellite navigation or r3oi cWinneapolu- faint'Pavllnternational airport Capacity Enbancement °Plan other new technologies may also permit lower mini- mums. These changes may potentially provide for mini- mums as low as 400 feet with arrivals using Run- ways 35,29L, and 29R. 22. Flight Management System Many of the current generation of aircraft are (FMS) transitions to existing equipped with on board Flight Management Systems approaches. (FMS) that are capable of precise area navigation both en route and in the terminal area. FMS demonstration programs have been implemented at several major air- ports with positive results. FMS can be used in the ter- minal area to generate arrival and departure paths that are independent of VOR radials. Because of its ability to fly tracks and pre -defined vertical paths, FMS will elimi- nate much of the radar vectoring process and communi- cation present in today's terminal environment. FMS -equipped aircraft also have the ability to fly non -precision instrument approaches independent of ground-based NAVAIDs. This ability will.permit many of today's charted visual approach procedures to be used as non -precision approaches, which will help to maintain arrival capacity during.periods of reduced visibility. In addition, new non -precision approach procedures can be designed to take better advantage of the existing runway structure. Current FMS systems, and future systems based on GPS satellite navigation, will allow airspace procedures specialists unprecedented flexibility in designing termi- nal and en route procedures. These systems will also in- crease safety, reduce operating costs for the users, aid in addressing environmental issues, and increase airport capacity. By 1996, airlines and other operators are ex- pected to have a significant percentage of their fleets equipped with either the existing FMS systems or the newer GPS -based systems. This will allow FMS proce- dures to become the baseline for designing terminal air- space. cWinneapolis- faint Taul International airport r'aparity Enhancement Ilan 23. Continue enhancement of the reliever airport system In order to accommodate small/slow aircraft operations. Alternative 23a. Estimated Savings In Delay DemmdI R,,E, I Funnel Fumn: Hors 2,655 4,466 7,304 65 $M $3.8 $ 110.6 Alternative 23b. Estimated Savings in Delay Dmand BaaeLueI Fugue 1 Future 2 Hca 3,617 8,868 19,275 SM $5.2 $12.8 $27.9 Minneapolis -Saint Paul Metropolitan Airport System (32) Reliever airports can ease capacity constraints by at- tracting small/slow aircraft away from primary airports, especially where small/slow aircraft constitute a signifi- cant portion of operations. The segregation of aircraft operations by size and speed increases effective capacity because required time and distance separations are re- duced between planes of similar size and speed. With 25 percent of MSP's small/slow aircraft operat- ing out of reliever airports, there would be an annual savings at the Baseline activity level of 2,655 hours or $3.8 million; at Future 1, 4,446 hours or $6.6 million; and, at Future 2 activity levels, 7,304 hours or $10.6 million. With 50 percent of MSP's small/slow aircraft operat- ing out of reliever airports, there would be an annual savings at the Baseline activity level of 3,617 hours or $5.2 million; at Future 1, 8,868 hours or $12.8 million; and, at Furure 2 activity levels,19,275 hours or $27.9 million. - Every effort should be made to accommodate these aircraft at enhanced "reliever airports" with easy, access to various locations within the metropolitan area. The reliever airports would need to provide services that are appropriate for the category of users at each airport. W nti Co. Sherburne Co. sr i,,,,,a,c000 Chicago Co. a Anoka Co. Wmhirgt Co. 3 Wright Co.` i nAV� Hennepin Co. • Ranuey Co. • Eero Avpon ry a m Se�MY MKgl Mporl �9 and CAVTCO. takO Co. Sibley Co. NOn cm • Yhle Npvt Leseur Co. Goodhue Co. a ce Co. r+erc: 5wM sr. hW Mmkori Npa" b r"r m..eerop"eee q wc. 10-1!5 I r U.S. Department or Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular Subject: NOISE ABATEMENT DEPARTURE Data: 7/22/93 AC No: 91-S3A PROFILES Initiated by: AFS -400 1. PURPOSE. Ibis advisory circular (AC) describes acceptable criteria for safe mise abatement departure profiles (NADP) for subsonic turbojet -powered airplanes with a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight of more than 75,000 pounds. These procedures provide the user with one means, although not the only means, of establishing acceptable NADP's. These departure profiles are consistent with the airworthiness standards required by the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR's) Part 25 for type certification and FAR Part 91 for general airplane operations. This AC also provides a technical analysis and description of typical departure profiles that are consistent with the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) safety responsibilities and have the potential to minimise the airplane noise impact on communities surrounding airports. 2. CANCELLATION. AC 91-53, Noise Abatement Departure Profile, dated October 17,1978, is canceled. 3. RELATED READING MATERIAL. a FAR Parts 25, 91,121,125,129, and 135. b. .U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Environmental Assessment for AC 91-53A. Copies may be obtained from the Office of Environment and Energy, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. e. FAA Analysis of Noise Abatement Departure Procedures for Large Turbojet Airplanes. Copies may be obtained from the Office of Environment and Energy. FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. at County of Orange, California. Environmental Impact Report #546. Copies may be obtained from Couruy.of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, 12 Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 927014048. 4. BACKGROUND. a For several years, the FAA has wonted to develop and standardize profiles to minimise airplane noise. As part of that commitment, the FAA has worked with airport managers, airplane operators, pilots, special interest groups, and Federal, State, and local agencies in numerous programs for evaluating noise levels in the airport enviromeaL The research considered a variety of departure flight tracks and profiles. b. From an environmental standpoint, avoiding noise sensitive areas by using preferential noise abatement runways and flight tracks whenever possible can effectively supplement a comprehensive noise abatement program. The FAA believes that using the two NADP's described in this AC for subsonic turbojet -powered airplanes can provide environmental benefits to the airport communities. The profiles outline acceptable criteria for speed, thrust settings. and airplane configurations used in connection with NADP's. These NADP's can be combined with preferential runway selection and flightpath techniques to minimize noise impact /D� AC 91 -MA 71/22/93 e. FAA reviews of various airplane vertical NADP's indicate that some intricate NADP's have been developed on an airport specific basis. The management of these intricate profiles could compromise the pilot's attention to interior flight deck details, traffic avoidance, and other safety responsibilities. & DEFINITION& a NADP. Noise abatement departure profile. & Close4n Coeunaniry NADP's. NADP's for individual airplane types Intended to provide noise reduction for noise sensitive areas located in close proximity to the departure and of an airport runway. C. Dirrmrr Commaniry NADP's. NADP's for individual airplane types intended m,provide noise reduc- tion for all other noise sensitive areas. d. APE. Above field devation. 6. NADP's Acceptable criteria have been established for two types of NADP's for each airplane type, as defined for use by each airplane operator. Tbese departure profiles are applicable to all types of subsonic turbojet -powered airplanes over 75,000 pounds gross takeoff weight The two types of NADP's are the "dose - in" and "distant" proffies as described below. a. Closetn NADP. (1) hddate thrust anbadc at an altimde.of no less than 800 feet AFE and prior to. initiation of flaps or slats retraction 0 (2) The thrust cutback may be made by manual throttle reduction or by approved automatic means. The automatic means may be armed prior to takeoff for cuff& at or above 800 feet AFE or may be • pilot initiated at or above 800 feet AFE. (3) For airplanes without an operational automatic thrust restaa"on system, achieve and maintain no less Wan the thrust level necessary after thrust reduction to maintain, for the flaps/slats configuration of the airplane, the takeoff path engine -inoperative dimb gradients specified in FAR Secdon.25.111(cx3) in the event of an engine failure. (4) For airplanes with an operational automatic thrust restoration system, achieve and maintain no leas than the thrust level necessary after thrust reduction to maintain, for We flaps/slats configuration of the airplane, a takeoff path engine -inoperative climb gradient of zero percent, provided that the automatic thrust restoration system will, at a minimum, restore sufficient tfnnst to maintain the takeoff path eagtue- Inoperative climb gradients specified In FAR Section 25.11l(c)(3) In the event of an engine failure. (5) During the thrust reduction, coordinate We pkcbover rate and thrust reduction to provide a decrease In pitch consistent with allowing iced airspeed to decay to no more than 5 knots below the all -engine target climb speed and, in no case to less than Va for We airplane configuration. For automated throule systems, acceptable speed tolerances can be found In AC 25-15, Approval of Flight Management Systems in Transport Category Airplanes (6) Maintain the speed and thrust criteria as described in subparagraph 6 a(3) through 6a(5) to 3.000 feet AFE or above, or until the airplane has been filly transitioned to the en route climb configuration (whirhem occurs first), then transition to normal en tome climb proced<ues. & DUOU NADP. (1) Initiate flaps/slats retraction prior to thrust cutbadt initiation Thrust cut & is initiated at an altitude no less than 800 fat AFE. Par 4 • 7/22/93 AC 91-53A (2) The thrust cutback may be made by manual throttle reduction or by approved automatic means. The automatic means may be armed prior to takeoff for cutback at or above 800 feet AFE or may be pilot initiated at or above 800 feet AFE. (3) For airplanes without an operational automatic thrust restoration system, achieve and maintain no less than the thrust level necessary after thrust reduction to maintain, for the flaps/slats configuration of the airplane, the takeoff path engine -inoperative climb gradients specified in FAR Section 25.111(c)(3) in the event of an engine failure. (4) For airplanes with an operational automatic thrust restoration system, achieve and maintain no less than the thrust level necessary after thrust reduction to maintain, for the flaps/slats configuration of the airplane, a takeoff path engine -inoperative climb gradient of zero percent, provided that the automatic thrust restoration system will, at a minimum, restore sufficient thrust to maintain the takeoff path engine - inoperative climb gradients specified in FAR Section 25.11 l(cx3) in the event of an engine failure. (5) During the thrust reduction, coordinate the pitchover rate and thrust reduction to provide a decrease in pitch consistent with allowing indicated airspeed to decay to no more than 5 knots below the all -engine target climb speed and, in no case to less than VZ for the airplane configuration. For automated throttle systems, acceptable speed tolerances can be found in AC 25-15, Approval of Flight Management Systems in Transport Category Airplanes. (6) Maintain the speed and thrust criteria as described in subparagraph 6b(3) through 6 b(5) to 3,000 feet AFE or above, or until the airplane has been fully transitioned to the en route climb configuration (whichever occurs first), then transition to normal en route climb procedures_ • 7. OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES. a. Each airplane operator may apply the procedures specified in this AC to determine the following for each of its airplane types: (1) Close -in community NADP. (2) Distant community NADP. b. For each NADP, the airplane operator should specify the altitude AFE at which thnrst reduction from takeoff thrust or airplane configuration change, excluding gear retraction; is initiated. e. Each airplane operator should limit the number of NADP's for any airplane type to no more .than two. d: Each airplane operator is encouraged to use the appropriate NADP when an airport operator requests its useto abate noise for either a close -in or distant community. e. This AC should not be construed to affect the responsibilities and authority of the pilot in command for the safe operation of the airpbute. • 4/nyJ. B erick Assoaate Administtator for Regulation and Certification Par 6 /`o / 3 NOVEMBER 1993 OPERAHONS AND COMPLAINT SUMMAKY Table 1: OPERATIONS SUMMARY - ALL AIRCRAFT Runway = 'Amval '!,. `,%Use jlkp9rtuR .; %Ux 04 115 0.8 32 02 22 156 1.0 1172 83 11 5962 39.8 6070 42.9 29 8739 58A 6869 48.6 '[able 2: MSP NOVEMBER FLEET MIX PERCENTAGE '[able 3: AIRPORT NOVEMBER COMPLAINT SUMMARY Avport y .>' 1992 1993, MSP 1351 791 Aidakc 1 0 Anoka 1 0 Crystal 0 1 Flying Cloud 3 9 We Elmo 0 0 SL Paul 1 3 M�sc 13 2 ;TOTAL I. Table 4: NOVEMBER OPERATIONS SUMMARY - AIRPORT DIRECTOR'S OFFICE MSP NOVEMBER 1993 COMPLAINT SUMMARY MSP COMPLAINTS BY CITY CLT4-' ARRIVAL, DEPARTURE,: •Tt7 AL ,,;;PERCENT Arden Hills 1 9 10 1.3% Bloomington 0 24 24 3.1% Burnsville 0 20 20 2.6% Coon Rapids 0 1 1 0.1% Eagan 35 95 130 16.6% Edina 2 18 20 2.6% Edea Prairie 0 1 1 0.1% Hastings 0 1 • 1 0.1% Hopkins 0 0 0 0.00/0 Inver Grove Heights 10 111 121 15.4% Meyer 0 1 1 0.1% Montgomery 0 1 1 0.1% Mendota Heights 11 45 56 7.1% Minneapolis 93 203 296 37.8% Minnetonka 1 3 4 05% Plymouth 0 I 1 0.1% Richfield 4 35 39 5.0% R—oum 0 2 2 0.3% Roseville 0 2 2 0.3% South SL Pad 0 I 1 0.1% SL Anthony 0 4 4 OS% SL Laois Park 0 4 4 OS% SL Pad 27 IS 42 5.4% Sunfish Lake 0 1 1 0.1% West SL Pad 0 2 2 0.3% r ` 'MAI. TIME OF DAY NATURE OF COMPLAINT kg NATURE 0022� OR00 - 05:59 51 Excessive Noise 632 06.00-06:59 50 Earlyll.ate 52 07:00 -11:59 201 Low Flying 20 12:00 -15:59 92 Structural Disturbance 2 16:00-19:59 158 Helkom 1 W.00 - 21:59 172 Ground Noise 27 2200 - 22:59 48 Engine Run-up 7 23:00-23:59 19 Frequency 50 �x TOTAi.' �� 791 TD1ALo Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway Use Report - All Operations For November, 1993 Runway Arr/Dep Count Percentage 04 A 1L5 11L A 3040 20� 11R A 2922 vkr19s 22 A 156 1.0 29L A 4353 q 29R A 4386 TOTAL ARR. 14,97210096 04 D 32 11L D 3057 11R D 3013. 22 D 1172 as 29L D 3373 �g83 29R D 34% TOTAL DEP 14.143 h`IO l0 Monday, January 24, 1993 Metropolitan Airports cmm 6» Runway Use Report - Jet Operations For November, !#3 Runway ArrAD" c_ ,_tage # A ■ '\ !I A 1876 !a! A 2014 2 A 99 29L a 3177 .y 4� A ■\ ,2&&n b!■a HOW lam\ ■ D , �Dm § IIL D 18M IIR , =U k _ D A A( z, D 2349 \$ z, D !M Iar&D ■ f Win% January 24,1993 //,3 Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway Use Report Nighttime - All Operations For November, a# Runway Arr/Dep Count ,_.tage ■ A 6 u) IIL A 3 61) II A @ z _A 2 . } ,t, A m \j 2■, A 280 / \ Iia ARR. s k\ ■ a ! ) 11L , m /mak 11 o ■ , ) 22 2 12 2i, n z a 2■, , 29 7 \ Imo& DEP.4■ Msay, January 24 #e ��� Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway Use Report Nighttime Jet Only For November, l93 Runway Arr/Dep Count ,_.tatp ■ A ,} IIL A J ) !I . A a s 2 A o, z, A ■ k A m Wim\ TOTAL ARR. #■ ■ D o s IIL D » mom\ !■! D 2 q 7 _ © 6 z, D 13 �, D 14j Ian 2P. ■ 4■ Monday, &ea 24 1993 �/� Metropolitan Airports Commission Monday, January 24, 1993 Jet Carrier Operations By Type November, 1993 Aircraft Type Count Facemw B747 192 0.9 B74F 53 0.3 DC10 761 3.6 MDll 2 0.0 L1011 0 0.0 DC87 10 0.1 B727H 156 0.7 B757 1843 8.8 B767 0 0.0 FA32 2130 10.1 B733 992 4.7 FK10 578 2.8 MD80 1214 5.8 MD88 118 0.6 ID87 0 0.0 DC8 84 0.4 DC86 2 0.0 DCBS 43 0.2 B707 39 02 B727 3616 17.2 DC9 8583 40.9 B737 261 12 B73S 255 12 FK28 57 03 Total 28489 180% 1146 383% Stage 3 61.7% Stage 2 Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport October Runway Use For Day/Night Periods All Operations Runway Name Departures Day Arrivals Day Total Da y Departures Night Arrivals Night Total Night Total 04 31 104135. 1 11 "' 12_ 147 111, 2951 3005 3956. 106 35 141 1;.6097 11R 2925 2882 5807 88 40 128 5935 22 1160 154 ;;1314 12 2 14 'Li28 29L 3344 4204 754829 149 178 T72b 29R 3467 4106 :7573 29 280 ".309 7882 Total 13878 14455 28333 265 517 •782 29115 Percentage 47.7 49.6 ,97.3 0.9 1.8 2.7 =.100 Jamiary 25. 19H Metropolitan Airports Commission Jet Departure Related Noise Events For November, 1993 Count Of Events For Each RMT RMTID City Apptmt[Mate Street I.ocedon Events, Ermis :. '>SOdB., Events >90dB Events >100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 42nd St. 145 6 0 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 645 108 3 0 3 Mmoeapolis W. Elmwood St. & Wentworth Ave. 596 26 0 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Ave. & 49th St. 1847 411 40 1 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 3434 1708 651 106 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 3891 2056 1019 310 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th Sl. 2207 593 8o 1 8 Minneapolis Imgfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 1300 282 20 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga SL & Hartford Ave. 43 2 0 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 1623 5 2 110 11 St. Paul Fina St. & Schaffer Ave. 294 1 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton Ave. & Rockwood Ave. 734 1 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast and of Mahican Court 1163 158 4 0 14 Eagan First St. & McKee St. 1937 388 24 0 15 Mendota Heights William Cant & Threw St. 2130 479 41 0 16 Fagan Avalm Ave. & V'das Lane 2524 8% 178 6 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 791 88 10 0 18 Richfield 75th St & 17th Ave. 2339 553 244 20 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 83rd St. 880 284 65 1 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 979 83 9 1 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. At 67th St. 714 82 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1007 108 0 0 23 Mendota Heights Fad of Kenndon Ave. 2704 1002 391 34 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Random Road 1725 270 2 0 Friday, January 7, 1993 /l8' Metropolitan Airports Commission Jet Arrival Related Noise Events For November, 1993 Count Of Events For Each RMT RMTID City ApprmtimahStreetLacaGon Events >6SdB Events % AM Events >90do Events >IOOdB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. &- 32nd SL 1257 47 0 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd SL 1768 265 5 0 3 Minneapolis W. Elmwood SL & Wentworth Ave. 1241 269 4 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Ave. & 49th SL 1926 626 3 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th SL 2973 1572 652 2 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 2709 1518 326 2 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th SL 583 16 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 699 14 0 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga SL& Hartford Ave. 111 54 0 0 10 SL Paul hasca Ave. & Bowdoin SL 639 87 9 0 11 SL Paul Finn SL & Scheffer Ave. .248 1 0 0 12 SL Paul Alton Ave. & Rockwood Ave. 457 1 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast and of Mahican Court 279 1 0 0 14 Fagan First SL & McKee SL 3707 58 2 0 is Mendota Heights William Cow & Tbmwa SL 1471 20 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Laos 3956 1679 29 0 17 Bloomington 84th SL & 4th Ave. 130 33 1 0 18 Richfield 75th SL & 17th Ave. 730 41 0 0 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 83rd SL 73 0 0 0 20 Richfield 75th SL & 3rd Ave. 217 1 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th SL 118 3 0 0 22 Inver Grove Height Anne Marie Trail 2683 24 1 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Keandon Ave. 2676 60 0 0 24 FAgm Chapel Lane & Random Road 4258 107 0 0 Friday, January 7,1993 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #13: Southwest End Of Mohican Court (Mendota Heights) DATEMM A.1.FT MAXLEV& ARR/DEP 11)0109318:17:26 B727 92.9 D 11N1093 9:09:49 B727 91.8 D 11104093 5:18:48 B727 90.9 D 1112909316:59:42 B727 90.6 D 1110309316:22:10 B727 89.8 D IV0109317:01.38 B727 89.8 D 1110 /93 9:25:02 B727 89.4 D 11/22/9311:29:32 B727 89.3 D 1110109317:13:09 B727 88:9 D 11104093 9:38:47 DC9 88.1 D RMT #14: 1st St. & McKee St. (Eagan) DATEnuE �TYPPEE MAXLEVII ARR/DFP 111OZ9310:16:25 DC9 97.5 A 11/0309319:59,38 B727 97.1 D 11104093 813:11 B727 96.9 D 11/23N316:19.36 B727 95.9 D _ 1110309317:24:49 B727 94.7 D 11/24093 6:52:49 B727 94.5 D 11/1009316:56:04 B727 93.4 D 11104093 7:29.47 B727 93.3 D 11109/93 9:14:22 B727 93.3 D 1112409317:28:54 B727 93.0 D Friday, January 7, 1993 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #15: William Court & Thresea St. (Mendota.Heights) DA1EnmE AMCRAFT TYPE MAXLEVEL ARRA)EP 11/1519320:53:36 B727 100.9 D 11101/93 9:53:03 8727 99.2 D 11/10093 20:05:49 DC9 99.0 D 11/1009318:46:46 B727 97.3 D 11)0109317:12:49 B727 96.6 D 11/1009316:16:02 B727 96.1 D 11/1809318:14:47 B727 94.5 D 11/1009313:34:25 B727 94.2 D 11/10093 22:04:20 B727 93.8 D 11/18/93 6:15:25 B727 93.8 D RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane (Eagan) DATEPIME AM.1.n MAXLEM ARR/DEP 11/18/93 8:34:35 B727 102.6 D 11/24093 21:18:33 B727 1015 D 11/1819310:06:36 B727 1013 D 1110 M 8:06:53 B727 101.1 D WON% 7:57:04 B727 1005 D 1112309316:56:52 8727 100.4 D 11/1819317:09:12 B727. 100.0 D 11)04093 22:56.36 B727 100.0 A HUM 16:52:38 8727 99.3 D 11)03/9317:24:31 B727 99.2 D Friday, January 7, 1993 ,.wu vr,.ru wn r ,PUILJ %wummisti1un Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #23: Kenndon Ave. (Mendota Heights) DAfETAEyII TYPE ARR/DEP ARR/DEP 11/10)9316:51:48 B727 103.6 D 11/109313:34:24 11/20)9311:15:22 B727 B727 1035 102.9 D D 11/18)9316:18:47 8727 102.7 D 11/189318:35:30 8727 102.6 D 11/109316:16.01 8727 1025 D 11/18)9318:45:46 DC9 1024 D ll/l3)9315:11:55 8727 1023 D 1110993 9:54:33 B727 102.2 D 1110193 9:28:22 B727 102.1 D RMT #24: Chapel Lane & Random Road (Eagan) DATEI7ME AiRMAXEVEL. TYPE PE ARR/DEP W20313:40,10 B727 90,4 D 11)039317:25:10 B727 90.1 D 1110593 8:17:11 DC9 90.0 A 11/2493 21:40:20 8727 89.8 D 1110993 9.14:36 B727 89.7 D 11/109313:40:03 8727 89,2 D 1101/9311:25:39 B727 88,9 D 11/2593 6:33:16 B727 87.9 D 11/1493 8:55:52 B737 87.7 D 11/249317:2912 8727 87,6 D Friday, January 7, 1993 v�t:L� ., .-�.�.nii� ���.. v�U�.: "AllwaIr "m r 1 J y ✓/r j.1� � R 7' e'r a 04 y �jQ y,/ rC r 4A Minneapolis -St. Paul Analysis of Noise Events with Time/Date Between November 011993 and November 301993 Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Noise Monitor Locations DATE 61 62 1 63 64 69 1 66 I 67 68 69 1 610 illi 612. 613 614 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 1 57.6 61.7 612 6510 77.1 77.1 63.9 57.8 33A 56.7 50.4 52.4 613 65.8 613 413 50.0 58.7 61.6 71.7 67.6 2 533 56.8 61.0 633.7 731 76.7 69.6 61A 50.7 563 473 5210 625 622 T2- 68.8 69.2 54.6 45.8 57.4 69.1 61.4 3 493 SIA 57.9 623 722 76.7 68.1 6.310 54.9 60A 50.0 54.6 503 613 '69.2 65.6 55.1 45.7 353 60.2 59.6 36.6 573 60.2 628 7410 773 524 60.6 56.4 68.6 46.8 493 44.9 •61.6 .. 6910 68.7 54.1 533 55.0 58.6 603 S 53.8 56.1 57.0 603 70.8 71.6 3310 33.1 55.6 353 393 41.2 49.1 542 57.6 603 38.7 54.9 48.7 47A 48.3 563 57.1 52.0 6 34.2 56.8 61.7 64.1 72.9 753 66.7 37.1 "A 66.1 46.4 50.8 59.9 653 66.0 68.4 50.8 68.6 51.1 64.8 54.6 52.8 73.6 57.9 7 58.3 59.6 61.6 64.6 74.8 763 35.2 59.9 55.7 62.7 52.2 51.7 57.2 66.6 63.2 71.1 623 653 48.4 17.9 543 50.1 7310 61.5 8 58.1 60.9 67.0 66.4 743 75.1 37.0 34.0 50,8 38.7 50.1 53.5 593 68.3 67.2 753 66.1 663 32.6 55.3 56.9 60.4 72.5 65.1 9 54.0 33.6 SBA 60.8 72.9 7610 58.2 39.1 61.6 69.6 58.8 60.0 53.8 613 573 73.1 55.6 64.6 60.1 54.6 47.7 54.9 60.2 593 10 49.7 52.1 60.9 61.9 72.7 763 69.6 60.8 "A 57A 493 54.7 513 63.1 62.8 66.8 64.7 74.9 69.3 613 50.9 $4.9 60.4 60.5 11 51.9 54.7 61.7 6210 73.2 773 483 59.6 433 56A 49.7 56.1 53.1 63.9 63.7 67.9 61.0 73.7 683 64.1 463 36.7 71.8 62.0 12 55.9 S72 61.7 662 74.1 78.7 492 60.9 413 468 402 432 $4.1 65.7 53.8 67.7 60.7 69.4 62.1 56A 49.9 59A 67A 62.7 13 56.4 60.8 642 62.7 70.1 71.7 692 573 49.8 6110 50.1 323 63.6 693 671 71.0 493 57.7 38.6 423 60.9 62.5 74.6 64.5 14 5210 53.8 64.6 64.8 74.1 773 67.1 613 32.8 59.1 50.8 533 SSA 64.2 60.4 692 65.2 71.7 643 54.7 53.7 '56.8 663 60.0 I5 58.8 613 67.1 642 72.7 72.8 60.8 593 48A 59A 52.9 54.7 61.7 6810 64.6 71.9 603 61.1 11.0 47.2 59.2 39.2 74.2 62.6 16 51.0 52.2 62.2 673 773 79.2 56.6 59.9 413 43.8 43A 40.2 44.9 64.7 48.6 69.7 53.7 64.0 54.2 51.6 624 I7 314 561 597 63.7 73.9 77.2 64.7 62.2 39.7 53.2 41.0 50.1 55.5 65.3 59.7 70.1 623 72.7 69.8 55.7 68,6 62.1 Ie SSI 56P 6110 6S? ?34 77.6 69 377 4.8 524 48.2 54.2 61.9 63.7 65.4 67.6 63.3 74.7 728 61.2 ]41.439.357.1 73.2 d16 I9 S'S SN' '23 62' 71.1 '61 6.16 5: .1 17: 534 45.1 53.6 63.3 66.1 657 72.2 59.5 70.9 64J 55.5 74(1 W1) 44nnv7 25 1994 Minneapolis -St. Paul' Analysis of Noise Events with Time/Date Between November 011993 and November 301993 Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Noise Monitor Locations DATE #1 #2 0 #1 US 116 87 #8 #9 #10 #ll 1112 1 #13 914 #IS #16 #17 #IB 1 #20 11221 022 #23 #24 20 61.1 612 643 66A 753 802 70.1 623 48.3 39.4 45.4 51.6 62.9 66.4 69.1 72.7 483 5610 57.4 54.7 61.1 74.9 64.3 21 38.7 582 593 64A 74.1 79.8 67A 62.6 36.4 53.7 36.8 49.7 54.7 643 59.1 68.1 643 72.4 J46.9 583 303 59A 65.1 62.8 22 383 623 64A 62.7 70.0 70.2 69.6 56A 605 632 443 523 64.0 6910 67A 722 33.6 5510 30.7 59.5 68376.2 64.1 23 S3A ' 532 61.0 62.9 72.9 77.1 663 60.8 42.9 SBA 305 55.1 51.6 63.1 59.1 68.7 603 71.7 59.2 48.0 57.1 69.4 60.7 24 46.4 SIA 52A 56.6 69.1 70.6 632 42.9 352 44.8 42.8 46.7 44.9 61.9 323 63.8 653 725 69A 57A 44.2 54.2 62.9 58.5 23 49.8 5310 573 5810 70.1 7310 655 53.6 1.45.8 51.6 40.1 543 47.8 632 572 693 595 72.7 47A 41.8 483 60.1 68.3 57.2 26 53.2 34.9 50.2 54.2 72.8 74.7 51.5 58.9 1 493 49.7 38.6 56.8 53.7 603 60.1 61A 603 71.5 59.8 43.9 50.5 603 65.9 58.0 27 50.6 49.7 33.2 513 701 7.3,1 637 603 50.1 323 45.9 55.2 42.1 59.8 39.6 60.9 56.8 69.4 60.1 32.7 51.7 563 70.1 53.1 28 59.4 $8.5 52.8 54.2 69.1 70.1 333 61.4 47.6 33.1 462 30.7 4S.0 57.1 63.7 66.2 62.4 72.3 37.5 56.4 54.8 373 72.. .3 54.7 29 56.8 5710 6D.2 39.7 7210 71.8 675 60.7 45.6 53.8 42.7 52.6 48.2 62.7 635 67A 60.2 70.1 60.8 52.1 49.9 60.6 69.4 58.4 30 33.9 56.6 61.1 61D 713 '74.1 64.0 59.9 49.9 582 173 51.6 47.9 66.7 69.9 69.6 61.9 69.7 61.9 59.6 59.2 60.8 72.6 63.5 *Less Than Wenty-four Hours of Data Available 4wn5 25 IM4 2 Ui.%,nIVIJDZX 19yJ UVk iKA11UNN AND COMPLAINT SUMMARY Table 1: OPERATIONS SUMMARY - ALL AIRCRAFT Runway Arrival '` % Use Departure % use:. 04 162 1.0% 82 OS% 22 74 0.5% 376 2.5% 11 7304 45.8% 7604 49.8% 29 1 8406 52.7% 7212 472% Table 2: MSP DECEMBER FLEET MIX PERCENTAGE Smgt Scheduled Stfiedulk! ANOMS 1384 1993 1993 Cwut 1993 :. Stage 2 64.8% 62.3%615% 0 Stege 3 352% 37.7% 385% Table 3: AIRPORT DECEMBER COMPLAINT SUMMARY Avport '_ 1992 1993. MSP 1384 813 Airlake 3 0 Aaaica 0 0 Crystal 0 0 Flying Claud 4 5 LAkc F]ma 0 0 St. Petri 4 9 brisc. 8 1 T WrAL. ;:_ 140 Table 4: DECEMBER OPERATIONS SUMMARY - AIRPORT DIRECTOR'S OFFICE /3eQ MSP COMPLAINTS BY CITY CITY: 74RO DEPARTURE TOTAL PERCENT Arden Hills 2 15 17 `4 Bloomington 0 7 7 Burnsville 0 12 12 13% Cann Rapids 1 0 1 0.1% Fagan 31 68 99 12.2% Edea Prairie 0 1 1 0.1% Edina 0 14 14 1.7% Hopkins0 145 0 0 0.0% Inver Grove Heigbts 6 164 170 21.0% Mendota Heights 5 27 32 3.9% MWnnepolis 150 219 369 45.5% Minnetonka 0 0 0 0.0% Plymouth 2 7 9 1.1 % Richfield 10 39 49 6.0% Roseville 0 0 0 0.0% South SL Paul l 1 0.1% SL Anthony 0 l 1 0.1% SL Anthony Village 0 3 3 0.4% SL Louis Park 1 0 1 0.1% SL Pant 11 11 22 1.4% Sunfish Lake 0 2 2 0.2% West SL Paul 00 0 0.0% 391.' � 911 TIME OF DAY NATURE OF COMPLAINT y >y TB f y�J n NATIJR&OFt�J r ' x gm, i T,OTA1.TOTAl `4 x44 W.00-05:59 63 Excessive Noise 599 06:00-06:59 51 EedyAAW 83 07:00-11:59 210 Low Flying 19 12:00.15:59 145 Structural Disturba= 6 16-00- 19:59 143 Helicopter 0 20:00-21:59 145 Ground Noise 21 22:00 - 22:59 61 Engine Run-up 2 23:00-23:59 35 Frequency 83 7OTi1,J��13�yax21 13� Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway Use Report -Al Operations Frame kr!#3 Runway | ArrAkVICount I,_tW ■ A 1 \ IIL A £■ ) !a! A 352 ; } _ A a \ . 2, A 4224 «\ �, A «■ W. _TOTAL ARR uA l� # D ■ k II D 3894 !a! D mo. } 22 D 3 © 29L o .3681 2 ,,,! y \ TOTAL DEP. !a!a Monday, January 24 @s �� Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway Use Report - Jet Operations For December, 1993 Runway Arr/Dep Count Parentage 04 A 104 L0 11L A 2190 11R A 2355 22 A 42 a g 0 29L A 2981 29R A 2391 p 25Z TOTAL ARR 10,263 04 D 16 a 62 11L D 2225 11R D 2588 22 D 243 29L D 2552 29R D 1969 t 20S' ,`Wp TOTAL DEP. 9.593 a y F gO� ix Monday, January 24, 1993 1133 Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway Use Report Nighttime - All Operations For December, 1993 Runway I Arr/Dep I Count I percentage 04 A !2 21 11L A 13 6 t 33 IIR A 35= 22 A 15 2.6:i r 29L A 29R A 201 s;r; 331 TOTAL ARR. 573 � -"r ,,I00'% 04 D 6 21'i 11L D 81 11R D 95 22 D22 , 29L D40 � 141> 29R D 40 TOTAL DEP. 281 Monday, January 24, 1993 13X Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway Use Report Nighttime Jet Only FrDecember, 1993 Runway Arr@ep Count ,_.tage ■ A 4 A A 4 IIR A 12 2 . A 6\ 29L A m 29R A m / & o 0 yv !L n z k , 36 \ \ 2 © 1} 2t9 D 14\ / 29R © 15 /qA TOTAL 2P aW Monday, January 24 @e 13,s— Metropolitan Airports Commission • Monday, January 24, 1993 Jet Carrier Operations By Type Decemberr,1"3 Aircraft Type Count Percentage B747 156 0.7 B74F 55 03 DC10 842 4.0 MDII 53 03 L1011 38 02 DC87 10 0.0 B727H 218 1.0 B757 1772 83 B767 2 0.0 EA32 2114 10.0 B733 955 45 FK10 615 2.9 HMO 1191 5.6 MD88 150 0.7 MDV 2 0.0 DC8 119 OS DC86 2 0.0 DCSS 47 02 B707 33 02 B727 3928 18.5 DC9 8375 39.4 B737 262 12 B73S 249 12 FK28 56 03 Tolai 21214: itpM /C36 38.5% Stage 3 61S% Stage 2 Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport December Runway Use For Day/Night Periods All Operations Runway Name Departures Day Arrivals Tofaluay'. Departures Arrivals Day Night Night 04 76 150 6 12 11L 3813 3771 7100 _', 81 13 n., 11R3615 3485 =;7290 ;_-. 95 35 22 354 59' 4I3 " 22 15 29L 3641 3927 ;7568 _; 40 297 29R 3491 3981 "7472- 40 201 Taal 14990. 15373 n.30363 284 573 1'etceatage 48.0 49.2 0.9 1.8 .woven 25, tsse Metropolitan Airports Commission Jet Departure Related Noise Events For December, 1993 Count Of Events For Each RMT RMTID City At��atreaLocation Events.<; >6MB .. :,,Events €>WdB. ' Events >90dll Events >100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 42nd St. 511 881 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 597 117 0 0 3 Minneapolis W. Elmwood St. & Wentworth Ave. 1275 119 4 0 4 Minneapolis Oaklad Ave. & 49th St 1811 421 41 3 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St.3649 1708 529 63 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 4005 2071 1089 333 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th St. 2370 642 75 2 8 Minneapolis LangWow Ave. & 43rd St 1394 288 15 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 54 2 0 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 1805 8 2 0 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Schaffer Ave. 376 3 0 0 12 St. Paul Ahon Ave. & Rockwood Ave. 896 2 1 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 2037 309 7 0 14 Eagan First St. & McKee St 2472 391 34 0 15 Mendota Heights William Corot & Thresea St 2577 597 39 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 3320 1189 196 1 3 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 319 28 4 0 18 Richfield 75th St & 17th Ave. 1623 142 53 3 19 Bloomivatm 16th Ave. & 83rd St 446 92 21 1 20 Richfield 75th St & 3rd Ave. 568 15 1 0 21 laver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 964 102 2 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1311 107 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenodon Ave. 3615 1372 562 38 24 FnBne Chapel Line & Random Road 2383 264 1 0 Monday, January 24, 1993 13g Metropolitan Airports Commission Jet Arrival Related Noise Events For December, 1993 Count Of Events For Each RMT RMTID City "' Appt�Imate Stred LA)=tiao Events a6MB Events a80dB '. Evmta >90dB Events >100dB I Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 42nd SL 3432 42 0 0 2 Mmoeapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd SL 2318 287 3 0 3 Minneapolis W. Elmwood SL & Wentworth Ave. 2441 947 38 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Ave. & 49th SL 2618 996 2 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58di SL 3776 2109 588 2 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th SL 3462 2104 501 3 7 _ Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th SL 652 9 0 0 8 Minneapolis 1409fe1low Ave. & 43rd St. 1022 25 0 0 9 SL Paul Saratoga SL & Hartford Ave. 50 23 l 0 10 SL Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin SL 633 41 8 0 11 St. Paul Finn SL & Scheller Ave. 279 1 0 0 12 SL Paul Alton Ave. & Rockwood Ave. 306 0 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 219 3 0 0 14 Eagan FuatSL & Md(W SL 3344 57 0 0 15 Mendota Heights William Court & Thresea SL 772 16 1 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Was Lane 3822 1713 11 0 17 Bloomington Nth SL & 4th Ave. 177 43 0 0 18 Richfield 75th SL & 17th Ave. 664 43 0 0 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 83rd SL 118 0 0 0 20 Richfield 75th SL & 3rd Ave. 250 1 0 0 21 Liver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th SL 63 0 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 2424 16 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Xeandon Ave. ji2062 23 1 0 0 24 Emu Chapel Lax & Random Road I 38W 92 1 0 0 Monday, January 24, 1993 13/ Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #13: Southwest End or Mohican Court (Mendota Heights) DATEfA1E A IWE MAX EVE ARR/DEP 1221/93 8:16:45 B727 94.8 D 12112/9318:20:29 B737 93.0 D 1?J16i9312:12:43 B727 915 D 12/30/93 9:46:32 B727 91.1 D 12/04/9316:30:16 B727 90.8 D 1221/9310:09:41 B727 90.6 D 12124/9310,09:15 B727 905 D 1WO% 6:10:39 B727 89.8 D 12/0119316:25:42 B727 89.8 D 12/12493 7:14:12 8727 89.6 D RMT #14: 1st St. & McKee St. (Eagan) DATEnIME 'MST TYPE MAXLEVFI ARR/DEY 121.26/93 20:29:33 B727 98.8 D 12115/9316:46:09 B727 97.0 D 12/14/9317:14:53 B727 96.1 D 1211649317:10:09 B727 96.0 D 12107/9317:17:47 B727 95.9 D 1228/93 3:22:19 B747 95.6 D 12/26/93 7:45:14 B727 95.4 D 12116/9315:50,01 B727 94.9 D 1210549317:26:18 B727 94.6 D 12101/9318:34:47 DC9 94.2 D Sunday, January 23, 1993 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #15: William Court & Thresea SL (Mendota Heights) DATEnw, AUtCRAFr 7YM 19!19X1 EVFI ARRNFP 12/0519311:55:58 B727 98.2 D 17/11193 20:10:54 8727 98.1 D 12121/9314:S4.48 B727 96.7 -D 12/12/93 7:13:22 B727 955 D 17/12/9312:59:18 B727 95.2 D 1210119313:29.57 B727 95.1 D 12/0719310:10:08 B727 95.0 D 17x06/9310.25:08 8727 94.7 A 12112)93 9:37:58 DC8 94.6 D 12/0119318:55:45 B727 94.0 D RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Villas Lane (Eagan) DATUM AMCRAirf TYPE ?Q MAEVFI ARRIDF7? 12/2119314:30.29 B727 100.7 D 1211719317:06:31 B727 1002 D 12115)9313:33:06 B727 100.0 D 12/17)93 852:33 B727 99.9 D 12/21193 8:32:57 B727 99.8 D 12115)9313:40:15 B727 99.5 D 12/1609318:49:45 DO 99.4 D 12101)9318:43:41 B727 992 D 12108/93 7:30,10 8727 98.8 D 12117)9313:36:47 B727 98.6 D Sunday, January 23, 1993 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #23: Kenndon Ave. (Mendota Heights) DATEnmE 'ME.�r PE MAXLEVII ARR/DFP 12/01/9313:12:06 B727 103.8 D 1205/93 9:52:54 B727 103A D 12/0519316:57:24 B727 103.1 D 12/17,9313:13:12 B727 102.7 D 12117/9312:15:29 B727 102.7 D 12/17/9310:03:05 B727 102.0 D 12/21/9314:30:18 B727 102.0 D 12!01/9319:52:36 B727 101.9 D 12/30,93 9:10:12 8727 101.8 D 12/30193 9.45:59 B727 101.8 D RMT #24: Chapel Lane & Random Road (Eagan) DATEnME � MAXLEVEL ARR/DEP 12/30,93 8:24:42 8727 90:1 D 12!30/9313:39:22 DC9 89.9 A 12/23193 953:013 B727 88.5 A 12/12,9316:58:22 B727 88.4 D 1=119315:46:25 B727 88.4 D 12/14/9311:11:01 8727 87.7 D 12/1219311:28:31 B727 87.7 D 12/16/9310.5:56 B727 87.3 D 12/12193 953:00 B727 86.9 D 12/13/93 6.46:16 B727 86.8 D Sunday, January 23, 1993 Ifi Lw►��i �_ r- ��� x'. I +r� Sr 1. �� �� / ♦ z ����� �� + NMI PA", „ , � 140\ tc����\• _�`._ .Z-0��! SYS +i ti ` A �-�• q It now %ti: Lt 1 S ft • Z S •'\� �bw<vL ��.1'M.cs � �J'� t i %� � yy t � „+ � Q �\,�! lisL � i +,��♦.. ri� ,:`. \ R yr i ��. JCC/, r 1+ i 1,: �+ti v. .�`.��1 : •. tlta �\"r!R ...ate.: a�R�.ti�r ._�..-e. __.✓_��� _ ��s. Y_.G� .- -... .. r �ist`v>,� y� �. +Aot'z Y�f'' r� �11�e♦�����'. 1 IN Lw►��i �_ r- ��� x'. I +r� Sr 1. �� �� / ♦ z ����� �� + NMI PA", „ , � 140\ tc����\• _�`._ .Z-0��! SYS +i ti ` A �-�• q It now %ti: Lt 1 S ft • Z S •'\� �bw<vL ��.1'M.cs � �J'� t i %� � yy t � „+ � Q �\,�! lisL � i +,��♦.. ri� ,:`. \ R yr i ��. JCC/, r 1+ i 1,: �+ti v. .�`.��1 : •. tlta �\"r!R ...ate.: a�R�.ti�r ._�..-e. __.✓_��� _ ��s. Y_.G� .- -... .. r �ist`v>,� y� �. +Aot'z Y�f'' r� �11�e♦�����'. r \\ oo 14, Pq Lj ral ������I 14 SO W. yro,\ ♦a+a\<♦ �- ••-� 1 I �j i`. S. _ rte\ �•l1,. �i.^<- � _ COs - _- � `�+�� • ,�-v*�'� 'moi -`!r �j.,1'• 1*� 1"'„ r � � If . AZ w - ° ,2►`►i if NOR .,. ; �,-, „-� ;,, , .• + If . AZ w - ° ,2►`►i if NOR .,. ; �,-, „-� ;,, , .• ��.'- \�\\�*��1►- `t�\� j\\41\; ��`I\ `,�lQ sll>% ���1•� .�►�w •1�.1I /�• �. _ a c _�. �NQr�\ Z��ti,� \w.1\\fir •fin 1 _ \ =. " sQ\\ . � 11 .11 �• - ..� �:� w� r� \ _ ;o'^; ��A b V1 a lA �� z� `C Ate\ �!�¢t A���� tie' -� f • j-. FAQ �` ��� � \ � C MM it �.ri�y.,.i .. ✓ +- 'y � - � ��ia-��ilY �. ��y 1 • 1//U I f _ �J,�•� �� r'R• s � � ff •�La � �%; Al � p jla� V ;�o.� , 1{'r ul�p- Vii/ lr � �I•�'!�' = Owl�j- 14 i r :llt .t? YQ `ti !'4\A-,, v3"`\II RM lli� &A �' f Y y.bs \ : • �� \� , 10 • Minneapolis -St. Paul Analysis of Noise Events with 79me/Dale Between December 011993 0.00:00 and December 311993 23:59:00 Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Noise Monitor Locations DATE 91 92 93 94 95 4% . 97 98 99 910 7111 912 913 014 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 1 923 924 1 592 63.6 643 6SA 76.8 732 63.9 59A 52.0 60.6 52A 55.8 61.8 643 6S.8 70.1 46S 54.1 35.8 49.9 38.8 61A 73.0 63.2 2 55.6 583 S52 68.6 78.8 81.7 69.6 63.6 41.2 57A 44.8 53.8 52.1 61.6 61.0 683 393 70.7 653 S7.0 412 58.7 63S 62.4 3 57.6 61.7 612 65.0 77.1 77.1 68.1 57.8 33.4 56.7 50.4 52.4 615 6S.8 64.9 72.1 59.7 613 41S 50.0 58.7 61.6 71.7 64.6 4 57.7 593 60.8 61.6 71.0 67A 52.4 47A 37A 52.0 41.1 47A 59.6 62.7 63.6 67.8 53.0 56.8 66.1 51.2 55.9 58.6 725 60.6 5 39.8 613 62.6 65.2 75.2 70.4 53.0 53.8 493 S6.0 49S 43S 59.9 62.4 653 67.6 • 46.1 • • 55.4 56.6 73.1 61.6 6 56.8 $7;2 52.9 61.3 713 U. 66.7 61A 12.1 51.9 425 50.1 56.5 59S 60.8 68.7 58.1 61.4 55.7 35A S2.7 59.1 62.9 62.8 7 57.7 39.6 60.2 64A 73A 70.8 33.2 $7.7 42.1 39.0 51A SIS 63.1 64.2 66.8 69.0 56.7 57.7 • 41.1 59.8 63.8 74.3 64.9 8 .53A 53.2 39.6 59.8 72.7 74.0 37.0 57.0 49.8 58.5 51.1 52.2 58.8 58.9 63.9 66.4 35.1 47.2 40.3 40A 37.8 57.1 70.6 60.7 q . . . • . . • • . . • . • . 10 562 SSA 61A 62.9 74.4 76.4 69.6 61.1 51.7 69.1 S6.0 62.7 56A 60.1 560 66.7 59.7 S9.2 51.9 355 51.4 58.9 61.6 62.6 11 52.8 33.9 61.8 612 68A 67.8 483 58.8 31.0 613 53A 563 592 55.7 64.9 63.9 32.0 65.8 643 45.9 55.8 56.6 703 58.9 12 583 60.1 673 63.7 69.8 70.2 492 393 66A 68S 582 ,58.2 643 62.7 66.0 67.9 43A 43.7 373 • 573 61.2 72.1 62.8 13 54A 563 61.7 667 .75.9 79.0 69.2 62A 485 62.8 50.7 S5A 57.6 635 627 703 57A 672 602 56.2 50.0 613 72.1 62.9 14 61A 64.7 68.0 68.6 742 75.9 67.1 620 MS 35.1 45.6 303 625 67A 63.4 70.8 493 64A 565 59A 60.4 61.8 73.1 65.1 IS 59.9 63S 663 67.1 70.8 70.9 60.8 61.8 49.6 56.9 53.0 512 62.1 63.0 62.4 733 62.1 665 533 39S 37.9 603 73.1 64.7 16 613 63A 69.4 66.6 72.2 71.9 56.6 60.0 14.7 573 31.9 313 64.8 67.8 65.0 74.0 393 573 46.6 SOS 60.1 623 74.6 65.3 17 59.6 61.8 68.0 663 73.1 76.1 64.7 58.8 41.2 55.4 ;464 48.8 61.0 65.6 64.5 72.0 38.6 542 273 51.9 57.0 61.7 743 64.2 IB 51.2 53.9 605 61.6 76.4 79.0 68.7 39.8 42.2 503 43.3 49.8 63.4 30.6 68.8 35.0 65.0 61.6 SO.2 40.2 61.5 58.7 63.5 19 50.3 32.4 58.0 61.4 73.0 78.1 63.6 61.4 31.9 51.0 35.0 42.0 465 63.8 49.4 69.5 1 59.6 70.4 66.1 47.4 • 61.1 57.0 61.1 Jawry 2S,1994 Minneapolis -St. Paul Analysis of Noise Events with 71me/Date Between December 011993 0:00:00 and December 311993 23:59:00 Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Noise Monitor Locations DATE #1 82 #3 N #S 96 #7 #18 99 1 #10 #11 #12 1 #13 014 #13 #16 1 917 #18 #19 1 #20 #21 #22 1 #23 #24 20 563 37.7 58.4 629 73.9 783 70.1 60.6 45A SSA 51.6 47.8 47.0 60.1 313 70.2 56.6 70.6 673 57.1 37.9 58.9 603 62.4 21 60.9 61.0 65.0 65.0 78.8 77.9 67A 62,0 503 583 503 51.9 60.7 62.1 63.5 71.1 56.9 725 66.6 57.1 56A 60.8 72.1 63.3 22 553 S8.8 61.7 65.6 75A 60.1 69.6 61A 43.7 522 45.9 49.1 48.7 383 33.8 673 526 39.2 563 51A 41.5 59.2 61A 60.7 23 56.9 55.9 59.7 626 733 77.0 663 592 383 49.0 38.7 463 53.7 57.1 56.4 66.7 58.1 64.6 65.0 54.9 50.1 55.4 66.7 60.1 24 593 56.8 65.9 60.7 720 67.8 632 528 483 57.0 16.0 49.6 602 58.S WA 69.9 583 72.1 673 59.2 563 60.0 71.7 62.3 25 54A SSA 56.8 58.8 713 73A 653 54A 48.2 41.1 48.0 363 443 582 40.8 66.2 SI.1 60.8 $1.8 51.6 10.2 55.5 51.7 58.3 26 53.4 $4.8 61.7 59.4 68.8 71A 513 M.8 121 • 37.1 39A 57.1 68.4 583 72.8 65.4 63.2 41.8 44.2 58.6 60.8 70.4 63.2 27 56.8 573 58.2 61.6 72.7 77.0 65.7 603 52.8 48.7 42.6 48.6 383 60.2 42.3 69.6 50.2 54.4 45.7 50.8 40.7 53.7 53.2 59.8 28 49.8 34.1 59.7 38.9 68.0 68.0 533 49.9 • 56A 42.8 36.8 526 65.9 57.1 70.4 63.7 70.2 643 50.6 48.4 58.9 67.0 61.8 29 57A $6.2 59.7 60.7 72.2 76.9 673 593 47.1 • 323 432 47.9 583 48.7 69.0 49.1 61.9 60.0 55A 443D 59.6 573 61.7 30 37.1 392 62A 633 72.8 763 64A 61.6 40S 60.1 47.2 56.6 64.0 64.0 66.8 70.6 573 67.9 67.9 56.1 56.2 61.9 73.0 65.0 31 53.7 563 .625 615 67.4 69.0 53.1 59.2 153 SBA 57. 563 38.2 625 61.7 67.6 SSS 60.1 44.0 47.7 54.4 60.0 70.1 62.0 •bs8 than ta", b r hone 4114161a "lable Jan." 25. 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: MAC Commissioners and Staff FROM: Lynn Sorensen, Commission Secretary SUBJECT: COMMISSIONER INFORMATION DATE: January 6, 1994 Attached for your information are Commissioner updates which reflect the recent appointment of Commissioner Steve Cramer by Mayor Sayles -Belton. We have also been notified of Commissioner Mancini's reappointment by Mayor Coleman and Commissioner Brataas'reappoinment by Governor Carlson to January, 1998. I have included the following information: Commission Business Address/Phone Listing Commissioner Home Address/Phone Listing Committee Assignments Commissioner Cramer has requested that all Commission correspondence be forwarded to his business address. If you do have a Commissioner mailing, please keep in mind that Commissioner address labels are available as follows: FACOMMISSILIST.COM If you have any questions or corrections to arty of the information included, please contact me as soon as possible at 726.8186. Thank you. C:W KOMMWEW COMM METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION Commissioner Business Address/Phone Listing BRAWN. Ridnad P. JOHNSON, Daniel T. Charman Comm aa'' University of Minnesota Dain Bosworth. Inc. Center for Transportation Studies 60 South Sixth Street 110 Civil 6 Mineral Engineering Minneapolis. MN 66102 nt00 Pillsbury Drive SE 6121371.2209 - FAX: 371-7619 Minneapolis. MN 66166-0220 6121`726.6186 FAX 61217263296 6121626-1077 - FAX: 825-6381 MANCNI. Nick BRATAAS, Mak G. Camniasww Mendnfs Char House Vice Chairman 631 West Tin Steel Mayo Clinic - Emeritus Staff St. POW. MN 66102 Rod »star. MN 66906 612/221-7316 - FAX 221.9367 607-281-2691 FAX 607-288-4611 MEWCKEL. Thomas Cammissiona CRAMEf. Steve Print Craft. Inc. Com nasion i 315 Fifth Avarua NW Project for Ride 6 LMng SI. Paul. MN 65112 2616 Chicago Avenue South 6121633.8122 - FAX: 633.1862 Minneapolis. MN 66101 6121871.8611 FAX 671.8114 MILLER. Lora JA, Jr. Co mmisacrrer ERICKSON. Laurel W. Teamsters. Local 120 Cornnisaana 320 university Avenue West 20 South 261h Avenue East St. Pad. MN 56103 Duluth. MN 66812 612221.7606 - FAX: 290.2927 21111728.1693 FAX 218!628-0215 ONEILL. Patrick PORE. Edward Commissioner Co moll". er O'Neill. Burke. O'Neill. American Monarch Corp. Leonard 6 O'Brien 2601 - 37111 Ave. NE 800 Norwest Center Minneapolis. MN 56121 66 East 5th Street 6121788.9161 FAX 8121188.2067 St. Pad, MN 65101 6121227.9505 FAX 297-6&41 GASPER. Ncn J. Commisaorm REIKAMP. Pal G. Wind. Chernical Products Div. Rehkamp Funeral Home Bldg. 221-1N-0/. 3M Center 111 West Lyon Street St. Paul, MN 66111.1000 Marshal. MN 66250 6121133.6153 FAX 733.1271 607/53241622 FAX 507.5323311 IfalE. John Cammis imw STEiE3SON. Georgian - Commumnar Himle Homer. Inc. Slenerson Lumber 8300 Norman Center Dr. 91260 1702. 1st Avenue Nath Bloomington. MN 66137 Mo~. MN 66660 6121893.0611 FAX 893.9062 218233-2761 - FAX: 216233.2757 HITEWAN. Dag L. Commissioner Doherty. Rumble 6 Bider 3600 Fifth Street Towers . COMMISSION CONTACT. 160 South Fifth Steel Minneapols. MN 56102.1236 Lynn Soeroan. Commission Secretary 6121310.6591 FAX 310.6661 Metropdilen Airports Commission 6010 - 26th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 66160 6121`726.6186 FAX 61217263296 January. 1991 /!!S'/ METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 612/726-8100 COMMISSIONER TERM OF OFFICE HOME ADDRESS & PHONE BRAUN, Richard P. Governor Appointment 1275 Lincoln Terrace NE Chairman 8/93-1/97 Columbia Heights, MN 55421 612/572-2355 BRATAAS, Mark G. Governor Appointment 839 10 1/2 St. SW Vice Chairman 1/94-1/98 Rochester, MN 55902 507/288-6500 CRAMER, Steve Minneapolis Mayor Rep. 4832 - 11th Avenue South Commissioner 1/94 (Tenn of Office) Minneapolis, MN 55417 612/825-6652 ERICKSON, Laurel W. Governor Appointment 20 South 26th Avenue East Outstate - Key Rep. 8/16/92 - 1/96 Duluth, MN 55812 218!728.1693 FIORE, Edward Governor Appointment 3045 - 172nd Avenue NW District E Rep. 11/20/93 - 1/97 Andover, MN 55304 (612) 753-3053 GASPER, Alton Governor Appointment 5406 Hampshire Drive District D Rep. 6/27/89 - 1/95 Minneapolis, MN 55419 612/823-4198 HIMLE, John Governor Appointment 7651 Bush Lake Drive District C Rep. 8/21/91 - 1/97 Bloomington., MN 55438 612/943-2226 HITESMAN, Darcy Governor Appointment 12628- 88th Avenue North DlstrIct A Rep. 8/93-1/95 Maple Grove, MN 55369 612/424-3549 JOHNSON, Daniel T. Governor Appointment 2438 Lafayette Road District B Rep. 8/93-1/97 Wayzata, MN 55391 612/471-9478 MANCINI, Nick St. Paul Mayor Rep. 1846 Worcester Commissioner 1/94 (Tenn of Office) St. Paul, MN 55116 612/698-1324 MERICKEL, Tommy Governor Appointment 1497 Dawn Circle District F Rep. 7/10/92 - 1/95 Arden Hills, MN 55112 612/635-0662 MILLER, Louis J. A. Governor Appointment 14829 Embry Path District H Rep. 8/93-1/95 Apple Valley, MN 55124 612/423-4482 OWEILL, Patrick Governor Appointment 1767 Highland Parkway Distrkt G Rep. 12/27/91 - 1/97 St. Paul, MN 55116 612/699-9304 REHKAMP, Paul Governor Appointment 200 East Marshall Outstate - Intermediate Rep. 2/18/93 - 1/95 Marshall, MN 56258 507/532-6247 STENERSON, Georgians Governor Appointment 711 - 20th Ave. South Outatate - Intermediate Rep. 8/93-1/97 Moorhead, MN 56560 218/233-5220 HAMIEL, Jeffrey W. 608 Spring Street Executive Director Mendota Heights, MN 55118 612/451-9589 Address - January 1994 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION COMMITTEES 1994 COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Tammy Merickel - Chairperson Lynn Richardson Laurel Erickson - Vice Chairperson Mark Bratmas Steve Cramer Edward Fiore Darcy Httesman Daniel Johnson Patrick O'Neill PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE Patrick O'Ne® - Chairperson Nigel Finney Alton J. Gasper - Vice Chairperson John Hinle Nick Mancini Tommy Merickel Louis Miner Jr. Paul Rehkamp . Georgian Stenerson AUDIT AND COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE Daniel Johnson - Chairperson Denise Kautzer Alton J. Gasper Tommy Merickel Paul Rehkamp AFFIRMATIVE ACTION COMMITTEE John Henle - Chairperson Harriette Anderson Edward Fiore Darcy Hkesman Loris Miller Jr. BUDGET TASK FORCE COMMITTEE - MID SU&COMMITTEE Laurel Erikson - Chairperson Denise Kautner Steve Cramer Daniel Johnson Tommy Merickel Georgeann Stenerson January, 1994 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS 1994 DOWNTOWN AIRPORT ADVISORY COUNCIL Nick Mancini GROUND TRANSPORTATION MATTERS Hearing Officers for Ground Transportation Ordinance Richard Braun Alton J. Gasper Darcy Hkesman LEGAL MATTERS Patrick O'Neill METRO COUNCIUMAC INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEE Chairman Schilling Nick Mancini Tommy Merlckel METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL Alton J. Gasper Steve Cramer (alternate) METROPOLITAN PUBLIC AIRPORT FOUNDATION Daniel Johnson MINNESOTA AIRPORT ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman Schilling Patrick O'Neill TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD Louis Miller Jr. TRI -CITIES COMMISSION Darcy Hitesman ZONING BOARD - CRYSTAL, MSP INT -L, ANOKA, FLYING CLOUD John Himle Tommy Merickel ZONING BOARD - ST. PAUL, LAKE ELMO, AIRLAKE Nick Mancini Louis Miller Jr. /S